Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-67 - Final Environmental Impact Report - San Joaquin ReservoirRESOLUTION NO. 93 -67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING FINDINGS AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA" - Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. - hereinafter "Guidelines ") by the Metropolitan Water District as Lead Agency for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach, as a Responsible Agency and a co -owner of the reservoir, is required by CEQA to consider the information contained in the Final EIR prepared by the Lead Agency and to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the components of the proposed project for which the City has jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the Guidelines require that a Responsible Agency make one or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with statements of facts supporting each finding: FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. • FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Page 1 FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires that, where the decision of a Responsible Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR, but not • mitigated, the Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project and has found that the FEIR considers all environmental effects of the proposed project and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The City Council, in its capacity as a Responsible Agency and joint owner of the San Joaquin Reservoir, hereby affirms that it has reviewed and considered the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project FEIR in determining whether to approve the project. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements: a. The Revised Draft EIR for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project b. Supplements and Appendices to the Revised Draft EIR C. Comments received on the Revised Draft EIR and responses to those comments d. All attachments, incorporations, and references delineated in items a. through c. above All of the above information is on file at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA and the Metropolitan Water District, 2 California Plaza, 350 South Grand Avenue, . Los Angeles, CA 90054. 2. After reviewing and considering all of the information contained in the Final EIR, City staff reports and public testimony presented at the public hearings San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Page 2 • the City Council has determined to approve the proposed project as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 3. The City Council adopts the Findings with respect to each environmental effect and project alternative identified in the EIR and the explanation of its rationale with respect to each such finding set forth in the document entitled "CEQA Statement of Facts and Findings" attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 4. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 will be met through the required compliance with the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A which are hereby adopted as conditions of approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 5. All of the findings set forth in Exhibit A accurately reflect the independent judgement of the City Council. ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk Attachments Exhibit A: Statement of Facts and Findings Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Page 3 EXHIBIT A CEQA STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION • The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) proposes to construct a floating cover over the San Joaquin Reservoir, a 3,050 acre -foot, open, treated water reservoir in the coastal foothills of unincorporated Orange County about 2.5 miles due south of the University of California at Irvine. The reservoir is jointly owned by six local water agencies, The Irvine Company, and Metropolitan, and is maintained and operated by Metropolitan for the common benefit of the owners under a trust agreement. The reservoir serves approximately 400,000 people in the 35 -mile coastal strip from Huntington Beach to Dana Point. Its primary functions are to provide necessary storage to meet peak water demands, to meet demands in excess of the capacity of local wells and pumping stations, and to continue critical water service during major facility outages due to maintenance requirements and catastrophic events. Chloraminated water is delivered to the reservoir from Metropolitan's Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant ( Diemer Filtration Plant), via the East Orange County Feeder #2. Under current operations, water within the reservoir is treated with high amounts of free chlorine at the influent and again, to a lesser degree, at the effluent. The reservoir delivers chlorinated water to its service area via the Irvine Cross Feeder. This water is currently separated from other water delivered from the Diemer Filtration Plant via the Orange County Feeder to avoid mixing chlorinated reservoir water with chloraminated water from the Diemer Filtration Plant. The reservoir has experienced periods of poor water quality, including turbidity, unacceptable bacterial counts and high total trihalomethane (TTHM) levels. These conditions have required extended periods of closure to avoid noncompliance with State and Federal drinking water standards. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Metropolitan, as operator of the reservoir, has proposed the following objectives for the project: • To improve the water quality of the reservoir; • To improve the operational aspects of providing treated water to its service area; and, • To provide a reliable source of emergency storage of potable water for its service area. To accomplish these objectives, Metropolitan proposes to construct a floating cover over the reservoir. Installation of the Floating Cover constitutes the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project. Metropolitan directed the preparation of a series of environmental documents, including a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report and Supplement, to evaluate the environmental effects of the project. These findings are based on those environmental documents. . PROJECT DESCRIPTION To meet the water quality, operational and storage objectives detailed above, Metropolitan proposes to construct a Floating Cover over the San Joaquin Reservoir. The Floating Cover would seal the reservoir from debris and sunlight, eliminating the need for breakpoint chlorination of the reservoir influent. The water would continue to be treated with San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEOA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page I chloramines upstream at the Diemer Filtration Plant, providing a chloramine residual for continued disinfection downstream. Limited chlorination of reservoir effluent may still be required. Installation of the cover consists of the one -time construction of a perimeter concrete anchor curb, and the attachment of a hypalon fabric membrane in pieces. Construction of the Floating Cover would take between 12 to 18 months, during which time the reservoir would be empty. The Supplement to the RDEIR describes the proposed project in detail. • DEFINTIIONS As used in these findings "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 - 21177). "CEQA Guidelines" means the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Reg., Sec. 15000 et seq.) "cfs" means cubic feet per second. " Diemer Filtration Plant" means the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant. "EIR" means Environmental Impact Report. "FEIR" means Final Environmental Impact Report. "MCL' means maximum contaminant level. "Metropolitan" means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. "NOP" means Notice of Preparation. "OPR" means the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. "Proposed project" or "project" means the proposed floating cover for the San Joaquin Reservoir, also referred to as the "San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project." 'RDEIR" means Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project issued in June 1992. "Regional Board" means the Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Supplement" means the Supplement to the Revised Draft EIR for the proposed project issued in May 1993. "TTHM" means Total Trihalomethanes. BACKGROUND In June 1992 Metropolitan released the 'Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project" for a 45 -day public review and comment period in compliance with CEQA. Copies of the RDEIR were sent to interested and responsible agencies, organizations, and individuals, and were made available to the general public upon request. Copies of the RDEIR were also sent to four libraries in the project area. . On May 28, 1993, the "Supplement to the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project" was released for a 30 -day public review and comment period in compliance with CEQA. In August 1993, the FEIR, incorporating responses to comments made on the RDEIR and Supplement was released. San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 2 Metropolitan implemented an extensive public involvement program to ensure that public concerns were fully addressed during the planning and environmental analysis of the proposed project. The objectives of the public involvement effort were: • To increase public understanding of the need to improve water quality in the San Joaquin Reservoir. • To increase public familiarity with the project alternatives