HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 15-6976 (WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM)i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
?9
RESOLUTION NO. 15-6976
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL OF THE BEACH CITIES ENHANCED WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) TO THE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND ADOPTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR) FOR EWMP AND THE
CORRESPONDING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFO
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. In December 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LARWQCB) issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4-
2012-0175; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No. CAS004001)
covering discharges within coastal watersheds from the collective storm sewer systems in Los
Angeles County (except from the City of Long Beach) ("MS4 Permit" or "Permit"). The Permit
regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff to waters of the United States from facilities owned
and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD or "District"), the
County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated cities within Los Angeles County (collectively
referred to as Permittees). The purpose of the MS4 Permit is to achieve and maintain water quality
objectives to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Los Angeles region. Each of the
Permittees identified in the MS4 Permit is responsible for meeting the conditions of the permit for
MS4 discharges occurring within their jurisdiction.
B. The MS4 Permit gives Permittees the option of implementing an innovative
approach to permit compliance through development of an Enhanced Watershed
Program (EWMP). An EWMP is a Watershed Management Plan that comprehensively evaluates
opportunities for collaboration on multi -benefit regional projects that retain all non
Page 1 of 7
15-6976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
?R
runoff and runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event while also achieving benefi
associated with issues such as flood control and water supply. Where such retention is n,
feasible, EWMPs must include other watershed control measures to ensure that the MS4 disharges
achieve compliance with water quality standards and do not cause or contribute to exceedances
receiving water limitations.
C. The LACFCD, along with the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach and Torrance, have opted to exercise this EWMP compliance option for the Santa
Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake Watersheds.
D. The City submitted its Notice of Intent to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013 and
submitted its EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014.
E. The LACFCD and participating cities have been working collaboratively to
an EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay, Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake Watersheds.
F. The Watershed Group conducted public outreach to engage the public and other
interested parties to support the EWMP development. Comments received from the community
have been incorporated as appropriate.
G. The MS4 Permit requires that Permittees submit the EWMP to the LARWQCB for
review by June 29, 2015.
SECTION 2. CEQA
A. The LACFCD, as a regional agency, is a member of each of the 12 EWMP working
groups in the region. Thus, the LACFCD prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide the
public and the responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential effects on the
local and regional environment associated with implementation of the EWMPs. The LACFCD is
the Lead Agency for the PEIR.
B. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published by the LACFCD on August 29, 2014.
The NOP was circulated to Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as other interested parties,
Page 2 of 7
15-6976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1)R
for a period of 30 days. The NOP was made available in print and electronic form, and the
LACFCD accepted comments on the NOP for a 30-day period, closing on September 29, 2014. In
addition, an email notification regarding the availability of the NOP was sent to over 700
interested EWMP stakeholders. The initial 30-day comment period was extended an additional 30
days to October 29, 2014, to provide greater opportunity for public comment on the NOP.
C. The LACFCD held three public scoping meetings on September 9, 10, and 15
2014 to receive comments on the NOP.
D. The Draft PEIR for the proposed project was initially circulated for a 45-day public
review period beginning on January 21, 2015 and ending on March 9, 2015. Per an announcement
via e-mail on March 6, the comment period was extended through March 16, 2015. The Final
PEIR includes written responses to the 46 comment letters received.
E. LACFCD held six community meetings throughout the region on January 29
February 3, 5, 10, 11 and 17, 2015 to discuss the Draft PEIR analysis and alternatives.
F. On May 26, 2015, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors certified
Program Environmental Impact Report for the EWMPS, made findings of fact, adopted a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC). The LACFCD PEIR studied the environmental impacts of adoption of all
12 EWMPs throughout the region.
G. The City is a Responsible Agency that will be implementing one of the twelve
EWMPs analyzed in the PEIR. The City intends to rely on the environmental analysis contained
therein to understand the environmental impacts that could be associated with the EWMP at a
program level before submittal of the EWMP to the LARWQCB for review, comment and
approval.
H. The PEIR evaluates the major environmental effects of implementing proposed
EWMP projects from a broad perspective; this evaluation is a program -level analysis. At this
stage, the Permittees are developing the conceptual plans for certain EWMP projects and
activities that would provide reasonable assurances of meeting the Permit requirements.
Page 3 of 7
15-6976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
99
Comprehensive project design, construction and operation details (and in some cases even project
location) are not the focus of the EWMPs or the PEIR. Instead, the PEIR frames the nature and
magnitude of the expected environmental impacts associated with these proposed EWMP projects
and identifies program mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the projects as proposed.
More detailed project -level analyses of individual EWMP projects may be conducted separately as
required by CEQA. The PEIR can be used by the LACFCD or other permittees to streamline
environmental review of individual EWMP projects. The implementing agency may determine th
a more detailed, project -level analysis is required, or may determine some projects to be exem
from CEQA. For non-exempt projects, project -level CEQA review will be conducted. The separa
environmental review of individual projects will evaluate site -specific impacts as required under
CEQA.
I. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence
set forth in the PEIR and the administrative record of the PEIR proceedings, and upon other
substantial evidence that has been presented at all public meetings regarding the City's proposed
EWMP and in the record of the EWMP proceedings.
J. The City Council, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, has independentl
reviewed and considered the contents of the PEIR and its record of proceedings prior to decidin
whether to adopt the facts and analysis in the PEIR.
K. The PEIR, SCH #2014081106, is available at www.1,ACoH2Osheds.com and in
the Hermosa Beach City Clerk's Office and is incorporated herein by reference. The record of
proceedings of the City's use of the PEIR is available in the City Clerk's Office at the Hermosa
Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, 90254. The record of proceedings regarding
LACFCD's certification of the PEIR is available at the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, 900 South Fremont Avenue, IIth floor, Alhambra, CA 91803, during normal business
hours.
L. The PEIR determined that the EWMP could result in some environmental impacts
that, although mitigated to the extent feasible, would remain significant and unavoidable adverse
Page 4 of 7
15-6976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7R
impacts. A full discussion of the impacts is contained in the Findings of Fact in Support o
Findings Related to Significant Environmental Impacts for Enhanced Watershed Management
Programs, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council
understands that the PEIR analysis is conservative in nature by having to assess such a wide range
of geographic areas and conceptual EWMP projects. Nevertheless, the PEIR found that EWMP
could potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality (Impact 3.2-2 air
quality violations from construction and 3.2-3 cumulatively considerable increase when projects
combined with other foreseeable projects), Cultural Resources (3.4-1 potential adverse change to
historic or archaeological resources from projects and cumulative impact when projects combined
with other foreseeable projects) and Noise (3.10.1 and 3.10-4 construction noise and cumulative
construction noise). At this program -level stage, the City has not found any additional feasible
alternative or feasible mitigation measure within its powers that would substantially lessen or
avoid these significant impacts the EWMP may have on the environment. As noted above, more
detailed project -level analyses of individual EWMP projects may be conducted separately as
required by CEQA.
M. The PEIR also found that if Responsible Agencies did not implement
recommended mitigation measures to reduce certain impacts to less -than -significant levels, the
EWMP could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geologic and Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation
and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems. Since the City will implement the
recommended Mitigation Measures proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, as
set forth in the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, the City,
like LACFCD, finds that these impacts will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Thus,
feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts.
Page 5 of 7
15-6976
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
?R
N. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council declares tha
the City of Hermosa Beach has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other
benefits of the City's proposed EWMP against its unavoidable environmental risks, as set forth in
the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) attached
hereto and incorporate herein by reference. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." The
Beach Cities EWMP may potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated witt
Air Quality, Cultural Resources and Noise. The City Council finds that the EWMP's benefit:
outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and finds that the Findings of Fact
Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are supported by substantial evidence in
administrative record.
O. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts the facts and analysis in
the PEIR, and adopts the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A), Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Exhibit B) and MMRP (Exhibit C) with the following additional findings:
1. All mitigation measures included in the PEIR and MMRP are feasible.
2. While the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the proposed program
itself, the City Council finds that to the extent that the other proposed alternatives do not meet
project objectives, those alternatives are infeasible.
3. By implementing the MMRP, there will be no additional significant and
unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geologic and Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and
Service Systems. Thus, the SOC only applies to the significant and unavoidable impacts to
Quality, Cultural Resources and Noise.
4. In addition to the benefits listed in the SOC, the City Council also finds that
EWMP will prevent polluted stormwater runoff from reaching the Santa Monica Bay and other
local receiving waters, including Dominguez Channel, and Machado Lake watershed areas.
Page 6 of 7
15-6976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
7R
California beaches are a precious natural and economic resource. Poor water quality not only
threatens the health of aquatic life, swimmers, and beachgoers but also hurts California's ocean -
dependent economy valued at $43 billion. Each year between 150 million and nearly 400 million
visits are made to California beaches. The primary goal of the EWMP is to improve beach water
quality and improve the environment generally, which protects against health and economic harms
and that is a primary benefit of the EWMP.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the EWMP and directs the City Manager,
or designee, to submit the EWMP to the LARWQB for review and approval, and to StIbilzit
revisions to the plan as necessary following review by the LARWQCB.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall certify
to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original
Resolutions; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2015.
a=ADWJ�� �D-n -�CA�xv-(
f the City C incil an ' AYOR of the City of Her mos Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED kS TO FORM:
1
V
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 7 of 7
15-6976
Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
for
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2014081106
Lead Agency: Los Angeles County Flood Control District
1.0 Introduction
The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the Draft and
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) for the Enhanced Watershed
Management Program, as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings.
The Final Program EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the
Department of Public Works, 900 south Fremont Avenue, IIth Floor, Alhambra, CA 91803,
during normal business hours, and is also available on the District's website
www.LACoH2Osheds.com.
In December 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) issued
a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175; National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit No. CAS004001) covering discharges
within coastal watersheds from the collective storm sewer systems in Los Angeles County
(except from the City of Long Beach). The Permit regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff to
waters of the United States from facilities owned and maintained by the Los Angeles County
Flood Control District (LACFCD or District), the County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated
cities within Los Angeles County (collectively referred to as Permittees). The purpose of the MS4
Permit is to achieve and maintain water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses of the
receiving waters in the Los Angeles region. Each of the Permittees identified in the MS4 permit is
responsible for meeting the conditions of the permit for MS4 discharges occurring within their
jurisdiction.
The MS4 Permit gives Permittees the option of implementing an innovative approach to permit
compliance through development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP).
The EWMPs will identify potential and priority structural and non-structural Best Management
LA County Flood Control District 1 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Practices (BMPs) within the region's stormwater collection system to improve runoff water
quality. The LACFCD, along with participating Permittees, has opted to exercise this option and
has submitted to the LARWQCB 12 separate Notices of Intent (NOIs) for the development of
EWMPs within 12 distinct watershed groups. Implementation of the EMWPs would be the
responsibility of each Permittee and would occur following approval of the EWMPs by the
LARWQCB.
The LACFCD, as a regional agency, is a member of each of the 12 EWMP working groups, and
as such provides a commonality within each EWMP group. However, LACFCD does not have a
special status or authority designated by the MS4 Permit over any of the other Permittees. The
LACFCD will be working with the applicable Permittees in all 12 EWMP watersheds as an equal
partner to identify the types and locations of BMPs needed to achieve permit compliance within
each watershed.
The timeline identified in the MS4 Permit requires that Permittees submit the EWMP to the
LARWQCB by June 28, 2015, in order to be in compliance with the permit conditions. The
LACFCD recognizes that implementation of the EWMPs may potentially result in changes to
environmental conditions. As a result, the LACFCD has prepared this Program Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
provide the public and the responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential
effects on the local and regional environment associated with implementation of the EWMPs. The
LACFCD will submit the PEIR to its governing body, the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors, for approval prior to submittal of the EWMPs. The EWMPs will be submitted by
each EWMP group to the LARWQCB.
The LACFCD issued .a.notice of preparation.of a Draft Program EIR on July 27, 2012. The notice
of preparation stated that the Draft Program EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of
environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines. With respect to all impacts identified as "less than significant" or as having
"no impact" in the Final Program EIR, the District finds that those impacts have been described
accurately and are less than significant or have no impact. In addition, some impacts in the Final
Program EIR were found to be potentially "significant" but are able to be mitigated to less -than -
significant levels, and others were found to be "significant and unavoidable." The District finds
that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation or are significant and unavoidable.
The District further finds that the application of mitigation measures identified in the Final
Program EIR would be the responsibility of each agency implementing projects identified in the
program (implementing agencies). The District finds that the mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR are reasonable and readily implementable under foreseeable circumstances, such that it
is reasonably assumed that implementing agencies can and should adopt and implement them for
their projects. The conclusions of significance for each impact in the Final Program EIR
therefore assume that mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR would be applied
as described therein.
LA County Flood Control District 2 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
The District has adopted the mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR, and will
implement those measures for projects it implements under the Program. However, as explained
more fully in Section 5.0, because the District will not be the implementing agency for all
projects being implemented as part of the proposed program, the District cannot state with
certainty that all impacts capable of being mitigated to less -than -significant levels will in fact be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Accordingly, the District finds that as to projects where
the District will not be an implementing agency, the impacts described in the Program EIR as
being potentially "significant" but capable of being mitigated to less -than -significant levels must
be found to be "significant and unavoidable."
2.0 Project Description
The 12 EWMPs will vary for each watershed group, but will generally provide the opportunity
for Permittees to customize their stormwater programs to achieve compliance with applicable
receiving water limitations (RWLs) and water -quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) in
accordance with the MS4 Permit through implementation of stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) or watershed control measures. BMPs vary in function and type, with each
BMP providing unique design characteristics and benefits from implementation. The overarching
goal of BMPs in the EWMP is to reduce the impact of stormwater and non-stormwater on
receiving water quality and address the water quality priorities as defined by the MS4 Permit. The
development of each EWMP will involve the evaluation and selection of multiple BMP types,
including nonstructural (institutional) and distributed, centralized, and regional structural
watershed control measures, that will be implemented to meet compliance goals and strategies
under the 2012 MS4 Permit. The LACFCD has limited jurisdictional authority for ordinance and
code enactment or enforcement and therefore is limited in nonstructural BMPs to education and
outreach measures. The structural watershed control measures that will be implemented by the
LACFCD will be multi -benefit stormwater projects that emphasize flood risk mitigation and
water conservation and supply.
