HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2002, C14 - PREFUMO CREEK SILT REMOVAL, SPECIFICATION NO. 90327 council Mama D.� U ��
j Agenba RepoRt 1w.N.,b. ai
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey,Public Works Director 10k
Prepared by: Matthew A. Hom,Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: PREFUMO CREEK SILT REMOVAL, SPECIFICATION NO. 90327
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve plans and specifications for "PREFUMO CREEK SILT REMOVAL,
SPECIFICATION NO. 90327".
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids.
3. Authorize the CAO to award the construction contract if the accepted bid is within the budget
of$70,000.
DISCUSSION
This project is a maintenance project to remove sediment carried from Prefiuno Creek and dropped
by the flowing water as it enters Laguna Lake. This work was last done in 1999. The City has a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to do this work every three years if needed. Currently
there exists as much sediment in the Prefumo Arm of Laguna Lake as existed prior to the 1999
removal project. If this work is not periodically carried out the material will be washed into the
main body of the lake and will gradually fill it.
The Prefumo Creek silt material is typically removed from the Prefumo Arm by a contractor and
used as fill material for a project some place in the County. The material removed is granular,
containing a large amount of gravel and sand.
This project is one of 11 different sites covered in the attached City environmental document. A
public hearing was held on this particular portion of the environmental document and a resolution
was passed approving the mitigated negative declaration for this project in 1999.
CONCURRENCES
This project has received permits from the Corps of Engineers, a biological opinion from the
National Marine Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Services and a water quality certification from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This project is subject to approval by State Department of Fish and Game. A permit has been
applied for and still pending. Work may not begin until the permit has been received.
The project plans as proposed for approval are consistent with the requirements of the City's
mitigated negative declaration and the terms of the Corps permit.
Cly-I
Council Agenda Report—Prefumo Creek Silt Removal, Spec. # 90327
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Construction Cost
Funding for this project is included in the 2002-03 Financial Plan Supplement (page E-5) in the
amount of$70,000. As discussed in a separate report on the Council agenda for the August 20,
2002 meeting, this project was funded through the new Creek and Flood Protection Fund. Even
though the new fees were subsequently rescinded, we have recommended a revised funding plan
that will allow this high-priority project to move forward.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Location Map
2. Initial Study
Plans and Specifications are available in the Council office for review
I:\\COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTS\90327 CAP dM
ATTACHMENT 1
..
L __....
0
-
- r <
"r x
Pro'ect Site
i
,
kATill
y;
¢
ry
/
` 4
r
' - ATTACHMENT 2�--r
�,,� O"C*��tv ® sAn isoaavJ
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY 91-97
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: San Luis Obispo Creek Corridor Management and Enhancement Plan:
Selected Phase I Improvements
2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department
955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person: Environment Review: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Phone: 805 781-7165
Project Design: Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Phone: 805 781-7200
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek, Stenner Creek (following
map)
5...-Project Sponsor: City of San Luis Obispo
6. General Plan Designation:
The General Plan Land Use Element designates creek channels as Open Space. Tl.
proposed restoration and repair sites are bordered by Open Space, Public Facilit,
residential, and commercial land-use designations.
7. Zoning:
-The Zoning Map shows some major creek channel segments as Conservation/O.p<
Space. The channel locations of the proposed restoration and repair sites are,border
by several types of zones, including open space, residential, and commercial.
8. Description of the Project
The project's goals are:
• repair previous erosion damage of some creek banks;
• avoid damage to existing, adjacent structures from future erosion and flooding
certain locations, mainly by stabilizing creek banks;
• restore the natural creek environment in certain areas, mainly by planting nati
plants and removing invasive, nonnative plants.
V` I, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include disabled io all of its services, prmrams and acil�les
^` ATTACHMENT 2
y,
ER 91 -97 WORK SITES
CAL
C POLY
,Bishop
Peak
f
,Cerro
San Luis —�
8
7
y 4 Terrace L
ca Hill �
r
f
1
Co9uQp yoke / Se��h �
SfrePf �._
It 5
2
3
i
I _
® NORTH
1000 FEET
500 METERS
1
0 22
—� See table in text for key to locat n5 5
-- _ ATTACHMENT 2
The City proposes various combinations of restoring and stabilizing creek banks
and enlarging creek channel capacity at 11 individual sites on San Luis Obispo
Creek and its tributaries (preceding map). Of the 11 sites, nine are designated
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) repair sites, where work is to
be completed before the 1997-98 rains start. The other sites have been
identified as needing repair or improvement in the immediate future. The project
includes reconstructing slope banks eroded by flooding in 1995, placing rock in
various forms to stabilize the bottoms (toes) of channel banks, increasing
channel capacity at the work sites so the restored creek can better contain
future floods, and planting to help stabilize banks and improve riparian habitat.
Project construction techniques and planting are intended to avoid or mitigate
potential impacts to plants, wildlife, and water quality. Nearly all excavating,
filling, and placing of large rock features will be done from the top of bank,
using a long-reach excavator or grade-all. Slope planting and placing fabric slope
stabilization will be done using small equipment, and by hand. The table on the
following pages lists the individual sites and summarizes the proposed changes.
The proposed channel modifications are based on a comprehensive analysis of
the affected areas and their relationships with the watershed, and resulting
recommendations, all prepared by a consulting firm that worked with City staff
and involved agencies. Two reports contain this information: "Stream Corridor
Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, Phase l Study Area, Volume l"
(Questa Engineering Corporation, May 2, 1997), and the companion "(Draft)
Volume ll: Design Concept Plan" (Questa Engineering Corporation, June 27,
1997). These reports are available for reference at the City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo. The Volume 11
report includes more potential work, sites than are proposed by the City for
construction under this Initial Environmental Study.
