Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1992, 1B - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE WATER PROJECT. ,,, MEETIN DATE: �����►�►►�►►IIIIIIIp�' �IIIIIN City of sari lues osispo - � - 9 Z ITEM NUM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson,A sociate Planner SUBJECT: Environmental determinations for City participation in the State Water Project. CAO RECOMMENDATION If the Council has indicated a preference to proceed with City participation in state water, adopt the attached resolution making required environmental determinations. BACKGROUND The State and the County are lead agencies for the major aspects of bringing state water to the City. However, the City must take certain actions (signing contracts, budgeting money) to receive state water. Those actions make the City a responsible agency, as defined in State law. Before the City can take those actions, it must make certain environmental determinations required by State law. While the City need not certify the environmental impact reports (EIR's) of the lead agencies, it must review and consider them, and make certain findings related to the City's role in the overall project. Staff has drafted the attached resolution to address in detail all possible concerns of compliance with State environmental reporting rules. It covers the contingencies of the City contracting with other agencies to build its local connecting pipes, or the City building them. Adopting the resolution does not commit the City to an action on state water. ALTERNATIVES If the Council chooses not to participate in state water, it need not adopt the resolution. The Council may adopt a revised resolution, so long as it adequately addresses all required findings. Staff will be prepared to discuss any revisions that Council may propose. Continuing action is normally an alternative. If the Council intends to further pursue state water, the decision deadlines set by the State and the County require that the City make environmental determinations now or within the next few days. ATTACHMENTS Draft resolution Material from the March 25 Board of Supervisors hearing revising and supplementing the EIR STWE-CC.WP • RESOLUTION NO. (1992 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE WATER PROJECT The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows: Findings 1. Proiect description The project consists of a series of related actions intended to deliver water from the existing State Water Project terminus to the various participating water purveyors and users within San Luis Obispo County. The project presently under consideration includes delivery of 3, 000 acre-feet per year (afy) of state water to this City. 2 . Role of the City This City Council is a responsible agency as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA guidelines, including sections 15096 and 15381. 3 . Tiered environmental review The environmental review for the project has included tiered or program environmental impact reports. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the implementing Guidelines provide for tiered or program environmental impact reports, whereby a series of environmental documents .ultimately comprising a whole are prepared for a series of actions which can be characterized as one large project and which are related geographically, or as part of a chain of contemplated actions. The purpose of the program or tiered EIR is to ensure complete analysis and disclosure of the environmental impacts of the related actions and the cumulative impacts of the whole of those actions. The provisions of CEQA require that the first environmental impact report disclose the impacts of the general program; that document is followed by narrower or site-specific environmental documents which incorporate by reference discussion of the impacts of the prior, general document. Either environmental impact reports or negative declarations or a combination of both can be prepared subsequent to the first program environmental impact report. Subsequent environmental documents need not re-examine environmental impacts which have already been examined in a prior document within the tiered structure (Public Resources Code �.1 Resolution for State Water 2 environmental determinations section 21068.5, 21094; CEQA Guidelines sections 15152, 15168 and 15385) . The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) prepared the first overall document of the program, entitled State Water Proiect, Coastal Branch, Phase II, and Mission Hills Extension Final Environmental Impact Report, completed May 1991 (Coastal Branch EIR) . The coastal Branch EIR disclosed the impacts of the general program and included an analysis of the cumulative impacts and various growth inducement scenarios. DWR will construct the coastal Branch extension through San Luis Obispo County to its terminus inside Santa Barbara County as a State- sponsored project. In May 1991, DWR certified that the Coastal Branch EIR complied with CEQA. DWR's Coastal Branch EIR was followed by the preparation of the State Water Proiect Coastal Branch (Phase II) Local Distribution Lines and Facilities Final environmental Impact Report, completed March 1992 (SLO EIR) . Preparation of the SLO EIR was funded by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCWCD) . The SLO EIR, which constitutes another tier within the program, contains site-specific information with regard to the local distribution lines and facilities which the District, the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) , and/or this City propose to construct within San Luis Obispo County. ' The local distribution lines will provide service from the Coastal Branch pipeline to local water purveyors. The SLO EIR also provides site-specific information regarding the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant. various project alternatives are explored, and additional information regarding growth inducement (not contained in the Coastal Branch EIR) is provided. 4 . Record of proceedings For the. purposes of CEQA and the findings numbered 6 through 10 below, the record of" the proceedings of this City Council relating to the proposed project includes: A. Documentary and oral evidence, testimony, and staff comments and responses, received and reviewed by the Council during the April 21, 1992, public hearing on the project. B. Documentary and oral evidence, testimony, and staff comments and responses received and reviewed by the FCWCD during the March 25, 1992, public hearing on the project, summarized in documents provided by City and County staff. C. The State Water Project Coastal Branch (Phase II) , Final Environmental Impact Report (Coastal Branch EIR) prepared for the 87-mile-long, maximum 66- lo-.3 Resolution for State Water 3 , environmental determinations inch diameter pipeline originating near Devil 's Den in Kern County and terminating at Mission Hills in Santa Barbara County, which is comprised of the full Environmental Impact Report prepared and circulated in 1991, including the appendices. D. The State Water Proiect Coastal Branch (Phase II) Local Distribution Lines and Facilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SLO EIR) prepared for the construction and operation of nine local water distribution pipelines, a water treatment plant, and two hydroelectric plants, which is comprised of the full Environmental Impact Report prepared and circulated in 1992, including the appendices. E. Matters of common knowledge to the City Council which it considers, such as: (1) The City' s general plan, including the Land Use Element text and map, and the Water and wastewater Management Element; the Water and Wastewater Management Element proposes obtaining 3 , 000 acre- feet additional safe annual yield from a regional source such as the State Water Project, in addition to other water supply sources. (2) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines implementing the act; (3) The City guidelines for implementing CEQA; (4) Other formally adopted policies and ordinances of the City of San Luis Obispo, including the Residential Growth Management Regulations, Water Allocation Regulations, Water Waste Municipal Codes, Annual Water Operations Plans, and Best Management Practices. 5. Consideration of final environmental impact reports A. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Coastal Branch EIR and finds that it has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . B. This Council finds that construction and operation of the Coastal Branch, Phase II, the mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Coastal Branch, Phase II, and consideration of , certain project alternatives, are the responsibility of the California Department of Water Resources, and are Resolution for State Water 4 environmental determinations outside the City's jurisdiction and control. This Council recommends that the mitigation measures identified in the Coastal Branch EIR be adopted by DWR. With the exception of short-term noise, traffic, air quality, and aesthetic impacts, the mitigations, if adopted, would substantially lessen or avoid these impacts. C. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report, State Water Proiect, Coastal Branch, Phase II Local Distribution Lines and Facilities (SLO EIR) , certified on March 25, 1992, by the FCWCD, and finds that it has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . D. The City Council finds that the following are the responsibility of the FCWCD, and are outside the City's jurisdiction and control: construction and operation of the local pipelines and facilities, (with the possible exceptions of the "SLO Pipeline North, " the "SLO Pipeline South, " and other minor pipeline extensions to connect with the City water distribution system if constructed by this City) ; the mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the local pipelines and facilities; consideration of certain project alternatives. . This Council recommends that the mitigation measures identified in the SLO EIR be adopted by FCWCD. With the exception of adverse growth and short-term air quality impacts, the mitigations, if adopted, would substantially lessen or avoid these impacts. E. On February 24, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6180, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Retort for the Water Management Element of the General Plan ("Water Element EIR") , and has subsequently made environmental determinations for amendments to that element. Certification of the Water Element EIR included findings and determinations concerning the nature of impacts associated with obtaining supplemental water to enable full development under the City's adopted general plan, including mitigation for significant adverse impacts and a statement of overriding considerations. In summary, the status of impacts associated with growth resulting from planned additional water supply were determined to be as follows: Resolution for State Water 5 environmental determinations (1) Not significant: community plans and goals; geologic changes and hazards; plant life; animal life; energy use. (2) Potentially significant, but acceptable with mitigation: noise; air pollution; public services and utilities; drainage and flooding; water quality; historical and archaeological resources; traffic. (3) Significant: population growth; land-use changes; aesthetics. The Water Management Element was adopted despite significant impacts, based on these overriding considerations: provision of adequate water for growth in conformity with the Land Use Element and for affordable housing as provided in the Housing Element; diversion of some growth from other places in the region where its occurrence could entail more severe impacts; expansion of the city to better control the type of development which might occur at its edges. 