The LACFCD has a vested interest in increasing opportunities for stormwater capture and
groundwater recharge as a means of assisting local water supply augmentation. The LACFCD
will be working with the applicable Permittees and other stakeholders in all 12 EWMP
watersheds to develop such projects. The EWMPs will be implemented by the Permittees that
have jurisdiction within each EWMP area. The implementing agencies will be responsible for the
contents of the EWMPs affecting their jurisdictions and for implementing the projects developed
by the EWMPs.
Structural control measures are constructed BMPs that reduce the impact of stormwater and non-
stormwater on receiving water quality. They are broken into three categories:
• Distributed Structural BMPs, which treat runoff close to the source and are typically
implemented at a single- or few -parcel level (e.g., facilities typically serving a
contributing area less than one acre).
LA County Flood Control District 3 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
0 Centralized Structural BMPs, which treat runoff from a contributing area of multiple
parcels (e.g., facilities typically serving a contributing area on the order of tens or
hundreds of acres or larger).
• Regional Structural BMPs, which are meant to retain the 85th percentile storm over
24 hours from a contributing area. Generally, the 85`h percentile storm is approximately
0.75 inches over 24 hours
Whether distributed, centralized, or regional, the major structural BMP functions are infiltration,
treatment, and storage, which may be used individually or combination:
• Infiltration, where runoff is directed to percolate into the underlying soils. Infiltration
generally reduces the volume of runoff and increases groundwater recharge.
• Treatment, where pollutants are removed through various unit processes, including
filtration, settling, sedimentation, sorption, straining, and biological or chemical
transformations.
• Storage, where runoff is captured, stored (detained), and slowly released into
downstream waters. Storage can reduce the peak flow rate from a site, but does not
directly reduce runoff volume.
The types of structural BMPs to be implemented will vary between EWMPs, but most EMWPs
will include a variety of distributed, centralized, and regional BMPs.
Non-structural BMPs are policies, actions, and activities which are intended to minimize or
eliminate pollutant sources. Most institutional BMPs are implemented to meet Minimum Control
Measure (MCM) requirements in the MS4 permit; MCMs are considered a subset of institutional
BMPs. These BMPs are not constructed, but may have costs associated with the procurement and
installation of items such as signage or spill response kits.
3.0 CEQA Review and Public Participation
A Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (SCH No. 2014081106) was circulated for a 30-day
public review period beginning on August 29, 2014. Twenty (20) individual written comment
letters were received and used in the preparation of the Draft PEIR. The Draft PEIR for the
proposed project was initially circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on January
21, 2015 and ending on March 9, 2015. Per an announcement via e-mail blast on March 6, the
comment period was extended through March 16, 2015 at 5PM. A total of 46 individual written
comment letters were received on the Draft PEIR.
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from persons and agencies that reviewed the Draft PEIR and
prepare a written response addressing each of the comments received. The response to comments
LA County Flood Control District 4 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
is contained in this document —Volume 3, Chapter 12 of the Final PEIR. Volumes 1 through 3
together constitute the Final PEIR. A list of agencies and interested parties who have commented
on the Draft PEIR is provided below. A copy of each numbered comment letter and a lettered
response to each comment are provided in Chapter 12, Response to Comments, of this Final
PEIR.
LACFCD held 6 community meetings on January 29 and February 3, 5, 10, 11 and 17, 2015 to
discuss the Draft PEIR analysis and alternatives. The six public meetings that took place at 6PM
each night listed are as follows:
• Public Meeting 1 (Florence -Firestone Service Center — January 29, 2015)
• Public Meeting 2 (LA County Fire Camp — February 3, 2015)
• Public Meeting 3 (San Pedro Service Center — February 5, 2015)
• Public Meeting 4 (Topanga Library — February 10, 2015)
• Public Meeting 5 (Hacienda Heights Community Center — February 11, 2015)
• Public Meeting 6 (East Los Angeles Library — February 17, 2015)
4.0 No Environmental Impacts
4.1 Structural BMPs
4.1.1 Aesthetics
The proposed program would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Impact 3.1-4).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation of new sources of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
4.1.2 Air Quality
The proposed program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan (Impact 3.2-1).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conflicting with or obstructing
implementation of the AQMP prepared by SCAQMD and SCAG.
LA County Flood Control District 5 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
4.1.3 Biological Resources
The proposed program would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Impact 3.3-4)
The proposed program would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation
plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. (Impact 3.3-6)
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to the interference with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or the impediment of the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to cultural resources that
would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts unmitigated.
4.1.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources
The proposed program would not locate new facilities in areas susceptible to seismic impacts
such as (1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault, (2) strong seismic groundshaking, or (3) seismically
induced liquefaction or landslides, which could expose people, structures, or habitat to potential
risk of loss, damage, injury, or death (Impact 3.5-1).
The proposed program would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Impact
3.5-2).
The proposed program would not be located on expansive soil as defined in 24 CCR 1803.5.3 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks to life or structures. (Impact 3.5-
4).
The proposed program would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of a
septic tank or alternative wastewater treatment systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater (Impact 3.5-5).
The proposed program would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally important mineral
LA County Flood Control District 6 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan
(Impact 3.5-6).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to location of new facilities in areas
susceptible to seismic impacts of various kinds.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to location on expansive soil.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to having soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tank or alternative wastewater treatment systems.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or
other land use plan.
4.1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed program would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant -Impact on the environment (Impact 3.6-1),
The proposed program would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (Impact 3.6-2).
The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to GHGs.
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to generation of GHG emissions.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts
to GHGs.
LA County Flood Control District 7 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
4.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed program would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or the accidental release
during construction and maintenance activities (Impact 3-7.1).
The proposed program would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing school (Impact
3.7-3).
The proposed program would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Impact 3.7-6).
The proposed program would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands (Impact 3.7-7).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation of a significant
hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials or accidental release during construction and maintenance activities.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to hazardous emissions or handling
of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an
existing school.
The Board. of Supervisors finds, based on the Final .Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the implementation of an adopted
emergency response or emergency evacuation plan.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of people or structures
to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
4.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed program would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or further degrade water quality (Impact 3.8-1).
The proposed program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site (Impact 3.8-3).
The proposed program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or, by other means, substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site
(Impact 3.8-4).
LA County Flood Control District 8 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
The proposed program would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff (Impact 3.8-5).
The proposed program would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood
hazard delineation map (Impact 3.8-6).
The proposed program would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows (Impact 3.8-7).
The proposed program would not expose structures to a significant risk of loss, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Impact 3.8-8).
The proposed program would not place structures in areas subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow (Impact 3.8-9).
The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to hydrology and water
quality.
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the violation of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the alteration of the existing
drainage pattern of a site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site. In response to comment received on the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-4 has
been added to ensure that Impact 3.8-3 and Impact 3.8-4 remain less than significant. The
modification does not identify any new significant impact or trigger the need to recirculate the
Draft PEIR under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
HYDRO-4: Prior to approving a structural BMP, the implementing agencies shall
conduct an evaluation of the potential hydromodification impacts of the project. The
evaluation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent or minimize any
identified impacts, including flooding, erosion and/or scour. Design measures could
include velocity dissipaters and bank re -enforcement components. Implementing
agencies shall include these measures in project designs.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the alteration of the existing
drainage pattern of a site which would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on- or off -site.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the creation or contribution to
runoff water.
LA County Flood Control District 9 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of housing within a
100-year flood hazard area.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of structures within a
100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of structures to a
significant risk of loss, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to placement of structures in areas
subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts
to hydrology and water quality.
4.1.9 Land Use and Agriculture
The proposed program would not physically divide an established community (Impact 3.9-1).
The proposed program would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the program (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect (Impact 3.9-2).
The proposed program would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan (Impact 3.9-3).
The proposed program would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The proposed
program would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use. (Impact 3.9-4)
The proposed program would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract (Impact 3.9-5).
The proposed program would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g)). The proposed program would not result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use (Impact 3.9-6).
The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to land use and
agriculture.
LA County Flood Control District 10
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA / 140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the physical division of an
established community.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the program adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to conversion of Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, or conversion of agricultural land to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to confliction with existing zoning
for forest land or timberland, or the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest
use.
The -Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts
to land use and agriculture.
4.1.10 Noise
The proposed program would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive
groundborne vibration (Impact 3.10-2).
For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
in an area within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, implementation of the proposed
program would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels
(Impact 3.10-5)
For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, the proposed program would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (Impact 3.10-6).
LA County Flood Control District 11
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA I140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exposure of persons to, or
generation of, excessive groundborne vibration.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to projects located within an airport
land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to projects located in the vicinity of
a private airstrip.
4.1.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice
Implementation of the proposed program would not induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Impact 3.11-1).
Implementation of the proposed program would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Impact 3.11-2).
Implementation of the proposed program would not displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitation the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Impact 3.11-3).
Implementation of the proposed program would not affect the health or environment of minority
or low income populations disproportionately (Impact 3.11-4).
The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to population and
housing and environmental justice.
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to introduction of substantial
population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to displacement of substantial
numbers of existing housing.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to displacement of substantial
numbers of people.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the Proposed Program would result in no impact relating to impacting the health or
environment of minority or low income populations disproportionately.
lA County Flood Control District 12 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program does not have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts
to population and housing and environmental justice.
4.1.12 Public Services and Recreation
The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental police protection
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police
protection services (Impact 3.12-2).
The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered schools, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for schools (Impact 3.12-3).
The proposed program would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated (Impact 3.12-4).
The proposed program would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment (Impact 3.12-5).
The proposed program would not result in significant cumulative impact to public services and
recreation.
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the provision of, or need for, new
or physically altered governmental police protection facilities.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the provision of, or need for, new
or physically altered schools.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to increased use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would not result significant cumulative impact to public services and
recreation. However, Mitigation Measure PS-1 has been included to ensure that cumulative
impacts remain less than significant.
LA County Flood Control District 13 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
PS-1: The Permittee implementing the EWMP project shall provide reasonable advance
notification to service providers such as fire, police, and emergency medical services as
well as to local businesses, homeowners, and other residents adjacent to and within areas
potentially affected by the proposed EWMP project about the nature, extent, and duration
of construction activities. Interim updates should be provided to inform them of the status
of the construction activities.
4.1.13 Transportation and Circulation
Construction of the proposed program would not potentially cause traffic safety hazards for
vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways, and would not increase traffic hazards
due to possible road wear (Impact 3.13-2).
The proposed program would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction
(Impact 3.13-3).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to traffic safety hazards for vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to inadequate emergency access
during construction.
4.1.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the proposed program would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in the construction of new
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities if the wastewater treatment provider has
inadequate capacity to serve the proposed program (Impact 3.14-1).
The proposed program would not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects (Impact 3.14-2).
Construction and operation of the proposed program would not require additional energy use that
could result in wasteful consumption, affect local and regional energy supplies, or conflict with
applicable energy efficiency policies or standards (Impact 3.14-5).
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to exceedance of wastewater
treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in the
construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
LA County Flood Control District 14 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in no impact relating to additional energy use.
4.2 Non -Structural (Institutional) BMPs
Non-structural control measures are policies, actions, and activities which are intended to
minimize or eliminate pollutant sources. Most institutional BMPs are implemented to meet
Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements in the MS4 permit; MCMs are considered a
subset of institutional BMPs. These BMPs are not constructed, but may have costs associated
with the procurement and installation of items such as signage or spill response kits. The MS4
Permit categorizes institutional BMPs into six program categories:
• Development Construction Programs, which establish standards for stormwater
management from construction sites of all sizes (e.g., with or without a stormwater
pollution prevention plan [SWPPP]).
• Industrial/Commercial Facilities Programs, which establish standards for pollutant
reduction and control measures at industrial and commercial facilities.
• Illicit Connection and Illicit Discharges (IC/ID) Detection and Elimination Programs,
which describe procedures for identifying, eliminating, and reporting illicit connections
and discharges to the stormwater system.
• Public Agency Activities Programs, which describe a broad range of municipal practices
such as street cleaning, landscape management, storm drain operation, and more.
• Planning and Land Development Programs, which encourage the application of smart
growth and low -impact development (LID) practices to development and redevelopment
projects.
• Public Information and Participation Programs, which educate and engage the public on a
broad range of pollution- and stormwater-related issues.
Permittees can evaluate the MCMs, identify potential modifications that will address water
quality priorities, and provide justification for modification or elimination of any MCM that is
determined to be ineffective (with the exception of the Planning and Land Development Program,
which may not be eliminated or modified). MCM customization may include replacement,
reduced implementation, augmented implementation, focused implementation, or elimination.
Because the LACFCD has limited jurisdictional authority for ordinance and code enactment or
enforcement, it is limited in application of MCMs to activities such as public information and
participation programs.
LA County Flood Control District 15 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Non-structural/institutional BMPs do not include construction of new facilities. Consequently, the
Final Program EIR finds no significant environmental impacts associated with this type of BMP,
and no mitigation is required for any of the environmental resource areas.
Finding
The Board of Supervisors finds, based on the Final Program EIR, and the whole of the record,
that the proposed program would result in either less than significant impacts or no impacts to all
environmental topic areas analyzed in the Final Program EIR relating to implementation of non-
structural/institutional BMPs within the program area.
5.0 Less than Significant Environmental Impacts
The significant impacts identified in this section are capable of being mitigated to levels of less
than significant through the mitigation identified in the Final Program EIR. This mitigation has
been adopted by the District. Thus, for projects implemented under the program where the
District has jurisdiction over the project, the significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of less
than significant. However, the EWMPs cover numerous jurisdictions and include potential
projects that will be entirely within the jurisdiction of a different implementing agency. Because
the District cannot ensure that these Implementing Agencies will adopt and implement the
proposed mitigation measures, the District finds that the impacts identified in this section may
also be significant and unavoidable with respect to projects where the District will not be an
implementing agency. The conclusions of "less than significant" below will apply to the extent
the Implementing Agencies adopt the proposed mitigation.
5.1 Aesthetics
Significant Effect
The proposed program could create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Impact 3.1-1).