Additional environmental review will be done if additional sites are proposed for
projects. Also, additional environmental review will be done for the adoption of
revised policies and standards for flood control and creek. channel modifications,
which. mayfollowfrom the reports cited above. -
A Phase it Report, to be available in late 1997 or early 1998, will identify stream
corridor management needs, for other areas of San Luis Obispo Creek. and the
watershed that are downstream or outside the San Luis Obispo city limits. This
work will be subject to the review and approval of San Luis Obispo County and
the Zone 9 Flood Control District of San Luis Obispo County, as well as other
reviewing agencies.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
City grading plan approval for creek bank repair and sediment removal; City Counc
approval of plans and specifications for the work other than repair and replaceme
tasks to be done by city crews.
ATTACHMENT 2
t _
H
O O ON a) 0
1O O O
A m O O
CL O
cYLtccW .cdc
E m m aWmy
.
E
L
c � Lo LO LO
M N t[0
Oa O
a 'n O
« oa
00co
cn M
« ..
_ 'ca m C9 N r- � N M m t41n
co
be
roC 0 0 0 0 0 o O o t E
J an co co O c o
o W v « « �
E c c
c >-
a) W C7 `p y. i G " 0. o
« « « p U
c •� Vj 7 W CO m 0) p c
O T O U h '-' �' U 0l 0 d ` O `L. m
a ._. a « a) 0 0 o d3 WO
c � :° >. a o 0 o n 0 - 2 x o E Y E
m � > n Um � O 3O 3 �- 3 .m7- "3o � Ea oo °
m T o m
7
Q QoU m �cn m m a «
c a TT > ai� rn
c « o °� 0 �m
LW
0
= w � ca ad aid
c
.o « > o 0
-> a
t!1 n- (n : _a iii 7 .'—: 3 0 ° v — _ « a Q) 7
W W Y X _ U m 7 W U aj Y ca m D •a
C C W m d Y W .. E O. O y W O « U 7 U X N W � 0
I"' m p• c m U m ., c C « — « ,� > O C O c7 y O .
CO m t 7 d m W C O C O L C C n
m q
U N L L O •" a) O L :« .D •m U ->� p C. U Y m N t II q V
wj p a«' c 0- � 3 W � cmc 0 c � � '' te a � m 3 y y � ? Q CO o
U +, c a x � c o Wt �, W o c da c
U m m 7 V CO W U C W C « = "' O_ U m .. 0.•O m r - N W C a]
PC Q n 3 L W E c a. W o n m : 3 v .. m y « N c d -
3 " W C ` C N cn m �+ W W p m C « E W W U ' 0
to co 0 CD V
0 3 0 a) O > m Q! m 7 W 0 0 W N c y o O. W W W .O W Q aj •.- U.
o c c y ` o o aj « o I c = o m W d o W E o m m !_' -I-
X
}O. e t o U — E -m U O« m a«+ CL�,, W �.+ E « �. :� C N f= W .p 3 W
r O W « o 'p W U O E W W C •p L C 0 « �' m ca Q _� O 0),;,-
0
CL � "' d � ..� o � � Eca 3wo m � yc a' � 7 a.h � a-a'iaci
W m W
(� O O .`. p c y T 30 c :E p C -0 O 0 m �_ > c W .O > W - m y W W •p a)
LLIL �-• 0 3 6 0 .O O Y. O « 7 « 0 0 C Y 0 'O O C C cm c W Y
.'�O U W ••ap W O C W �= W W m m W m m p G m m` = (� j 0 l6 Y
Q o O. Q o�.3- W Q.rn 3 Q: rn� 3 Q O o o ¢ rn «,.0 m ` m W.
— o WN W
O C
O y. +-' Y y C to....
C'_« 7 7 c dj W W o E W ..
'a fn E a W � o 0 co E y in :3
E ami n > •0a v . .0pp c o « a � a
o Q W W oZZ
N a s o c p mm 0 mm o m c a' c E W co
Q
fl a n W
aD 0 7 � Em 3X 3 `� ccs W7 Et:rj
'D a 7 i+ c 0 O Y W .X to 7 � m E ] W CO � W W �
p m _ •O fl. C W C W « o W 'a U a7 C m L O
U X .� C X m a W W W �. E W U R' O '0 c
C W 7 to FZ
Cn W LL D 0 m O. m i+ CL C) « fn m W
` ` LL m
> 'Z y W «
+� E a) ao w e m co c rn o v �, o m U \ U n o h
7 LL N ¢ 4) >' . -m 0 a) LL i 0 +•' N c \ E m a E
� z E n c rL � ¢ 3 � ¢ cna rnvll NcE
c) . E m0z N
co H:n N N co ti ,Wm c • O
E Q Q Q O Q i m C� _ J U M w 0co II _
=1
0_ Z
_0
L-E3 N Co cfl Q n v
ATTACHMENT 2
1
S
H co r O N d
a� W o 0 0 0 o a
E m to E 0
a
m m L m E
to 0 0 0 Lo 0 3 m
C a: m N to O N �-
c� io E M d p to
O d t7 m 7 q
CL Ca) 0-6
a
O O O an
C CO O n
LO
L m r O to co
a) N c7 tT Of mrL
cn
CD w
C U) O O O u) U p L E
J v- ,mco O) N p — y
p m co Vo wz
E '" C U
C c c
O O)C Y L
-i tU " O. O
C m m X CO Q O L cn
�- C a u CD p o E m vi 3 0 O
c � � :° ci � 0 3 c3 y E«
m m c m - 0 o c o E =
E E -� = o a mU 0 3 a 3 jE _ :
0
0 U c X � 3 E 0 3 0 m �m
} p mca
U o = o m 0 0 0 0 rn , m
Q m = cv3 �, a 3_ 5 W:_ Qoc42)
m
b � yY
cn m o U E m
o "3 1 o oYn
3 > .. 30
F- o y —
`
U om °
y m -0 c o ca) �m
m oom 0AEo-acn O
.. 7
cd
O. m E nOm
a C O
O c , 0 cc O Yct-
n LE N >UNv` E m my
U Op0 = VN
W O O O)m
EW U o Odo0
Q
:v0 E >o O0U CaO a) 'OO O > O a) mm 0 — O c (n 0OO
CL � U m m co mC
cc UO o 7 my .0 O) m O) ON E Qy Om ...