under • consideration. • To receive input from the public regarding potential impacts of construction and operation of facilities associated with the proposed project. • To understand public opinion about the proposed project. • To address public comments and concerns. To respond to public questions and concerns and to demonstrate how Metropolitan considered these comments in the project's decision - making process. For this project, Metropolitan maintains a mailing list of over 200 public agencies, property owners, homeowners associations and interested individuals. The NOP for the proposed project was distributed on November 14, 1988, for a 45 -day public review period. During this review period, Metropolitan sought and obtained the involvement of concerned parties at a public scoping meeting held December 1, 1988, at the Oasis Senior Citizens Center in Newport Beach and through written comments received during the NOP review period. Metropolitan coordinated extensively with public resource agencies, other public bodies and special interest groups prior to and during the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project's CEQA process. This effort enabled Metropolitan to select a proposed project, the Floating Cover, and to formulate mitigation measures and project alternatives that would minimize environmental impacts. Metropolitan sought input from various resource agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Health Services, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game, as well as The Irvine Company, early in the planning process to help identify potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. Metropolitan then addressed these concerns, and others, in the environmental documentation prepared for the project. Coordination efforts were undertaken to encourage input in the planning process from the city and county agencies within the study area. At the city government level, the cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach and others were consulted. County agencies contacted include the Orange County Enviromnental Management Agency and the General Services Agency. Comments from these agencies were incorporated and addressed in the RDEIR, Supplement and FEIR. In July 1989, the Chambers Group, Inc., under contract to Metropolitan, prepared and issued a Draft EIR for the proposed project. During the document's 45 -day public review period, from July 7 to August 21, 1989, public comments on the Draft EIR were solicited. Written comments were submitted to Metropolitan and oral comments were received at a public hearing. Comments on the Draft EIR required that additional technical analysis be • conducted in order to formulate adequate responses to these comments. Due to the nature and extent of revisions to the Draft EIR, coupled with the length of time that elapsed since the previous public review period, a Revised Draft EIR was prepared that included Metropolitan's responses to the written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR. The RDEIR was issued on June 30, 1992, and a public hearing was held on July 30, 1992. A 45 -day public review period was initially provided. The review period was extended 90 days, to mid- November 1992, at the request of residents near the reservoir. A second San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 3 • extension of 45 days was granted to the residents near the reservoir, providing a total public review period of 180 days, ending December 29, 1992. In addition to the lengthy public review period provided to the public, Metropolitan conducted a broad public information program. Prior to the July 30, 1992, public hearing, three meetings were scheduled by Metropolitan to answer questions asked by homeowners near the reservoir. Metropolitan published a public information program entitled "Questions and Answers about San Joaquin Reservoir" that was available at the public hearing conducted for the RDEIR. Metropolitan also made presentations to local city councils, service clubs, community groups and water agencies, as well as meetings with the print and broadcast media. Metropolitan also made additional efforts to determine public opinion regarding the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project. To accomplish this, Metropolitan developed an informational brochure and questionnaire. The brochure was randomly mailed to approximately 15,000 households within the San Joaquin Reservoir service area, as well as to each resident immediately surrounding the reservoir. Results of the survey indicate that most of the people surveyed desire to improve water quality and implement a cost - effective solution to achieve this objective. Based on comments received on the RDEIR, Metropolitan decided to publish a Supplemental EIR to provide additional information regarding existing water quality problems at the San Joaquin Reservoir; the Improvement Project objectives; the methods selected to meet project objectives (the Floating Cover); and two alternatives to the cover which were rejected due to inability to meet project objectives (the No Project Alternative) and greater environmental impacts and infeasibility (the Treatment Plant [Site 2] Alternative). Metropolitan applied to the Office of Planning and Research for shortened public review of the Supplement. OPR granted Metropolitan's request, and authorized a 30-day period for public review and comment. The Supplement was released on June 1, 1993, and circulated for a 30 -day public review period (through July 1, 1993) to local and State agencies, to interested individuals who had commented on the RDEIR, and to local public libraries. In August 1993, the FEIR, incorporating responses to comments made on the RDEIR and Supplement, was released. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the administrative record of the decision on this project consists of the following: J.M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., "Limiting Drawdown Program for San Joaquin Reservoir" (1980); McGuire, M.J., letter from Water Quality Manager to Assistant Chief of Operations, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (August 29, 1984); Barrett, S.E., M.K., Davis, and M.J. McGuire, "Blending Chloraminated and Chlorinated Waters," Journal of the American Water Works Association (1985); Chambers Group, Inc., "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project" (July 1989); The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project (Metropolitan Report No. 1017) (June 1992); Brown & Root, Inc., "Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project: Cost Estimate and Schedules for Improvement San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit X Page 4 Alternatives" (February 1993); Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, "San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project Alternatives Evaluation Report" (March 1993); Supplement to the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project (Metropolitan Report No. 1017) (May 1993); • The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project, plus all appendices and attachments thereto (August 1993); The Mitigation Monitoring Program developed for the proposed action; All documents submitted by agencies or members of the public in connection with the proposed project; Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by Metropolitan in connection with the proposed project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to Metropolitan at such workshops, public meetings and public hearings, including but not limited to the survey conducted by Metropolitan; Matters of common knowledge to the Board, including, but not limited to currently enacted Federal, State and local laws and regulations; Correspondence concerning the proposed project between Metropolitan and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research; and All Notices of Preparation and other public notices for the proposed project. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. The first allowable finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, 15091,subd. (a)(1) (emphasis added).) The second allowable finding is that "[s]uch changes or alteration are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third allowable conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and • technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [ "Goleta II "]) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr.410].) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. Agencies must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit X Page 5 based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more • mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed] ", these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a level of insignificance, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the FEIR. Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) In short, CEQA requires that agencies adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd. (a), (b).) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's 'benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, 15093, 15043, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553,576 [276 Cal.Rptr. 401].) These findings include references to substantial evidence in the record in support of each of these findings, and present an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. MI77GATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by CEQA (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21081.6), a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has also been prepared for the project. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, Metropolitan, the City, and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. That program is described in the document entitled, "San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project Mitigation Monitoring Program," attached hereto as Exhibit B. • SIGNI FICANTANDPOTENTIALLYSIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALEFFECTSAND MFHGA77ON MEASURES The FEIR identified several significant or potentially significant environmental effects (or "impacts ") that the project will cause. Some of these significant or potentially significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 6 cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives; however, these effects can be significantly reduced by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and they are outweighed by overriding considerations discussed below. This section presents in greater detail the findings with respect to the environmental effects of the project. It also summarizes the evidence relied upon in making these findings. This evidence is drawn from the RDEIR, the Supplement and the FEIR, and other evidence presented to Metropolitan, including all other information in the administrative record. According to the FEIR, the only environmental effects that are significant or potentially significant that cannot be • avoided are: • The visual change from covering the reservoir, on a project - specific and a cumulative basis; and • Short-term noise increase due to construction of the Floating Cover, on a project - specific and cumulative basis. The discussion that follows examines each of the impacts deemed significant or potentially significant. It sets forth either the reasons why the impacts are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social, environmental or other considerations. AESTHETICS Potential Imaacts: The project will result in a significant unavoidable aesthetic impact as a result of covering an open -water reservoir with a Floating Cover. Specifically, construction and operation of the project would result in a significant, unavoidable visual impact to the 101 residences which have full or partial views of the reservoir, as described in detail in the RDEIR and the Supplement. (RDEIR, pp. 4 -20 through 4 -26; Supplement, pp. 3 -6, 3 -7.) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure identified in the Supplement (Supplement, p. 3 -7) is feasible: • Metropolitan shall make available up to $375,000 to develop and implement a landscape screening planting plan to lessen, to the extent feasible, aesthetic impacts from homes within the Harbor Ridge subdivision that view the reservoir, in accordance with the potential aesthetic mitigation concept set forth in the Supplement. The landscaping plan shall be developed by a landscape architect in consultation with affected residents of the Harbor Ridge subdivision. The landscaping plan shall focus on land to which Metropolitan has, or can arrange to have, physical access. To the extent the plan calls for plantings on land to which Metropolitan does not have, and cannot arrange to have, physical access, that portion of the landscaping plan shall be regarded as infeasible, and the funds to be made available by Metropolitan to implement the landscaping plan shall be reduced by a proportionate amount. Alternatively, to the extent the landscaping plan calls for plantings on land controlled by residences within the Harbor Ridge subdivision, Metropolitan shall place funds in a trust account for the benefit of affected homes in the Harbor Ridge subdivision. The amount deposited in the trust fund shall be a percentage of the overall cost of implementing the landscaping plan, with the percentage determined by dividing the cost of making the called -for plantings on land controlled by residences within the Harbor Ridge San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 7 subdivision by the cost of implementing the landscaping plan as a whole. The expenditure of the funds deposited in the trust account shall be left to the sole discretion of affected homeowners in the Harbor Ridge subdivision, provided, however, that the trust account shall restrict the use of such funds solely to mitigating the project's aesthetic impacts on such homes. Findine: • The above mitigation measure is practically and financially feasible. Moreover, it would substantially lessen the visual impact of the Floating Cover on those homes within the Harbor Ridge subdivision with a view of the reservoir. The project would still, however, have a significant, unavoidable aesthetic impact on certain homes within the Harbor Ridge subdivision, despite the implementation of this mitigation measure. Moreover, the aesthetic impact to homes with a view of the reservoir within the Spyglass Hill subdivision would be significant and unmitigatable. (Supplement, pp. 3 -6, 3 -7.) Accordingly, the project would have a significant, adverse and unavoidable aesthetic impact despite implementation of this measure. NOISE Potential Impacts: The project would create short -term noise impacts associated with backhoes and cement trucks used in the construction of the anchor for the Floating Cover. This impact would be temporary, minimal, no greater than other typical construction projects, and would go largely unnoticed in light of background noise levels in the area. (RDEIR, pp. 4 -35 through 4 -37.) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures identified in the RDEIR (RDEIR, p. 4 -37; FEIR, Response 11 -2) are feasible: • Hours of construction shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or holidays. Construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers and engine shrouds. Equipment shall be stored and maintained away from sensitive receptors, such as residences. Finding: Even with adoption of these mitigation measures, this temporary impact would remain potentially significant. (RDEIR, p. 4-37; FEIR, Response 11 -2.) EARTH RESOURCES Potential Impacts: The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact from intensive ground - shaking from seismic activity during construction and operation. Absent mitigation, this impact is a potentially significant adverse impact related to earth resources. (RDEIR, p. 4- 1.) • Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure identified in the RDEIR (RDEIR, p. 4 -1) is feasible: • A registered engineering geologist or similar professional shall be used during design and construction of the project. San Joaquin Re zvoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 8 Finding: Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid this impact. (RDEIR,p. 4 -1.) WATER RESOURCES Potential Impacts: • Construction of the proposed project could result in minor soil disturbance at the reservoir site, which could in turn have a potentially significant impact on water resources due to water runoff. (RDEIR, p. 4 -3.) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure identified in the RDEIR (RDEIR, p. 4 -3) is feasible: • Metropolitan shall notify the Regional Board prior to construction and /or associated dewatering activities. If required by the Regional Board, Metropolitan shall obtain an NPDES permit. Metropolitan (or its contractor) shall comply with the terms of the NPDES permit, particularly any terms that may require settling of suspended particulates prior to discharge. Finding: Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid this impact. (RDEIR,p. 4 -3.) Potential Impacts: The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact to surface water quality from storm water runoff from impervious surfaces during operations. Absent mitigation, this impact is a potentially significant adverse impact related to water resources. (RDEIR, pp. S-6,4-4.) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures identified in the RDEIR (RDEIR, p. S -6, 4 -5) are feasible: • The floating cover shall be designed so that peak stormwater runoff can be stored on top of the cover. Any accumulated stormwater runoff shall be dewatered at a rate that does not increase historical peak runoff flow for the reservoir watershed. Finding: Implementation of these mitigation measures would avoid this impact. (RDEIR, p. S -6, 4 -5.) TRAFFIC Potential Imacts: . The proposed project could have a potentially significant traffic impact resulting from construction workers and truck traffic causing peak hour congestion at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Absent mitigation measures, this impact is a potentially significant adverse traffic impact. (RDEIR, pp. 4 -33, 4 -34.) San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 9 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure identified in the RDEIR(RDEIR, p. 4 -34) is feasible: • If more than 80 construction workers are used at the site at any one time, construction work hours shall be staggered and /or construction workers shall be shuttled to the site from an off -site area. • Finding: Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid this impact. (RDEIR, p. 4 -34.) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Aesthetics Potential Impacts: The project will contribute to the area's ongoing and cumulatively significant transition from an open, natural region to one devoted primarily to low- density, urban land uses. (RDEIR, p. 7 -8.) Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measure identified in the Supplement (Supplement,p. 3 -7) will also reduce the project's contribution to the regionally significant change in the visual character of the area. Finding: This mitigation measure is practically and financially feasible. Moreover, it would substantially lessen the visual impact of the Floating Cover on certain homes with a view of the reservoir. The project would still contribute, however, to a cumulatively significant aesthetic impact. Traffic Potential Impacts: On a project - specific basis, traffic associated with construction of the project will not be significant. The cumulative effect of construction of simultaneous projects, including the proposed project, may have a significant cumulative effect on the environment. (RDEIR, p. 7 -8.) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure identified in the RDEIR(RDEIR, p. 7 -8) is feasible: • During construction, Metropolitan (or its contractor) shall coordinate with City of Irvine and Orange County transportation officials and planners to coordinate construction - related traffic between simultaneous projects, and to identify in advance any road closures that may affect the project so that alternate routes may be developed. Findine: Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid this impact. (RDEIR,p. 7 -8.) San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 10 Noise Potential Impacts: The project would create short -term noise impacts associated with backhoes and cement trucks used in the construction of the anchor for the Floating Cover. This impact, viewed in conjunction with other development in the area, could result in a temporary, potentially significant impact. (RDEIR, pp. 7 -8, 7 -9.) • Mitigation Measures: The project - specific mitigation measures identified in the RDEIR (RDEIR, p. 4 -37; FEIR, Response 11 -2) are feasible and would reduce the project's potential contribution to potential significant regional, cumulative noise impacts. Findine: Even with adoption of these mitigation measures, the project would still potentially contribute to a potential cumulatively significant noise impact. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, Metropolitan and the Responsible Agencies must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, as proposed, and must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 -445 [243 Ca1.Rptr. 727]; see also Pub. Resources Code, 21002.) In preparing and adopting findings, agencies need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation even to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515,521 [147 Ca1.Rptr. 8421; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400_403 [253 Ca1.Rptr. 426].) Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, Metropolitan and the joint owner agencies consider only those environmental impacts that, for the proposed project, are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. The proposed project would have a significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impact with respect to the following: • Visual change resulting from covering the open -water reservoir with a Floating Cover, on a project - specific and cumulative basis. • Short -term noise increase due to construction of Floating Cover, on a project- . specific and cumulative basis. The RDEIR and Supplement examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. (RDEIR, p. 2 -12; Supplement,4.0.) The following alternatives were examined: San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 11 • No project (i.e., continuation of existing operations). • Installation of a rigid cover over the reservoir. • Installation of an inflatable cover over the reservoir. • Construction of a water treatment plant at alternative site 1. • • Construction of a water treatment plant at alternative site 2. These findings examine these alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. The owner agencies need not consider the alternatives with respect to the project's environmental impacts that are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. NO PROJECT The No Project Alternative would consist of continuing existing operations at the open -water reservoir, as described in the Supplement. (RDEIR, p. 2 -12; Supplement, p. 4 -1.) Aesthetics Because there would be no construction of a Floating Cover, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project- specific or cumulative aesthetic impacts. (RDEIR, p. 4 -33.) Noise Because there would be no construction activities associated with the No Project Alternative, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project - specific or cumulative noise impacts. (RDEIR, p. 4 -43.) Evaluation of Alternative The No Project Alternative would avoid significant project - specific and cumulative aesthetic impacts. Moreover, the No Project Alternative would avoid temporary, potentially significant project - specific and cumulative noise impacts. Strictly on these bases, the No Project Alternative is environmentally preferable to the proposed project. The City rejects the No Project Alternative because it would result in other, more serious environmental impacts and would fail to meet crucial project objectives. First, the No Project Alternative would not address serious, existing water quality problems at the reservoir, and thus would result in significant, adverse, unavoidable impacts to water resources. (RDEIR,p.4 -6.) In addition, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet project objectives. Specifically, the Floating Cover is intended to meet the following objectives: • Improve water quality in the reservoir in a cost - effective manner so as to protect public health and permit reliable operations. • Meet existing and anticipated water quality standards. • Continue to provide a reliable source of local regulatory and emergency storage of potable water for customers within the San Joaquin Reservoir service area. (Supplement, p. 2 -6.) The No Project Alternative would meet none of these objectives. San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 12 The No Project Alternative considers what conditions are likely to occur if the Floating Cover is not implemented, taking into account all planned but as yet not implemented improvements to the water system that may address problems with the existing conditions. These improvements may include converting the present free chlorine /chloramine disinfection process used at the Diemer Filtration Plant to ozonation /chloramine disinfection to help reduce TTHM levels system -wide. Metropolitan is studying this procedure, which it may implement in the event that TTHM standards become more stringent. (Supplement, p. 4 -1.) If implemented, the ozonation /chloramination process • would reduce or eliminate the free chlorine contact time at the treatment plants, which would result in lowered TTHM levels system -wide, including at the San Joaquin Reservoir influent. However, the conversion would not eliminate the need for breakpoint chlorination of San Joaquin Reservoir influent if the reservoir remains uncovered. Breakpoint chlorination is necessary to prevent algal and bacteriological (i.e., coliform) growth. (Supplement, 2.1.) Algae utilizes the ammonia /nitrogen components of chloramines and sunlight to grow. Breakpoint chlorination removes the ammonia, substantially reducing the nutrient base and helping prevent algal and associated bacteriological growth. Thus, even if Metropolitan implements a system -wide ozonation /chloramination disinfection process, influent at the San Joaquin Reservoir would still require breakpoint chlorination. Although breakpoint chlorinating reservoir influent addresses the problems of algal and bacteriological contamination, it will continue to cause elevated TTHM levels in the reservoir. Thus, even though TTHM levels may be lowered upstream via a potential ozonation process, the benefits of this process would be lost at the reservoir so long as breakpoint chlorination of reservoir influent is required. (Supplement, pp. 4 -1, 4 -2.) By contrast, installing a Floating Cover would address the problems of algal and bacteriological contamination by cutting sunlight infiltration and preventing the introduction of organic materials, without the necessity of breakpoint chlorinating reservoir influent. Thus, installing a Floating Cover would allow the preservation of any improvement in influent TTHM levels realized by conversion to ozonation. Without installing a cover, the reservoir would still be subject to bacteriological, taste and odor problems (e.g., coliforms, algae, plankton, turbidity) resulting from exposure to airborne debris, organic matter and sunlight. (Supplement, 2.1.) These conditions contribute to the difficulty of meeting MCLs for coliforms, in addition to causing taste and odor problems. In addition to resulting in the potential to violate water quality standards for coliforms and TTHMs, and to causing taste and odor problems, continuation of existing operations would also affect the quality of Metropolitan's operations and its ability to provide a reliable source of potable emergency and regulatory storage. Reservoir downtime has averaged 20 to 25 percent in recent years (Supplement, 2.1.3); unless improvements are made to correct problems associated with existing operations, downtime is expected to remain at least this high and may actually increase. An important factor in increased downtime is the new, more stringent Total Coliform Rule. One of the sources of coliform contamination is sediment; in order to meet the coliform standard Metropolitan may have to increase the frequency with which the reservoir is cleaned. More frequent cleaning will result in the reservoir being shut down for longer periods of time. Securing a reliable supply of potable water is a central objective of the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project. Without