Description of Specific Impact
During construction, equipment and materials required for temporary ground disturbances would
be visible from public vantage points, but would not affect any scenic vistas past the temporary
construction periods. Given the predominantly urban character of potential pump station sites and
temporary nature of construction activities, impacts would be considered less than significant. A
majority of structural BMPs would be located underground and would not introduce impacts to
scenic vistas. Aboveground structures such as pump stations would be located in urbanized areas
and would generally be single -story buildings. Such aboveground structures have the potential to
impact scenic vistas, but will be required to be designed so as not to contrast existing
neighborhood aesthetic features.
LA County Flood Control District 16 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Finding
Permanent aboveground structures associated with certain BMPs have the potential to create
substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas in the project area. The implementation of Mitigation
Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the
impacts caused by the project relating to the creation of a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce the impact to a less -than -
significant level by designing aboveground structures in a way that would avoid obstructing
scenic vistas or views from public vantage points, and would ensure design consistency with
neighboring structures.
AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning
codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with
neighboring development.
Significant Effect
The proposed program could substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,
trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Impact 3.1-2).
Description of Specific Impact
Parts of the proposed program may be visible from designated scenic highways or other locally
designated scenic roadways in the project area. Rock outcroppings and historic buildings would
likely not be disturbed by the project as most of the BMPs will be underground and not visible
after construction is complete. Construction of the proposed program would involve removal of
vegetation from individual project sites. Smaller aboveground structures would not substantially
damage scenic resources, and impacts from larger structures would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1.
Finding
Permanent aboveground structures associated with certain BMPs have the potential to
substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The implementation of Mitigation Measure
AES-1 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would serve to ensure design consistency
with neighboring structures in individual project areas, thereby reducing damage to scenic
resources within a state scenic highway.
AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning
codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with
neighboring development.
LA County Flood Control District 17
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA1140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
Significant Effect
The proposed program could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings (Impact 3.1-3).
Description of Specific Impact
Construction activities would visually degrade the project site and its surroundings as a result of
the appearance of demolition materials, excavated areas, stockpiles, and other materials. Due to
the temporary nature of construction, these adverse effects are considered less than significant.
Once constructed, the BMPs would be located predominantly in urban areas and largely
underground, which will not have a permanent effect on the visual character or quality of an area.
Aboveground structures may degrade existing visual character of project areas as they will add to
the visual landscape. Without proper maintenance of BMPs, especially wet ponds or constructed
wetlands, there is a potential for substantial degradation of existing visual quality of project sites
due to algal growth or public littering.
Finding
Operation of the proposed program has the potential to result in impacts related to substantial
degradation of existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the
impacts caused by the project relating to the substantial degradation of existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-
Z would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level.
AES-1: Aboveground structures shall be designed to be consistent with local zoning
codes and applicable design guidelines and to minimize features that contrast with
neighboring development.
AES-2: Implementing agencies shall develop BMP maintenance plans that are approved
concurrently with each structural BMP approval. The maintenance plans must include
measures to ensure functionality of the structural BMPs for the life of the BMP. These
plans may include general maintenance guidelines that apply to a number of smaller
distributed BMPs.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in a less than significant cumulative aesthetic impact with
mitigation.
Description of Significant Impact
Cumulative projects in the program region have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to
aesthetic resources if they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of visual
LA County Flood Control District 18 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
character or image of a neighborhood, community, state scenic highway, or localized area. Given
that the BMPs will be located in primarily urbanized areas, introduction of structural BMPs
would result in only minor changes to the visual landscape. The cumulative impacts of
aboveground structures could have a significant impact to the aesthetic environment due to their
potential size and location.
Finding
The proposed program's cumulative aesthetic impact is considered cumulatively significant, but
would be reduced to less -than -significant with mitigation. Overall, implementation of BMPs is
anticipated to have a positive impact on the aesthetic environment through the creation of open
space areas and less impervious surfaces in urbanized or residential areas. After implementation
of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics would
be considered less -than -significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the
impacts caused by the project that results in a cumulative aesthetic impact. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, implementation of the proposed
projects would result in less -than -significant cumulative aesthetics impacts.
5.2 Air Quality
Significant Effect
The proposed program could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
(Impact 3.2-4).
Description of Significant Impact
While construction -related traffic on local roadways would occur during construction, the net
increase of construction vehicle trips to the existing traffic volumes on local roadways would be
relatively small and would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. These construction -
related trips would only occur in the short-term, and because trip -generating land uses are not
associated with the proposed program, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than
significant. Off -road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only temporarily at each
individual structural BMP site, therefore the construction activities associated with each structural
BMP project in the EWMP areas would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of
TACs. During construction of the individual structural BMPs in the project area, sensitive
receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers would be exposed to
significant adverse localized air quality impacts. Operation of structural BMPs would not involve
the emission of toxic air contaminants (TAC), and would operate passively without use of
mechanical equipment. Project operation would not introduce health risks associated with TAC
emissions. Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants from
vehicle exhaust and dust. Depending on the size and scope of the individual structural BMPs, a
localized significance threshold (LST) analysis may be required to ensure construction emissions
LA County Flood Control District 19 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
would not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or
contribute to the exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standards.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air
pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce
this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant
level.
AIR-3: For large construction efforts associated with regional or centralized BMPs,
implementing agencies shall conduct a project -specific LST analysis where necessary to
determine local health impacts to neighboring land uses. Where it is determined that
construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the structural BMP project shall
reduce its daily construction intensity (e.g., reducing the amount of equipment used daily,
reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily) to a level where the structural BMP
project's construction emissions would no longer exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in
pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
Significant Effect
The proposed program could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
(Impact 3.2-5).
Description of Significant Impact
The proposed program does not include any uses typically associated with odor complaints
including agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plans, and landfills,
among others. During the construction phase, exhaust odors from equipment may produce
discernible odors typical of most construction sites and would be a temporary source of nuisance
to adjacent uses. These odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature, so would not be
considered a significant environmental impact. Certain BMPs such as restored creeks and
estuaries may result in odors from saturated mud or algal blooms when left permanently wet. This
may result in a severe nuisance for sensitive receptors near such BMPs, and regular maintenance
may be sufficient to reduce odors in some situations.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 would
reduce impacts to a less -than -significant levels.
LA County Flood Control District 20
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA / 140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the
potential creation of objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant
level.
AES-2: Implementing agencies shall develop BMP maintenance plans that are approved
concurrently with each structural BMP approval. The maintenance plans must include
measures to ensure functionality of the structural BMPs for the life of the BMP. These
plans may include general maintenance guidelines that apply to a number of smaller
distributed BMPs.
AIR-4: During planning of structural BMPs, implementing agencies shall assess the
potential for nuisance odors to affect a substantial number of people. BMPs that minimize
odors shall be considered the priority when in close proximity to sensitive receptors.
5.3 Biological Resources
Significant Effect
The proposed program would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species identified as special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Impact 3.3-1).
Description of Significant Impact
Construction of structural BMPs may affect large open space or riparian habitats that would have
a higher potential to support special -status wildlife species, such as streams, wetlands, and upland
scrub or oak woodlands. Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-8 require suitability studies for
potential BMP sites for their potential to impact valued habitats, and require impact
characterization, minimization and compensation for impacts to highly valued habitats in
consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The proposed program will implement BMPs that are
designed to retain dry -weather flows, which could reduce wetted area or completely eliminate
flows in certain drainages that support sensitive species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
13I0-1 through 13I0-8 would help ensure that impacts to downstream biological resources are less
than significant for regional and centralized BMPs. The smaller distributed BMPs would not
result in significant impacts and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures.
Finding
The proposed program would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species identified as special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
LA County Flood Control District 21 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Service. These impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation
of the mitigation measures described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any sensitive species identified as special -status in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. In consideration of the potential use of the project site by special -status wildlife
species, impacts on special -status wildlife species would be significant. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-8 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
BI0-1: Prior to approving a regional or centralized BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an
evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate BMP sites should avoid
impacting large areas of native habitats including upland woodlands and riparian forests
that support sensitive species to the extent feasible. The evaluation shall include an
assessment of potential downstream impacts resulting from flow diversions.
BI0-2: Prior to ground -disturbing activities in areas that could support sensitive
biological resources, a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to
determine the potential for special -status wildlife species to occur within affected areas,
including areas directly or indirectly impacted by construction or operation of the BMPs.
BI0-3: If a special -status wildlife species is determined to be present or potentially
present within the limits of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction surveys of proposed work zones and within an appropriately sized buffer
around each area as determined by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to ground
disturbing activities. Any potential habitat capable of supporting a special -status wildlife
species shall be flagged for avoidance if feasible.
BI04: If avoidance of special -status species or sensitive habitats that could support
special -status species (including, but not limited to, critical habitat, riparian habitat, and
jurisdictional wetlands/waters) is not feasible, the Permittee shall consult with the
appropriate regulating agency (USACE/USFWS or CDFW) to determine a strategy for
compliance with the Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and other
regulations protecting special -status species and sensitive habitats. The Permittee shall
identify appropriate impact minimization measures and compensation for permanent
impacts to sensitive habitats and species in consultation with regulatory agencies.
Construction of the project will not begin until the appropriate permits from the
regulatory agencies are approved.
BI0-5: If construction and vegetation removal is proposed between February 1 and
August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey for breeding and
nesting birds and raptors within 500-feet of the construction limits to determine and map
LA County Flood Control District 22 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
the location and extent of breeding birds that could be affected by the project. Active nest
sites located during the pre -construction surveys shall be avoided until the adults and
young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified
biologist.
BI0-6: All construction areas, staging areas, and right-of-ways shall be staked, flagged,
fenced, or otherwise clearly delineated to restrict the limits of construction to the
minimum necessary near areas that may support special -status wildlife species as
determined by a qualified biologist.
BI0-7: Prior to construction in areas that could support special -status plants, a qualified
botanist shall conduct a pre -construction floristic inventory and focused rare plant survey
of project areas to determine and map the location and extent of special -status plant
species populations within disturbance areas. This survey shall occur during the typical
blooming periods of special -status plants with the potential to occur. The plant survey
shall follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (November 24, 2009).
BI0-8: If temporary construction -related impacts to special -status plant populations are
identified within a disturbance area, the implementing agencies shall prepare and
implement a special -status species salvage and replanting plan. The salvage and
replanting plan shall include measures to salvage, replant, and monitor the disturbance
area until native vegetation is re-established under the direction of CDFW and USFWS.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS. (Impact 3.3-2)
Description of Significant Impact
Significant Ecological Areas (SEA), as identified by the Los Angeles County General Plan,
riparian, and other sensitive communities are not expected to occur within the disturbance areas
of the BMP projects since the majority of the structural BMPs would occur in developed or
disturbed areas. While some regional and centralized structural BMPs could occur within or
adjacent to SEAs, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, these types of BMPs
would provide multi -beneficial water quality and habitat restoration improvements to the
applicable EWMP watershed. Additionally, each development proposed within a designated SEA
must undergo a performance review process for compliance with the SEA design compatibility
criteria and other standards for approval by the LA County Department of Regional Planning.
Finding
Future project -level environmental review processes would consider all proposed projects on a
case -by -case basis to determine whether an individual project would impact riparian or other
sensitive natural communities. Site -specific mitigation measures would be required to minimize
LA County Flood Control District 23 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
and reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian and other sensitive natural communities.
These impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-8.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 through BI0-8 would reduce impacts to
a less -than -significant level.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Impact
3.3-3)
Description of Significant Impact
Wetlands occur throughout the EWMP areas, and once project facility locations are determined,
exact locations and acreages of jurisdictional areas located within or adjacent to impact areas
shall be determined through a formal jurisdictional delineation. For projects impacting native
vegetation within jurisdictional drainages, the implementing agency would be required to obtain
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the
USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. In addition, implementation of
Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-9 would ensure compliance with state and federal
regulations relating to potentially jurisdictional features, including wash habitat vegetation that
may fall under CDFW jurisdiction.
Finding
Any projects impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages would be required to
comply with California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404
compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. These impacts
would be further reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of the
mitigation measures described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI0-9 would reduce
impacts to a less -than -significant level.
BI0-9: Prior to construction, a qualified wetland delineator shall be retained to conduct
formal wetland delineation in areas where potential jurisdictional resources (i.e., wetlands
or drainages) subject to the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW may be
LA County Flood Control District 24
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA I140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
affected by the project. If jurisdictional resources are identified in the EWMP area and
would be directly or indirectly impacted by individual projects, the qualified wetland
delineator shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation report suitable for submittal to
USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW for purposes of obtaining the appropriate permits. Habitat
mitigation and compensation requirements shall be implemented prior to construction in
accordance with Mitigation Measure 13I0-4.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Impact 3.3-5)
Description of Significant Impact
The proposed program would mainly be constructed within highly urbanized and disturbed areas
within existing infrastructure. Any impacts to oak trees within Los Angeles County would be
required to comply with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (or other tree ordinances
established by the local city). A tree permit may be required if impacts to oak trees or other
protected trees are determined to be necessary.
Finding
No impacts to oak trees or other protected tree species is anticipated. However, the exact
locations of the BMP projects have not been established. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-10 would reduce any potential impacts to protected tree species to a less -than -significant
level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10
would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
BIO-10: Oak trees and other protected trees shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If
trees may be impacted by project construction, a certified arborist shall conduct a tree
inventory of the construction impact area. If any oak trees or other protected trees will be
impacted by BMP construction, the implementing agency shall obtain any required
County or City permits.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in cumulative biological resource impacts.
Description of Significant Impact
Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention of stormwater and treatment of pollutants
within each watershed, and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways would substantially
benefit the water quality of the region's aquatic and coastal habitats, as well as the plants and
wildlife dependent on them. Implementation of the BMPs would also return the local hydrology
LA County Flood Control District 25 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
to a more natural condition. Although some drainage segments may exhibit reduced riparian
habitat or wetlands over time due to the reduced dry -weather flow, the cumulative effect would
be offset by increased groundwater recharge and seepage supporting expanded wetland and
riparian vegetation supporting local flora and fauna populations. Therefore, the program's
potential contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources is considered less than
significant.