m
W w0 0 nM a O m C > m m d +) my m
m m m m r O •� CD m Y L
m c X CD C.r 'O C- d U.X C _ -m C .O 'n. O Ot
� v- 0 a) 0 0 a m � 0:-r O. m 7 m O m N C
Y m cn co
kL yw C
Y c
JR y m o b m o E 0
E n -0 m c -00. 03x`03
M -O
m 3 0. d W o o m a CY m o� o
Com. 0 . E .' m o c c QcnE .. c°
O p C m m m c 0 . m 'E m .- m Q• 3
a d c o 2 -o E E m E E 4.0 o� �o 0
m C O m m U m e cC -O L Q C
m 7 J L to 7 m m m C m 7 W. ` 7
L � ++ m-O
C) dO cn -O
C N O V� Un 0 y m
O C
� Z E U) -0 ¢ m a a o aio ° ta � � a
m Q OC o U m U ` c CL
E E
N L z U
E O ca cn W m W o w m o - E
o Si.
aU �
U � ° ` E a
I U
t ! • i LL
Y co 0) O r I Q m U u
✓ CCC
ATTACHMENT 2
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
San Luis Obispo Creek is the major waterway through the City of San Luis Obispo.
The main stem of San Luis Obispo Creek flows southwest from its headwaters in the
Santa Lucia Range to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Within the study area, the
upper creek reaches flow through a sparsely developed valley before entering the
urbanized reaches within the City. The section of Prefumo Creek involved in the
project runs through the Laguna Lake Golf Course. The problems to be addressed by
the proposed project resulted largely from an extensive wildfire in the upper San Luis
Obispo watershed in 1994 and prolonged rains during the winter of 1995. The
ensuing runoff eroded stream banks, causing up to five feet of scour in some areas.
Recent erosion, sedimentation, and flow obstructions have altered conditions in and
along the creeks. More detailed information is available in the Stream Corridoi
Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, Phase I Study Area, Volume L
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Permits required:
California Department of Fish and Game - Streambed Alteration Agreement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Form ENG4345
Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Board - 401 Water Quality Certification
Review required:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Review solicited: .
California Department of Historic Preservation - Historic Structures
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:.
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involyir
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated, by the checkli
on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation S stems
z.
ATTACHMENT 2
FISH AND GAME FEES:
LThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefor, the project
qualifies fora de minimis waiver with.regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared._
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on X
attached sheets will be part of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment,
but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards and .(2) has 'been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact"
or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
BY
Sig ature Dat
John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager
Printed Name
ATTACHMENT 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impac
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (for example, the project falls outside a faul
rupture zone). A 'No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specifi,
factors as well as general standards (for example, the project will not expose sensitive receptors t
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including impacts that are off-site e
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction a
well as operational.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determinatic
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigati(
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significa
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how thi
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earli
Analysis, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, a
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) I
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the epd of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
potential impacts (such as general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where 1
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individu
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
0/11 it
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially ILessThan 114olmpici_
Significant Significant Signiricant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation or zoning? 1, 2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 3, 4 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (such as
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from X
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
a, d, e) The project would not change land use, and zoning consistency is not an issue. The channel
changes will not adversely affect agricultural land or connections within or between neighborhoods.
b) Two adopted documents contain City policies on creek modifications: the Open Space Element of the
General Plan, and the Flood Management Policy. The Open Space Element has several general goals anc
policies for creek corridors, which do not raise issues for this project. Two specific OSE policies are
(paraphrased):
- Approve creek alterations only if no practicable alternative is available, or to protect public health anc
safety. Creek alterations should use stabilization methods which maintain a natural (earthen) channel anc
provide for riparian vegetation. Non-natural bank stabilization methods that allow trees and shrubs, such a!
gabions and rocks, may be used, but only when there is no practicable alternative to natural creel
alterations. Hard bank protection that does not allow for plantings (such as solid walls) may be permittr
only if there is no practicable alternative to the use' of bank stabilization materials that allow planting.
- Enhance creek corridors, and their habitat value by: (1) providing an adequate creek setback, (2
maintaining creek corridors in an essentially natural state, (3) restoring creeksto achieve a natural creek
corridor, (4) planting riparian vegetation within creek corridors, and where possible, within creek setbac!
areas, (5) prohibiting the planting of invasive, non-native plants within creek corridors or creek setbacks
and (6) avoiding tree removals within creek corridors except when determined appropriate by the Cit,
Arborist.