6. Findings for impacts identified as significant and unavoidable A. Growth Inducement (1) Impacts: Refer to Final SLO EIR pages 5-1 through 5-41 and particularly 5-4, 5-14, and 5-30 to 5- 32. (2) Mitigation: Refer to the adoption of mitigation measures in item 9 below, CEQA General Findings. (3) Findings: a. Certain changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SLO EIR. However, growth-inducing impacts would be residually significant. These residually significant impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See item 10 below) . b. Because other changes are within the responsibility of other public agencies and not the City of San Luis Obispo, such changes are and should be adopted by such other Resolution for State Water 6 environmental determinations agencies. However, growth-inducing impacts would be residually significant. These impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See item 10 below) . C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final SLO EIR (See item 8 below) . (4) Discussion: Finding (3) a: New growth that would occur as result of the importation of state water is extremely difficult to analyze. In order to provide as much information as possible, several growth scenarios were analyzed in both the Coastal Branch EIR and the SLO EIR. The DWR's environmental documentation dealing with delivery of state water to San Luis Obispo County includes analyses of "worst case scenarios, " one of which assumes that all the water delivered would be used for the development of new homes to house new people in the area (DWR scenario 3) . The Coastal Branch EIR calculated that the water could support as many as 156, 290 new residents in San Luis Obispo County. Another scenario analyzed in the Coastal Branch EIR (DWR scenario 1) assumed that project water would be used to offset urban groundwater usage. Yet another scenario assumed that project water would be used to offset the participants' proportionate share of groundwater overdraft (DWR scenario 2) . The analysis in the Coastal Branch EIR was based on designated analysis units. However, conditions in each community or water district suggested that a more detailed community-level analysis would be useful in estimating potential growth-inducing impacts. Based on a water supply and demand study prepared by the County Engineering Department, such an analysis was completed for the SLO EIR; it included a discussion of the City of San Luis Obispo. Growth inducement, as used in CEQA, is not an environmental impact per se. It must be evaluated Resolution for State Water 7 r environmental determinations as to potential, magnitude, and possible secondary impacts. This was done in the SLO EIR, which analyzed and summarized existing constraining issues and mitigations in each service area, including the City of San Luis Obispo. The SLO EIR analysis indicated that the introduction of a new water supply to San Luis Obispo County could result in new growth, which would result in environmental impacts. In eighteen of twenty-one of the communities to be served by the project, projected water supply will exceed demand in the year 2010, with the importation of state water (See SLO EIR, pg. 5-41 Table 5. 3 . 1) . If growth does occur as a result of the project, it could result in a loss of open space, increased traffic, air quality degradation, demands on schools, and impacts on biology, cultural resources, noise levels, public services and utilities, aesthetics, land use, energy use, water quality, geological hazards, and erosion or sedimentation potential. These impacts would be long-term, and significant. The SLO EIR stated that lack of water is presently a constraining factor to growth in Templeton, Avila Beach, Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Los Osos, Cayucos, Cambria, San Simeon Acres, City of San Luis Obispo, and San Luis Obispo Country Club Estates. The SLO EIR concludes that growth inducement would occur in these and other areas, including San Luis Obispo, and would result in significant secondary impacts. The SLO EIR concluded that in certain communities, including San Luis Obispo, some of the secondary impacts of growth which could be associated with this project are potentially significant. The SLO EIR assumed the City of San Luis Obispo would receive 3 , 000 afy of state water. According to the data contained in the SLO EIR, Table 5. 3 . 1, this amount would not create a surplus water supply by the year 2010. State water could be used to meet forecast water demands at buildout of the general plan capacity, to offset reduced availability of water from sources currently used by the City, or both. As discussed in the SLO EIR, .growth could result in significant and unavoidable adverse secondary impacts to schools. Mitigation measures which have been proposed to , address growth inducement are included in the SLO EIR and are briefly discussed below. /Q'8 Resolution for State Water 8 environmental determinations As described in more detail in the Coastal Branch and SLD EIRs, all of the potentially affected communities are subject to existing general plans, some of which limit the types of changes which can occur as a result of pressure for growth. All except the City of Grover City have general plans that were prepared after undergoing CEQA review; these plans were intended to plan for the growth projected for each community, based upon anticipated trends and other factors. In general, the environmental impacts of the growth provided for in the general plans have been studied and mitigated or overridden as . required by CEQA. These general plans cannot be amended to provide for growth above adopted general plan buildout without CEQA review. New development likewise must undergo CEQA review. This is true with respect to San Luis Obispo, which is subject to its own general plan. As was stated in the SLO EIR, control of growth and mitigation of potential environmental impacts resulting from growth are partly outside the City's jurisdiction, and are within the jurisdiction and control of other public agencies. Changes could be made in public policy, in those areas where growth could occur as a result of the project, to control, direct, and phase the growth, which would mitigate or avoid environmental impacts from growth. With regard to the City of San Luis Obispo, such changes are the responsibility of and within the jurisdiction of the City Council. In this regard, the City of San Luis Obispo has a comprehensive general plan, which includes policies concerning the amount, composition, and timing of growth, and incorporation of mitigation for several types of growth impacts as specific developments are proposed. Further, the City has adopted Development Impact Review Procedures (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44, and implementing resolutions) which provide the Council with information concerning potential deficiencies of: water supply, treatment, and distribution; sewage collection and treatment; storm drainage; fire and police protection; traffic circulation; cultural and educational services; parks and open space. In areas where severe resource constraints are , identified, growth may be restricted until the deficiency is remedied. Resolution for State Water 9 _ environmental determinations The Clean Air Plan is in effect within San Luis Obispo County, providing a tool by which the Board of Supervisors can phase or restrict growth in unincorporated areas of the County, in order to avoid inconsistencies with the Clean Air Plan. This Council has supported adoption and implementation of the Clean Air Plan. As one potential mitigation for growth inducing impacts, the FCWCD has considered a contract provision whereby each purveyor receiving water from the project would commit to use project water consistent with mitigation measure 5. 6b in the SLO EIR (page 5-39) . The City has already substantially complied with mitigation measure 5. 6b. The City has adopted the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the general plan (by Resolution No. 6180A, February 24, 1987, most recently amended by Resolution No. 6677, on September 5, 1989) ; this element outlines a comprehensive strategy for balancing reliable levels of water supply with normal levels of water demand, consistent with other goals and objectives of the general plan, including avoidance of groundwater overdraft. Further, this City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to implement the element, by limiting the amount of development which can occur before and after additional water sources are obtained. Also, the City has adopted and periodically updates the Annual Water Operations Plan, which sets target levels of water consumption based on safe-yield principles. As required by State CEQA Guidelines, including Section 15091 and 15096 (h) , the City Council hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects which will result from growth associated impacts identified in the EIRs. Even with these changes, impacts remain residually significant. These impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in item 10 below, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Finding (3) c: Project water supply alternatives are discussed in the Coastal Branch and SLO EIR's. For reasons discussed in item 8 below, the City Council finds Resolution for State Water 10 environmental determinations the "no project" and other water supply alternatives to be infeasible as alternatives to this project. 7. Findings for cumulative impacts Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings: A. The project and other water supply projects, as well as various land-development projects will have cumulative impacts in San Luis Obispo County and within the City of San Luis Obispo. The City Council finds that the construction of the Coastal Branch, Phase II, and the mitigation of the significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Coastal Branch, Phase II, are the responsibility of the California Department of Water Resources, or the FCWCD, and are outside the City's jurisdiction and control. This Council recommends that the mitigation measures identified in the Coastal Branch EIR and SLO EIR be adopted by DWR and FCWCD, and that, if adopted, they would substantially lessen or avoid these impacts. Taken together, these projects could have potentially significant cumulative impacts on geology, water resources, air quality, biology, transportation, aesthetics and visual resources, cultural resources, agriculture, public services, noise, and growth. Of these, air quality impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable in the short-term, even after implementation of the mitigation monitoring program adopted by DWR and FCWCD. These impacts are related to the construction phase only. Although gkowth can result in adverse environmental impacts which would add to cumulative impacts, growth inducement itself is not an environmental impact. Growth inducement is discussed in items 6, 7, and 9 of these findings. Impacts of the project have been avoided or substantially lessened with the incorporation of mitigation measures, but some residual cumulative air quality impacts may occur in San Luis Obispo County. Secondary impacts of growth could also remain. B. With regard to potential cumulative effects on the Sacramento Delta, DWR indicates that the project is independent of any additional modifications to State Water Project facilities (See Coastal Branch EIR, p. 103) . According to DWR, water to be delivered by the project has been reserved for many years for this Resolution for State Water 11 environmental determinations delivery. Existing State Water Project supplies will be reallocated to accommodate the delivery. According to DWR and CCWA, the delivery to San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County purveyors through this project represents about three percent of present State Water Project deliveries. According to DWR, the impact of the reallocation is minimal. The Coastal Branch project has been part of SWP planning since its inception in the 1960's and facilities within the SWP have been sized to accommodate the eventual operation of the project. Environmental and operational issues involved in the importation of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are evaluated in the South Delta Water Management Program DEIR/DEIS, issued June 1990. These issues are summarized in the Coastal Branch EIR. Because of the tiered nature of the environmental review for this project, neither the SLO EIR nor the City Council has reevaluated the potential for impacts on the Sacramento Delta. 