Finding
Most of the distributed BMPs would be small in scale and would not result in cumulatively
significant impacts, as they would occur within existing developed or disturbed areas at existing
stormwater infrastructure/facilities. For regional and centralized BMPs at the larger scale,
Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through BIO-10 would reduce potentially significant impacts to
biological resources, and any additional or more site -specific mitigation measures developed
during the future project -level environmental review processes may further reduce potential
impacts.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts to biological resources. Any potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological
resources in the project region would be reduced by the implementation of Mitigation Measures
13I0-1 through 13I0-10.
5.4 Cultural Resources
Significant Effect
The proposed program could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique
archaeological resources as defined in § 15064.5 (Impact 3.4-2).
Description of Significant Impact
The program area, which spans most of Los Angeles County, should be considered sensitive for
archaeological resources, with degree of sensitivity varying across the program area based on
specific environmental factors. Any structural BMP which involves grading, trenching,
excavation, vegetation removal, or other forms of ground disturbance could impact
archaeological resources.
Finding
The proposed program's potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
unique archaeological resources is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects
caused by the proposed program could be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique
LA County Flood Control District 26 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
archaeological resources. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to
a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through
CUL-2.
CUL-2: Implementing agencies shall ensure that individual EWMP projects that require
ground disturbance shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project -
specific basis prior to the implementing agency's approval of project plans. The study
shall be conducted or supervised by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for
Archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American
representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory shall include a
cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal
Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans
identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate
by the qualified archaeologist; and formal recordation of all identified archaeological
resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and significance
evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report following the guidelines in
Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State of
California, 1990.
If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the
implementing agency shall require that the resources are evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR and for significance as a
historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be
significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the .appropriate Native
American groups for prehistoric resources. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3),
preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to
archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may
include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be
avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which
may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the
implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest
in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical
resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section
21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section
21083.2.
CUL-3: The implementing agency shall retain archaeological monitors during ground -
disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources qualifying
as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native
lA County Flood Control District 27 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
American representatives expressing interest in the project. Native American monitors
shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact sensitive Native
American resources, as determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the
qualified archaeologist.
CUL-4: During project -level construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be
discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist
shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall
determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American
groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate
mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be
the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical
resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute
or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping
or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is
demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop
additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in
consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American
representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological
site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.
Significant Effect
The proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature (Impact 3..4-3).
Description of Significant Impact
The program area is underlain by a number of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity
units, which may contain significant paleontological resources. Significant paleontological
resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, though, and it is possible that
ground -disturbing construction activities associated with structural BMPs could result in the
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact.
Finding
The proposed program's potential to directly or indirectly damage or destroy unique
paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features is considered significant; however,
potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program could be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would damage or destroy paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic
LA County Flood Control District 28 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
features. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is
less than significant with implementation Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6.
CUL-5: For individual structural BMP projects that require ground disturbance, the
implementing agency shall evaluate the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological
resources. If deemed necessary, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to evaluate the project and provide recommendations regarding additional
work, potentially including testing or construction monitoring.
CU1,6: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during construction,
the implementing agency shall notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will
evaluate the potential resource, assess the significance of the find, and recommend further
actions to protect the resource.
Significant Effect
The proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries (Impact 3.4-4).
Description of Significant Impact
There is no indication, either from the archival research results or the archaeological survey, that
any particular location in the project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent
or distant past. However, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during
project construction activities, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could
be a significant impact.
Finding
The proposed program's potential to uncover buried archaeological. deposits including human
remains is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project could
be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to the disturbing of any human remains, including those interred outside of a
formal cemetery. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a level
that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-7.
CUL-7: The implementing agency shall require that, if human remains are uncovered
during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the County
Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and
protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County
Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner will contact the
Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by
AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant of the deceased
LA County Flood Control District 29 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the
remains.
5.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources
Significant Effect
The proposed program could be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on -site or off -site non -
seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or
sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure (Impact 3.5-3).
Description of Significant Impact
Infiltration of water into subsurface soils can increase soil instability and result in saturated soils,
soil piping through preferential pathways, breakouts due to infiltrated water finding utility
trenches and other preferential pathways, and raising the local groundwater levels such that
infrastructure foundations and underground structures could be affected by unstable soils.
Structural BMPs could potentially be undermined by unstable soils or impact adjacent
infrastructure and buildings; Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the impact to a less -than -
significant level.
Finding
The proposed program's potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on -site or off -site non -
seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or
sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects
aused-by-he-proposed-programwould-be-mitigated�t�a less -than -significant -le e-l.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to the project being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the program, and potentially result in on -site or off -site non -
seismically induced geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse or
sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure. The project impacts are considered significant but would
be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure
GEO-1.
GEO-1: Prior to approval of infiltration BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a
geotechnical investigation of each infiltration BMP site to evaluate infiltration suitability.
If infiltration rates are sufficient to accommodate an infiltration BMP, the geotechnical
investigation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent excessive lateral
spreading that could destabilize neighboring structures. Implementing agencies shall
implement these measures in project designs.
LA County Flood Control District 30 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findinas of Fact
Significant Effect
Cumulative impacts on geology and soils would have a less than significant impact on the
environment with implementation of mitigation.
Description of Significant Impact
The cumulative effect of multiple infiltration projects could increase the severity of perched or
migrating water, which has the potential to inundate underground utilities or structures.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the cumulative impact to regional infrastructure
from perched or migrating water. The management of groundwater pumping among regional
managers prevents impacts to structural foundations resulting from groundwater mounding from
existing recharge efforts. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the cumulative effects to soil
stability from elevated groundwater levels to a less -than -significant level.
Finding
The proposed program's cumulative impact to geology and soils is considered significant;
however, potential adverse effects caused by the proposed program would be mitigated to a less -
than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. The cumulative project impacts are considered
significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2.
GEO-1: Prior to approval of infiltration BMPs, implementing agencies shall conduct a
geotechnical investigation of each infiltration BMP site to evaluate infiltration suitability.
If infiltration rates are sufficient to accommodate an infiltration BMP, the geotechnical
investigation shall recommend design measures necessary to prevent excessive lateral
spreading that could destabilize neighboring structures. Implementing agencies shall
implement these measures in project designs.
GEO-2: Prior to installing BMPs designed to recharge the local groundwater supplies,
the implementing agency shall notify local groundwater managers, including the Upper
Los Angeles River Area Water Master, the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California, or the San Gabriel Water Master as well as local water producers such as local
municipalities and water companies. The implementing agency shall coordinate BMP
siting efforts with groundwater managers and producers to mitigate high groundwater
levels while increasing local water supplies.
5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas
emissions that are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels.
LA County Flood Control District 31 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Effect
The proposed program would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs (Impact 3.7-2).
Description of Significant Impact
Because of their function as water conveyance systems, the entire storm sewer system, as
augmented by structural BMPs, would collect and retain sediment and chemicals from urban
runoff, along with any accidental or illicit spills of hazardous materials. The introduction of
hazardous materials into the storm sewer system could occur in large events as in a catastrophic
spill, or could occur in small concentrations as in petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals
picked up and carried by stormwater in urban runoff from the streets. Contaminants in the runoff
water or as discrete concentrated spills could accumulate in the soils and vegetation of structural
BMPs. To address the accumulation of contaminants in soil at BMPs, operations and maintenance
plans for BMPs that might accumulate constituents in surface soils and media will be developed
to include periodic removal and replacement of these potentially impacted surface materials to
reduce the potential for long-term loading leading to hazardous concentrations in soils and
groundwater.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs. The
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant
level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs to less -than -significant. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, these impacts would be considered less than
significant.
HAZ-1: Implementing agencies shall prepare and implement maintenance practices that
include periodic removal and replacement of surface soils and media that may
accumulate constituents that could result in further migration of constituents to sub -soils
and groundwater. A BMP Maintenance Plan shall be prepared by Implementing Agencies
upon approval of the BMP projects that identifies the frequency and procedures for
removal and/or replacement of accumulated debris, surface soils and/or media (to depth
where constituent concentrations do not represent a hazardous conditions and/or have the
potential to migrate further and impact groundwater) to avoid accumulation of hazardous
concentrations and the potential to migrate further to sub -soils and groundwater. The
Maintenance Plan shall include vector control requirements. The BMP Maintenance Plan
LA County Flood Control District 32 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
may consist of a general maintenance guideline that applies to several types of smaller
distributed BMPs. For smaller distributed BMPs on private property, these plans may
consist of a maintenance covenant that includes requirements to avoid the accumulation
of hazardous concentrations in these BMPs that may impact underlying sub -soils and
groundwater. Structural BMPs shall be designed to prevent migration of constituents that
may impact groundwater.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Impact 3.7-4).
Description of Significant Impact
It is possible that a proposed BMP may be located on a hazardous materials site listed on the
Cortese List, which would expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to
hazardous materials during earth -moving activities, introducing a significant impact.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in significant impacts related to the project
location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and, as a result, could
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-2 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to hazardous materials to less -than -significant. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
HAZ-2: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground -disturbing activities
in areas where hazardous material use or management may have occurred, the
implementing agencies shall complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527-13 for each
construction site. Any recommended follow up sampling (Phase II activities) set forth in
the Phase I ESA shall be implemented prior to construction. The results of Phase II
studies, if necessary, shall be submitted to the local overseeing agency and any required
remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior to
commencement of construction.
Significant Effect
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, for a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, the proposed program could result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area (Impact 3.7-5).
LA County Flood Control District 33 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Description of Significant Impact
Some structural BMPs, such as detention basins that store water for a period of time or
constructed wetlands that would increase or improve wildlife habitat, could be constructed on or
near airports and could result in attracting wildlife. Deer and birds are known wildlife hazards to
airports. If the proposed project is at or near an airport, this could increase hazards to aircraft
from wildlife.
Finding
The proposed program, if located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, for a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip, has the potential to result in safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 would reduce
impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to hazardous materials to less -than -significant. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-3, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
HAZ-3: Implementing Agencies shall require that those BMPs that are within an airport
land use plan area are compatible with criteria specified in FAA Advisory Circular No:
150/5200-33B (FAA, 2007). If the proposed BMP is within the minimum separation
criteria, the implementing agency shall consult with the airport and collaboratively
evaluate whether the potential increase in wildlife hazards can be mitigated.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in cumulatively significant impacts to hazardous materials.
Description of Significant Impact
Most of the distributed BMPs would be small in scale and would not result in cumulatively
significant impacts due to increased hazards from construction or operation. However, the
combination of BMPs throughout the region would change the flow paths of stormwater and
urban runoff that currently occurs in the region, resulting in the retention of pollutants generally
within the soil of the BMPs that use soil for filtration and retention. Cumulatively, throughout the
region, the retention and treatment of pollutants within each watershed and the reduction of
pollutant loading in waterways will substantially benefit water and sediment quality of the
region's habitats, rivers, and beaches. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to
cumulative effects on hazards and hazardous materials is considered beneficial.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
hazardous resources. Hazardous material could be released during project construction or
operation. The implementation of appropriate safety measures during construction of the
proposed project, as well as any other cumulative project, would reduce the impact to a level that
LA County Flood Control District 34 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
would not contribute to cumulative effects. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1,
HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
cumulative impacts caused by the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, impacts would be less than significant.
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in higher groundwater levels and could potentially affect
groundwater quality (Impact 3.8-2).
Description of Significant Impact
Regional BMPs would recharge stormwater into the groundwater basin and could raise local
groundwater levels following major storm events. Distributed infiltration BMPs would typically
be too small to have a measureable effect on local groundwater levels. The increased water
supplies captured by the infiltration basins through the EWMP areas would be a beneficial impact
of the projects. Infiltration BMPs would not be suitable in areas of low permeability, though, and
potential locations would need to be evaluated for suitability. Concentrations of contaminants
found in stormwater runoff could increase, resulting in contaminated shallow soils and
groundwater.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result significant impacts related to higher
groundwater levels and degradation of groundwater quality. The implementation of Mitigation
Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to higher groundwater levels and potential degradation of groundwater quality to
less -than -significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through
HYDRO-3, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
HYDRO-1: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct an
evaluation of the suitability of the BMP location. Appropriate infiltration BMP sites
should avoid areas with low permeability where recharge could adversely affect
neighboring subsurface infrastructure.
HYDRO-2: Prior to approving an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall identify
pretreatment technologies, type, and depth of filtration media; depth to groundwater; and
other design considerations necessary to prevent contaminants from impacting
groundwater quality. The design shall consider stormwater quality data within the BMP's
LA County Flood Control District 35 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
collection area to assess the need and type of treatment and filtration controls. Local
design manuals and ordinances requiring minimum separation distance to groundwater
shall also be met as part of the design.
HYDRO-3: Prior to the installation of an infiltration BMP, the Permittee shall conduct a
regulatory database review for contaminated groundwater sites within a quarter mile of
the proposed infiltration facility. The review shall include locations of on -site wastewater
treatment systems. The Permittee shall identify whether any contaminated groundwater
plumes or leach fields are present and whether coordination with the local and state
environmental protection overseeing agency and responsible party is warranted prior to
final design of infiltration facility.
5.9 Land Use and Agriculture
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on land use that are potentially
significant and that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels.
5.10 Noise
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Impact 3.10-3).
Description of Significant Impact
No operational noise levels would be generated by the structural BMPs given their passive
manner of operation. However, it is anticipated that some of the centralized and regional
structural BMPs would require the use of irrigation pump stations and associated components to
divert the collected stormwater. At these structural BMP sites, noise levels generated from the
long-term operation of the pumps and associated components could result in increased noise
levels in the surrounding noise environment.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The implementation
of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant
level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures
NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 included below, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
LA County Flood Control District 36 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
NOISE-1: The implementing agencies shall implement the following measures during
construction as needed:
• Include design measures necessary to reduce the construction noise levels to where
feasible. These measures may include noise barriers, curtains, or shields.
• Place noise -generating construction activities (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) as far as possible from the nearest
noise -sensitive land uses.
• Locate stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise -sensitive
receptors as possible.
• If construction is to occur near a school, the construction contractor shall coordinate
the with school administration in order to limit disturbance to the campus. Efforts to
limit construction activities to non -school days shall be encouraged.