action, the existing conditions will cause continued biological, bacteriological and chemical contamination of water, resulting in continued poor water quality and substantial, unpredictable downtime of the reservoir. (Supplement, pp. 4- 1,4 -2.) In sum, the City rejects the No Project Alternative on two grounds. First, it would result in significant, adverse, unavoidable impacts to water resources. Second, it is infeasible • because it fails to meet the proposed project's objectives. RIGID COVER The Rigid Cover Alternative would consist of constructing a rigid cover over the reservoir that would include a concrete roof system supported on steel or concrete columns (RDEIR, pp. 2 -18, 2 -19.) San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 13 Aesthetics Aesthetic impacts would be identical to those of the proposed project. With mitigation, those impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, but they would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project - specific and cumulative basis. (RDEIR, pp. 4- 29,7 -8.) Noise • Construction of the Rigid Cover Alternative would cause significantly greater noise impacts than would the proposed project. (RDEIR, pp. 4 -39, 7 -9.) Evaluation of Alternative The Rigid Cover Alternative would not avoid significant aesthetic impacts. Moreover, construction of the Rigid Cover Alternative would cause significantly greater temporary noise impacts. On this basis, the Rigid Cover Alternative is not environmentally preferable. The City therefore rejects the Rigid Cover Alternative. INFLATABLE COVER The Inflatable Cover Alternative would consist of constructing an inflatable dome over the reservoir similar to several sport stadiums now in operation around the country. The inflatable cover would be kept inflated by a series of electrically powered blowers. (RDEIR, p. 2 -15.) Aesthetics Aesthetic impacts would be greater than those of the proposed project. The Inflatable Cover would rise to a height ranging between 63 to 125 feet above the surface of the reservoir, depending on the location, resulting in views from the residential area being dominated by the presence of the inflatable dome. The view -shed from the townhomes fronting the reservoir would be that of looking directly at the top half of the inflatable cover; due to the cover's height, the view of the hills beyond the reservoir would also be partially blocked. In addition, due to its height, the top portion of this cover also would be seen from homes in the Harbor Ridge, Harbor View Knoll and Spy Glass Hill areas which normally do not have a reservoir view. The presence of the Inflatable Cover would substantially degrade the view -shed and would increase the number of viewers having a view of the cover, increasing the level of viewer sensitivity. While a landscape screening planting plan would lessen the visual effects of the Floating Cover, due to the Inflatable Covers height, there is no mitigation available for this alternative. Noise Temporary noise impacts potentially associated with construction of the Inflatable Cover Alternative would be similar to those temporary impacts potentially associated with the proposed project. (RDEIR, p. 4 -37.) Mitigation measures would be the same. Evaluation of Alternative . The Inflatable Cover would not avoid, and in fact would worsen, significant aesthetic impacts. Its potential noise impacts would be no different than those of the proposed project. Thus, the Inflatable Cover is not environmentally preferable, and the City rejects this alternative. San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 14 TREATMENT PLANT (SITE 1) The Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative would consist of constructing a water treatment plant to treat the water leaving the reservoir to meet microbiological and chemical standards prior to distribution to the downstream water agencies. Site 1 is located just east of the reservoir and would be connected to the existing water distribution system via a pipeline. (RDEIR, p. 2 -19.) • Aesthetics The Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative would result in an unavoidable significant aesthetic impact to the 19 homes in the Harbor Ridge Subdivision closest to the site. (RDEIR, 4 -31, 4 -32.) This impact could be lessened through implementation of landscape screening mitigation similar to that for the proposed project, but this mitigation would not avoid the significant impact. Noise Temporary noise impacts potentially associated with construction of the Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative would be similar to those temporary impacts potentially associated with the proposed project. (RDEIR, p. 4 -41.) Mitigation measures would be the same. Evaluation of Alternative The Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative would not avoid significant aesthetic impacts and temporary, potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction. Moreover, construction of the Treatment Plant (Site 1) alternative would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, which is considered a significant, adverse, unavoidable impact to biological resources. (RDEIR, p. 4 -16.) In addition, the Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative would have a significantly greater adverse impact with respect to energy use than would the proposed project. (RDEIR, p. 4 -47.) Finally, even if the Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative were environmentally preferable to the proposed project, the City would reject this alternative as infeasible because it would cost well over four times the Floating Cover to construct and operate. For these reasons, the Treatment Plant (Site 1) Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed project. TREATMENT PLANT (SITE 2) The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would consist of constructing a water treatment plant to treat the water leaving the reservoir to meet microbiological and chemical standards prior to distribution to the water agencies. Site 2 is located approximately one mile east of the reservoir and would require an approximately two -mile long pipeline to connect the existing distribution system, as well as a pumping facility to move water from the reservoir to the treatment plant. (RDEIR, p. 2 -19; Supplement, pp. 4 -2, 4 -3.) Aesthetics The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would not result in a significant aesthetic impact. (RDEIR, p. 4 -33.) RM it The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would not result in a temporary, potentially significant noise impact during construction. (RDEIR, pp. 4 -41, 4 -42, 4 -43.) Evaluation of Alternative The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant aesthetic impact, and would also avoid the proposed project's temporary, potentially San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Projeet CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 15 significant noise impact. Strictly on these bases, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative is the environmentally preferably alternative. In other respects, however, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed project. The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would have a significantly greater adverse impact with respect to energy use than would the proposed project. (RDEIR, p. 4 -47; Supplement, p. 4 -4) In addition, the City of Irvine's General Plan designates the land surrounding the Treatment • Plant (Site 2) as both Open Space and Residential. A significant impact could result from locating an industrial use such as a water treatment plant in the middle of an area slated for residential development. Mitigation for this type of land use incompatibility could include providing a buffer zone between the treatment plant and residential uses. Experience has shown, however, that such mitigation measures are fraught with difficulty. In particular, water treatment plants use significant quantities of chlorine and other chemicals and may increase truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. Rightly or wrongly, adjoining or nearby residences often regard the presence of such chemicals and traffic as a threat to their safety, regardless of whether a buffer zone is present. Absent a more specific land use plan for the area, it is not possible at this time to determine the extent of the mitigation that would be required, or even whether such measures would fully mitigate this impact. At a minimum, the need to acquire land for a buffer zone would significantly increase the cost of the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative. Accordingly, because it is unclear whether this impact can be fully mitigated, the City regards this impact as potentially significant and unavoidable. (Supplement, pp. 4 -3, 4-4.) In light of substantially greater energy impacts and potentially significant, adverse and unavoidable land use impacts, and notwithstanding reduced impacts to aesthetics and temporary construction noise, the City rejects the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative because it is not environmentally preferable to the proposed project. Even if the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative were environmentally preferable to the proposed project, the City would reject this alternative as infeasible. The Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would cost more than five times the Floating Cover to construct and operate. (Supplement, p. 4 -5). The Treatment Plant would cost an estimated $93,580,000 to construct, versus an estimated $18,230,000 for