Loading...
RDA RES 1997-014 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ABALONE COVE WELL CONVERSION PROJECT; ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) AND STATE AND LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES. THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has proposed to undertake the conversion of a groundwater monitoring well in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") to a dewatering well (the "Project") as part of the Agency's continuing efforts to mitigate the Abalone Cove landslide. Section 2. The Agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact in certain specifically identified categories. Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was initially prepared for the Project on July 17, 1995. A second NOP was prepared on September 15, 1995 for the benefit of a concerned resident. The NOP's were sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons. Copies of the NOP's and comments received in response were included in the DEIR. The Agency contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR. Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of the DEIR, the Agency received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The Agency prepared written responses to all comments which raised significant environmental issues, and revised the DEIR in some instances. The revised DEIR ("RDEIR") was recirculated for public comment as required by CEQA. The Agency incorporated all comments on the DEIR and RDEIR and the Agency's written responses to those comments which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. Section 5,. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR, including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEIR; the comments which were received by the Agency regarding the DEIR; the written responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and the staff report prepared for the meeting of the Agency Board on August 5, 1997, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 6. The Agency Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on August 5, 1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR, which has been independently reviewed and considered by the Agency Board. Section 7,. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, technical studies and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and are available for public examination during normal business hours in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. The custodian of said records is the Director of Public Works of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 8. The Agency finds that the public and governmental agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, RDEIR, and FEIR. Section 9. The Agency finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently analyzed by the Agency and its Staff, and that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the Project. The Agency further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying the Project description and the FEIR, the corrections, revisions, and modifications to the DEIR and RDEIR made in response to comments and not previously recirculated, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above- referenced hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require recirculation of any section of the FEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. Section 10. The Agency finds that the comments regarding the DEIR and RDEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the Agency; that the Agency has received public testimony regarding the Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Page 2 adequacy of the FEIR; and that the Agency Board, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the Agency, on the basis of the foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the RDEIR, the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the Agency, and except as described in Sections 12 through 15, inclusive, of this Resolution, the Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Earth Resources, Air, Water Resources, Plant Life, Animal Life, Noise, Light and Glare, Land Use, Natural Resources, Risk of Upset, Population, Housing, Transportation and Circulation, Energy and Mineral Resources, Public Services, Utilities, Human Health, Recreation, Cultural Resources. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Section 12. Based upon the initial study, the FEIR, public comments and the record of these proceedings, the Agency finds that the Project will create significant adverse impacts in the following categories, unless mitigation measures are applied: a. Public Services - Fire Protection. The Project will impact the provision of fire services to the public because it will introduce structures into an area of high fire danger. The Project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects also will incrementally increase fire hazards. The Project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects also will incrementally increase the danger from wildland fires hazards by the introduction of structures into an area of high fire danger. b. Biological Resources. The construction of the discharge pipeline will have a significant impact on existing biological resources. Construction of the Project could potentially have an adverse impact on a pair of California Gnatcatchers. The potential harassment of the San Diego Cactus wren during construction of the Project also is considered a potentially significant impact. c. Earth Resources. The installation of power poles to supply electric power to the dewatering well will potentially impact earth resources by the disruption, displacement, or overcrowding of soil. The Project's increased water flow into the discharge pipeline may have an impact on the beach through erosion. d. Water Resources. The Project will have a significant impact on the blue- line stream located in Kelvin Canyon. The Project also will increase the Resolution No. 97-14 Page 3 discharge of water to ocean beach sand. The discharge will potentially cause erosion and dilute salt water in tidal pools. The Project has the potential to impact ocean water by the discharge of polluted water. The Project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects also has the potential to impact ocean water through the discharge of polluted water. The Project will eliminate groundwater potentially available for the public use in this area, although such groundwater is non-potable and available only intermittently. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR, and listed above in this Section 12, feasible mitigation measures have been identified and changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 13,. The FEIR identifies unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project on Aesthetics. The loss of vegetation in Kelvin Canyon which may be caused by the elimination of the year round water supply may create a public perception of the area as an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. This is an unavoidable adverse impact of the project. The proposed project will eliminate the "water fall" in Kelvin Canyon. The public may perceive the elimination as the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. This is unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project. The electric power poles and lines will have an impact on the existing visual environment. This is considered a significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impact. Changes or alterations that would mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects would be infeasible in that the purpose of the project is to remove the water referred to herein from a landslide, and the project cannot feasibly be undertaken without the use of new power poles and lines. Thus, no mitigation is available to reduce or eliminate these impacts. With regard to the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project on Aesthetics, the Agency Board hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Based upon the facts and findings set forth therein, the Agency finds that each of the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts is clearly outweighed by any one (1), or any combination of the economic, social, and other benefits of the project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 14. The Final EIR identifies the impact of the proposed project on Biological Resources as significant and unavoidable. The operation of the dewatering well system will have an impact on the Open Channel Habitat/Stream Bed With Riparian Elements habitat located in Kelvin Canyon by eliminating groundwater in the area. The proposed project will eliminate the spring and perennial water in the mid-section of Kelvin Canyon. This is considered a Resolution No. 97-14 Page 4 • significant unavoidable adverse impact on biological resources. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects also has the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact on biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to these impacts is not considered significant except for impacts to the Open Channel Habitat/Stream Bed with Riparian Elements habitat located in Kelvin Canyon. These impacts constitute significant unavoidable project-specific impacts on biological resources. Changes or alterations that would mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects would be infeasible in that the purpose of the project is to remove the water referred to herein from a landslide, and the project cannot be successfully undertaken without removing said water. Thus, no mitigation is available to reduce or eliminate these impacts. With regard to the significant unavoidable impact of the Project on Biological Resources, the Agency Board hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Based upon the facts and findings set forth therein, the Agency finds that each of the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts is clearly outweighed by any one (1), or any combination of the economic, social, and other benefits of the project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 15. The Final EIR identifies the impact of the proposed project on Public Services - Fire Protection as significant and unavoidable. The Fire Department cannot guarantee the long-term retention of present levels of service. This is considered an unavoidable adverse impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects also may increase the demand for fire protection services, which is considered a cumulatively significant impact. The project's incremental contribution to this increase has been reduced, but not eliminated, through the imposition of mitigation measures described in the FEIR. No mitigation is available to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. With regard to the significant unavoidable impact of the Project on Public Services - Fire Protection, the Agency Board hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Based upon the facts and findings set forth therein, the Agency finds that each of the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts is clearly outweighed by any one (1), or any combination of the economic, social, and other benefits of the project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the Agency has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. The alternatives included: 1. No Project/No Development; 2. Other Well Locations; 3. Power Source alternatives; 4. Alternative Access; 5. Altamira Watershed Pipeline; and 6. Multiple Sites Alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the project alternatives identified in the FEIR, with the exception of the Other Well Locations and Multiple Sites Alternatives. The facts in support of the findings, rejecting the alternatives for failure to mitigate potential effects, or for Resolution No. 97-14 Page 5 infeasibility for specific economic, social, or other considerations, are set forth in the Alternatives Section of the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A. For the reasons set forth in this resolution and the CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, the RDA Board rejects each of the proposed Alternatives, with the exception of the Other Well Locations and Multiple Sites Alternatives, which are described in the FEIR and which remain under consideration. Section 17. The Agency hereby makes the findings contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives analysis. Further, the Agency hereby finds that each fact in support of each finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR and supporting documents identified in Section 5, above. Section 18,. The Agency Board hereby declares that the Agency Board has reviewed and considered the applicability of the findings made herein, the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted herein to the Hon Well Site Alternative and the Multiple Well Sites (Hon Well and LC-4) Alternative identified in the FEIR. The Agency Board hereby finds that such findings, the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are equally applicable to the Hon Well Alternative and to the Multiple Well Sites (LC-4 and Hon Well) Alternative. Section 19. The Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. Each of the Mitigation Measures identified therein is hereby imposed as a condition of project approval. This program will be used to monitor the changes to the project which will be adopted or made a condition of Project approval as provided herein and in Exhibits "A" and "B." Section 20,. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of the Agency is hereby directed to cause to be filed forthwith a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1997. , - 14 1) j Chair Resolution No. 97-14 Page 6 ATTEST: /-1 (/:: ,, t� L A = cy Secretary State of California ) I County of Los Angeles )SS City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Jo Purcell, Agency Secretary of the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency hereby certify that the above Resolution No. RDA 96-16 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency at the meeting held on August 5, 1997 (4, / ,. , L --- , -Age/Icy Secretary 7/ I I Resolution No. 97-14 Page 7 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The following summary briefly describes the significant environmental impacts of the project identified in the EIR that can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR and the MMP adopted as part of this Resolution. Public Services - Fire Protection SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project will have a significant impact on the provision of fire services by introducing structures into an area of high fire danger. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant impact has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 1, identified in the FEIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project, which reads as follows: 1. Prior to construction and installation of the dewatering well system, project specifications shall be established providing written proof to the Director of Public Works of the following: a. The review of the plans and specifications by the Southern California Edison Company (SEC); and b. The review and approval of plans and specifications by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Project plans and specifications shall comply with all applicable fire, building, electrical, and mechanical codes and any other fire protection measures deemed necessary by the Fire Department. Compliance with this measure shall be monitored by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Mitigation Measure No. 1 will ensure that the relatively small structure to be constructed in connection with this project, along with appurtenant power supply systems, will comply with all applicable fire and electrical safety specifications to reduce or eliminate fire hazards. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally increase fire hazards. CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts FINDING II 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of Mitigation Measure No. 1, as quoted above, which will ensure that the relatively small structure to be constructed in connection with this project, along with appurtenant power supply systems, will comply with all applicable fire and electrical safety specifications to reduce or eliminate fire hazards. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally increase the danger from wildland fires hazards by the introduction of structures into an area of high fire danger. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of Mitigation Measure No. 1, as quoted above, which will ensure that the relatively small structure to be constructed in connection with this project, along with appurtenant power supply systems, will comply with all applicable fire and electrical safety specifications to reduce or eliminate fire hazards. Biological Resources SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The construction of the discharge pipeline will have an impact on existing biological resources. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 2 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 2 identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project, and imposed as a condition of project approval, which reads as follows: 2. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established providing written proof to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement that the construction route of the proposed discharge pipeline will avoid sensitive biological resources. The route of the discharge pipeline will be flagged by a qualified biologist. The biologist will provide field inspection of the pipeline construction to verify that the route has been constructed as flagged. The biologist will submit a written certification of compliance with these routing requirements. Compliance with this measure shall be monitored by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 2 will ensure that the route of the proposed discharge pipeline avoids sensitive biological resources under the supervision of a qualified biologist. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project could potentially have an impact on the California gnatcatchers. The potential harassment of the California gnatcatcher during construction of the project is considered a significant impact. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 3 identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project approval, which reads as follows: 3. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established providing written proof to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement that construction will not occur during the breeding season of the California gnatcatcher and San Diego cactus wren. Compliance with this measure shall be monitored by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 3 will ensure that the pair of breeding gnatcatchers which might potentially be impacted by construction of the project will not be harassed, since construction is required to take place at a time outside the normal breeding season. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 3 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The potential harassment of the San Diego Cactus wren during construction of the project is considered a potentially significant impact. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 3 identified in the Final EIR and MAP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project approval, which reads as follows: 3. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established providing written proof to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement that construction will not occur during the breeding season of the California gnatcatcher and San Diego cactus wren. Compliance with this measure shall be monitored by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 3 will ensure that any San Diego Cactus Wren in the project vicinity which might potentially be impacted by construction of the project will not be harassed, since construction is required to take place at a time outside the normal breeding season. Earth Resources SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The installation of the power poles will potentially impact earth resources by the disruption, displacement, or overcrowding of soil. FINDING I 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. I Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 4 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 4, identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project approval, to read as follows: 4. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established providing written proof to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement that the proposed project will meet applicable Building Codes and has been approved by the Southern California Edison Company. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Mitigation Measure No. 4 will ensure that the power poles are erected pursuant to appropriate building specifications that will minimize ground disturbance. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The project's increased water flow into the discharge pipeline may have an impact on beach through erosion. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 5, as identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project approval, to read as follows: 5. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established to monitor the velocity of water at the beach discharge after implementation of the project. Project dewatering shall be temporarily halted and installation of erosion control measures (natural rock energy dissipater) shall occur should the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement determine that erosive velocities occurred. The installation of the erosion control measures, if required, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Director of Public Works. Compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 5 will ensure that any beach erosion which may occur as a result of additional water discharged onto the beach as a result of this Project will immediately be mitigated through the construction of a water energy dissipator. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 5 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts Water Resources FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measures 6 and 7, identified in the Final EIR and M1VIP and incorporated into the project as conditions of project approval, to read as follows: 6. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established requiring notification to United States Army Corp of Engineers (COE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) and approval from these agencies to mitigate potential impacts as a result of the project to a level of insignificance. The notification shall include the findings of surveys accomplished within a reasonable time of the notification for the following: 1) Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly; 2) Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly foodplants; 3) Pacific pocket mouse; and 4) California gnatcatchers. Such mitigation may include designing the project in a manner to continue to provide water from the spring, based on its typical historical volume, for use by wildlife in the area. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Director of Public Works. 7. Prior to construction, project specifications shall be established requiring notification to California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and approval from this agency to mitigate any potential impacts as a result of the project to a level of insignificance. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Director of Public Works. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 ensure that the Project will not become operational without consultation with, and the approval of, the resource agencies which potentially may have jurisdiction over the Project. The primary effect of the project will be to redirect, rather than eliminate, the watercourse, which may be accomplished with the concurrence of COE and CDF. This redirection of non-potable water, with appropriate permits from resource agencies, will not affect any of the thresholds of significance identified in the FEIR. I Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 6 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The Project will increase the discharge of water to ocean beach sand. The discharge will potentially cause erosion and dilute salt water in tidal pools. FINDING 2. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measures 5, 6, and 7 as quoted above, identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as conditions of project approval. Compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 5 will ensure that any beach erosion which may occur as a result of water discharge onto the beach will immediately be mitigated through the construction of a water energy dissipator. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 ensure that the Project will not become operational without consultation with, and the approval of, the resource agencies which potentially may have jurisdiction over the Project, to ensure that any erosion or dilution of tidal pools will be mitigated. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project has the potential to impact ocean water by the discharge of polluted water. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 as quoted above, identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as conditions of project approval. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 ensure that the Project will not become operational without consultation with, and the approval of, the resource agencies which potentially may have jurisdiction over the Project, to ensure that any impact of the project on ocean water will be mitigated prior to project completion. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 7 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects has the potential to impact ocean water through the discharge of polluted water. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 as quoted above, identified in the Final EIR and MIVIP and incorporated into the project as conditions of project approval. Compliance with Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 ensure that the Project will not become operational without consultation with, and the approval of, the resource agencies which potentially may have jurisdiction over the Project, to ensure that any impact of the project on ocean water will be mitigated prior to project completion. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The proposed project will eliminate groundwater available for the public use in this area. FINDING 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING The significant effect has been lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Mitigation Measure No. 8, identified in the Final EIR and MMP and incorporated into the project as a condition of project approval, to read as follows: 8. Prior to construction, project specifications, based on prior typical historical volume, shall be established to make project-extracted groundwater available for non-potable purposes to those persons down stream whose riparian rights may be adversely affected by this project. Such persons may be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and any agency with jurisdiction over the issue, legally cognizable rights to the extracted water, and shall execute and cause to be recorded a waiver and hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Director of Public Works. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 8 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts To the extent any person can demonstrate legally cognizable rights to the non-potable groundwater in the area of the Project, compliance with Mitigation Measure No. 8 will enable such persons to use the water. The FEIR notes that the water to be removed is available at intermittent times throughout the year and in varying quantities, making the affected water an inconsistent source of groundwater. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION This section provides findings and facts in support of findings for the consideration of alternatives to the Project. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following are the objectives established by the RDA for the Abalone Cove Well Conversion project. 1. To lower the groundwater level of the Abalone Cove area; 2. To help stabilize the existing Abalone Cove Landslide; 3. To assure the area surrounding the Abalone Cove Landslide remains stable for the foreseeable future; 4. To lower the ground water in a cost effective manner; 5. To utilize the existing well system with improvements; and 6. To limit the damage to the surrounding environment. ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, a range of alternatives are considered and evaluated in the final EIR. These alternatives were developed in the course of project planning and environmental review. The FEIR provides: 1. A description of alternatives considered; 2. An analysis of whether the alternatives are feasible (as defined by the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15364), meet the objectives of the project(described in Section 3.0 of the EIR), and remain under consideration(summarized in Table H of the RREIR, page 7); Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 9 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts 3. An analysis of the alternatives under consideration. The analysis is primarily summarized in Table I (Draft RREIR, page 13). The focus of this analysis is to determine if feasible alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing the significant environmental effects of the project to a level of insignificance. 4. A description of the impacts of the alternative that are not project related impacts (summarized in Table J, of the Draft RREIR, page 21). 5. Statement indicating why the alternative has been rejected from consideration, if applicable. The EIR evaluated alternatives for the proposed Abalone Cove Well Conversion project. The following describes each alternative and the findings and facts in support of findings that provide the rationale for the rejection of the following: 1. Project as described in the Draft EIR; and 2. Alternatives to the proposed project: • Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development; • Alternative 2 - Other Well Locations; • Alternative 3 -Power Source Alternatives; • Alternative 4 - Alternative Access; and • Alternative 5 -Altamira Watershed. Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development A. Description of Alternative An evaluation of a No Project/No Development Alternative is required by The CEQA Guidelines section 15126(d)(2). Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented. The existing monitoring well would continue to function in the same manner as it is currently is operated. No improvements would be made to the well. B. Findings 1. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 2. This alternative would not meet all of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the RDA objectives for the project. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 10 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts C. Facts in Support of Findings II While the No Project/No Development Alternative is technically feasible, it does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project. Because the No Project/No Development Alternative avoids all impacts of the Project, it is environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, the proposed project will provide a significant public benefit by lowering the groundwater in an active landslide are, thereby helping to limit damage to the surrounding properties and protecting the public health and safety. Because this Alternative would result in continued geology/landslide instability, the No Project/No Development Alternative is an infeasible Alternative. Alternative 2 - Other Well Locations A. Description of Alternative The Other Well Locations Alternative would involve implementation of a dewatering well at another location. Exhibit 22 in the Draft RREIR provides other potential well locations. The Other Well Locations identified in the FEIR are: Alternative Site 1; Alternative Site 2; Hon Well Site; and Multiple Well Locations. Each of these sites have been identified as possible dewatering well locations. Findings are made below for each identified alternative location. ALTERNATIVE SITES 1 &2 B. Findings 1. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 2. This alternative would not meet all of the RDA's objectives for the project. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 11 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts C. Facts in Support of Findings As demonstrated in the DEIR, RREIR, and FEIR, Alternative Sites 1 & 2 have similar or the same impacts as the Project in the areas of cultural resources, biological resources, earth resources, public services, and water resources. Biological resources impacts on Alternative Sites 1 & 2 would exceed the impacts of the Project in some cases. Alternative Sites 1 & 2 are not environmentally superior to the proposed Project. ALTERNATIVE SITE - HON WELL B. Findings 1. The Hon Well Site is environmentally superior to the Project and remains under consideration. As demonstrated in the DEIR, RREIR, and FEIR, the Hon Well Alternative Site would have generally similar impacts as the proposed Project. However, the Hon Well Site alternative will result in reduced biological impacts than the proposed Project because some minor excavation may be required to convert LC-4 to a dewatering well. In addition, the Hon Well site would require the installation of two or three fewer power poles, thereby significantly avoiding any potential construction-related impacts to California gnatcatcher and San Diego cactus wren habitat areas. There would be no Cultural Resource impacts associated with the Hon Well site, as no new well would be drilled. The Hon Well site alternative is technically feasible and environmentally superior to the Project. MULTIPLE WELL LOCATIONS B. Findings 1. The Multiple Well Sites alternative would meet the RDA's objectives for the Project and remains under consideration, although the alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. As demonstrated in the RREIR, and FEIR, the Multiple Well Sites Alternative would have generally similar impacts as the proposed Project. However, combining the LC-4 well with the Hon Well would result in increased aesthetic and fire protection impacts based upon the need for additional power poles and lines in the Project areas. Impacts on earth resources (beach erosion) due to the combination of wells' increased flow through the discharge pipeline would be increased under this alternative. Other impacts of this Alternative should be similar to the Project. This alternative is technically feasible. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 12 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts Alternative 3 - Power Source Alternative A. Description of Alternative The Alternative Power Source Alternative would involve the same Project as is currently proposed, with an alternative power source for the well. In addition to the proposed power source, two (2) potential alternative methods for powering the dewatering well system were evaluated in the EIR. The EIR also evaluated an additional source of power. The alternatives are: • On-Site Generation; • Solar; and • Del Cerro Park. Each of the three (3) alternatives are described below. ON-SITE GENERATION The well could be powered by the provision of an on-site generator. The on-site generator would be fueled from an on-site source. The provision of an on-site generator would require the installation of a fuel storage facility at the existing monitoring well site. The on-site generator would eliminate the need for the construction of the power poles and lines. The on-site generation of power is feasible and can meet the project objectives. SOLAR The provision of solar power would require solar panel to be installed at the existing monitoring well site. The solar system would eliminate the need for the construction of the power poles and lines. The solar system is technically feasible and can meet project objectives. DEL CERRO PARK The project could be provided power from Del Cerro Park. There is an existing power source in Del Cerro Park. Power poles and lines could be extended from the existing source to operate the dewatering well system. The provision of power from Del Cerro Park is feasible and can meet the project objectives. B. Findings 1. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 13 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts C. Facts in Support of Findings The Alternative Power Source Alternative would generally result in similar impacts as the proposed Project, although this Alternative would reduce or eliminate fire-protection concerns by eliminating electric power lines from a potential fire hazard area. However, the on-site generation alternative might result in increased fire concerns through the importation of additional fuel to the Project site. Biological resource and cultural resource impacts would be greater than the proposed project, in that additional development area and ground disruption would be required around the Project site to accommodate power supply facilities. The Alternative Power Supply Alternative is technically feasible, but not environmentally superior to the proposed project. The Solar Power element of the Alternative Power Source Alternative would be prohibitively expensive and economically infeasible. The Alternative Power Source Alternative has been rejected from further consideration due to its increased costs,inability to meet project objectives and the potential for the power sources to reduce impacts related to public services -fire protection. Alternative 4 -Alternative Access A. Description of Alternative The Alternative Access Alternative would involve the provision of an alternative access to the well. In addition to the proposed access two (2) potential alternative access roadways were identified in the EIR. The access alternatives are: • East/West and • Kelvin Canyon. Each of the two (2) alternatives are described and evaluated below. EAST/WEST The well could be accessed by an existing east/west access roadway. The location of this alternative access is depicted the FEIR. KELVIN CANYON The well could be accessed from a roadway constructed across Kelvin Canyon. The location of this alternative access is depicted in the EIR. Vehicular access could be provided from an existing unimproved roadway on the easterly side of Kelvin Canyon. The provision of this access would require the construction of an all weather road across the Kelvin Canyon streambed. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 14 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts B. Findings 1. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 2. This alternative would not meet all of the RDA's objectives for the project. C. Facts in Support of Findings The Alternative Access Alternatives would result in increased biological resource impacts by requiring the construction of new access paths in the Project area. Impacts of this construction, specifically resulting from the Kelvin Canyon Alternative Access proposal, would result in additional impacts on coastal sage scrub and biological resources in the Canyon area. Cultural Resource and Earth Resource impacts would be more significant as well, given the amount of potential earth movement which would be required under this alternative. Aesthetic impacts would be the same as the proposed Project. Water Resources impacts and Public Service impacts of the Project are not avoided by this alternative. The foregoing reasons make this alternative infeasible. Alternative 5- Altamira Canyon Pipe A. Description of Alternative The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative involves the construction of drainage improvements in Altamira Canyon. The drainage improvements would include the construction of an stormwater runoff system for the Altamira Canyon Watershed. The system would be designed to transport stormwater runoff from all existing residential developments that drain to Altamira Canyon to the Pacific Ocean in one or a series of buried pipes. The system would require grading of Altamira Canyon to underground the infrastructure. The grading would need to occur from existing residential areas to the Pacific Ocean. An evaluation of The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative was requested in comments received on the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. B. Findings 1. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 2. This alternative would not meet all of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the RDA objectives for the project. I Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 15 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts C. Facts in Support of Findings The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative would have greater biological resource impacts than the proposed project. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative would result in the provision of public infrastructure to a significant area, and construction would increase the impact of the project on Coastal sage scrub and other sensitive habitats. This alternative would have greater impacts on California gnatcatchers and Cactus wrens. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative would eliminate the impacts on the biological resources in the Kelvin Canyon area. The alternative would have greater impacts on the Open Channel Habitat/Stream Bed with Riparian Elements habitat located in Altamira Canyon. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative also would have greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. While this alternative would avoid the impacts associated with overhead utility lines, it would introduce new aesthetic considerations into Altamira Canyon area. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative would introduce new cultural resource impacts not associated with the proposed project in that this Alternative would require greater soil disruption. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative would result in leaving the project site in its existing state. Additional areas in Altamira Canyon would be disturbed. This Alternative does avoid the public services - fire protection impacts associated with the proposed project provision of power to the dewatering well. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative has greater earth resources impacts than the proposed project, due to the disruption, displacement, and overcrowding of soil required to construct new underground infrastructure in the area. Additional impacts are anticipated from the construction of drainage system, while the increase in water flow in the discharge pipeline will be avoided. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative avoids water resource impacts associated with the proposed project in that the"water fall"not will be eliminated. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative will have an impact on Altamira Canyon drainage,but not the Kelvin Canyon"blue-line" stream. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative will not eliminate groundwater. The Altamira Canyon Pipe Alternative is technically feasible, however, it is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. It has been rejected from further consideration due to the increased environmental impacts and excessive cost. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Agency has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above (Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Public Services- Fire Protection) in deciding whether to approve development of the Projects. Although the Agency believes that many of the unavoidable impacts identified in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, it recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The Agency specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 16 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts III and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following overriding considerations support approval of the Project: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and promotes the applicable goals and policies identified therein. The following indicates the Elements and portions those Elements applicable to the project. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - TOPICS • Climate • Air Quality • Geotechnical Factors • Hydrology • Biotic Resources NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -POLICIES RELATED TO PROJECT Policy 7 - Prohibit activities which create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon-wall erosion, or potential for landslide, within or affecting Coastal Resource Management Districts containing hydrologic factors. Policy 8 - Require developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats to describe the nature of the impact upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -PROJECT CONSISTENCY The proposed project will not result in the creation of excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon-wall erosion, or potential for landslide. The proposed project is an effort to help to stabilize the Abalone Cove Landslide. The proposed project consists of improvements to lower the groundwater level in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. This will be accomplished by the construction of a dewatering well system. A dewatering well is a well that pumps water from below the surface to the surface. The proposed Abalone Cove Well Conversion Project will be accomplished in two (2) specific phases. Phase I is the construction of the dewatering well system. Phase II is the operation of the dewatering well system. A detailed biological analysis of the project's impacts to biological resources is provided in Biological Resources section of the EIR. No impacts related to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Natural Environmental policies are anticipated. S OCIO/CULT ELEMENT - TOPICS o Cultural Resources O Current Social, Service, and Cultural Organizations o Social Services Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 17 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts SOCIO/CULT ELEMENT - POLICIES RELATED TO PROJECT Paleontological, Historical and Archaeological Resources Policy 2 - Encourage the identification of archaeological sensitive areas and sites. Policy 5 - Allow salvage excavation of the site, where some technique of preservation cannot be implemented. SOCIO/CULT ELEMENT-PROJECT CONSISTENCY Paleontological, Historical and Archaeological Resources No impact to paleontological, historical, or archaeological resources is anticipated from the proposed project. No impacts related to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Socio/Cultural Element are anticipated. URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT - TOPICS o Activity Areas o Infrastructure o Safety o Sensory Environment URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT -POLICIES RELATED TO THE PROJECT Due to the nature of the proposed project, policies contained in the Urban Environment Element are not applicable. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan and promotes the applicable goals and policies identified therein. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan serves as a local specific plan, as well as the local land use plan component of the local coastal program, as mandated by the Coastal Act of 1976. The discharge of water from the proposed pipeline will occur south of Palos Verdes Drive South is within the boundaries of the Coastal Specific Plan. The Coastal Specific Plan contains three main elements. These consist of the Natural Environment Element, Socio/Cultural Element, and Urban Environment Element. The Coastal Specific Plan divides the coastal portion of Rancho Palos Verdes into eight subregions. The proposed project is located within Subregion 4. The following are applicable policies related to Subregion 4. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 18 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts Policy 1 - Require all new housing within the confines of Subregion 4 to be of a single-family nature. Policy 2 - Require development abutting the natural drainage course to maintain the natural character of the course. Policy 3 - Require that the subdivision of large parcels within the confines of Subregion 4 be designed in a manner which will blend with the existing community pattern. Policy 4 - Encourage lots developed in the confines of Subregion 4, yet outside the jurisdiction of west Portuguese Bend Community Association, to develop attached CC&R's which parallel those presently enforced by the association. Also, consideration should be given to annexation of these lots by the West Portuguese Bend Community Association. Policy 5 - Study the existing drainage interface and its associated adverse impacts, and if found necessary, implement corrective measures. Policy 6 - Continue to work with the residents and the County to solve the parking problems caused by Abalone Cove Beach Park. NAT ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT Policy 7 - Prohibit activities which create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon-wall erosion, or potential for landslide, within or affecting Coastal Resource Management Districts containing hydrologic factors. Policy 8 - Require developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats to describe the nature of the impact upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact. Policy 9 - Encourage developments within the Coastal Resource Management Districts containing natural vegetation to revegetate with native material wherever clearing of vegetation is required. I Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 19 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts SOCIO/CULTURAL ELEMENT III Policy 1 - Consider the implementation of appropriate measures to protect the identified cultural resources. COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN-PROJECT CONSISTENCY Subregion 4 Policies 1 through 6 apply to projects that involve habitable dwellings or space. The proposed project is a public works project, and does not involve the construction or development of buildings or structures. The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan policies specifically related to Subregion 4. No impact is anticipated. The discharge of water in the Coastal Zone in the operational phase of the project is the only portion of the project in the Coastal Zone. 3. The proposed project will provide public benefit to the community by lowering groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. Such improvements are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to guard against further property damage by contributing to the stabilization of the Abalone Cove Landslide. 4. The proposed project will provide public benefit to the community by helping to halt damage to homes and property. The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. The improvements will help to stabilize the landslide. The stabilization of the Abalone Cove landslide will help halt damage to homes and property. 5. The proposed project will not obstruct public access, or existing recreational activities. The proposed project will allow for a continuation of the existing land uses within the project area. The proposed project is compatible with on-site land uses. No impact is anticipated. 6. The proposed project is compatible with off-site land uses. The proposed project is compatible with off-site land uses. The impacts to off-site views are limited. The change in view is one of perception rather than blocking of a view. No views of the water or coastline will be impacted. 7. The proposed project will provide public benefit by lowering the groundwater in a cost effective manner. I Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 20 CEQA Facts and Findings in Support of Facts III The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. The improvements are relatively inexpensive. 8. The proposed project will provide public benefit by lowering the groundwater with proven technology. The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. Similar dewatering wells are being utilized in the Abalone Cove Landslide area with success. 9. The proposed project will provide public benefit by lowering the groundwater using an existing well system. The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. The dewatering well will utilize an existing monitoring well no significant new construction will be required. No drilling will be required. 10. The proposed project will provide public benefit by lowering the groundwater by limiting damage to the surrounding environment. The proposed project will involve the construction of improvements in to reduce groundwater in the Abalone Cove Landslide area. The recommended improvements are depicted in the Final EIR. The dewatering well will utilize an existing monitoring well no significant new construction will be required. Limited damage to the surrounding environment will occur from the construction of the dewatering well system. The pipeline will be routed to avoid significant biological resources. Access will be from an existing private unimproved roadway. The project will utilize existing power poles and lines as a base. Power will be extended to the site in a reasonable manner. The project will utilize an exiting discharge pipeline. No new additional pipeline to the Pacific Ocean will be constructed. 11. Impacts related to water discharge will occur whether the Project is constructed or not. The Project will extract groundwater and direct that water through a discharge pipe into the Pacific Ocean. Although that process may result in the discharge of potentially polluted water into the Ocean and some erosion in the beach area,it must be noted that the discharge is already occurring naturally as groundwater from the Kelvin Canyon Spring flows naturally to the Ocean. In addition to the significant geologic benefits of the Project, construction of the Project will improve this situation, by requiring permits from appropriate resource agencies and monitoring of the wells. Further, the Agency will be require to monitor and mitigate beach erosion which occurs as a result of the discharge from the well. Such mitigation will not occur if the Project is not constructed. Resolution No. RDA 97-14 Exhibit A Page 21