• For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise -sensitive
land uses, identify a liaison for these off -site sensitive receptors, such as residents
and property owners, to contact with concerns regarding construction noise and
vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at
construction locations.
• For the centralized and regional BMP projects located adjacent to noise -sensitive
land uses, notify in writing all landowners and occupants of properties adjacent to
the construction area of the anticipated construction schedule at least 2 weeks prior
to groundbreaking.
NOISE-2: All structural BMPs that employ mechanized stationary equipment that
generate noise levels shall comply with the applicable noise standards established by the
implementing agency with jurisdiction over the structural BMP site. The equipment shall
be designed with noise -attenuating features (e.g., enclosures) and/or located at areas (e.g.,
belowground) where nearby noise -sensitive land uses would not be exposed to a
perceptible noise increase in their noise environment.
5.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to population, housing
and environmental justice that would be potentially significant, but could be mitigated to less than
significant levels.
LA County Flood Control District 37 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
5.12 Public Services and Recreation
Significant Effect
The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered governmental fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protective
services (Impact 3.12-1).
Description of Significant Impact
The structural BMPs are not habitable structures, would not be constructed with flammable
materials, and would not require fire protection services. Because of the relative scale of these
infrastructure improvements, the construction of the various structural BMPs are not expected to
result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. However, construction of
new structural BMPs in streets, sidewalks, parkland, or other facilities (these may include public
service facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and municipal maintenance yards) within
existing high -density urban, commercial, industrial, and transportation areas, as well as associated
staging areas, could temporarily disrupt the provision of fire services, resulting in potentially
significant impacts.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental fire
protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for
fire protection services. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 would reduce impacts to a
less -than -significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project related to
significant cumulative impacts associated with public services. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure PS-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
PS-1: The Permittee implementing the EWMP project shall provide reasonable advance
notification to service providers such as fire, police, and emergency medical services as
well as to local businesses, homeowners, and other residents adjacent to and within areas
potentially affected by the proposed EWMP project about the nature, extent, and duration
of construction activities. Interim updates should be provided to inform them of the status
of the construction activities.
LA County Flood Control District 38 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
5.13 Transportation and Circulation
Significant Effect
The proposed program would intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels and traffic
delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area
roadways (Impact 3.13-1).
Description of Significant Impact
Vehicle trips would be generated primarily by construction workers commuting to and from the
BMP work sites, and by trucks hauling materials and equipment to and from the sites. The
construction traffic impacts associated with each individual structural BMP project would be
short-term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place
for that particular project. Although project -related traffic would be temporary, supplemental
project -level analysis of potential site -specific impacts could determine that addition of project -
generated traffic would be considered substantial in relation to traffic flow conditions on local
roadways. For this program -level assessment, this impact is considered potentially significant.
Finding
The proposed program will potentially intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels and
traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on
area roadways; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would reduce impacts
to a less -than- significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to temporary and intermittent increase in traffic levels and traffic delays due to
vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways to
less -than -significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, below, this
impact would be considered less than significant.
TRAF-1: For projects that may affect traffic, implementing agencies shall require that
contractors prepare a construction traffic control plan. Elements of the plan should include,
but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
• Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation.
Use haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible.
• To the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow,
schedule truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.
• Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans' Manual of Traffic Controls for
Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving
conditions. Use flaggers and/or signage to safely direct traffic through construction
work zones.
LA County Flood Control District 39 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
• Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as
police and fire stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to the
facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction
activities.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation
(Impact 3.13-4).
Description of Significant Impact
During construction of the structural BMPs, intermittent and temporary traffic -related impacts in
the cumulative context would occur. The proposed program has the potential to contribute to
potentially significant cumulative construction -related impacts as a result of (1) cumulative
projects (such as land development projects) that generate increased traffic at the same time on
the same roads as would the proposed program, causing increased congestion and delays; and
(2) infrastructure projects in roads that would be used by project construction workers and trucks,
which could delay project -generated vehicles past the work zones of those other projects.
Finding
The proposed program is expected to cumulatively impact traffic and transportation; however,
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 is expected to reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation to less than significant. With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, these impacts would be considered less than
significant.
5.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Significant Effect
The proposed program would require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements or
require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Impact 3.14-3).
Description of Significant Impact
Implementation of the EWMPS would not increase water demand due to the relatively short
construction period for structural BMPs. Impacts to the existing water supplies are anticipated to
be beneficial as a result of the stormwater and non-stormwater runoff infiltration and
conservation BMPs implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction requiring ground
disturbance could encounter buried utilities including water supply infrastructure. Construction of
BMPs to detain stormwater and dry -weather flows may reduce flows downstream, thereby
LA County Flood Control District 40 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
reducing access to beneficial uses downstream. As part of the project design, Implementing
Agencies would be required to identify the potential for underground utilities and determine
whether they would need to be relocated to accommodate the BMP. Dry -weather flows in coastal
streams and foothills are largely fed by groundwater seepage or wastewater discharges. Any
detention of storm flows upstream would not substantially reduce storm flows downstream or
significantly impede access to storm flow.
Finding
The proposed program is not expected to require expansion of existing water entitlements or
result in the construction of new facilities that could result in environmental effects; the proposed
program would further reduce its impact by implementing Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to landfill capacity to less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTIL-1, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
UTIL-1: Prior to implementation of BMPs, the implementing agency shall conduct a
search for local utilities above and below ground that could be affected by the project.
The implementing agencies shall contact each utility potentially affected and relocate the
utility if necessary to ensure access and services are maintained.
UTIL-2: Prior to approval of BMPs, implementing agencies shall evaluate the potential
for impacts to downstream beneficial uses including surface water rights. Implementing
agencies shall not approve BMPs that result in preventing access to previously
appropriated surface water downstream.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the proposed program's solid waste disposal needs or the proposed program could
not comply with federal, state, and local statuses and regulations related to solid waste (Impact
3.14-4).
Description of Significant Impact
Construction activities associated with the structural BMPs would include excavation and
demolition of some existing infrastructure, which would produce solid waste requiring disposal in
the nearest landfill. Some of the EWMPs are required to implement trash Total Maximum Daily
Limits (TMDLs) and associated trash removal structural BMPs, which would require the disposal
of the trash collected by the BMPs, thereby increase the amount of trash being sent to landfills.
The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain
operation, which produce debris and trash requiring disposal, which could exceed landfill limits.
The new trash collected that is associated with proposed trash removal structural BMPs and non-
structural BMPs such as street cleaning and landscape management would be accommodated with
existing and planned trash disposal facilities. Based on landfill capacity in the Los Angeles
LA County Flood Control District 41 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
region, there appears to be ample availability to receive the expected trash generated by the
program. The program would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, including the Los Angeles County Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling and Reuse Program.
Finding
The program is not expected to be served by a landfill with insufficient capacity to accommodate
its waste disposal needs and would comply with all solid waste regulations; however,
implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would further reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to landfill capacity to less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTIL-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
UTIL-3: Implementing agencies shall encourage construction contractors to recycle
construction materials and divert inert solids (asphalt, brick, concrete, dirt, fines, rock,
sand, soil, and stone) from disposal in a landfill where feasible. Implementing agencies
shall incentivize construction contractors with waste minimization goals in bid
specifications where feasible.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to utilities and
service systems.
Description of Significant Impact
Structural BMPS constructed to treat, infiltrate, and/or store stormwater and non-stormwater
throughout the watershed would not generate wastewater or require wastewater treatment or
result in adverse cumulative impacts from operation or construction. Installation of storm
drainage facilities identified in the proposed EWMPs would not substantially affect existing
storm drain facilities. Impacts to the existing water supplies are anticipated to be beneficial as a
result of the stormwater and non-stormwater runoff infiltration and conservation BMPs
implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction and operation of the structural BMPs would
generate solid waste; however, landfills serving the program area are expected to have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the amount of waste generated. Disposal of the solid waste generated
during construction and operation would comply with all pertinent regulations and statutes. All
other projects implemented in the area would also be required to comply with federal, state, and
local solid waste regulations and statutes. The use of energy anticipated for the proposed program
is minor when compared to the County -wide use of electricity. The proposed program would use
energy -efficient equipment and would not result in wasteful consumption. The non-structural
BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain operation, which
would produce debris and trash for disposal.
LA County Flood Control District 42 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Finding
The proposed program would not likely result in cumulative impacts to utilities and service
systems. The proposed program would further reduce its cumulative impact on utilities and
service systems to a less -than -significant -level by implementing Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 and
UTIL-2.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTIL,-1 and UTIL,-2, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental
Impacts
As described above in Section 5.0, the impacts identified above as being less than significant with
the implementation of mitigation measures could be significant and unavoidable if the proposed
mitigation measures are not adopted and implemented by the Implementing Agencies for projects
within their jurisdiction. Because the District cannot ensure that these Implementing Agencies
will adopt and implement the proposed mitigation measures, the District finds that the impacts
identified in section 5.0 may also be significant and unavoidable with respect to projects where
the District will not be an implementing agency. The impacts discussed below were identified in
the Final Program EIR as being "significant and unavoidable" for the program because they
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.1 Aesthetics
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on aesthetics that cannot be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.2 Air Quality
Significant Effect
The proposed program could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation (Impact 3.2-2).
Description of Significant Impact
Construction activities at the individual project sites would temporarily create emissions of dust,
fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Through representative "worst -case"
construction scenarios of each structural BMP type, ranging from small-, medium-, and large-
scale projects, the magnitude of the daily emissions that can be generated by each structural BMP
type is presented. The maximum daily construction emissions for the three structural BMP project
types were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The
LA County Flood Control District 43 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
construction -related emissions of criteria air pollutants for the three structural BMP types were
modeled based on general information provided in the project description and CalEEMod default
settings along with reasonable assumptions based on other similar types of projects. The model
found that for smaller BMPs including distributed BMPs, air emissions would not be significant
and would not require mitigation measures. For some of the larger regional and centralized
BMPs, the model shows that the maximum daily level of construction -generated emissions of
NOx would exceed the applicable SCAQMD-recommended thresholds under the worst -case
construction scenarios. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce
emissions, but they may not reduce these emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds for
every structural BMP project, as the amount of emissions generated, the land area that would
need disturbing, and the length of the construction schedule for each structural BMP project
would vary. Implementation of large regional or centralized BMPs could result in temporary
significant and unavoidable air emissions during peak periods of construction.
Long term operation of the proposed program would not result in substantial emissions of criteria
air pollutants. There would be no new land use projects which would generate daily vehicle
emissions. Inspection and maintenance activities would occur to the project site, but would be
periodic throughout the year and would result in minimal emissions. Equipment for pump stations
and ancillary components would be electrically powered, so would not generate emissions at the
project site.
Finding
The proposed program would implement projects that could exceed identified emissions
thresholds, and therefore have the potential to violate any air quality standard or substantially
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would help reduce this impact, but construction emissions would
remain significant and unavoidable for some larger projects. Impacts from operational emissions
would be considered less -than -significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to the violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and
AIR-2 would help reduce the impact, but impacts from construction emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable for some of the larger projects. Impacts from operational emissions
would be less than significant.
AIR-1: Implementing agencies shall require for large regional or centralized BMPs the
use of low -emission equipment meeting Tier II emissions standards at a minimum and
Tier III and IV emissions standards where available as CARB-required emissions
technologies become readily available to contractors in the region.
AIR-2: For large construction efforts that may result in significant air emissions,
implementing agencies shall encourage contractors to use lower -emission equipment
through the bidding process where appropriate.
LA County Flood Control District 44 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Significant Effect
The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the program region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors) (Impact 3.2-3). The proposed program could result in a significant
cumulative impact to air quality.
Description of Significant Impact
As the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PMIO, and PM2,5, cumulative development
consisting of the proposed program along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the
Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation. Under conditions where multiple structural BMPs would be constructed
concurrently in the EWMP areas, it is anticipated that the total aggregate construction emissions
generated from these multiple structural BMP projects on a daily basis would exceed the
SCAQMD's significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, the resulting aggregate daily emissions may not be
reduced to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds should multiple structural BMP projects be
constructed concurrently. Thus, construction -related air quality impacts associated with the
proposed program would be considered significant and unavoidable. With respect to operational
emissions, program implementation would not result in substantial long-term regional emissions
of criteria air pollutants and would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for
criteria pollutants. As such, the proposed program's operational emissions would not be
cumulatively considerable and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Finding
As air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, PM lo, and PM2.5) would be
emitted as a result of the proposed program in excess of SCAQMD's thresholds for construction
activities, these pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable
future projects, be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce cumulative
air quality impacts, but not to a level that is less than significant. With respect to operational
emissions, program implementation would not result in substantial long-term regional emissions
of criteria air pollutants and would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for
criteria pollutants. As such, the proposed program's operational emissions would not be
cumulatively considerable and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts. Even after the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, impacts related
to cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard remain significant
and unavoidable for construction. Program implementation would not result in substantial long -
LA County Flood Control District 45 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
term regional emissions of criteria pollutants with respect to operational emissions, therefore
operational emissions would be less than significant.
AIR-1: Implementing agencies shall require for large regional or centralized BMPs the
use of low -emission equipment meeting Tier 11 emissions standards at a minimum and
Tier III and IV emissions standards where available as CARB-required emissions
technologies become readily available to contractors in the region.
AIR-2: For large construction efforts that may result in significant air emissions,
implementing agencies shall encourage contractors to use lower -emission equipment
through the bidding process where appropriate.
6.3 Biological Resources
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on biological resources that
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.4 Cultural Resources
Significant Effect
The proposed program would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource as defined in §15064.5. (Impact 3.4-1)
Description of Significant Impact
Implementation of structural BMPs could impact significant historic built environment resources
that exist within the program area, which may include not only buildings and structures, but also
built infrastructure such as concrete channels, dams, sidewalks, and roads. Impacts to the could
include not only physical demolition or alteration of built environment resources, but also
changes to the historic setting of a resource, and impacts that may adversely affect that ability of a
resource to convey its significance. Similarly, potentially significant buried archaeological
resources could still exist within the program area, beneath and between structures and roads. If
previously undiscovered artifacts or buried archaeological resources are uncovered during
excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. Not all EWMP projects may result in
a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to historical resources, as impacts associated
with each project would be dependent on location; presence, nature, and significance of any
historical resources within the construction area; and specific impacts to historical resources. In
some circumstances, no mitigation is sufficient to maintain the historic integrity of the affected
archaeological and other cultural resource or its surroundings, therefore implementation of the
proposed program may ultimately result in a substantial adverse change.