the Floating Cover. (Supplement, p. 4 -5.) Since the release of the Supplement to the RDEIR, Metropolitan has revised its estimate of the projected cost of the Floating Cover. Metropolitan now estimates that the floating cover will cost approximately $20,900,000. The estimate has been increased to allow for project design contingencies and cost adjustments in the installation of a chafer lining to account for reservoir lining surface roughness. Using this revised estimate, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would cost roughly 4.5 times more than the proposed project to construct. Costs associated with securing a reliable water supply ultimately must be borne by Metropolitan's customers. As a public agency, Metropolitan has an obligation to meet its customer's needs in an economically responsible manner. These increased costs would have significant implications for the manner in which the reservoir's owners share the cost of the proposed project. As noted above, the reservoir is jointly owned by Metropolitan and a group of local owners, including the City of Newport Beach. The allocation of capital improvement costs is governed by an agreement between Metropolitan and the local owners. Under the terms of this agreement, the local owners have collectively agreed to pay $8,333,400 towards the project through a combination of cash payments and transfers of capacity rights to Metropolitan; and Metropolitan has agreed to pick up the balance of the project's cost, provided the total cost of the project does not exceed $17 million, in which case Metropolitan has reserved the right not to go forward. If the cost of the project were • to exceed $17 million, then Metropolitan would have to: (1) pick up the difference (i.e., the total cost of the project less $17 million), in addition to its share ($17 million less $8,333,400) of the first $17 million; (2) negotiate with the other owners in an effort to convince them to contribute to that portion of the cost that exceeds $17 million; or (3) abandon the project and simply accept the reservoir's existing poor water quality. Implementation of the Floating Cover would not require Metropolitan to choose between the three possibilities outlined above because the Floating Cover meets project objectives San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 16 largely within the confines of the existing allocation of costs established by the agreement between Metropolitan and the local owners. This is because the total cost of the project ($18,230,000) as described in the Supplement to the RDEIR, and $20,900,000 as subsequently revised) would exceed only slightly the $17 million cap established by the agreement. The cost of the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative, by contrast, would greatly exceed the $17 million allocation "cap" established by the trust agreement. It would thus force Metropolitan to choose between the three possibilities outlined above. Taking these possibilities in reverse order, the third possibility is patently unacceptable, in that it would • fail to meet the project's water quality objectives. Whether the second possibility is even available is speculative. Metropolitan and the City believe it is unlikely that the other reservoir owners would approve the level of funding necessary to construct the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative. Moreover, even if Metropolitan succeeded in convincing the other owners to contribute to the excess cost of the Treatment Plant (Site 2), this would merely shift the ultimate burden from Metropolitans rate - payers to the other owners' rate- payers. The first possibility is unacceptable because Metropolitan would thereby address the reservoirs water quality problems in an economically irresponsible manner, at the expense of its rate - payers. (Supplement, pp. 4 -5, 4 -6.) Costs associated with the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative are dramatically higher than costs associated with the Floating Cover, without any corresponding benefit to water quality. Accordingly, even if the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative were environmentally preferable to the Floating Cover, Metropolitan and the City would reject this alternative as infeasible. In addition to its substantially increased cost, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would do no better a job of meeting project objectives than the proposed action (Supplement, p. 4 -1); in fact, if Federal standards for TTHM become more stringent, and Metropolitan implements a system -wide ozonation program at its treatment plants to help reduce TTHM levels, due to the reservoirs open -water design, upstream benefits of the ozonation process would be lost at the San Joaquin Reservoir due to the ongoing need to breakpoint chlorinate the influent. The result of these lost benefits would be increased system inefficiency and cost due to the need for the water at the reservoir to be treated twice for TTHM levels: once upstream of the reservoir at the Diemer Filtration Plant, and again at the San Joaquin Reservoir site - specific treatment plant. (Supplement, pp. 4 -1, 4 -2.) In sum, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would avoid the significant, aesthetic impact and temporary, potentially significant construction noise impact associated with the Floating Cover. It would, however, have a significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impact with respect to energy consumption, and a potentially significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impact with respect to land use compatibility. Thus, the Treatment Plant (Site- 2)Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed project (Floating Cover). Even if the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative were environmentally preferable to the proposed project (Floating Cover), Metropolitan and the City would reject the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative as infeasible on the grounds that the cost of the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would be roughly 4.5 times greater than that of the Floating Cover. Yet, the Treatment Plant (Site 2) Alternative would do no better a job of meeting the project's water - quality objectives than would the proposed project (Floating Cover). STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project would have a significant, unavoidable, adverse aesthetic impact, and a temporary, potentially significant, adverse, unavoidable noise impact during construction. • Metropolitan and the City have adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although these mitigation measures will substantially lessen these impacts, the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. Moreover, Metropolitan and the City have examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. Based on this examination, Metropolitan and the City have determined that none of these alternatives satisfies the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 17 following three criteria: (1) meets project objectives; (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project; and (3) is economically feasible. As a result, to approve the project, Metropolitan and the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. It should be emphasized, however, that the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations with regard to a project's environmental impacts is not an "exemption" from implementing any feasible mitigation measures or complying with any applicable regulations. • The statement of overriding considerations merely allows a lead agency or responsible agency to cite a project's general economic, social or other benefits (e.g., public health or other environmental benefits) as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. CEQA does not require agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub. Resources Code, 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impact after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed. (See Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal. Rptr. 377].) Nevertheless, decision makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (See CEQA Guidelines,15093.) Metropolitan and the City find that the proposed project would have the following substantial environmental and economic benefits: PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The San Joaquin Reservoir has had a history of chronic water quality problems, which are documented in detail in the RDEIR ( RDEIR, 3.2.3.3) and the Supplement (Supplement, 2). These problems have occurred primarily because the San Joaquin Reservoir is an open treated -water reservoir. Despite the implementation of many operational management modifications, problems associated with coliform bacteria and TTHMs still occur. When the water quality problems occur, Metropolitan is forced to shut down the reservoir until they are resolved, to ensure public health and safety and to maintain compliance with existing water quality standards. Covering the reservoir would allow Metropolitan to meet State and Federal MCLs for total coliforms and TTHMs, and it would improve the water's aesthetic quality. A cover would prevent airborne contamination by debris (including bird droppings) and animals (including African clawed frogs), which are sources of coliforms. In addition, a cover would eliminate exposure to sunlight, which promotes algal blooms and associated plankton and coliform growth and reduces chloramine residuals (which act as disinfectants). Also, because a disinfecting chloramine residual would be maintained, the