8. Alternatives Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings: A. Alternative Local Pipeline Routes and Water Treatment Plant Location The SLO EIR analyzed certain alternative local pipeline alignments and alternative locations for the regional water treatment plant. Consideration of these alternatives is the responsibility of the FCWCD, and is outside the jurisdiction and control of this Council. B. Alternative Water Sources San Luis Obispo's alternative water sources are discussed in the SLO EIR on pages 3-12 through 3-25. This Council has considered various water sources which potentially could provide additional water to the City. This Council finds that the likely City entitlement from any individual source, or likely combination of these alternative water sources, would not provide sufficient water to satisfy the long-term demands of the City. Therefore, they do not provide acceptable alternatives to the project and are determined to be infeasible as explained below: (1) No Action -- City water customers would continue to depend on existing water supplies, which were nearly depleted during the 1987 - 1991 drought, Resolution for State Water 12 environmental determinations despite extreme conservation measures. With no action, the impacts of the project would be avoided, but the City would lose the additional water-supply flexibility of a source which is not dependent on local rainfall and a pipeline which interconnects major central coast municipal water users. Therefore, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. (See SLO EIR, Section 3 . 1) (2) Urban conservation -- In the short term and during drought periods, urban water demand reduction is very effective. In the long term, however, based upon past experience locally and elsewhere in the State, DWR estimates that urban conservation is capable of reducing consumption by approximately 5-10%. The City already requires and encourages many conservation measure, including prohibited uses of water and a requirement that most new development offset its water demand by reducing water consumption in existing facilities, until a major supplemental water source is obtained. Water conservation is expected to occur with or without the •project. For this reason, conservation is not a feasible alternative to the project. It is simply a supplement to the project. (See Coastal Branch EIR, pp. 80-81 and SLO EIR, pp. 3-23) . (3) Agricultural Conservation -- The City of San Luis Obispo does not supply water for agricultural uses. The City's adopted policies require that it avoid competition with agriculture and wildlife habitat uses for limited groundwater and stream supplies. The project does not deliver water for agricultural use. Although San Luis Obispo County encourages agricultural water conservation, there is no program presently in place to enforce agricultural water conservation. Under existing laws, farmers are entitled to pump groundwater for reasonable use on their overlying property. Without the means to enforce agricultural conservation, it is not a feasible alternative to the project. (See Coastal Branch EIR, p. 82) (4) Water Reclamation -- This City has proposed a wastewater reclamation project, in addition to the incidental stream-flow and groundwater recharge effects of its current operations. The reclaimed water program is anticipated to make available 800 to 1,200 afy for landscape irrigation and other nonpotable uses, thereby freeing an equivalent amount of potable water for other uses. An EIR on /e-�3 Resolution for State Water 13 environmental determinations the water reclamation program is being prepared. Reclamation is considered to be a possible source in addition to, but not a feasible alternative for, the project. (See Coastal Branch EIR, pg. 82) (5) Desalination -- This City initiated an ocean water desalination project as a temporary, emergency source to supplement declining surface and groundwater supplies during the drought. The project has been suspended with the availability of near-normal reservoir storage. This City has not included desalination as a long-term supply option due to its potentially significant impacts, including high energy consumption, waste brine disposal, visual and noise impacts from the plant, and construction-related impacts upon biological, cultural, and other resources, and extremely high costs. For these reasons, desalination is not considered a feasible alternative. (6) Whale Rock Exchange -- This alternative involves delivering SWP water for Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Cayucos to the parties currently being served by Whale Rock Reservoir (this City, Cal Poly, and the California Mens Colony) . In exchange, Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Cayucos would receive a like amount of Whale Rock Reservoir water. An indication of City interest to participate in state water at this time would not preclude later negotiating an exchange agreement. The water exchange would avoid impacts from constructing the Chorro Valley Pipeline (or alternative Los Osos Valley Road Pipeline) , but would not change any of the Coastal Branch pipeline or growth-related impacts. (7) Other Reservoir Projects -- This City has considered other reservoir projects, including: - Building a pipeline from Lake Nacimiento, which would require FCWCD approval, may be an additional supplemental source, but one which relies on local rainfall. - Building new dams and reservoirs on Jack Creek and on Santa Rita Creek, which would require FCWCD approval, and which would make water available to the City at the expense of transferring it from another water-short area. Enlarging Salinas Reservoir, which this City proposes as an additional supplemental 1e-iy Resolution for State Water 14 environmental determinations source, to provide about 1, 600 afy. This City is preparing an EIR on enlarging the Salinas Reservoir. (8) Local Project alternatives -- The following local projects have been considered by the City: coastal streams diversion (in conjunction with the City of Morro Bay) , rejected as infeasible due to costs, yields, and impacts on fish and wildlife; Hansen and Gularte creeks diversions, rejected as infeasible due to costs, yields, and impacts on fish and wildlife; San Bernardo Creek Dam (in conjunction with the City of Morro Bay) , rejected as infeasible due to costs, yields, and impacts on fish and wildlife. (9) Combination of Water Sources -- Project water supply alternatives are discussed in DWR's Coastal Branch EIR (See Coastal Branch EIR, page 77-97) . Consistent with the tiering concept, the SLO EIR incorporates this discussion by reference and summarizes the discussion in Section 3.3 of the SLO EIR. No feasible water supply alternative is comparable to state water in terms of quantity and origin outside the area subject to local rainfall fluctuations. All feasible water supply alternatives may be needed to supply the City's projected water needs at build-out of the genral plan, particularly considering actual reductions in reservoir yields due to siltation and potential reductions due to environmental or other causes. For these reasons, the alternatives described above, even considered together, are infeasible. 9. CEOA General Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings: A. Changes have been incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid significant impacts. These changes or alterations include the mitigation measures outlined herein and set forth in more detail in the project EIR's. B. Some changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies. For example, the mitigations for Coastal Branch, Phase II, and the local distribution lines and facilities are within the responsibility, jurisdiction, and control of the Department of Water Resources, FCWCD, and CCWA. Resolution for State Water 15 environmental determinations C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible certain of the alternatives suggested and analyzed in the project EIR's. These considerations are more fully discussed in the Coastal Branch and SLO EIRs and in item 8 of this resolution. D. City action presumes that DWR and FCWCD will adopt mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program, as recommended. This mitigation program includes measures which avoid or substantially lessen the significant project impacts, as required by CEQA. E. Although the project and the mitigation program proposed by DWR and FCWCD mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts as required by CEQA, there may be residually significant growth-related impacts and short-term impacts upon air quality, associated with construction activity. These impacts have been lessened through the mitigation measures included in the project as required by CEQA, and the remaining adverse environmental impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns. set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See item 10) . F. This Council hereby endorses and adopts the following mitigations for the project. With incorporation of these mitigations, this Council finds that the environmental impacts associated with the project are at least partially mitigated. Those adverse environmental impacts that are not mitigated are acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See item 10) . (1) This Council agrees to implement all mitigation measures recommended in the SLO EIR, for which it has, or will obtain, jurisdiction and control, that mitigate or avoid the direct or indirect environmental effects of those parts of the project which this Council decides to carry out, finance, or approve. Specifically, this Council will maintain adopted policies and a management plan or program, which shall demonstrate that its project water shall be used first to offset its proportionate share of groundwater basin overdraft, if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a period of reduced water supply before being made available for other purposes. Such commitment shall be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a water management plan or program which brings Resolution for State Water 16 environmental determinations its proportionate share of groundwater supply and demand into balance. (2) If the City proposes to construct any pipeline connections involving potentially significant impacts, this Council will adopt a mitigation monitoring plan as discussed in item 11 below. The mitigation monitoring program shall be revised as necessary to reflect any changes to the final conditions of approval or final mitigation measures and final design. Potential impacts and recomended mitigations related to these pipeline sections are included in the SLO EIR as follows: Air quality - pages 4 . 3-1 and 4. 3-8 Biological resources - pages 4.4-48 and 4 .4- 78, and 4 .4-90 through 4 . 4-104 Transportation - pages 4 .5-2, 4 .5-4, and 4 .5- 7 through 10 Visual resources - pages 4 .6-3, 4 .6-11, and 4 .6-18, 19 Cultural resources - page 4.7-7 Agricultural resources - page 4 .8-20 Noise - page 4. 10-15 Land use - pages 4 .11-13 and 34. 