Finding
The proposed program's potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is considered significant. Potential adverse effects caused by the proposed
LA County Flood Control DisMct 46 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
program could be minimized by mitigation measures; however the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource. The project impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-I through CUL-4 would help minimize impacts.
CUL-1: For individual EWMP projects that could impact buildings or structures
(including infrastructure) 45 years old or older, implementing agencies shall ensure that a
historic built environment survey is conducted or supervised by a qualified historian or
architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards for Architectural History. Historic built environment resources shall be
evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR or local register prior to the
implementing agency's approval of project plans. If eligible resources that would be
considered historical resources under CEQA are identified, demolition or substantial
alteration of such resources shall be avoided. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible,
the implementing agency shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but
not be limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan
will be submitted to the implementing agency for review and approval prior to
implementation.
CUL-2: Implementing agencies shall ensure that individual EWMP projects that require
ground disturbance shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project -
specific basis prior to the implementing agency's approval of project plans. The study
shall be conducted or supervised by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for
Archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American
representatives expressing interest. The cultural resources inventory shall include a
cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal
Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans
identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate
by the qualified archaeologist; and formal recordation of all identified archaeological
resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and significance
evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report following the guidelines in
Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format, Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State of
California, 1990.
If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the
implementing agency shall require that the resources are evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR and for significance as a
historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be
LA County Flood Control District 47 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2016
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native
American groups for prehistoric resources. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3),
preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to
archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may
include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute or redesign, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be
avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which
may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the
implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest
in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical
resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section
21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section
21083.2.
CUL-3: The implementing agency shall retain archaeological monitors during ground -
disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources qualifying
as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native
American representatives expressing interest in the project. Native American monitors
shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact sensitive Native
American resources, as determined by the implementing agency in coordination with the
qualified archaeologist.
CUL-4: During project -level construction, should subsurface archaeological resources be
discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist
shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall
determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American
groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate
mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be
the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical
resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project reroute
or redesign, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping
or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is
demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop
additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in
consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American
representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological
site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources.
LA County Flood Control District 48 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Description of Significant Impact
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the cultural resources geographic scope of analysis
could occur if other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the proposed program, had
or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be significant.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3 and CUL-4, cumulatively
significant environmental impacts to unique archaeological resources would be reduced to a less
than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6,
cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Further,
implementation of CUL-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains should
they be encountered during ground -disturbing activities to a less -than -significant level.
Implementation of the proposed program may ultimately result in a substantial adverse change to
historical resources through various development activities for which no possible mitigation may
be available to maintain the historic integrity of the affected resource or its surroundings, and
impacts to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable at a program level.
Therefore, the implementation of structural BMPs may contribute to a cumulatively significant
environmental impact to historical resources.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
cultural resources, specifically in regard to substantial adverse changes in the significance of
historical resources resulting from excavation activities associated with projects in the cumulative
impacts scenario. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 would
reduce impacts relating to unique archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human
remains to a less -than -significant level, however, these mitigation measures would not reduce
impacts to historical resources below a significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
cumulative impacts caused by the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-
1 through CUL-7, these cumulative cultural resource impacts would be reduced, but still
considered significant and unavoidable.
6.5 Geologic and Mineral Resources
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to geology and soils that
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to greenhouse gas
emissions that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
LA County Flood Control District 49
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Findings of Fact
ESA I140474
April 2015
Findings of Fact
6.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects related to hazards and
hazardous materials that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on hydrology and water quality
that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.9 Land Use and Agriculture
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on land use and planning that
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.10 Noise
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies (Impact 3.10-1).
Description of Significant Impact
The proposed program would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during construction at
the project sites. Noise generated during temporary construction is anticipated, and because of the
possibility that certain structural BMP projects may exceed noise levels established by their
respective local jurisdictions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2
would reduce the proposed program's construction -related noise levels by requiring the project
contractor to locate equipment such that noise is directed away from sensitive receptors and to
maintain noise controls on standard construction equipment. In addition, the mitigation measures
would require a construction noise coordinator to resolve complaints about noise. However, even
with the project's adherence to all applicable noise requirements and guidelines in addition to
implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, it is anticipated that there would
be times during the project's construction activities where the nearest sensitive receptors would
be exposed to a perceptible increase in noise levels. Therefore, the project would result in
perceptible increases in noise levels during construction and this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable.
LA County Flood Control District 50 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, these impacts
would still be considered significant and unavoidable.
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Impact 3.10-4).
Description of Significant Impact
During construction of the distributed, centralized, and regional structural BMPs, temporary or
periodic increases in noise levels in and around each structural BMP site would result from the
operation of construction equipment. Where a structural BMP site is located within 25 feet of an
existing noise -sensitive land use, the resulting construction noise levels at that existing land use
could reach as high as 95 dBA L, during excavation activities, which would result in a
substantial noise increase over existing ambient noise levels at that existing land use. Therefore
this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The identification of a significant and
unavoidable program -level impact in this Program EIR for the proposed program, however, does
not preclude the finding of future less -than -significant impacts for individual structural BMP
proj ects.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project in the vicinity of .individual
projects. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce the project's
construction -related noise levels by requiring the project contractor to locate equipment such that
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors and to maintain noise controls on standard
construction equipment. In addition, the mitigation measures would require a construction noise
coordinator to resolve complaints about noise. However, even with the project's adherence to all
applicable noise requirements and guidelines in addition to implementation of the mitigation
measure, it is anticipated that there would be times during the project's construction activities
where the nearest sensitive receptors would be exposed to a perceptible change in noise levels.
Therefore, the proposed program would result in perceptible increases in noise levels during
construction and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 included, impacts would still be significant and
unavoidable during construction.
LA County Flood Control District 51 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
Significant Effect
The proposed program would result in significant cumulative construction noise impacts.
Description of Significant Impact
Noise and vibration are both defined as localized phenomena that significantly reduce in
magnitude as distance from the source increases. The structural BMPs associated with the
proposed program would be constructed in multiple jurisdictions of Los Angeles County, which
aside from the County also includes 46 cities and LACFCD. As such, these structural BMP
projects would be generally spread over a large geographic area within the County. These
structural BMPs in combination with other current and planned projects in the County would
result in an increase in construction -related noise levels, which would temporarily increase the
ambient noise levels of the existing noise environment in areas where a construction project
would occur. This would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for construction.
Finding
The proposed program has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in
excess of applicable standards. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and
NOISE-2, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable during construction.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce
impacts related to inappropriate noise levels. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures
NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable during construction.
6.11 Population and Housing and Environmental Justice
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on population, housing and
environmental justice that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.12 Public Services and Recreation
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on public services and
recreation that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.13 Transportation and Circulation
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on transportation and traffic
that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
6.14 Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed program would not have any environmental effects on utilities that cannot be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
LA County Flood Control District 52 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
7.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding program
alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section
15091(s)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection
and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision -makers with
information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a proposed program.
When selecting alternatives for evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the
basic objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the program's significant
effects. Thus, objectives for the proposed program were considered by this board in evaluating
the alternatives. These objectives are:
To collaborate among agencies (Permittee jurisdictions) across the watershed to promote
more cost-effective and multi -beneficial water quality improvement projects to comply
with the MS4 Permit;
• To develop watershed -wide EWMPs that will, once implemented, remove or reduce
pollutants from dry- and wet -weather urban runoff in a cost-effective manner; and
• To reduce the impact of stormwater and non-stormwater on receiving water quality.
7.1 No Program Alternative
Under this alternative, the existing land uses on the project site would continue to operate as they
do under existing conditions. The existing land uses would continue for an indefinite period and
no physical changes within the proposed program area would occur. In addition, existing
ancillary structures, such as buildings, roadways and parkways within the project area, would
remain in their current capacity. The No Project Alternative would maintain the current zoning
and land use designations.
Finding
This alternative would not meet the first and second objectives to collaborate among agencies
across the watershed to prepare EWMPs that promote more cost-effective and multi -beneficial
water quality improvement projects. However, compliance with the MS4 Permit is still required
regardless of implementation of the EWMP. Under the No Project Alternative some water quality
projects would be implemented in an effort to achieve compliance with the MS4 permit.
This alternative would result in slightly greater impacts to air quality with regards to emissions
generated, because the programs would need to be installed rapidly and more BMPs would likely
be required as a result of the inefficiencies of multiple boundaries. Hydrology and water quality
impacts would also be greater, as an installation grace period would not be granted for BMPs
outside of the EWMP, increasing the likelihood of noncompliance with the MS4 Permit. All other
impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared with the proposed program. This
LA County Flood Control District 53 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
alternative would not eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts when associated with the
proposed project.
7.2 Non -Structural BMPs Only Project Alternative
This alternative would involve implementation of the proposed program and its associated non-
structural BMPs only. No structural BMPs would be implemented.
Finding
This alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed program to collaborate
among agencies to promote more cost-effective and multi -beneficial water quality improvement
projects and to prepare EWMPs to reduce pollutant loading. Non -Structural BMPs are generally
implemented individually in each jurisdiction.
Since no facilities would be constructed, temporary impacts to the environment would be less
than the proposed program for many topic areas. However, impacts to population and housing,
land use, and recreation would be greater than the proposed program. This alternative would
result in greater impacts to aesthetics, as it would not include green -streets and grassy swales that
would improve local aesthetics. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would also be greater
under this alternative, as achieving water quality objectives with no structural BMPs would be
unlikely.
7.3 Distributed Structural and Non -Structural BMPs Only
Program Alternative (No Centralized or Regional)
This alternative would involve implementation of the proposed program and only its associated
distributed structural BMPs and non-structural BMPs.
Finding
This alternative would achieve the first and third project objectives to collaborate among agencies
to promote more cost-effective and multi -beneficial water quality improvement projects that
reduce the impact of stormwater on receiving water quality. However, it would likely require
more BMPs to meet the MS4 Permit water quality objectives, as distributed structural BMPs tend
to be smaller in nature and are located in a wide distribution throughout the watershed. Therefore,
it would not meet the second project objective (developing EWMPS that will remove or reduce
pollutants from urban runoff and removal of stormwater and non-stormwater impacts on
receiving water quality).
Since much of the impacts of program implementation would occur during construction of the
large-scale regional and centralized BMPs, this alternative would result in fewer construction
impacts than the proposed project and fewer impacts to aesthetics. However, the alternative
would result in greater impacts to land use planning/agriculture, as eliminating the use of large
open space areas for BMPs would require a more dispersed land use acquisition for small scale
BMPs, thereby increasing potential land use compatibility impacts. This alternative would
LA County Flood Control District 54 ESA 1140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
eliminate the water quality benefit and more likely potential to comply with the MS4 Permit
provided by large-scale regional BMPs, and would therefore result in greater hydrology and water
quality impacts. All other impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed
program.
7.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that
could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen
significant program impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative of a
project other than or the "no project" alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2)). An
environmentally superior alternative is an alternative to the project that would reduce and/or
eliminate the significant environmental impacts associated with the project without creating other
significant impacts and without substantially reducing and/or eliminating the environmental
benefits attributable to the project.
Finding
The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the proposed program itself. The proposed
program would avoid increasing the impacts to hydrology and water quality that would occur
under all three of the alternatives.
The No Program Alternative would require that individual Permittees design and construct BMPs
locally to achieve MS4 Permit compliance. None of the significant and unavoidable impacts of
the proposed alternative would be avoided by this alternative. Furthermore, since the ability to
achieve compliance with MS4 Permit water quality .objectives would be reduced if each Permittee
were on their own, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater under this
alternative.
The Distributed Structural BMPs Only Alternative would result in construction of an increased
number of distributed BMPs This alternative would result in fewer impacts to air quality, cultural
resources and noise, and would therefore reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the proposed program. However, since the ability to achieve compliance with
MS4 Permit water quality objectives would be reduced without the larger -scale centralized and
regional BMPs, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative.
The Non -Structural BMPs Only Alternative would avoid all of the significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with construction of the structural BMPs. In addition, nearly all of the impacts
associated with the proposed alternative would be avoided, including impacts from infiltration to
neighboring subsurface structures, mobilization of contaminants, and site -specific impacts to
cultural and biological resources. However, since the ability to achieve compliance with MS4
Permit water quality objectives would be substantially reduced, impacts to water quality would be
greater under this alternative, and compliance with the MS4 Permit would be unlikely. Even
though this alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts of construction and
LA County Flood Control District 55 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
operation of structural BMPs, the failure to meet water quality objectives and achieve MS4
Permit compliance would outweigh the avoidance of the other impacts.
Since the proposed alternative would provide the best chance of achieving regional water quality
objectives, it is considered the environmentally superior alternative.
LA County Flood Control District 56 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Findings of Fact
Exhibit B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
For
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2014081106)
Lead Agency: Los Angeles County Flood Control District
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining to approve the
project. The Enhanced Watershed Management Programs (EWMP) would result in some environmental
effects that, although mitigated to the extent feasible by the implementation of mitigation measures
proposed for the program, would remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as discussed in the
final program environmental impact report (PEIR) and CEQA findings of fact. These impacts are
summarized below and constitute those impacts for which this statement of overriding considerations is
made.
Air Quality
1) Im act 3.2-2 The 12roicet would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation). Construction of large regional or centralized BMPs
associated with the proposed program could result in temporary significant and unavoidable air
emissions during peak periods of construction. The exceedance of applicable SCAQMD-
recommended air quality thresholds would be generated primarily during the grading phase of
proposed projects, when emissions associated with off -road construction equipment and on -road
soil hauling activities would occur. Mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce the severity of
the emissions during construction by requiring the use of low -emission equipment which meets
Tier II emissions standards at a minimum. However, because there are no feasible mitigation
measures that can be implemented to prevent violation of air quality standards during
construction, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable despite
implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2.