Determination of "no practicable alternative" can be a matter of judgment. The project appears to conforn
with adopted policies. It proposes the natural-channel approach where space is sufficient to allow stab)
earthen slope banks, and various methods that include planting where creekside space is more limited..
The proposed bank-stabilization methods are consistent with the Flood Management Policy's ranking c
preferred treatments.
The project is intended to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, an
California regulations concerning stream alterations.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (for example, through projects in an X
undeveloped area or major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
The project does not involve development or removal of dwellings.
3_ GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
�i ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Nolmpact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
This project primarily involves the repair and restoration of creek banks which have become unstable or
subject to additional erosion. To achieve this repair and bank stabilization, some banks will be reshaped to a
stable slope of two horizontal to one vertical, or flatter. Some banks will be filled to approximately their
pre-1995 contours. The completed project is expected to have a long-term beneficial impact by reducing
erosion potential along the creek. It is likely that a"sediment starved" creek would flow faster and thereby
become more erosive for unprotected areas, either by cutting the channel deeper or eroding the banks
laterally. However, the areas affected by the project are. an insignificant fraction of the watershed areas
which can contribute sediment. Overall sediment loads are not likely to change significantly.
The proposed "biotechnical" approaches emphasize erosion-control surfaces, such asplanted gabions and
fabric nets, that can flex and settle without failing catastrophically as rigid structures do in extremely
erosive flows.
Construction activities can cause erosion. Proposed construction timing and other recommended mitigation
will reduce such impacts to insignificance. (See "Mitigation Measures" section.)
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related, hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (including temperature; dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity)? _. _ . _
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water MX movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
a) At two sites, bank erosion has been caused partly by flood waters entering the creek over
considerable length. The project would focus these"return flows" to chutes with protected surfaces. Th
is not a significant change.
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Nolmpatt
Significant Significant significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) In the long term, the project will reduce water temperatures and turbidity (fine sediment) by
establishing a shading tree canopy and reducing bank erosion. The project's porous and planted stabilizing
materials will trap sediment, and the additional plants will help remove nutrients from the water. Short-term
construction impacts will not be significant (see "Mitigation Measures" section).
e) Boulder clusters may be added to the channel bottom to direct flows away from areas which have been
eroded, and to foster development-of pools and protective bars of sand and gravel. Also, rocks may be
placed to create low 'falls" of less than 0.5 meter (18 inches), to reduce the slope of the stream bed , and
therefor flow velocity, in limited areas. At one site (Mariposa), the City will consider diverting more of the
flood flow, or possibly the low-flow channel, to the previously developed by-pass channel, by removing
sediment at that channel's inlet. These changes are not significant, because they will not affect the total
amount of water in the creek or the overall relationships between wetted area and riparian.vegetation.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 5
existing or projected air quality violation X
(noncompliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
There will be insignificant emissions from construction equipment.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or.traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(such as farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or.bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? -
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (in compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Lan_d Use Plan)?
There will be an insignificant increase in trips by workers and construction equipment.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (such as heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (such as oak X
_ forest, coastal habitat)?
d) Wetland habitat (marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
Continues next page
ely-/i
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potcntially Potcntially Les:nun N0 impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
a) The California Natural Diversity Data Base was searched and the creek was surveyed (Morro Group, for
Questa Engineering, 1996). The site contains populations of, or suitable habitat for, at least five"species of
concern:" Southwestern pond turtle (Federal C1, State SSC); Two-striped garter snake. (Federal C2, State
SSC); California red legged frog (Federal T, State.SSC); California tiger salamander (Federal C2, State SSC);
Southern steelhead (State SSC). The project is expected to have long-term beneficial impacts on species of
concern, since it will increase the amount of escape cover, shading, deep pools, opportunities for nutrient
uptake by plants, and increased buffering between sensitive species and urban neighbors. However,
temporary habitat disruption or loss are concerns during construction. Several mitigation measures are
recommended, involving worker education and well defined work areas and procedures, and supervision by
a qualified biologist (see "Mitigation Measures" section).
d) In total, the project will entail the disturbance of about 3,000 square-meters (0.74 acre) of waters or
wetlands. These impacts will be mitigated by appropriately contouring the ground surface and by planting
native species and removing invasive, non-native plants at the work sites and immediately upstream and
downstream from the work sites. The project will result in no net loss of wetlands.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL.RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? _ X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries are not sources for sand or gravel used in construction.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including oil, pesticides, chemicals or X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass or trees?
a) Whenever petroleum-fueled vehicles or equipment are used, there is a potential for accidental release
The creek is especially sensitive to such contamination. Project specifications will include requirements f
spill avoidance and prompt reporting and clean-up. (See "Mitigation Measures" section.)
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element?
There will be an minor, short-term increase in noise from construction equipment and related traffic.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than JNo Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Other governmental services? X
The proposed bank-stabilization techniques are intended to have maintenance requirements lower than the
"no project' option, and not significantly exceeding more environmentally disruptive options.