10. Statement of overriding considerations Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council hereby adopts the following statement. In balancing the benefits of the proposed project against the project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, this Council hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and that these impacts are acceptable based on the following overriding considerations: A. Groundwater levels in the San Luis Obispo area declined during the 1987 - 1991 drought. If continued on a long-term basis, a similar decline could result in lower water service reliability during future severe droughts, and other potentially significant impacts. Accepting supplemental water supplies from the Coastal Branch Phase II SWP would create a margin of safety in Resolution for State Water 17 environmental determinations the event groundwater supply is reduced or fails entirely as a result of other ground-water users' or other agencies' actions, and drought conditions. B. In the San Luis Obispo area, there has been at least short-term competition for existing water supplies between urban and agricultural users. Accepting supplemental water supplies from the Coastal Branch Phase II SWP could reduce the competition between urban and agricultural demand by supplementing urban demand. C. Existing information indicates that there are no other supplemental water supply alternatives which can individually or cumulatively furnish water of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the long-term demands of the City, considering full development under the adopted general plan, and declining availability of groundwater and surface reservoirs supplies. D. At present, there is no overall water supply system which links major population centers within the county, and there is no connection between the county water systems and the water systems in other parts of the state. As a result, at times of critical shortage the water purveyors of the county are isolated. The proposed project will provide a link with the statewide system, and also provide a means to connect most of the major population centers within the county to one another, thereby allowing emergency backup and water exchange. E. It is desirable to provide adequate water: for growth in conformity with the Land Use Element; for development of affordable housing as provided in the Housing Element, including that needed to meet the identified- City share of regional housing needs; to allow diversion of some growth from other places in the region where its occurrence could entail more severe impacts; to allow expansion of the city to better control the type of development which might occur at its edges. F. The benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable effects. Therefore, the unavoidable environmental effects are acceptable. G. Because of the complexities of this project and the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and the timeframe for decision making imposed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCWCD) , the City Council finds and determines that this statement is-�8 r Resolution for State Water 18 environmental determinations of overriding considerations is intended to apply to any and all of the project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, however occuring, whether specifically set forth in this resolution or contained within the Record of Proceedings set forth in Paragraph 4. 11. Mitigation monitoring plan A. As lead agency for the SIA EIR, FCWCD will be required to adopt a mitigation and monitoring program for the local projects. As lead agency for the Coastal Branch, Phase II, DWR will be required to adopt a mitigation and monitoring program for that part of the project. The mitigation monitoring program has been formulated based upon the premise that the earlier in the process environmental review occurs, the greater the potential for designing an environmentally sensitive project. This Council recommends that these preliminary mitigation monitoring programs be revised by FCWCD and DWR prior to commencement of construction, in consultation with the Central Coast Water Authority, Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. B. As a responsible agency, this Council will be responsible for preparing and implementing a mitigation monitoring program for the adverse environmental effects that result from the part of the project that it decides to directly carry out, finance, or approve, if any. This Council hereby commits itself to devising monitoring measures to ensure implementation of any approved mitigations for which it becomes responsible. (See also item 9.F(2) above. ) 12. Overall intent The City has considered as a whole the issue of participation in the State Water Project, participation in the District's regional treatment and local distribution facilities, the impacts of additional water supply, and the construction or modification of City facilities to receive State Water Project water. The determinations of this resolution are intended to cover all actions necessary for the City to receive State water. If the City discovers in the course of implementing connections with the local (FCWCD or CCWA) facilities that actions or features not now anticipated are required, separate environmental determinations will be made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. /B-�9 Resolution for State Water 19 environmental determinations Action This Council determines that it has adequate environmental information to take all actions necessary for the City to obtain State Water Project water. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A ministrative officer t me i Community' D v lopment Director Utilities Director EIR-RES.WP ERRATA TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, STATE WATER PROJECT COASTAL BRANCH (PHASE In LOCAL DISTRIBUTION LINES AND FACEUMS (ED 90-649) Pages ES-2 and 2-2: For Figures ES-1 and 2.2-1 See revised Figure l,.attached. Page 4.4-90, second line: For. San Luis serpentine dudleya, California suaeda, and spiny Morro manzaniM San Luis mariposa lily,and club haired mariposa lily. Read. San Luis serpentine dudleya,Califomia.suaeda,and.spiny rush occur outside the Alum== and could be di impacted. as c�n]d valley gAi; Moan.manzanita, San Luis mariposa lily, and club haired mariposa lily. Page 4.10-5;second line For. Noise from pipeline construction is considered a short-term significant impact Read Noise from pipeline construction is considered a short-term adverse impact Page 4.10-21;line 17: For. Reduction of significant contraction -noise impacts can be achieved through implementation ofshe.following measures:by the connector: Read Reduction.of_adverse construction noise impacts can be achieved through implementation of the following measures by the connector. COASTAL , San Lae Parities P.P. BRANCH PHASE I Antonio Badger HUI P.P. �`� (15 mUes) Reservoir MONTEREY CO. —ST _ � KINGS CO. SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. ; �\ KERN CO. Polonlo P.P. Nacimiento 101 /f Devils Den P.P. 5 P.eservoir dank No.1' Blue one P.P. 0 ab Water I Paso Robles PIP DOE Treatment L o` Plant , to NORTH COUNTY Templeton n N PIPELINE `� KERN C O . o Atascadero•••• It. e Questa Tunnel Aoute :• qs� % ocayurxts ; Tank No.2 L. CHORRO ; VALLEY STATE WATER PIPELINE \ ;PIPELINE COASTAL BRANCH • � Cuem PHASE !! .,;, MOr10. �•...*i Pasts Santa x•.• • ow=;:. -.;. • C17YOFSLO Maraariia (87 mHes)I PIPELINES Tank N0.3 Reservoir San Luis Obispo SLO Power Plant . �--SLOCOUNTRY • � SAN LUIS OBISPO CO . AREA poll, NE LOPQ ARROYO GRAND L-- `. PIPELI E� ALTERNATIVE Piero Beads Tank No.4 GroverCdy ArroyoTwitchedC4Ya ('1 Ooeano C'rande Reservoir a,4tye, NIPOMO Niponto , C PIPELINES soeta o �o Santa Marta p^' SANTA BARBARA CO . N t'h Terminus Maria SMVWTP ISSIONHILLS Casma P. ,� .. EXTENSION (23 Tank No.5 Sis 9troe tve� LEGEND Tank No.6 State Water Pipeline Mission HMIs 101 Coastal Branch Phase II Terminus SANTA YNEZ EXTENSION...... Local Water Distritiution Line (32 Mlles) NOMINEES Coastal Branch Phase I Lompoc o Lalrc spa+ Wmsion His Extension Sonia Ynez River Caehuma sin-don- Santa Ynez Extension Proposed * Hydroelectric Plant 9 Pumping Plant.(P.P.) Santa Barbara 0 State Hydroelectric Place ® (SLO Power Plant) SCALE M Tank A 5 10 15 Miles F I G U R Overview of State and Local Pipeline Routes,Tank Sites, and ERCE Pumping Plant Sites for SLO and Santa Barbara Counties 1 /a-.2 Page 5-24, last paragraph: For. Other than SWP, potential new sources of water for Morro Bay include the Lake Nacimiento project, desalination, reclamation, coastal streams diversion and San Bernardo Dam. Read- The Morro Bay CidCouncil by the adoption of Resolution No. 48-91 on May 13, IM determined that the Cgy's long-term supplemental water supply options consist of conservation wastewater reclamation and Take Nacimiento protect. All other RQtential sources were therefore excluded from consideration. By the passing of ballot measure "G" in December. 1991 the State Water Project was included as the fourth option. Page 5-24, last paragraph: For. A temporary desalination plant was constructed in 1991 for drought-induced emergency water supply needs and permanent facilities are planned as a future supplemental water sources, pending resolution of legal challenges. The Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA have not approved of the brine disposal system, which uses the sewer system that is shared with Cayucos. Read The Morro Bay City Council have never identified desalination as anything other than a temporary source of emergency =lacement water supply. There has not been action by the City Council to use the tem2m= emergency desalination facility as a permanent future supplemental supply source. The Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA have gpnroved the brine disposal system which does not use the sewer system shared with Cayucos• Page 5-34,line 6: For. As long as this aquifer is not in an overdraft condition (which it is not), surplus water can be used by an appropriator on non-overlying land. Read- As long as this aquifer is not in an overdraft condition (which it is not), surplus water can be appropriated for use on non-overlying lands or for municipal py=ses within the basin. Should the situation change to the aquifer being in an overdraft condition. all such gppropriative uses of the groundwater would be junior to the rights of the landowners overlying the aquifer. As is commonly done among right holders in an overdraft ed aquifer• the appropriators and the overlying land owners could enter into negotiations on an agreement.and adopt a plan for basin management 3 For. Page 5-39, 5.6b The governing body of each water purveyor accepting SWP shall adopt a water ' management plan or program, the goal of which shall be to demonstrate that its project water shall be used fust to offset its proportionate'share of groundwater basin overdraft, if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a period of reduced water supply before being made available for other purposes. Such commitment may be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a water management plan or program which brings its proportionate share of groundwater supply and demand into balance. Read: 5.6b The governing body of each water purveyor accepting SWP shall adopt a water management plan or program,die-goal-ef which shall be t demonstrate that its project water shall be used first to offset its proportionate share of groundwater basin overdraft,if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a period of reduced water supply before being made available for other purposes. Such commitment;tel be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a water management plan or program which brings its proportionate share of groundwater supply and demand into balance. 4 �a_�y VII. FINDINGS FOR IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE A. Growth Inducement 1. Impacts - Refer to Final SLO EIR pages 5-1 through 5-41. 2. Mitigation - Refer to Conditions of Approval (see Section )9) Numbers 1,2, and 3, the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 1, and the SLO EIR, Appendix G, Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 3. Finding a. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project which lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR, however, growth-inducing impacts would be residually significant These residually significant impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section )M). b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, such changes are and should be adopted by such other agency. Growth-inducing impacts would be residually significant These impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section XIn. •••• a Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final OR Growth inducing impacts would be residually significant These impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section XII} 4. Supportive Evidence - New growth that would occur as result of the importation of State Water is extremely difficult to analyze. In order to provide as much information as possible, several growth scenarios were analyzed in both the Coastal Branch EIR and the SLO EIR. The DWR's environmental documentation dealing with delivery of State Water to San Luis Obispo County includes analyses of "worst case scenarios," one of which assumes that all the water delivered would be used for the development of new homes to house new people in the area (DWR scenario 3). The Coastal Branch EIR calculated that the water could support as many as 156,290 new residents in San Luis Obispo County. Another scenario analyzed in the Coastal Branch EIR (DWR scenario 1) assumed that project water would be used to offset urban 22 /,a groundwater usage. Yet another scenario analyzed assumed that project water would be used to offset the participants' proportionate share of groundwater overdraft (DWR scenario 2). The analysis in the Coastal Branch EIR was based on designated analysis units (DAU's). However, conditions in each water district suggested that a more detailed district-level