2) Impact 3.2-3 (The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant For which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air guali1y standard(including releasing emissions which exceed gLiantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)). The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment. The Los Angeles
Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which indicates that combined
LA County Flood Control District t ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
PreliWnury —Subject to Revision
with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin, the proposed program could violate
an air quality standard. Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the resulting aggregate
daily emissions may not be reduced to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds should multiple
structural BMP projects be constructed concurrently throughout the Basin. As pollutants for
which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, PM10, and PM2_5) could exceed SCAQMD's
respective thresholds for construction, these pollutant emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of
Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2. Operational emissions for the program would not exceed
air quality standards therefore would not be cumulatively considerable; cumulative air quality
impacts would be less than significant after implementation of structural BMPs.
Cultural Resources
3) Impact 3..4-1 The project would cause a substantial adverse chan re in the sipnificance of an
historical resource as defined in U5064.5.). The proposed project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to historical resources in the project area. Historical resources can include
not only buildings and structures, but also any object, site area, place, record, or manuscript
which a lead agency determines to be historically significant, or which is listed in or determined
eligible for listing in the CRHR. Known archaeological resources, as well as unknown and
unrecorded archaeological resources that may be unearthed during construction activities
associated with implementation of structural BMPs, could be impacted by individual projects. As
program implementation actions move forward, individual projects would undergo additional
CEQA review prior to construction to assess impacts to specific cultural resources not addressed
in this program -level EIR. Mitigation measures will be implemented to lessen impacts to
historical resources through historic built environment surveys, cultural resources inventories,
archaeological monitoring, and assessment of findings if applicable during ground -disturbing
operations. However, because the degree of impact and the applicability, feasibility, and success
of these measures cannot be accurately predicted for each specific project at. this time, the
program level impact related to archaeological and cultural resources that qualify as historical
resources is considered significant and unavoidable. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 through CUL-4, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
4) Cumulative Impact. Cultural Resources The project would result in cumulative impacts to
cultural resources). Development of the proposed project together with simultaneous
development of nearby, reasonably foreseeable planned projects in the area would result in
significant cumulative cultural resources impacts. The program could cause impacts on cultural
and paleontological resources during the construction period or as a result of operation and
maintenance or closure and decommissioning activities. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources
in the cultural resources geographic scope of analysis could occur if other existing or proposed
projects, in conjunction with the proposed program, had or would have impacts on cultural
resources that, when considered together, would be significant. While implementation of
mitigation measures would reduce impacts to historical resources, the proposed program may
ultimately result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources through development
activities for which no possible mitigation may be available to maintain historic integrity of an
affected resource or its surroundings. Therefore, despite implementation of Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 through CUL-7, the program would have cumulatively significant and unavoidable
environmental impact to historical resources.
LA Cotmty Flood Control District 2 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement ol'Overriding Considerations
Preliminary — Subject to Revision
Noise
5) Impact 3.10-1 The proposed 12roiect would result in exposure of persons to or eneratiott of
noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies). During construction of the proposed program, noise
levels would be increased temporarily and intermittently to levels substantially greater than
existing ambient noise levels in the area. Mitigation measures would help reduce construction
noise impacts, requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable
local noise regulations and standards, the implementation of noise reduction devices and
techniques during construction activities, and advance notification to the surrounding noise -
sensitive receptors of a structural BMP site about upcoming construction activities and their hours
of operation. Certain structural BMP projects may exceed noise levels established by their
respective local jurisdictions, though, which would make this impact significant and unavoidable
despite implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2.
6) Impact 3.10-4 [The proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the proiect vicirft above levels existing without the ro'ect). During
construction of the distributed, centralized, and regional structural BMPs, temporary or periodic
increases in noise levels in and around each structural BMP site would result from the operation
of construction equipment. Under circumstances where structural BMP sites are located
immediately adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the structural
BMPs would remain significant, even with implementation of mitigation measures. Individual
project -level assessment in the future, though, may result in a finding of less -than -significant for
temporary increases in noise levels. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable for this program.
7) Cumulative Impact, Noise The project would result in si nilicant cumulative construction noise
impacts). Construction of the structural BMPs, in combination with other current and planned
projects in the County would result in an increase in construction -related noise levels, which
would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels of the existing noise environment in areas
where a construction project would occur. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures
NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, cumulative impacts for construction would remain significant and
unavoidable.
In addition to the impacts identified above, the District finds that the following impacts are significant and
unavoidable solely because the mitigation proposed to reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels
is within the control and jurisdiction of other public agencies who will be implementing the EWMPs.
Although the District will implement these mitigation measures for projects over which it has jurisdiction,
the District cannot ensure that other Implementing Agencies will adopt and implement the proposed
mitigation measures for projects over which they have jurisdiction. The District therefore cannot state
with certainty that these impacts will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, meaning that they may
remain significant and unavoidable. The statement of overriding considerations is therefore also made for
the following impacts:
Aesthetics
8) Impact 3.1-1(The proposed program could create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista).
During construction, equipment and materials required for temporary ground disturbances would
LA County Flood Control District 3 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
be visible from public vantage points, but would not affect any scenic vistas past the temporary
construction periods. Given the predominantly urban character of potential pump station sites and
temporary nature of construction activities, impacts would be considered less than significant. A
majority of structural BMPs would be located underground and would not introduce impacts to
scenic vistas. Aboveground structures such as pump stations would be located in urbanized areas
and would generally be single -story buildings. Such aboveground structures have the potential to
impact scenic vistas, but will be required to be designed so as not to contrast existing
neighborhood aesthetic features. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure AES-1 that
would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. However, without implementation of this
mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
9) Impact 3.1-2 The proposed pLogram could substantially dams a scenic resources includin but
not limited to trees rocks outcroppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic
hi hwa .Parts of the proposed program may be visible from designated scenic highways or other
locally designated scenic roadways in the project area. Rock outcroppings and historic buildings
would likely not be disturbed by the project as most of the BMPs will be underground and not
visible after construction is complete. Construction of the proposed program would involve
removal of vegetation from individual project sites. Larger structures may result in significant
impacts to scenic resources within state scenic highway. The Program EIR identified Mitigation
Measure AES-1 that would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. However, without
implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
10) Impact 3.1-3 The 12rol2osed program could substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings). Construction activities would visually degrade the project
site and its surroundings as a result of the appearance of demolition materials, excavated areas,
stockpiles, and other materials. Due to the temporary nature of construction, these adverse effects
are considered less than significant. Once constructed, the BMPs would be located predominantly
in urban areas and largely underground, which will not have a permanent effect on the visual
character or quality of an area. Aboveground structures may degrade existing visual character of
project areas as they will add to the visual landscape. Without proper maintenance of BMPs,
especially wet ponds or constructed wetlands, there is a potential for substantial degradation of
existing visual quality of project sites due to algal growth or public littering. The Program EIR
identified Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 that would reduce impacts to a less -than -
significant level. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
11) Cumulative Impact, Aesthetics The proposed 12roUam would result in a less than significant
cumulative aesthetic impact with mitigation). Cumulative projects in the program region have the
potential to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources if they would result in the removal
or substantial adverse change of visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, state
scenic highway, or localized area. Given that the BMPs will be located in primarily urbanized
areas, introduction of structural BMPs would result in only minor changes to the visual landscape.
The cumulative impacts of aboveground structures could have a significant impact to the
aesthetic environment due to their potential size and location. Overall, implementation of BMPs
is anticipated to have a positive impact on the aesthetic environment through the creation of open
space areas and less impervious surfaces in urbanized or residential areas. The Program EIR
identified Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 that would reduce cumulative impacts
LA County Flood Control District 4 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
associated with aesthetics to a less -than -significant level. However, without implementation of
these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality
12) Impact 3.2-4 The proposed program could expose sensitive. receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations). While construction -related traffic on local roadways would occur during
construction, the net increase of construction vehicle trips to the existing traffic volumes on local
roadways would be relatively small and would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.
These construction -related trips would only occur in the short-term, and because trip -generating
land uses are not associated with the proposed program, impacts associated with CO hotspots
would be less than significant. Off -road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only
temporarily at each individual structural BMP site, therefore the construction activities associated
with each structural BMP project in the EWMP areas would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial emissions of TACs. During construction of the individual structural BMPs in the
project area, sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers would
be exposed to significant adverse localized air quality impacts. Operation of structural BMPs
would not involve the emission of toxic air contaminants (TAC), and would operate passively
without use of mechanical equipment. Project operation would not introduce health risks
associated with TAC emissions. Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to
criteria air pollutants from vehicle exhaust and dust. Depending on the size and scope of the
individual structural BMPs, a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis may be required to
ensure construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant
emissions that would cause or contribute to the exceedance of the most stringent applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standards. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure
AIR-3 that would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. However, without
implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
13) The proposed program could create objectionable odors affectin s a substantial number of people
(Impact 3.2-5). The proposed program does not include any uses typically associated with odor
complaints including agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plans, and
landfills, among others. During the construction phase, exhaust odors from equipment may
produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites and would be a temporary source of
nuisance to adjacent uses. These odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature, so would
not be considered a significant environmental impact. Certain BMPs such as restored creeks and
estuaries may result in odors from saturated mud or algal blooms when left permanently wet. This
may result in a severe nuisance for sensitive receptors near such BMPs, and regular maintenance
may be sufficient to reduce odors in some situations. The Program EIR identified Mitigation
Measures AES-2 and AIR-4 that would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant levels. However,
without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Biological Resources
14) Impact 3.3-1 "The proposed program would have a substantial adverse fiTtl2act, either direct!y or
t[iroujzh habitat modifications on species identified as special -status species in local or regional
fanspolicies, or re ulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service). Construction of structural BMPs may affect large open space or
LA County Flood Control District 5 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
riparian habitats that would have a higher potential to support special -status wildlife species, such
as streams, wetlands, and upland scrub or oak woodlands. Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through
BI0-8 require suitability studies for potential BMP sites for their potential to impact valued
habitats, and require impact characterization, minimization and compensation for impacts to
highly valued habitats in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The proposed program will
implement BMPs that are designed to retain dry -weather flows, which could reduce wetted area
or completely eliminate flows in certain drainages that support sensitive species. The Program
EIR identified Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI0-8 that would reduce the impact to a less -
than -significant level. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
15) Impact 3.3-2 The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on any 612arian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS). Significant Ecological Areas (SEA), as identified by
the Los Angeles County General Plan, riparian, and other sensitive communities are not expected
to occur within the disturbance areas of the BMP projects since the majority of the structural
BMPs would occur in developed or disturbed areas. While some regional and centralized
structural BMPs could occur within or adjacent to SEAs, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities, these types of BMPs would provide multi -beneficial water quality and habitat
restoration improvements to the applicable EWMP watershed. Additionally, each development
proposed within a designated SEA must undergo a performance review process for compliance
with the SEA design compatibility criteria and other standards for approval by the LA County
Department of Regional Planning. Future project -level environmental review processes would
consider all proposed projects on a case -by -case basis to determine whether an individual project
would impact riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Site -specific mitigation measures
would be required to minimize and reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian and other
sensitive natural communities. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through
1310-8 that would reduc"hi$ impact to less than—signiftcant Ae-vels. Howe-ver-,—wi-thout
implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
16) Impact 3.3-3 The proposed program would have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including. but not limited
to, marsh vernal pool, coastal etc. through direct removal fillip h drolo i.cal interruption, or
other means). Wetlands occur throughout the EWMP areas, and once project facility locations are
determined, exact locations and acreages of jurisdictional areas located within or adjacent to
impact areas shall be determined through a formal jurisdictional delineation. For projects
impacting native vegetation within jurisdictional drainages, the implementing agency would be
required to obtain California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 compliance and Section 404
compliance from the USACE and Section 401 Certification from the RWQCB. In addition,
implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through BI0-9 would ensure compliance with
state and federal regulations relating to potentially jurisdictional features, including wash habitat
vegetation that may fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Any projects impacting native vegetation
within jurisdictional drainages would be required to comply with California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 compliance and Section 404 compliance from the USACE and Section 401
Certification from the RWQCB. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through
13I0-9 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without
implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
LA County Flood Control District 6 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminury —Subject to Revision
17) Impact 3.3-5 The 12roposed program would conflict with local golicies or ordinancesprotect'
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance). The proposed program
would mainly be constructed within highly urbanized and disturbed areas within existing
infrastructure. Any impacts to oak trees within Los Angeles County would be required to comply
with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (or other tree ordinances established by the local city).
A tree permit may be required if impacts to oak trees or other protected trees are determined to be
necessary. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure 13I0-10 that would reduce this impact
to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the
impact would be significant and unavoidable.
18) Cumulative Impacts, Biological Resources (Theprol2osed program would result in cumulative
biological resource impacts). Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention of stormwater
and treatment of pollutants within each watershed, and the reduction of pollutant loading in
waterways would substantially benefit the water quality of the region's aquatic and coastal
habitats, as well as the plants and wildlife dependent on them. Implementation of the BMPs
would also return the local hydrology to a more natural condition. Although some drainage
segments may exhibit reduced riparian habitat or wetlands over time due to the reduced dry -
weather flow, the cumulative effect would be offset by increased groundwater recharge and
seepage supporting expanded wetland and riparian vegetation supporting local flora and fauna
populations. Therefore, the program's potential contribution to cumulative effects on biological
resources is considered less than significant. For regional and centralized BMPs at the larger
scale, the Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10 that would reduce
this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation
measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
19) Impact 3.4-2 The 12roposed prop -ram could cause a substantial adverse char a in the significance
of unique archaeological resources as defined in 15064.5). The program area, whichpans most
of Los Angeles County, should be considered sensitive for archaeological resources, with degree
of sensitivity varying across the program area based on specific environmental factors. Any
structural BMP which involves grading, trenching, excavation, vegetation removal, or other
forms of ground disturbance could impact archaeological resources. The Program EIR identified
Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 that would reduce this impact to less than significant
levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
20) Impact 3.4-3(The proposed. pLo ram could directly or indirectiy destroy a unique pateontolog icai
resource or site or unique geologic feature). The program area is underlain by a number of high or
undetermined paleontological sensitivity units, which may contain significant paleontological
resources. Significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity,
though, and it is possible that ground -disturbing construction activities associated with structural
BMPs could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a
significant impact. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures CUL-5 and CUL-6 that
would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of
these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
LA County Flood Control District 7 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
21) [ni act 3.4-4 The proposed program could disturb human remains including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries). There is no indication, either from the archival research results or
the archaeological survey, that any particular location in the project area has been used for human
burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, in the event that human remains are
inadvertently discovered during project construction activities, the human remains could be
inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. The proposed program's potential to
uncover buried archaeological deposits including human remains is considered significant. The
Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures CUL-7. However, without implementation of this
mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Geologic and Mineral Resources
22) Iml2act 3.5-3 The pwposed ro ram could be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable
or that would become unstable as a result of the program and potentially result in on -site or off -
site non -seismical) induced g_eolojeic hazards such as landslides lateral spreadinjI. subsidence
collapse or sinkholes, settlement, or slope failure). Infiltration of water into subsurface soils can
increase soil instability and result in saturated soils, soil piping through preferential pathways,
breakouts due to infiltrated water finding utility trenches and other preferential pathways, and
raising the local groundwater levels such that infrastructure foundations and underground
structures could be affected by unstable soils. Structural BMPs could potentially be undermined
by unstable soils or impact adjacent infrastructure and buildings. The Program EIR identified
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.