Implementation of the project may increase short-term maintenance requirements. As with any new
installation, there may be repairs, replanting and adjustments needed to assure the proper functioning of
slope stabilization elements. In addition, pruning of planted vegetation to assure proper canopy development
and acceptable flood resistance may be needed during the first three years. It is expected that the increased
initial maintenance burden will offset potentially greater impacts such as bank failures, flooding, and loss of
bank-top improvements if the project is not completed.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
The project will not affect utility demand or amount of supplies. It will have a beneficial impact by reducing
the potential for service interruptions due to failure of pipes exposed by bank erosion.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare?, X
Proposed bank-stabilization methods are intended to appear more natural than inflexible structures, anc
therefore are expected to be more attractive in the long term than features such as walls. Temporary
disruptions from construction may be unattractive, but will not be significant.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? - 6, 7 X
c) Affect historical resources? 6, 7 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would.affect unique ethnic cultural values? -
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
a) Paleontological resources have not been found and are very unlikely within the watershed, given its lac
of sedimentary rock.
b). No prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist in the construction areas, but th
watershed's long Chumash settlement means resources may be encountered. Standard mitigation fc
archaeologically sensitive areas is recommended (see "Mitigation Measures" section, part 13).
c) There are no historic resources in the construction areas. The historic Black Adobe and an associate
shed are threatened by creek erosion (site reference ##8). The project is intended to protect this structure t
stabilizing the adjacent stream bank.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X.
The project will not affect existing or planned parks or trails.
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Compared with no-project or conventional, inflexible bank protection, long-term impacts will be beneficial.
Mitigation designed into the project is expected to reduce short-term impacts*(construction disruption) to
insignificance.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
goals?
The project is based on studies which take a long-term perspective of creek changes, including interactions'
between human actions.and natural processes.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection X
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
Other, similar projects may be undertaken by the City, private landowners, or other organisations. At this
time, none are proposed for simultaneous construction. Projects based on the same design principles and
incorporating the same types of mitigation will not have cumulative, adverse impacts. _
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
The project will not adversely affect creek resources used by humans, nor the adjacent human community.
r
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially JLcss Than No Imp
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, program EIR; or other CEQA process, one
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063
(3) (D)• In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scc
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and sl
whether such effects were.addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," descr
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the exten-
which they address site-specificconditions of the project._
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
This checklist does not rely on earlier analysis. However, the referenced reports (Stream Corr,
Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, Phase / Study Area, Volume /and Volume 11) provide m
detailed discussion of environmental setting, project actions, alternatives, and potential mitiga
measures.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. I General Plan Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo
2. Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo
3. General Plan Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo
4. Flood Management Policy, City of San Luis Obispo
5. CEQ.A Air Quality Handbook, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1995
6. Historic Resources Survey Completion Report ;City of San Luis Obispo, 1983.
7. Historic and archaeological resource-maps, City of San Luis Obispo Community, Development
Dept.
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potcmiyly tessThan Nolml
Significant Significant Significant
Issucs Unlcss Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporatcd
19. MITIGATION MEASURES & MITIGATION MONITORING
Mitigation measures are those features of a project which are specifically intended to avoid or reduce ha
to the environment. Also, this listing relates the mitigation measures to the monitoring actions that will
taken to assure the mitigation is carried out and has the intended consequences. According to the CE(
Guidelines, mitigation measures are added to the project after it is originally proposed. For this cree
project, nearly all the mitigation measures described below were included in slightly different form in t
original project description. They are presented here for emphasis and clarity.
1. Mitigation Measure: The City shall control the timing, sequence, and methods of constructic
selection and maintenance of equipment, and the conduct of t
contractor or workers, in accordance with the conditions a
requirements of the forthcoming California Department of Fish ai
Game's "Streambed Alteration Agreement," the recommendations of It
Stream Corridor Management Plan.for San Luis Obispo Creek, Phase
Study Area, Volume 1, and Volume /L• Design Concept Plan (Que:
Engineering Corporation, 1997), and with the California Regional Wal
Quality Control Board's anticipated "401 Water Quality Certificatior
Where more restrictive, the specific provisions of this initial study st
supersede the general provisions of the referenced documents.
Monitoring Program: The City Engineering Department will inspect the construction operat
daily to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
The Natural Resources Manager will conduct . periodic spot-cl
inspections to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
A qualified Monitoring Biologist will be retained during work which c
affect sensitive habitat. The Monitoring Biologist will inspect the work
each day, coordinate compliance with biological mitigation requirem
and prepared a daily log to document the presence or absence of
sensitive species and actions taken.
2. Mitigation Measure: Work areas in or adjacent to the channel shall be limited to t
necessary for installation of slope stabilization, removal of sedimen
placement of features on the creek bottom. Work areas shall be cl
marked with survey flags, temporary fencing, or other means accep
to the Monitoring Biologist. Construction access to other areas o'
creek shall be prohibited.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
3. Mitigation Measure: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by or under the directi
the Monitoring Biologist, within potential habitat for sensitive species
Monitoring Biologist may designate exclusion zones . based on ,
surveys. The Monitoring Biologist may prohibit the use of meche
equipment within exclusion zones. To the extent possible, the Cit
require or perform measures to relocate individuals of sensitive spec
suitable nearby habitat (see Mitigation Measure # ).
Monitoring Program: Same-as #1 .
4. Mitigation Measure: Sensitive areas (vegetation, wildlife, or cultural resources) noted
Construction Documents, or identified by the Monitoring Biologist,
protected with temporary construction fencing.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1 .