analysis would be useful in estimating potential growth-inducing impacts. Such an analysis was completed for the SLO EIR,based on a water supply and demand study prepared by the Co. Engineering Department. Growth inducement, as used in CEQA, is not an environmental impact per se. It must be evaluated as to potential, magnitude, and possible secondary impacts. This was done in the SLO EIR, which analyzed and summarized existing constraining issues and mitigations in each service area. The SLO EIR also evaluates the water supply and demand study prepared by County Engineering. The analysis indicated that the introduction of a new water supply to San Luis Obispo County could result in new growth, which would result in environmental impacts. In eighteen of twenty-one of the communities to be served by the project, projected water supply will exceed demand with the importation of SWP water (See SLO EIR, pg. 5-4, Table 5.3.1). If growth occurs as a result of the project, it could result in a loss of open space, increased traffic, air quality degradation, demands on schools and potential impacts on biology, cultural resources, noise levels, public services and utilities, aesthetics, land use, energy use, water quality, geological hazards, and erosion/sedimentation potential. These impacts would be long-term, and significant Water presently is a constraining factor to growth in Templeton, Avila Beach, Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Los Osos, Cayucos, Cambria, San Simeon Acres, City of San Luis Obispo, and San Luis Obispo Country Club Estates. The SLO EIR concludes that growth inducement would occur in these areas, and would result in significant impacts. In certain communities, some of the secondary impacts of growth which could be associated with this project are potentially significant Mitigation measures which have been proposed to address growth inducement are included in the SLO EIR and are briefly discussed below. However,even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, residual impacts remain significant The District concludes that there are clear, convincing and imperative overriding considerations which dictate the approval of this project at this time. These overriding considerations are set forth in detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section XII). The SLO EIR includes certain suggested mitigation measures for the District's consideration in mitigating potential impacts related to growth L 23 /A9W c;2 O which could be induced by the project The District has adopted one suggested measure as Condition No. 2 to the project (see discussion below Outside the County unincorporated areas, implementation of some of the suggested mitigation measures falls within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the individual contractors or of the cities. The District encourages its contractors and the cities' land use agencies to consider implementing some or all of these measures, as applicable. Again, because it is not known if these will be implemented, impacts would be only partially mitigated. As described in more detail in the EIRs, all of the potentially affected communities have general plans in place, some of which limit the types of changes which can occur as a result of pressure for growth Most,but not all (e.g., Grover City), of these general plans were prepared after undergoing CEQA review, and were intended to plan for the growth projected for each community,based upon historic trends. In general, the environmental impacts of the growth provided for in the general plans have been studied and mitigated or overridden as required by CEQA. These general plans cannot be amended to provide for growth above general plan buildout without CEQA review. New development likewise must undergo CEQA review. Control of growth and mitigation of potential environmental impacts resulting from growth in part lies outside the District's jurisdiction,and lies within the jurisdiction and control of other public agencies. Changes or alterations could be made in public policy, in those areas where growth could occur as a result of the project, to control, direct, and phase the growth, which would mitigate or avoid environmental impacts from growth, but such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the County and cities, which can and should adopt such policies if they have not done so. The County of San Luis Obispo already has a comprehensive general plan in effect which includes a wide range of policies which require mitigation of growth impacts. The County of San Luis Obispo has adopted a countywide Resource Management System ("RMS") which provides the County Board of Supervisors and its staff with on-going information as to problems in the resource areas of water supply, sewage disposal, school capacity, roads, parks, and air quality. The RMS uses three levels of severity to identify potential and progressively more immediate resource deficiencies. In areas where severe resource constraints are identified, growth may be restricted until the problem can be remedied. In addition, a Clean Air Plan is in effect within San Luis Obispo County,providing the tool by which local jurisdictions can phase or restrict growth in order to avoid inconsistencies with the Clean Air Plan. The most appropriate and enforceable mitigation for potential growth inducement within cities to which project water will be delivered lies V� 24 l j-42 7 within the jurisdiction and responsibility of those cities. These cities have responsibility and jurisdiction to impose growth limitations where resource constraints exist and where significant environmental impacts could result from growth. As one potential mitigation for growth inducing impacts, the District has included a condition of approval for this project (Condition No.2), whereby all purveyors who contract to receive water from the project will commit to use project water first to offset their respective proportionate shares of groundwater overdraft, if any. However, since overdraft issues do not apply to all contractors, the adoption of this condition of approval only modifies the project to partially mitigate the potential for growth inducement The District further finds with regard to this condition that a. The District's Board of Directors is also the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Luis Obispo. The County of San Luis = Obispo has authority to institute land use controls solely within the unincorporated areas of the County, and has exercised that authority in the past Many of the purveyors who intend to participate in the project serve customers who lie within cities where the County lacks land use jurisdiction. The District has no jurisdiction or authority to impose land use restrictions within the cities or to preclude local purveyors from the issuance of service connections. b. As stated earlier, the SLO EIR recommends that all purveyors who contract to receive water from the project commit to use project water first in order to offset their respective proportionate shares of groundwater overdraft, if any. District contractors can and should adopt and implement this mitigation measure and corresponding condition of approval. C. Any public agency contractor which fails to comply with its commitment to use project water first to offset its share of groundwater overdraft and to improve water quality- for its customers would be required to perform CEQA review of its decision not to honor its commitment A failure to perform such CEQA review would subject the agency to legal.challenge. Any newly proposed large projects requiring discretionary approval would also require environmental review in compliance with CEQA. During processing of such projects, purveyor's would be called upon to provide "will serve letters" indicating the ability and the capacity to serve new projects. d. The District recognizes that circumstances may change, rendering Condition No. 2 no longer necessary or appropriate to mitigate � 1 25 /ate potential impacts of growth inducement, in individual cases. The District also acknowledges and confirms that its public agency contractors are required to comply with CEQA, should they consider rescinding or modifying the commitment described in Condition No. 2 e. Nothing in Condition No. 2, or these Findings, Conditions, and Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be construed to impair or limit any rights to water held by any contractor, including but not limited to overlying, prescriptive, appropriative, riparian, or pueblo rights, nor shall it be construed to result in any relinquishment or adjustment of any such water rights or claims thereto. •*•' Project water supply alternatives are discussed in the Coastal Branch E1R (Cbapter 7, page 83} For reasons diwassed in Section IX C (1), the District considers the no project alternative to be infeasible. It should be noted that use of any water source alternative could also be growth- inducing. B. Air Quality 1. Impacts - Refer to Final EIR pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-28. 2. Mitigation - Refer to Conditions of Approval (see Section )a) Numbers 1,2, and 3, the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 1, and the SLO EIR, Appendix G, Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 3. Findin - a. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR, however short-term construction- related air quality impacts are residually significant. These residually significant impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section XII). b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and. jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency malting the finding, such changes should be adopted by such other agency. The residually significant impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section XIII •••• a Specific economic, social, or other considerations Task iafeasble 26 the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Air quality impacts are residually significant These residually significant impacts are acceptable by reason of the overriding concerns set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section ) II). 4. Supportive Evidence - a. Pipelines - San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of federal air quality standards,and has been designated as a nonattainment area under state standards for ozone (03) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). According to the County of San Luis - Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), 03 is the pollutant of greatest concern. 03 is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by complex chemical emissions associated with pipeline construction activities include tailpipe emissions from vehicles and construction equipment (such as diesel trucks, bulldozers, and earthmovers) and fugitive dust from excavations, backftll, and grading activities. Construction equipment emissions estimates were calculated for each pipeline segment. Even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, short-term construction- related air quality impacts for the North County and Chorro Valley pipelines would remain significant. To the extent that pipeline construction activities proceed concurrently, the degree of impact and the need for mitigation measures will correspondingly increase. Pipeline construction activities will exceed SLOAPCD's mitigation threshold for NOx and PM10 over the short-term construction period. Because construction activities will add pollutant emissions to the regional air.quality, impacts are considered significant and the SLOAPCD will require mitigation measures. Since NOx emissions are predicted to be relatively high on a temporary basis, _ a comprehensive construction activity management and mitigation plan will be prepared by the lead or responsible agency in _- consultation with the SLOAPCD. (SLO EIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-1 - 4.3-28). With the incorporation of the mitigation measures referenced in Attachment 1_to these Findings, the significant air quality impacts associated with the construction of pipelines will be lessened, but not to a level of insignificance,therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required under CEQA 15093. (See Finding 3a.) OOO• The District has considered alternatives to the project (See SLO EIR, Section 3.2 and 7.1, and Section IX (A) and (C) of these Findings. The No-prcject alternative is the only alternative which ` would reduce emissions to a level of insignificance. As stated in 27 Section IX (G) 1 of these Fmdings, this alternative would not accomplish the objective of connecting the various communities together so that emergency backup water could be supplied. It has therefore been determined to be infeasUle (See Finding 3c.