potential for growth of coliform in the reservoir would be greatly reduced or eliminated. The cover would allow Metropolitan to discontinue the practice of breakpoint chlorination and reduce effluent TTHM levels. The cover's ability, in conjunction with the use of chloramines, to reduce TTHM levels is supported by data from other reservoirs operated by Metropolitan. (Supplement, 3.) • TTHM compliance data for influent and effluent at Metropolitan's uncovered San Joaquin Reservoir and covered Orange County and Palos Verdes Reservoirs for 1990 through 1992 compiled by Metropolitan and presented in the Supplement (Supplement, Table 3.1) show that the TTHM levels in San Joaquin Reservoir effluent were nearly double the influent values, whereas for the covered reservoirs, influent and effluent values were comparable. Six out of nine samples from the San Joaquin Reservoir effluent had TTHM levels San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 18 exceeding 0.10 mg /1(the current MCL for TTHMs), whereas none of the samples from the covered reservoirs exceeded this value. Covering the reservoir would not eliminate the need to provide some chlorination of reservoir effluent. However, the amount required at the effluent stage would be five to ten times less than that currently required for breakpoint chlorination. EPA may soon propose a regulation that would make the MCL for TFHMs more stringent • than the existing regulation. If EPA adopts such regulations, Metropolitan may have to change its operations at the Diemer Filtration Plant to ensure compliance with the revised standards. In light of potential changes to the TFHM MCI., Metropolitan is currently exploring the installation of an ozonation treatment system, supplemented with chloramines, at its filtration plants. Even if operations at the Diemer Filtration Plant are changed, however, covering the reservoir would play a central role in ensuring compliance with the revised standards. This is because covering the reservoir would eliminate the need to breakpoint chlorinate reservoir influent, thus preserving the benefits of upstream treatment at the Diemer Filtration Plant. By eliminating the need to breakpoint chlorinate reservoir water, the Floating Cover would also improve the reservoir's operational capability. Improvements would occur because Metropolitan could blend chloraminated reservoir water with chloraminated water from other sources in its distribution system south of the Willits Street PCS. The ability to blend water from the San Joaquin Reservoir with that from other sources would increase the flow capacity to downstream users by 30 cfs, which would enable Metropolitan to meet peak water demands with reservoir water, rather than relying on local downstream storage. (Supplement, 2.2.1.2.) By eliminating contamination by airborne debris, including dust, dirt, midge fly larvae and bird droppings, as well as frogs, plankton and algae, the reservoir would no longer have to be periodically removed from service for cleaning, and the aesthetics of drinking water supplied by the reservoir would be enhanced. Covering the reservoir would curtail the current frequent, unpredictable shutdowns of the reservoir for public health reasons. When the reservoir is shut down for cleaning, to avoid exceeding MCLs or for aesthetic reasons, the water is not available for use during periods of peak demand, nor for emergencies. Metropolitan's and the City's goal for the reservoir is to provide as large and as reliable a supply of potable water as close to the user as possible. Under existing conditions, the current supply is not reliable and not always potable. Installation of a Floating Cover would enable Metropolitan to substantially improve the reliability and potability of its supply of regulatory and emergency storage. Installation of the Floating Cover would reduce downtime at the reservoir. Under existing conditions, the reservoir is shutdown anywhere from 20 to 25 percent of the time. Even with implementation of all planned improvements to the system, downtime may increase due to increasingly stringent water quality standards. After installation of a Floating Cover, project downtime would decrease to an estimated four to six percent of the time. This number was calculated by assuming the reservoir would be out of service for 12 to 18 months for initial construction of the cover and then once every 20 years for nine to 14 months for a 50 -year project life. Even with closure of the reservoir for the covers construction and replacement period, overall downtime would decrease by about 75 percent. • Not only would covering the reservoir substantially reduce the amount of downtime, but the fact that this downtime would be predictable and contiguous would allow Metropolitan to more easily plan around it. Currently, Metropolitan cannot predict when, and for how long, the reservoir will have to be out of service. The effect of this unpredictability is that, when the reservoir is taken out of service, agencies in the service area which rely on the reservoir for peaking demand and emergency use must scramble to find other sources of water on short notice. Although alternate sources are usually available, they are generally more expensive (primarily due to increased pumping costs and the higher cost of wheeling water San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Pmject CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 19 through other local agencies). Long -term, repeated reliance on alternate sources such as groundwater also has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects, including over - drafting of local groundwater basins. Thus, installing a Floating Cover on the reservoir would allow Metropolitan to ensure consistent compliance with State and Federal MCLs for total coliforms and TTHMs and to improve the water's aesthetic quality. It would serve this objective by preventing organic material and other airborne contaminants from entering the reservoir and by eliminating • exposure to sunlight, both of which contribute to algae and plankton blooms and to elevated bacteriological activity. It would also obviate the need to breakpoint chlorinate reservoir influent and thus would reduce the formation of TTHMs. The Floating Cover would also improve the reservoir's operational characteristics (flexibility) by enabling Metropolitan to blend reservoir water with water from other sources. In short, the proposed project (Floating Cover) meets the project objectives. It would improve the water quality of the reservoir; improve the operational aspects of providing treated water to its service area; and provide a reliable source of regulatory and emergency storage of potable water for its service area. (Supplement, 3.3.) In addition to meeting drinking water standards and thus providing a dependable source of necessary potable water storage, use of a Floating Cover would reduce the requirement for chlorine use at the San Joaquin Reservoir and reduce the need for use of portable chlorinating unit. The reduction of chlorine handling and use would reduce the existing potential for a chlorine leak and would be considered a beneficial impact to public health and safety. (RDEIR, p. 4 -47.) WATER CONSERVATION In addition to improving water quality, installation of the Floating Cover would reduce the loss of water through evaporation. Average annual rainfall in the project area is assumed to be 12 inches. The average annual net loss to evaporation is approximately 48 inches. With a reservoir surface area of 55 acres, the net effect of the Floating Cover, accounting for lack of recharge from rain, would be to reduce water losses to evaporation by approximately 165 acre -feet (af) annually Q48 in. - 12 in. = 3 ft.] x 55 ac = 165 af). (Supplement, p. 3 -4.) INCREASED EMPLOYMENT The proposed project would provide the project area with needed jobs. Construction of the Floating Cover may require up to 100 workers for 12 to 18 months for initial construction and then once every 20 years for replacement. (RDEIR, p. 4 -33; Supplement, p. 3 -1.) Metropolitan anticipates that all new hires would be from within the project area. For the foregoing reasons, Metropolitan and the City find that the proposed project's benefits outweigh, and therefore override, the project's unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, Metropolitan and the City find that the project's benefits would outweigh its unavoidable, adverse environmental effects (i.e. aesthetics and, potentially, temporary construction noise) even if these effects were not lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. • P \ ... \JOHN- D \CNB \UnL \S - RES.EIR San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A, Page 20 Exhibit B SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1.0 INTRODUCTION isThe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) requires all state and local agencies to establish reporting or monitoring programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of specified findings related to environmental impact reports. ' The mitigation monitoring program (MMP) contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project, prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. This monitoring program is intended to be used by Metropolitan staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures prior to and during construction of the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project. The EIR for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project identified a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of earth resources, water resources, aesthetics, traffic