Cly{-rq Q
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Imp
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
5. Mitigation Measure: Best Management Practices shall be employed to minimize erosion. The
may include use of silt fences, straw bale dikes, temporary coffer dar
and de-watering, and temporary protection during anticipated rain.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
6. Mitigation Measure: The City will provide orientation for the Contractor and all involy
workers, to inform them of the biological conditions of the site, includi
sensitive species. Sensitive habitats and legal and listed status- of ea
sensitive species, as well as potential penalties will be described. Periot
briefings will be conducted to inform new workers of project concert
Topics to be covered include:
a) No pets, camping, or other personal use of the project site will
allowed.
b) Killing wildlife or destruction of dens, nests or pools is prohibited.
c) All food-realted trash items will be removed from the work site daily
d) Sightings; trappings, injuries or fatalities to identified sensitive spec
shall be immediately reported to the Monitoring Biologist.
e) Protocol for encounter of sensitive species will be reviewed, a
written handouts provided. Work areas, including earthwork, plant
maintenance, and stockpile areas, shall be inspected daily bef,
beginning work. Any wildlife species found will be removed
biologists or allowed to escape.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
7. Mitigation Measure: Existing, mature, native trees removed as part of the project will
replaced at a ratio of 3:1.
Monitoring Program: The Monitoring Biologist, in collaboration with the City Arborist, t
inspect and mark trees proposed to be removed. City staff will moni
replacement planting for survival, and arrange for additional planting
needed, to achieve the 3:1 replacement ratio at the beginning of the tl
growing season after project completion.
8. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous materials transfers, fueling, and other use of chemicals shall
restricted to staging areas away from the project site.
Monitoring Program: The City Engineering Department will inspect the construction operati
daily to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
9. Mitigation Measure:. No work shall.be conducted in any flowing stream without notificatior
- .. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. No obstructions or impedime
to the migration of Steelhead or California Red Legged Frog shall be pla
in flowing streams.
Monitoring Program: The Monitoring Biologist will inspect the site daily.-The Natural Resout
Manager will conduct periodic spot-checks to verify conformance.
10. Mitigation Measure: So far as possible, individuals of all sensitive. species shall be remo
from work areas before any construction activities. The Monito
Biologist shall collect adult and juvenile specimens by hand, using a
mesh dipnet. Two daytime and two nighttime surveys shall be condut
by qualified biologists prior to earth-moving activities, including the r
before work begins. Vegetation that is proposed to be disturbed dt
construction may be removed to aid observations. Captured specin
shall be relocated to suitable habitat outside the project area.
biologists shall document the age, size, location of capture, and reloc:
site. During this work, the biologists will destroy invasive, non
fauna. The Contractor shall immediately notify the Monitoring Biologt:
�, CI4-z0
ti ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Nolrr
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
any species of concern found by Contractor's personnel within the w
area. Such specimens shall be captured by the Monitoring Biolog
placed in a clean container, and transported to a suitable habitat out;
the work site. Special attention shall be taken to shade the container f
direct sunlight and to maintain a moist environment.
Monitoring Program: Relocated specimens of sensitive species shall be observed by
Monitoring Biologist, to determine the success of the relocation plan,
least one survey per week shall be conducted.
After channel stabilization and revegetation are complete, the Monite
Biologist shall prepare a report documenting the effectiveness of
protection measures. This report will describe the locations of all spe
of concern and injured or killed specimens. Information on these spe
identified in field surveys shall be sent to the Natural Diversity Data E
(NDDB), administered by the Natural Heritage Program of the Califc
Department of Fish and Game. Copies of the NDDB form and report ,
be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Califc
Department of Fish and Game.
11. Mitigation Measure: Project work areas shall be revegetated as soon as feasible.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
12. Mitigation Measurer At each work site where water or wetlands are disturbed, resultin
reduced habitat value, a compensating habitat enhancement wil
provided. The compensating enhancement will occur at the disturb
location and at approximately equal distances along the creek, upsti
and downstream. The enhancement shall include contouring the gr,
surface or installing features that help form deep pools in the creek
and bank or bench areas suitable for wetlands vegetation. Native
species will be planted, including trees that provide a canopy at mat
and understory plants to control erosion, take up nutrients, and pre
food and shelter. Invasive, not-native plants will be removed.
Monitoring Program: The Monitoring Biologist, in collaboration with the City's Na
Resources Manager, will inspect work locations at completion of
enhancement. City staff will monitor replacement planting for sun
and arrange for additional planting as needed. (This task is expected
coordinated with the efforts of the San Luis Obispo County
Conservancy and others, who- enlist volunteers to help monitor
maintaining creek habitat values.)
13. Mitigation Measure: A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor excavatio
excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeol,
resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities which
affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determine'
appropriate protective measures are approved ' by .the Comrr
Development Director. The Community Development Director sh;
notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that
may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a f
American monitor will be retained to work with the archaeolog
document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall c,
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement sr
included on the construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program: Community Development Department and Public Works Department
will review construction documents and monitor compliance with the
Cay —a( z
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Imp
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
14. Mitigation Measure: During grading and earthwork operations, the site shall be regula
sprayed with water to reduce airborne dust.
Monitoring Program: The City Engineering Department will inspect the construction operatic
daily to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring
program outlined above.