} b. Treatment Plant - Short-term Construction Impacts Construction emissions associated with grading of the access road and the Tank 1 site are evaluated in the Coastal Branch, Phase II FEIR, prepared by DWR (State Water Project Coastal Branch, Phase II and Mission Hills Extension,May 1991,Volume One, pp. 47-53, and Appendix D). Grading for the water treatment plant portion of the Tank 1 site is evaluated in the SLO EIR (pp. 4.3-14 - 4.3-19). Construction emissions associated with the proposed water treatment plant would be produced from construction equipment, transportation of staff and material supplies, and fugitive emissions from the construction site. At present it is not known whether pipeline and water treatment plant construction activities would occur simultaneously. To the extent that both activities do proceed concurrently, the degree of impact and the need for mitigation measures will consequently increase. Project NOx emissions during construction of the treatment plant exceed the SLOAPCD threshold of 120 pounds per day, and thus, constitutes a significant level of emissions. Fugitive dust emissions exceed SLOAPCD threshold of 25 tons per quarter. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures referenced in Attachment 1 to these Findings, the significant air quality impacts associated with the construction of the water treatment component of the proposed project will be lessened, but not to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required under CEQA 15093. (See Finding 3b). •rrr Tho Dbuia has considered alternatives to the PPWTP location (See SLO EIR, Section 3.4} These alternatives have been determined to be infeasible.for various reasons,as identified in the SLO EIEL Furthermore, short-tem construction emissions are Moly to exceed thresholds at any treatment plant location (See Firma 3c} 28 1�—�I VIII. FINDINGS FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A. The project and other development projects (including but not limited to the Coastal Branch, Phase Il, project) will have cumulative impacts in San Luis Obispo County. The District finds that the construction of the Coastal Branch, Phase II, and the mitigation of the significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Coastal Branch, Phase II, are the responsiciiity of the California Department of Water Resources, and are outside the District's jurisdiction and control. The District recommends that the mitigation measures identified in the Coastal Branch EIR be adopted by DWR. If adopted, these mitigation measures would substantially lessen or avoid these impacts. Taken together, these projects could have potentially significant cumulative impacts on geology, water resources, air quality, biology, transportation, aesthetics/visual resources, cultural resources, agriculture, public services, noise, and growth. Of these, air quality impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable in the short-term, even after implementation of the mitigation monitoring program adopted by appropriate responsible agencies. These air quality impacts are related to the construction phase only. Although growth can result in adverse environmental impacts which would add to cumulative impacts, growth inducement itself is not an environmental impact Growth inducement is discussed in Section VII of these findings. Impacts of the project have been avoided or substantially lessened with the incorporation of mitigation measures, but some residual cumulative air quality impacts may occur in San Luis Obispo County. Secondary impacts of growth could also.remain. B. J With regard to potential cumulative effects on the Sacramento Delta, DWR indicates that. the project is independent of any additional modifications to State Water Project facilities (See Coastal Branch EIR, p. 103). The water delivered by the project has been reserved for many years for this delivery. Existing State Water Project supplies will be reallocated to accommodate the delivery. According to DWR and CCWA, the delivery to San Luis Obispo county and Santa Barbara county purveyors through this project represents only about 3% of present State Water Project deliveries. According to DWR, the impact of the reallocation is minimal. The Coastal Branch -project has been part of SWP planning since its inception in the 1960's and facilities within the SWP have been sized to accommodate the eventual operation of the project. Environmental and operational issues involved in the importation of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are evaluated in the South Delta water Management Program DEIR/DEIS, 29 - t�-3 7V GROWTH INDUCEMENT MITIGATION COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES 5.6a The Board of Supervisors should adopt the Clean Air Plan (Adopted, January 1992). ' 5.6b The governing body of each water purveyor accepting SWP water shall adopt a water management plan or program, the goal of which shall be to demonstrate that its project water shall be used first to offset its proportionate share of groundwater basin overdraft,if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a period of reduced water supply before being made available for other purposes. Such commitment may be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a water management plan or program which brings its proportionate share of groundwater supply and demand into balance. 5.6c In order to reduce vehicle trips, the County and cities scheduled to receive State Water should adopt Transportation and Land Use Management Strategies as recommended in the Clean Air Plan. 5.6d Other measures detailed in the Framework for Planning should be investigated by the County and local jurisdictions as means to control the rate of growth. 5.6e The Board of Supervisors should establish a Regional Park and Open Space District empowered to acquire lands for parks, natural resource protection, to provide for long-term management of sensitive open-space areas and to establish greenbelts surrounding urban communities scheduled to receive State Water allocations. Funding sources to prepare a Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) which identifies areas to be preserved for endangered and sensitive species should be investigated as part of this effort. 5.6f The local school district should place bond measures to fund additional school facilities anticipated to be over capacity. Elementary schools are over capacity in the following communities scheduled to receive SWP: Shandon, -Santa Margarita,Templeton,Atascadero and Cayucos. Middle schools are over capacity in Templeton, Atascadero, and Paso Robles. Additional school facilities needs are also identified in the San Luis Coastal Unified School District Facilities Plan(1988). 5.6g Improvements to increase road capacities and maintain acceptable levels of service should be funded from imposition of developer fees as calculated by capital improvement plans. Presently,in the unincorporated area,road fees are collected only in Nlpomo,Templeton and Avila Beach. 5.6h The County should investigate means of obtaining funding for the future widening of Highway 101 from four to six lanes through the Five Cities area and City of SLO. 16 IS-33 5.6i The governing body of each water purveyor accepting SWP water should follow the mitigation measures recommended in the State Coastal Branch Phase II FEIR. Recommended mitigation measures include (see Section 5.2) reducing overdraft of existing groundwater basins with supplies of State Water,encouraging development away from environmentally-sensitive areas, and ensuring CEQA compliance for all projects. New development projects should be encouraged to in-fill urban areas and be high density developments. These measures would allow population increases to occur with minimal impact on agricultural and environmentally-sensitive habitats. Mitigation Measures for Specific Areas Paso Robles 5.6j The City of Paso Robles should implement the phasing and monitoring proposed in the Land Use section of the Environmental Impact Report on the Update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Paso Robles General Plan, which establishes population targets determined by the available amount of public services. This would ensure that no development is approved unless all required public services are available. (General Plan and FEIR adopted August, 1991). The Resource Management Program designed to link availability of services to population is under preparation. City of San Luis Obispo 5.6k The city should investigate the potential for entering into an agreement with Cal Poly State University to provide water to them through the Coastal Branch,Phase II, if this would decrease the University's water costs. This would free up 823 afy of reservoir water, thus reducing the city's dependency on groundwater sources or State Water. Los Osos 5.61 The County Service Area 9 (Los Osos) should continue to operate wells in the Los Osos Ground Water Basin with the goal of preventing potential sea water intrusion into the aquifer. This can be accomplished by limited operation of municipal wells situated near the coastline,and operation of the basin as a whole in a safe yield manner. Insert to Exhibit A (Local EIR Findings) to Exhibit 2 (Local Projects Resolution) on page C-1, 55, after item #8 and before Section X: eO•• 9. Combination of Water Sources — Project water supply alternatives are discussed m DWWs Coastal Branch FIR(See Coastal Branch EIR, page 77-94 Consistent with the tiering coaxpt, The SIA EIR incorporates this discission by reference and summar1w 4 the discussion is Section 33 of the SIA EIEL Even considered together,the alternatives described above do not present an acceptable alternative to the project. According to DWR, those alternatives which are physically and economically feasible and do not have significant environmental impacts together caffiot provide to all of the purveyors who propose to participate is the project a water supply comparable to the project. 130Ar Mlhufic.5 . 1 Wednesday, March 25 1992 \\y The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts for which said Board so acts, met in regular adjourned session at 9:00 o'clock A.M. at the Embassy Suites Hotel, San Luis Obispo, California. PRESENT: Supervisors Harry Ovitt, Ruth Brackett, David Blakely, Chairperson Laurence L. Laurent ABSENT: Supervisor Evelyn Delany SUM SITTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD 1 C-1 This being the time set for hearing to consider various actions pertaining to the State Water Project. The items that will be considered in this hearing, but not necessarily in the specific order of approval for the project to allow for further processing are: determination of degree of participation in State Water Project; approval of forms of agreements with local purveyors and Central Coast Water Authority; certification of the SLO Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; adoption of required Findings, Conditions and Statement of Overriding Considerations: direct CountyEngineer to work with communities to develop final commitments for State Water; direct County Engineer to work with agencies, which have not been included in the environmental documents but which have expressed interest in participating in State Water Project. Chairperson Laurent outlines the. rules and procedures that will be followed today. SUPERVISOR EVELYN DELANY IS NOW PRESENT. Mr. Clint Milne, County Engineer, introduces the staff present today; gives a . brief history of the project; 1960 the voters in the County approved the bond issue for the Coastal Branch; changes to the General Plan in 1980 changed the Countys growth and created the need for an update to the State Water Plans; the first EIR was certified and approved by the State in May 1991; the Board will consider the second EIR for the local project today; explains that the County is obligated to pay for what is already completed in the County but can withdraw - if this occurs he will want the Board to authorize staff to sell the County's options; if the project is approved they will go forward and get the signed contracts to move the project ahead; these decisions will all need to be made by June 3, 1992. Supervisor Laurent questions the withdrawal and selling of the County's interest. Supervisor Blakely discusses the two EIR's - one for the pipeline and one for the local project and questions what the focus is today. Ms. Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator, speaks to the EIR process from both the State and local levels. Supervisor Blakely questions why the County is involved with the EIR from the State if it is already approved. Mr. Wyatt Cash, Deputy County Counsel, discusses the first resolution in the packet and it being "the need to consider" and not "approve" the State's EIR. Supervisor Ovitt speaks to the need to show the relationship between the two EIR's. Supervisor Blakely questions what control the County has on the pipeline passing /B-3 � through this County. Ms. Carroll corrects the coverletter from her office on the first page (C-1-12) , the last paragraph under Summary, to reverse the numbers in the references to Exhibits in the fourth and last lines; presents correction pages for the Exhibit to the second resolution; briefly discusses what the two resolutions cover with respect to the to EIR's. Ms. Melissa Mooney, Environmental Coordinators staff, discusses the Coastal Branch Phase II - this branch is 87 miles and outlines the locations of the pipeline and the local distribution lines; presents slides of the locations for the pipeline; discusses the potential impacts as they relate to the blue oak and the kit fox; discusses the States mitigation plans for the various environmental concerns; shows what the disturbances in the corridors would look like and again in one year, based on photographs taken in Santa Barbara County; shows the site where one property owner will be dislocated. Ms. Lisa Burns, ERCE, discusses the Class I unavoidable impacts to the Air Quality during construction; growth inducements; resource constraints; water supply by 2010 would exceed the demand; Class II impacts - those that can 'be mitigated; regarding vegetation replanting, painting tanks earthtone colors. Ms. Kathryn Hon, ERCE, discusses the significant impacts that can be mitigated; water resources, quality of water and public health issues; air quality impacts. Ms. Burns continues discussing the biology impacts, giving a list of insects and animals that would be impacted; discusses transportation impacts. Ms. Hon discusses the risks of upset associated with transportation, handling and storage of hazardous materials; seismic risks and regarding public services. Ms. Burns discusses Class III issues relating to adverse but not significant impacts. Ms. Hon discusses the beneficial impacts (Class IV) . Supervisor Blakely addresses his concerns to the liability of the State Water project. Ms. Carroll speaks to the issues staff is reviewing with regard to the reliability issues. Mr. Milne speaks to the Master Water contract; temporary shortages versus permanent; changes, in the past, to proposed entitlements during the drought and after the rains. Supervisor Blakely questions the air quality mitigations with and without the Clean Air Plan with Ms. Carroll responding. Supervisor Blakely speaks to how the facilities fee program will help mitigate issues in the unincorporated areas of the County but is concerned as to how the cities will help with this; suggests requiring the cities to adopt the same type of program as the County has with Ms. Carroll responding. Supervisor Brackett speaks to the countywide mitigation measures outlined in the packet. Supervisor Laurent questions the groundwater resources and prolonging same and repairing any deficit. Ms. Carol Nelson, State Department of Water Resources (DWR) , discusses the groundwater resources and what the State has suggested as alternatives. Supervisor Laurent comments to a letter from DWR dated 9/19/91 in the EIR (Phase II) with Ms. Nelson responding. Supervisor Blakely speaks to the local program and monitoring the project with Ms. Carroll responding. Mr. Milne discusses the entitlements and participation in funding possibilities. Mr. Gere Sibbach, County Auditor-Controller, addresses the tax rate scenarios at 3%, 5% and 7%. Supervisor Ovitt comments to the cost differences from 1960 to today. Mr. Jon Jenkins, Deputy County �e-37 Counsel, responds to the question of who has been paying for the water; speaks to Exhibits 5 and 6 regarding the water supply contracts; and the requirements to pay even if one chooses not to participate. Mr. Doug Brown, Bond Counsel, speaks to the Central Coastal Water Authority (CCWA) ; addresses the water rights ownership in Santa Barbara County and a master water treatment agreement. Supervisor Laurent questions various issues relating to financing and to additional water purchases with Mr. Brown responding. Mr. Bob Burch, Smith-Barney, speaks to the financing issues they dealt with in Santa Barbara County; single financing was the least expensive method. Mr. Milne gives the staff recommendations. Ms. Rose Marie Sheetz, Mayor for the City of Morro Bay, addresses several corrections to the EIR; highlights the letter she presented to the Board; a Water Plan is in place in Morro Bay; they currently do retrofitting and they don't like the idea that the County is voting on what the cities do. Mr. Tom Wuriu, Council member for the City of Morro Bay, speaks to the need for State Water; discusses various aspects of the staff documents. Mr. Richie Ray Walker, addresses his concerns to the State Water Project; concerns to speculation versus actual information on the amount and cost of the allocations; states he is opposed to State Water. Mr. Jon Seitz, attorney for the Oceano Community Services District, addresses the position of the District; their concerns to the language of the agreements; gives their views on the allocations. Mr. Pat Veesart, general contractor, feels there is no hurry and wants there to be plenty of time for the public to speak to this issue; expresses his concerns to the project. Ms. Judy Skousen, attorney for the City of Morro Bay, feels that the Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCBWCD) does not have the right to restrict water to Morro Bay as the voters have already said that they want State Water; concerns to the language in the agreements and gives several proposals for changes to these agreements. Mr. Burt Fugate, Nipomo Valley Water Users Association (NVWUA) , speaks to the unallocated reserves; states they will be ready for the timed receipt of State Water in 1996; they need to be able to ensure continued farming in their area. Mr. Bill Vincent, NVWUA, states they don't want to miss this opportunity and wants the Boards support. Mr. Mike Cavaletto, NVWUA, addresses the state of his wells over the years, impacts to his ranch and the negative impacts if he has to go without State Water. Ms. Donna Mehlschau, NVWUA, gives the history of the Nipomo Valley. Mr. Gene Mehlschau, NVWUA, speaks to his farming operation and the need for State Water. Mr. Roger Brett, Cal Cities Water, speaks to their reliance on supplemental water systems; asks that their current request be updated. Mr. Rollie Cavaletto states that he lives on an avocado ranch; .speaks to the need to maintain this orchard and wants the water here from the State. Mr. Frank St. Denis states that Morro Bay supports State Water. Mr. Edgar L. Smith speaks to the support in Morro Bay , for State Water. Mr. Toru Miyoshi, past Supervisor for Santa Barbara County, outlines the occurrences in Santa Barbara County; presents information for the record. Mr. Carolee Krieger, Santa Barbara County resident, speaks to her experiences with State Water and the cost impacts to her. Mr. Arve Sjouold, Santa Barbara County resident, comments to the monitoring process they /(338 performed on this process; outlines the results of this review; feels that the County does not need to deal with the CCWA. Dr. Gordon Fulks, Santa Barbara County resident, addresses the impacts the drought had on communities and there will be additional increases on water to pay for the State Water. Mr. Charles Gulyash, President of Citizens Planning Alliance, speaks to desalination plants; with the alternatives to State water that are out there, it casts a doubt on the EIR that was prepared. Mr. Don Smith states that he feels the local EIR was done very hurriedly; believes that the EIR is faulty in its responses to growth inducing impacts; wants the Board to reject the State Water. Mr. Dennis Johnston feels that State Water means increasing costs, to the residences; concerns to the impacts of the project if subjected to a massive earthquake. Mr. Warren Dorn addresses his experiences with water reservoirs as the mayor of southern California city and in Morro Bay.. Mr. Jim Ashcraft, City of Pismo Beach, speaks to the letter they submitted and outlines their concerns. Mr. Bill Bianchi requests that prior submissions to the Board be included. as part of his comments today; addresses various points of the two EIR's. Ms. Shirley Bianchi is opposed to this State Water project; asks that the Board not go with the CCWA; presents information for the record. Judge Wicksom Woolpert speaks to being the past attorney for the Cayucos-Morro Bay Water District and for the Whale Rock Dam group; addresses the issue of State Water; need to keep the trunk line one size; comments to the costs of alternatives to State Water. Mr. John Lemons speaks to the need for State Water. Mr. Bill Retland, City of San Luis Obispo, addresses their concerns to the language of the agreements. Mr. Dan Reddell addresses his concern to lawsuits over the use of water and wants the language amended in the contracts as recommended by Morro Bay. Mr. Bill Raflowski speaks against State Water. Mr. Ken Appleby discusses sound growth management; concerns to the quality ofn the County and feels that the County needs the State Water project. Mr. Andrew Moynagh speaks in support of State Water. Mr. George Protopapas, retired County Engineer, feels this is a reliable project; feels many of the issues today could have been avoided if the project would have gone through 5-6 years ago; feels that the surface water resources are limited. Mr. Charles King addresses the issue. Ms. Bonita Borgeson gives her views on the State Water; discusses various issues that have been before the Atascadero City council regarding State Water; discusses the agricultural lands this project would pass through. Mr. Ray Ball, representing the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, discusses the makeup of the group he is representing and water supplies to the County. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and unanimously carried, the Board agrees to continue the meeting past 5:00 o'clock p.m. Dr. Richard Kransdorf addresses issues of overdrafting, protecting the quality of life, the Clean Air Act; asks the Board not to act today on this. Mr. Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff, speaks to the air quality impacts addressed in the EIR and what the district requirements are; addresses several issues relating to the Clean Air Plan. Supervisor Blakely questions the monitoring of ozones by APCD with Mr. Allen responding. Ms. Ilona Ing addresses her concerns to the unreliable source of water from the State; that the growth in the County is artificial and there is a need to keep our wetlands. Ms. Lehua Kahela feels supporting State Water is like giving her rights away. Ms. Coralie McMillan speaks to the loss of migrating birds with this project; asks that the Board not allow this County to become a dumping ground for toxic waste and is against the State Water project. Mr. Iry McMillan addresses toxics that will come from this project; opposes State Water. Mr. Nathan Koren is concerned as to the impacts this project will have on him. Ms. Mary Phillips speaks to the law; the Morro Bay vote in support of State Water and she supports the project. Mr. Charles Palmer who works in the area of urban water management speaks to water pricing. Mr. Kurt Kupper feels that irresponsible farmers _ have been part of the problem; feels the County is planning by crisis. Mr. John, Goglinidini addresses the rights of property owners; the aqueduct will run on 125 miles of private property and does not run on government land; feels the costs should not be borne by private citizens. Mr. Eric Greening addresses the EIR and requests a six month extension and would like the State to put a general obligation bond on the November ballot. Mr. Fred Frank feels that there was not any consideration given to some of the costs involved; feels it limits flexibility; feels no one in North County needs treated water. Ms. Sally Pierszalowski speaks to the tank site proposed for her property. Mr. Craig Campbell, Engineer for the Oceino Community Services District, states that Oceano is not in a ground overdraft; they need the.project with the changes to the agreement language. Mr. Al Switzer speaks to the need for more water in this County to preserve the quality of life. Ms. Marlene Hubbard addresses the issue of the overdraft of ground water; feels that the problem will not go away it will only get worse. The Board asks various questions of Ms. Nelson of DWR, with response. Mr. Jack Townsend speaks to the efforts he has had to go to in order to obtain information from the State; impacts to land owners; that the date deadlines are State driven. Mr. George Layman feels that you cannot ever have a perfect EIR. Mr. James Merkel asks that the Board not certify the EIR and not approve the project. Mr: Ed Sauer feels if the Board does not approve this project it will fail the citizens of the County. Mr. Keith Gurnee states he is here on behalf of the airport property owners and as a member of the Nipomo Area Advisory Council; accepts State water as one of our tools and asks that they accept the entire quantity and reject item 6b. Mr. Michael McGee feels that the' pipeline is a $50-100 million boondoggle with no assurances of water. Mr. Van Laurn, City Engineer for Arroyo Grande, feels that they do not know what the availability, costs or local control of the water will be; feels that the EIR should have addressed these issues and did not. Ms. Susan Mullan, councilmember for the City of Morro Bay, speaks stating that as an individual she has problems with the project and as a councilmember representing the voters of Morro Bay who support the project. Mr. J.D. Lortz feels that the County should rely on its own resources and live within its own means. Ms. Judith Lamore states that the project is 30 years old and outdated and is against the project. Mr. John Beccia addresses his concerns to going outside to solve our problems. Mr. Randy Ruff addresses the issue. The Chairperson closes the floor to public comment. Ms. Carroll addresses the mitigation measures. in the EIR and presents written information. Ms. Mooney addresses the issue of costs and the Highway 229 realignment. Ms. Burns discusses the population projections, clean air issues; pipeline vibration and corrosion factors; and addresses the additions to the EIR regarding Morro Bay and Pismo Beach. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Blakely and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Blakely, Delany, Brackett, Chairperson Laurent NOES: None ABSENT:None the Board amends the proposed resolution by deleting the language in the third paragraph, first page, under NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows: " . .adopts andapproves the certified Coastal Branch EIR and. .."; and, RESOLUTION NO. 92-167, resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District making certain . findings regarding the Coastal Branch (Phase II) extension of the California aqueduct, adopted, as amended. SupervisorBlakely suggests several changes to page C-1-74a. Supervisor Brackett suggests deleting the last sentence in 12, Under XI. Conditions of ADoroval (page 3-1-56) . The Board discusses the agreements in the packet and changes to same. Supervisor Laurent suggests that the language on page C-1-134 entitled "Use of Project Water" be moved and placed under #2 Conditions of Approval on page C-1-56. The Board discusses the potential language changes. A motion by Supervisor Blakely, and seconded by Supervisor Ovitt to modify Exhibit 5, Page C-1-82, 6(b) - Use of Project Water, to amend the last sentence of the paragraph to read: "Such commitment shall be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance.. . .", is discussed. Supervisor Laurent asks the maker of the motion to also correct the first line of this paragraph by deleting the wording "the goal of", with the motionmaker agreeing to this modification with the concurrence of the second. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Blakely, seconded by Supervisor Ovitt and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Blakely, ovitt, Chairperson Laurent NOES: Supervisors Delany, Brackett ABSENT:None the Board modifies Exhibit 5, Page C-1-82, 6(b) Use of Project Water, and amends the first line of the paragraph by deleting the wording "the goal of" and the last sentence of the paragraph to read: "Such commitment shall be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance... .". Supervisor Delany questions who signs the contract with California Mens Colony with Mr. Milne responding. Supervisor Ovitt suggests hearing the issues of the unallocated portions and the approval of the project at a later date. Supervisor Brackett wants staff to work on the unallocated portions. Supervisor Ovitt would like to see a motion to adopt the resolution certifying the EIR with the staff replacement pages. The Board discusses various issues of the agreements and resolution. Supervisor Laurent questions whether the language amended by the Board in Exhibit 5 would be the same as in Exhibit B. Ms. Carroll suggests that the Board should make a finding that the revised wording be adopted into the findings and conditions for all the agreements. Supervisor Delany would like the last sentence of #2 on page C-1-56 removed. Supervisor Laurent would like to see the amended condition put in place of the existing Condition #2 on page C-1-56 and also on page C-1-74a in place of 5.6b. The Board discusses the issue of future hearing dates. A motion by Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Laurent, to adopt the resolution marked as Exhibit 2, approve the form of the water supply agreement as amended in Exhibit 5 and replace #2 of Conditions of Approval and 5.6b with the amended language from the agreement and replace the pages of the exhibit to the resolution with the pages presented by staff today, is discussed. Supervisor Laurent suggests deleting the language in the third "WHEREAS" of the proposed resolution regarding approval of the Local Facilities Project. Supervisor Brackett agrees with that deletion and suggests that that same language should be removed from the last line of the paragraph entitled "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. Supervisor Delany suggests that the reference to approving the local facilities project be removed from the title of the resolution also. The motionmaker and the second concur with these modifications. Mr. Cash states that Exhibit A to the resolution is not necessary, if they are not approving the project, only the Errata Sheet with the changes for Morro Bay and Pismo Beach and they do not need to approve the overriding considerations or the findings until they approve the project. Mr. Jenkins states that in his opinion the Board is not doing what the cities want unless they approve the project. Supervisor Delany suggests that they want the cities to decide what they want the project to be. Ms. Carroll suggests that the language on page two of the proposed resolution entitled "B£ IT FURTHER RESOLVED", be deleted. Mr. Crawford suggests that the proposed amended condition be changed even further and correct the word "Contractor" to be Contractors" with the motionmaker and second concurring. Matter is discussed and thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Laurent and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Laurent, Delany, Brackett, Blakely NOES: None ABSENT:None the Board replaces pages 43 through 50 of the Exhibit to the resolution as presented by staff and a #9 is added to page C-1-55 and and page C-1-74a is added; amends pages 35 (C-1-56) and page 16 proposed) of me nt resolution to Tread: ot o the "Contractors shall adopt a water management plan or program, which shall be to demonstrate that its project water shall be used first to offset its proportionate share of groundwater basin overdraft, if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a period of reduced water supply before being made available for other purposes. Such commitment shall be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a water management plan or program which brings its proportionate share of groundwater supply and demand into balance"; the following wording is deleted from the proposed resolution: in the title the wording "and approving local facilities projects"; in the third WHEREAS the wording in the second line that reads: "approve the Local Facilities Project"; ' in the paragraph entitled NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the last line which reads "in approving the Local Facilities Project; and on page two of the resolution the first BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph is deleted; and, RESOLUTION NO. 92-168, resolution of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District certifying the Environmental Impact Report and making required Findings and . Statement of Overriding considerations and imposing certain Conditions of Approval, adopted, as amended. Further, the Board approves the form of the water supply agreements as outlined in Exhibit 5 and as amended by this Board. A motion by supervisor Ovitt to approve #8 of the staff recommendations in concept, is discussed. Chairperson Laurent addresses his concerns to the motion with Mr. Robert Hendrix, County Administrative Officer, asking if a modification of this would be then to give direction to County Engineering to . use these forms as a conceptual basis to commence negotiations, with the additional language that the Chairperson had discussed earlier about conditioning future sales of water and directing Engineering to go forward with this on that basis with Chairperson Laurent concurring. Supervisor Brackett seconds the motion. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Brackett, Delany, Blakely, Chairperson Laurent NOES: None ABSENT:None the Board conceptually approves the forms of agreements for (a) Master Water Treatment agreement with Central Coast Water Authority, and (b) Water Treatment and Local Facilities Agreement with local purveyors. Matter is further discussed and thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Delany and on the following roil call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Delany, Brackett, Blakely,, Chairperson Laurent NOES: None ABSENT:None the Board directs the County Engineer to work with the appropriate departments and the Central Coast Water Authority in working with those communities which have been included in the said Environmental Impact Reports in order to develop final commitments on the State Water Project. Matter is further discussed and thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Brackett., Delany , NOES: Supervisors Blakely, Chairperson Laurent ABSENT:None l the Board directs the County Engineer to work with agencies which have not been included in the said Environmental Impact reports, but which have expressed an interest in participating in the State Water Project and to return to the Board with recommendations at a later date. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Brackett, seconded by Supervisor Delany and unanimously carried, the Board receives all letters, petitions and documents that have been presented for the record. on motion duly made and unanimously carried, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts for which said Board so acts does now adjourn. I, FRANCIS M. LOONEY, County Clerk-Recorder and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, .and ex-officio clerk of the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts for which said Board so acts, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a fair statement of the proceedings of the meeting held, Wednesday, March 25, 1992, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts for which said Board so acts. FRANCIS M. COONEY, County Clerk- Recorder and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: /s/ Vicki M. Shelby, Deputy Clerk-Recorder DATED: March 31, 1992 vms �B-wit