and noise, which are listed in this document. The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures. The MMP provides for regular monitoring of pre - construction and construction activities, in-the- field identification and resolution of environmental concerns, and reporting of compliance. During project implementation, Metropolitan's Manager of Environmental Affairs (MEA), Director of Environmental Compliance (DEC), and Engineering Division will be responsible for the implementation of the MMP. The results of the MMP will be available for public review at Metropolitan's offices. The MEA, DEC and Engineering Division will be, responsible for the following activities: • reviewing project design specifications and /or construction plans and equipment staging /access plans to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures; • on -site, periodic monitoring of construction activities, as necessary; • ensuring contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate mitigation measures and the MMP; • evaluating the adequacy of construction impact mitigation and proposing improvements to the contractors and Metropolitan, if necessary; • having authority to require correction of activities observed to violate project mitigation measures, including the authority to secure compliance with the measures through Metropolitan's Board of Directors, if necessary; • acting in the role of contact for property owners or other affected persons who wish to register observation of violation of mitigation measures. Upon receiving any complaints, the responsible person shall immediately contact the project construction representative and record the contact in the MMP, and shall be responsible for verifying any such • observations and for developing any necessary corrective actions in consultation with the project construction representative and Metropolitan; • maintaining prompt and regular communication with appropriate departments within Metropolitan and with project personnel responsible for contractor performance and mitigation measure compliance, as well as any affected public agencies; • obtaining assistance as necessary from technical experts such as geologists and landscape architects in order to fulfill mitigation measures adopted by Metropolitan. For example, it will be necessary for a landscape architect to work with the MEA, Engineering Division, surrounding residents and construction contractor to develop an effective landscape screening plan; and • maintaining a log of all significant interactions, violations of mitigation measures and necessary corrective actions, as well as recording final compliance with each mitigation measure. In the event that resolution of disputes between the public and /or governmental agencies and Metropolitan project staff regarding adherence to mitigation measures is not resolved by these parties, the dispute shall be referred to Metropolitan's General Manager for resolution. 2.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE STATUS The following sections contain mitigation measure information and compliance forms, which are required to be completed by Metropolitan staff concurrent with implementation of relevant phases of project planning and construction. 2 2.1 EARTH RESOURCES 2.1.1 Mitigation Measure The EIR for the Improvement Project identified a potential significant environmental impact from intensive ground - shaking from seismic activity during construction and operation. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce the impact to below a level of significance: • A registered engineering geologist or similar professional shall be used during design and • construction of the project. 2.1.2 Compliance Status Contact Person: Chief Engineer, Engineering Division Mitigation requirement checked by of (Department) Comments: (Name) on Date Mitigation Measure Compliance Completed: (Date) 2.2 WATER 2.2.1 Mitgation Measures The EIR for the Improvement Project identified potential significant environmental impacts to surface water quality from storm water runoff from impervious surfaces during operations, and from dewatering activities during construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance: • Metropolitan shall notify the Regional Board prior to construction and /or associated dewatering activities. If required by the Regional Board, Metropolitan shall obtain an • NPDES permit. Metropolitan (or its contractor) shall comply with the terms of the NPDES permit, particularly any terms that may require settling of suspended particulates prior to discharge. _ • The floating cover shall be designed so that peak stormwater runoff can be stored on top of the cover. Any accumulated stormwater runoff shall be dewatered at a rate that does not''increase historical peak runoff flow for the reservoir watershed. 2.2.2 Compliance Status Contact Persons: Director, Environmental Compliance Mitigation requirement checked by (Name) of on (Department) (Date) Comments: Date Mitigation Measure Compliance Completed: 4 2.3 AESTHETICS 2.3.1 Mitigation Measure The EIR for the Improvement Project identified a significant unavoidable environmental impact resulting from the visual change in covering the reservoir. Although it is not possible to reduce this impact below a level of significance, implementation of the following mitigation measure will help reduce the effects of this impact: • Metropolitan shall make available up to $375,000 to develop and implement a landscape screening planting plan to lessen, to the extent feasible, aesthetic impacts from homes • within the Harbor Ridge subdivision that view the reservoir, in accordance with the potential aesthetic mitigation concept set forth in the Supplement. The landscaping plan sh311 be developed by a landscape architect in consultation with affected residents and /or homeowners within the Harbor Ridge subdivision. -- The landscaping plan shall focus on land to which Metropolitan has, or can arrange to have, physical access. To the extent the plan calls for plantings on land to which Metropolitan does not have, and cannot arrange to have, physical access, that portion of the landscaping plan shall be regarded as infeasible, and the funds to be made available by Metropolitan to implement the landscaping plan shall be reduced by a proportionate amount. -- Alternatively, to the extent the landscaping plan calls for plantings on land controlled by residences and /or homeowners within the Harbor Ridge subdivision, Metropolitan shall place funds in a trust account for the benefit of affected homes in the Harbor Ridge subdivision. The amount deposited in the trust fund shall be a percentage of the overall cost of implementing the landscaping plan, with the percentage determined by dividing the cost of making the called -for plantings on land controlled by residences and /or homeowners within the Harbor Ridge subdivision by the cost of implementing the landscaping plan as a whole. The expenditure of the funds deposited in the trust account shall be left to the sole discretion of affected residents and /or homeowners in the Harbor Ridge subdivision, provided, however, that the trust account shall restrict the use of such funds solely to mitigating the project's aesthetic impacts on such homes. 5 AESTHETTCS (cont.) 2.3.2 Compliance Status Contact Person: Manager, Environmental Affairs Mitigation requirement checked by of (Department) Comments: (Name) on Date Mitigation Measure Compliance Completed: 0 (Date) • 2.4 TRAFFIC 2.4.1 Mith!ation Measure The EIR for the Improvement Project identified a potential significant environmental impact resulting from construction workers and truck traffic, causing peak hour congestion at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The EIR also identified a potential significant environmental impact on a cumulative basis resulting from construction workers and truck traffic, when viewed in conjunction with other projects in the area. Implementation of the allowing mitigation measure will reduce the impact to below a level of significance: If more than 80 construction workers are used at the site at any one time, construction work hours shall be staggered and /or construction workers shall be shuttled to the site from an Off -site area. • During construction, Metropolitan (or its contractor) shall coordinate with City of Irvine and Orange County transportation officials and planners to coordinate construction - related traffic between simultaneous projects, and to identify in advance any road closures that may affect''the project so that alternate routes may be developed. 2.4.2 Compliance Status Contact Person: Manager, Environmental Affairs Mitigation requirement checked by (Name) of on (Department) Comments: (Date) Date Mitigation Measure Compliance Completed: 7 2.5 NOISE 2.5.1 Mitigation Measure The EIR for the Improvement Project identified a potential significant short-term environmental impact resulting from construction noise generated by use of a backhoe in the vicinity of residences adjacent to the reservoir. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will help reduce the impact during construction: • Hours of construction shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or holidays. 0 • Construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers and engine shrouds. • Equipment shall be stored and maintained away from sensitive receptors, such as residences. 2.5.2 Compliance Status Contact Person: Manager, Environmental Affairs Mitigation requirement checked by (Name) of on (Department) (Date) Comments: Date Mitigation Measure Compliance Completed: knWn.nednmV i{ t 3