�1----•_ 1�zs!9�
•-Wayn ' eterson, City Engineer Date
Representative of Applicant
Geek projects IES
ins
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 6
ADDITIONS TO INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 91-97
In the following excerpt pages, modified items are indicated by shaded printing.
c��-L-23 �_
ATTACHMENT 2
y N cn m It O N O
., 06 m •- O O O Yc c
n v O O O O O O 0 o m
m m 0 nr
E cco m °n
W «+
W w y L N•_
c3CL CD O O O O O O O o 3 W
W m M N r !o Lo Lo La 0 0 L r m
♦+ m E W 7 H
4.Q m t N c
N a
coo M c0D O t00 M 0 m `z9z cm in
01 m m v m
C (r O O O O O O O V O LE
O n to M W O a O m W
OE cc
�C m >
y W W O Y dam'' Q. 00
O E
a ~.CL W O a.. a-. V O O ::t L 00
r-
cn m a o E
cpm .= c�io 0 0 0m 0a o � m X &Y
c � � � �- o Tcoo 30 ; � 3 � 30 ° En oo « o
Cc oU c ai Ha > a > " >� icie03
Q O L" C C C m O '�'' a+'O C � `ccn L
Q .: Q.m Q. m Q. 0 m O. Q 3 � a 0 c m
G a y a a L C O ? W 'C3 jay
d_ o c W m a c v— _> m a h3
m m y X ? m N .0 O m :. m 3 �[. m m �a
C C W TO n Y W E O O a O a.m. O 7 0 X m W W CD
7 0 C O m
U to a m L N aL• 7 C. ill C O m C „ m L C m C C
W C a o m o o � 4m m 0 m o E oL m � N C 11 , o
W W r W y ar C L N w CD w O O C.•- " W C m 0
O Y C —` a 0 X. C D CD
O C ° m L �, 3 m W O C iC d C °
V m N O o f m 0 r m .0 = w C a O m W �. m m � m
CL Q d o �. 0 m 0 °• U a q in 3 0 0 a C3 " e c O C Y
_ m +� m o V C ao m
m C 3 - LWC WmC yyWE a m Wo .. C .� E m y °s Od
n 0 3 0 of O > m m O y Y O a N O W m
O C Y O O L Y iD a. W O o1 W,.II m d m W L y m
o � � c mmO. W EaE m �— a
CL pr o o EY o o m � � a« CD E : o c � y c3 W m
!" 0 W «. y 0amo oME W m c .0 O ca o Wma � O m«
p 'O � m a m m v E � 1O = 0 ° c y .. o Toy 0 CD
oo1 30 3N � ca ma Oa mE % m mmy m> > mm
cc o c 3: .e o c w 0 c a 3 > c m > � � m m� m
LU M a Y C a 0 0 '0 .2.L. a 0 Y o . C ° 0 0 Y 0 0 0 C. , 0 m r.
-0 a � — r ate ~ a W a°o — ° 10 m m 0 CO° m m — � ti >Q2
Q � n ¢ E3 m Q w3 Q tmo a - cr a ¢ a3. � m 0 ca
m
,.- c
Oa ca CD .`. . C
co
M co W C. m O o c m m m E� ° 7UT
m E W m a a > as a o o c ° «- 133
m -0 -5 W W m C O Q a". W o o= o
4+ aJ G W V L. N L. C 3 W C i=. a. �C '� 1p o-
c .0 ac a c y 0 y - 0 � = a co c yEa'' 4
m o o E ® 3 x 3 M cw m 0 m�oY o
�. 7 T+ C W p Y W Y N �. ° co E j W c C m m ft o]
p N _ a 0. C W c m ... Q W U 4 C a
oX W cx ma mm mem mo mmac—
` cA W LL W LO G m a+ W a`•. cn W W L.oC C 0
W N M d' t0 N N M �'' O y a W E ?
E m m cc o7 C co £ O to O O a O m 0a L) a0 y m
7 CC dl d � O m ! m N m C O m O. :N C1
Z C CL
Q E C 2 0= (a �10 m 07 V ` H yE W
(D (14 N .fid N 'p N -m cc 0 CD
r' 7 0 Eco omoayi
Q Q Q Q a o0 ' U 2 J U `m w `?o u V m
CD d Z = _ — — _ _ _ W C: 0 �
— o
_C O . 0 m
m L • • • * +� a U_ `
`W E m N M [t In CD n Q co U
cc 7 E
Z
Cay-ay
ATTACHMENT k
co Itca 0
W y m O O O O C am
CCC '° i C O
E W {Cp m a
_ m « E
W � •WV
C a mLoO O O t0 0 3 m
♦,� m N Lo O N `
:'• io E M0
m
O m y
a ` c M m c°n 00
a == a y a
O O O O O m� w •
co � W
m' Wcn
� CL N M N N M m «Y
Q) (D OQi Y � T
C Lo O O to O CiL E
CO O) CO LOC— y
o U0 Q
e
c,c >
y v y � atii « o•o
T m o a
4..1 m X W
C •V C W C O
Q t W C
°'" T E 1- m Q
L � cnm mc3 � 3 c3 m3 ECL "
O3T C 3 md O3 E 0«v«0
0
° o 0 O 0-
100 O T o m
c T `° tm m
0 m . mO Q °
N
� m �L
m Cv� Wy a3 ° W Q—
a — :,.0Cc
c Y
C �O-'
co Co
- W W 0 0 (n .O
3 > « 3 ° omm '> cE o .v
co ._ocoW m m m flo ' ca ca mEm moo a o ECL
m
w ° a « W CD ;0 t
« iE -k CL cO o U
� xE > �
0 0 0
CL v- O d�. - i > W
m W V .O O C m O > '—
sYmofA
C•m
n y m aiv w � '.: W «: :`m..m aci m o c O c o m
o .• 4
O O 0 m int o am...3.3 rm ,, E y m
0 CD
0 0 CD ca
C13 75
nm ° m
w awa � > CD m
L W
0-0
l0 ty 0 m � m0pr 'C O � O m o m0XDimE
- >0C 0 O .0 yC X
ccw «>
m O O Q.-m..m'.T--...0. C: 'V r m t m m 0 W
C wvOL��CCD
y CW o v` E m o ° E W ..
♦+ m .. Q
m o o m mo«,�p°e rCY
y C 0 E W .0 � m E« w
ca co
-aa E o W :6 � E m E (Dora a m—°'
7 y �, Y m Y N cm C co C m m m 0)
m 0 C O m m 0 W C c a ca C C
m 7 J .0 Cn W M 7 I ca m 7 W D O
gc co
(nZ E 'O CC a O mO 0 0O ` L0 � �
E U SUII � W � H �I
m Y O V— E w co O m� m w,
Z p � y w w 0 u' E o— EU y H
° — m — 4 = '' — C7 w Eu)a II � m
dZ — a m Im^° 0`� I 'o-
` m z CCD v r Y
LL m'
mW m O • am U U�
E
.� E r
Z �!!
Cly-as z_
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially JPotentially Less Than Nolmpaa
Significant SigoiBcant Significant
ER 91-97 Issues unless impact
Mitigation
tneorpomw
5. Mitigation Measure: Best Management Practices shall be employed to minimize erosion. Thes.-
may include use of silt fences, straw bale dikes, temporary coffer dams
and de-watering, and temporary protection during anticipated rain.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
6. Mitigation Measure: The City will provide orientation for the Contractor and all involved
workers, to inform them of the biological conditions of the site, including
sensitive species. Sensitive habitats and legal and listed status of each
sensitive species, as well as potential penalties will be described. Periodic
briefings will be conducted to inform new workers of project concerns.
Topics to be covered include:
a) No pets, camping, or other personal use of the project site will be
allowed.
b) Killing wildlife or destruction of dens, nests or pools is prohibited.
c) All food-realted trash items will be removed from the work site daily.
d) Sightings, trappings, injuries or fatalities to identified sensitive species
shall be immediately reported to the Monitoring Biologist.
e) Protocol for encounter of sensitive species will be reviewed, and
written handouts provided. Work areas, including earthwork, planting
maintenance, and stockpile areas, shall be inspected daily before
beginning work. Any wildlife species found will be removed by
biologists or allowed to escape.
Monitoring Program: Same as #1.
7. Mitigation Measure: Existing, mature, native trees removed as part of the project will be
replaced at a ratio of 3:1.
Monitoring Program: The Monitoring Biologist, in collaboration with the Natural Resource
Manager and the City Arborist, will inspect and mark trees proposed to be
removed. City staff will monitor replacement planting for survival, and
arrange for additional planting as needed, to achieve the 3:1 replacement
ratio at the beginning of the third growing season after project_completion.
8. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous materials transfers, fueling, and other use of chemicals shall be
restricted to staging areas away from the project site.
Monitoring Program: The City Engineering Department will.inspect the construction operations
daily to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
9. Mitigation Measure: No work shall be conducted in any flowing stream without notification of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. No obstructions or impediments
to the migration of Steelhead or California Red Legged Frog shall be placed
in flowing streams.
Monitoring Program: The Monitoring Biologist will inspect the site daily. The Natural Resources
Manager will conduct periodic spot-checks to verify conformance.
10. Mitigation Measure: So far as possible, individuals of all sensitive species except-steelhead
shall be removed from work areas before any construction activities,
Steelha.a will be allowed to.esdape. The Monitoring Biologist shall collect
adult and juvenile specimens by hand, using a fine mesh dipnet. Twc
daytime and two nighttime surveys shall be conducted by qualifiec
biologists prior to earth-moving activities, including the night before wor$
begins. Vegetation that is proposed to be disturbed during constructior
may be removed to aid observations. Captured specimens shall be
relocated to suitable habitat outside the project area. The biologists shal
document the age, size, location of capture, and relocation site. During
this work, the biologists will destroy invasive, nonnative fauna. Th
Contractor shall immediately notify the Monitoring Biologist of any specit
ATTACHMENT a.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potrntiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
ER 91-97 Mitigation
Incorporated
14. Mitigation Measure: During grading and earthwork operations, the site shall be reg
sprayed with water to reduce airborne dust.
Monitoring Program: The City Engineering Department will inspect the construction open
daily to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations.
15. Mitigation Measure: Where:a:bank-side.;pool_would be .eliminated Eby:the'-project, :a she
structure shall:be provided as an integral part of whatever bank-stal
material is to:be.used.Such a structure:may be a;project)ng shelf be
the first and second layer of gabions,-or where rock rip-rap is used, E
section of.concrete culvert placed perpendicular to-the flow or a tab
structure."('lunker') ';or-:-equivalent:'device acceptable to the I
Resources Manager ,the.;Community„Deyelopment.Director,.and th
Engineer.- The :structure may-consist.of. concrete, .timber, or con
material.`The intent of this measure is to provide,in the low-flow cha
durable,-'esthetically acceptable„'device that allows'steelhead to take
from predators,lin'e setting similar to that created by a steep or overh
bank.The diy recognizes':that.2he;long-ferm dynamics of-the cree
result'iri-the:installed sheiters';being more orJess'-effective .under i
conditions;including the growtlt.and washing-away of sheltering vege
Monitoring Program:: The'Natural.Resources Managei,-thii Community_Development Directc
the City- Engineer, ..or*heir-:designated ..representatives will reviei
construction ;documents* and•"inspect Aheinstallation of .the she
structures.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring
program outlined above.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer Date
Representative of Applicant
Creek projects IES