However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
23) Cumulative Impacts, Geologic and Mineral Resources Cumulative impacts on geology and soils
would have a less than significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation).
The cumulative effect of multiple infiltration projects could increase the severity of perched or
migrating water, which has the potential to inundate underground utilities or structures.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the cumulative impact to regional infrastructure
from perched or migrating water. The management of groundwater pumping among regional
managers prevents impacts to structural foundations resulting from groundwater mounding from
existing recharge efforts. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the cumulative effects to soil
stability from elevated groundwater levels to a less -than -significant level. The Program EIR
identified Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 that would reduce this impact to less than
significant levels. However, without implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
24) Impact 3 7-2 (The proposed program would create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the accumulation of potentially hazardous materials into BMPs . Because of
their function as water conveyance systems, the entire storm sewer system, as augmented by
structural BMPs, would collect and retain sediment and chemicals from urban runoff, along with
any accidental or illicit spills of hazardous materials. The introduction of hazardous materials into
the storm sewer system could occur in large events as in a catastrophic spill, or could occur in
small concentrations as in petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals picked up and carried by
stormwater in urban runoff from the streets. Contaminants in the runoff water or as discrete
LA County Flood Control District 8 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prelimivary —Subject to Revision
concentrated spills could accumulate in the soils and vegetation of structural BMPs. To address
the accumulation of contaminants in soil at BMPs, operations and maintenance plans for BMPs
that might accumulate constituents in surface soils and media will be developed to include
periodic removal and replacement of these potentially impacted surface materials to reduce the
potential for long-term loading leading to hazardous concentrations in soils and groundwater. The
Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 that would reduce this impact to less than
significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
25) Impact 3.7-4 The proposed program would be located. on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a
result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment). It is possible that a
proposed BMP may be located on a hazardous materials site listed on the Cortese List, which
would expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials
during earth -moving activities, introducing a significant impact. The Program EIR identified
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.
However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
26) Impact 3.7-5 (For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been ado ted within two miles of a public ai ort or public use airport, Fora project within the
vicinity of a private airstrig, the proposed program could result in a safety hazard for peogle
residinjz or working in the project area). Some structural BMPs, such as detention basins that
store water for a period of time or constructed wetlands that would increase or improve wildlife
habitat, could be constructed on or near airports and could result in attracting wildlife. Deer and
birds are known wildlife hazards to airports. If the proposed project is at or near an airport, this
could increase hazards to aircraft from wildlife. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure
HAZ-3 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without
implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
27) Cumulative Impacts. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would result in
cumulatively significant impacts to hazardous materials). Most of the distributed BMPs would be
small in scale and would not result in cumulatively significant impacts due to increased hazards
from construction or operation. However, the combination of BMPs throughout the region would
change the flow paths of stormwater and urban runoff that currently occurs in the region,
resulting in the retention of pollutants generally within the soil of the BMPs that use soil for
filtration and retention. Cumulatively, throughout the region, the retention and treatment of
pollutants within each watershed and the reduction of pollutant loading in waterways will
substantially benefit water and sediment quality of the region's habitats, rivers, and beaches.
Therefore, the project's potential contribution to cumulative effects on hazards and hazardous
materials is considered beneficial. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and
HAZ-2 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without
implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Hydrology and Water Quality
28) Impact 3.8-2 The ro osed program would result in hi er groundwater levels and could
potentially affect groundwater quality). Regional BMPs would recharge stormwater into the
LA County Flood Control District 9
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
ESA / 140474
April 2015
groundwater basin and could raise local groundwater levels following major storm events.
Distributed infiltration BMPs would typically be too small to have a measureable effect on local
groundwater levels. The increased water supplies captured by the infiltration basins through the
EWMP areas would be a beneficial impact of the projects. Infiltration BMPs would not be
suitable in areas of low permeability, though, and potential locations would need to be evaluated
for suitability. Concentrations of contaminants found in stormwater runoff could increase,
resulting in contaminated shallow soils and groundwater. The Program EIR identified Mitigation
Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-4 that would reduce this impact to less than significant
levels. However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3,
the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Noise
29) Impact 3.10-3 The proposed program would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinit above levels existin without the ro'ect , No operational noise
levels would be generated by the structural BMPs given their passive manner of operation.
However, it is anticipated that some of the centralized and regional structural BMPs would
require the use of irrigation pump stations and associated components to divert the collected
stormwater. At these structural BMP sites, noise levels generated from the long-term operation of
the pumps and associated components could result in increased noise levels in the surrounding
noise environment. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 that
would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of
these mitigation measures, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Public Services and Recreation
30) Impact 3.12-1 The proposed program would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the rovision of or need for new or physically altered govemmental fire
protection facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance objectives for
fire protective services). The structural BMPs are not habitable structures, would not be
constructed with flammable materials, and would not require fire protection services. Because of
the relative scale of these infrastructure improvements, the construction of the various structural
BMPs are not expected to result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities.
However, construction of new structural BMPs in streets, sidewalks, parkland, or other facilities
(these may include public service facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and municipal
maintenance yards) within existing high -density urban, commercial, industrial, and transportation
areas, as well as associated staging areas, could temporarily disrupt the provision of fire services,
resulting in potentially significant impacts. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure PS-1
that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of
this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Transportation and Circulation
31) Impact 3.13-1 The 12roposed program would intermittently and temporarily increase traffic levels
and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by construction workers and construction
vehicles on area roadways). Vehicle trips would be generated primarily by construction workers
commuting to and from the BMP work sites, and by trucks hauling materials and equipment to
LA County Flood Control District 10 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
and from the sites. The construction traffic impacts associated with each individual structural
BMP project would be short-term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction
activity is taking place for that particular project. Although project -related traffic would be
temporary, supplemental project -level analysis of potential site -specific impacts could determine
that addition of project -generated traffic would be considered substantial in relation to traffic flow
conditions on local roadways. For this program -level assessment, this impact is considered
potentially significant. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 that would
reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this
mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
32) Impact 3.13_4 (The proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to traffic and
transportation). During construction of the structural BMPs, intermittent and temporary traffic -
related impacts in the cumulative context would occur. The proposed program has the potential to
contribute to potentially significant cumulative construction -related impacts as a result of
(1) cumulative projects (such as land development projects) that generate increased traffic at the
same time on the same roads as would the proposed program, causing increased congestion and
delays; and (2) infrastructure projects in roads that would be used by project construction workers
and trucks, which could delay project -generated vehicles past the work zones of those other
projects. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 that would reduce this impact
to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this mitigation measure, the
impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
33) Impact 3.14-3 (The proposed program would require new or expanded water supply resources or
entitlements or require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects).
Construction requiring ground disturbance could encounter buried utilities including water supply
infrastructure. Construction of BMPs to detain stormwater and dry -weather flows may reduce
flows downstream, thereby reducing access to beneficial uses downstream. Dry -weather flows in
coastal streams and foothills are largely fed by groundwater seepage or wastewater discharges.
Any detention of dry weather flows or storm flows upstream could substantially reduce flows
downstream or significantly impede access to flows. The Program EIR identified Mitigation
Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3 that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.
However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
34) Impact 3.14-4 (The proposed program would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the proposed program's solid waste disposal needs or the proposed
program could not coml2lv with federal, state, and local statuses and regulations related to solid
waste). Construction activities associated with the structural BMPs would include excavation and
demolition of some existing infrastructure, which would produce solid waste requiring disposal in
the nearest landfill. Some of the EWMPs are required to implement trash Total Maximum Daily
Limits (TMDLs) and associated trash removal structural BMPs, which would require the disposal
of the trash collected by the BMPs, thereby increase the amount of trash being sent to landfills.
The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape management, and storm drain
operation, which produce debris and trash requiring disposal, which could exceed landfill limits.
The new trash collected that is associated with proposed trash removal structural BMPs and non -
LA County Flood Control District t t ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
structural BMPs such as street cleaning and landscape management would be accommodated with
existing and planned trash disposal facilities. Based on landfill capacity in the Los Angeles
region, there appears to be ample availability to receive the expected trash generated by the
program. The program would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, including the Los Angeles County Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling and Reuse Program. The Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures UTIL-2 that
would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of this
mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
35) Cumulative Iml2acts, Utilities and Service Systems The proposed program could result in
significant cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems). Structural BMPS constructed to
treat, infiltrate, and/or store stormwater and non-stonnwater throughout the watershed would not
generate wastewater or require wastewater treatment or result in adverse cumulative impacts from
operation or construction. Installation of storm drainage facilities identified in the proposed
EWMPs would not substantially affect existing storm drain facilities. Impacts to the existing
water supplies are anticipated to be beneficial as a result of the stormwater and non-stormwater
runoff infiltration and conservation BMPs implemented across the EWMP areas. Construction
and operation of the structural BMPs would generate solid waste; however, landfills serving the
program area are expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the amount of waste
generated. Disposal of the solid waste generated during construction and operation would comply
with all pertinent regulations and statutes. All other projects implemented in the area would also
be required to comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations and statutes. The use
of energy anticipated for the proposed program is minor when compared to the County -wide use
of electricity. The proposed program would use energy -efficient equipment and would not result
in wasteful consumption. The non-structural BMPs would include street cleaning, landscape
management, and storm drain operation, which would produce debris and trash for disposal. The
Program EIR identified Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3 that would reduce this
impact to less than significant levels. However, without implementation of Mitigation Measures
UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Findings
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District finds and determines that it has considered the identified
means of lessening or avoiding the project's significant effects and that to the extent any significant direct
or indirect environmental effects, including cumulative project impacts, remain unavoidable or not
reduced to below a level of significance after mitigation, such impacts are at an unacceptable level in light
of the social, legal, economic, environmental, technological, and other project benefits discussed below,
and such benefits override, outweigh, and make "acceptable" any such remaining environmental impacts
of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)).
The following benefits and considerations outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the
findings, the Final PEIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and
considerations is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court
were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration would occur and justifies
project approval, this Commission would otherwise stand by its determination that the remaining
benefit(s) or considerations are sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval.
LA County Flood Control District 12 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement oi'Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
Facts
Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project,
independent of the other benefits, and the District determines that the adverse environmental impacts of
the project are "acceptable" if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide benefits
to the County of Los Angeles as follows:
1) The proposed program would help the District, in partnership with 85 other Permittees, to achieve
compliance with the MS4 permit issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB in 2012.
2) The proposed program would result in improved water quality in receiving waters throughout the
County including the major rivers, streams, and the ocean through the retention, detention, or
treatment of stormwater and dry weather flow.
3) The proposed program would help the District, in partnership with 85 other Permittees, to achieve
TMDL water quality objectives identified by the Los Angeles RWQCB.
4) The proposed program would benefit communities within the County in developing multi -benefit
facilities.
5) The proposed project would benefit certain communities within the County in augmenting
groundwater supplies with captured stormwater.
6) Implementation of the proposed program would help support and be consistent with the State of
California Ocean Plan promoting improved ocean water quality for multiple beneficial uses.
7) Implementation of the proposed program would be consistent with the stated goals and policies of
the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
pursuant to California Water Code Section 13240.
8) Implementation of the proposed program would promote and be consistent with the County of
Los Angeles 2014 Low Impact Development Standards Manual.
LA County Flood Control District 13 ESA / 140474
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs April 2015
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Preliminary —Subject to Revision
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures
identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measures during the implementation of the Enhanced Watershed
Management Programs (EWMPs) (proposed program). LACFCD is the agency responsible for
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
This MMRP provides LACFCD with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the
mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The
MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure:
• The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be
implemented;
• The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be
monitored;
• The enforcement agency; and
• The monitoring agency.
The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist
will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks
for each mitigation measure.
LA County Flood Control District
Enhanced Watershed Management Programs
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
ESA / 140379
April 2015
Y
0
r
O C
= M
U &
w E
'r- O
� V
'E
d
U
U
O
O
Q C
w p
O
c
C
N
O C
N
C w C
C
C
v r
C M
U
U
(6 _N C U
a) C U
'U
'U
> (0 01
a) U :,
C
C
C L O w 0
IC t C C
C L 0 !�_ Cl)
-
COt5C C
C
C
J C
.L.-•
«
w O .(O
(0
w O 'U) •�
(0
.L..
.L.
N
N
c (U C c N
0) (6
C 0 C c N
O) (0
N
N
N
J
J
(n 7 U-5 O
Cn 7 U w O
J
J
N
d
N
O 0 0)
U G
7 ,N
00 0)
U S�
7 ,N
O 0 0)
U
7 An
O C) 0)
U s;
7 N
0 C) 0)
U S�
7
O Q 0)
U c
E U
0 0 C
fn 2 C
fn O C
to 2 C
V) 2 C
N 2 C
�rn
a) a)
a)oE
a) a)
a)oE
a) a)
a)0E
(D (D
5oE
a) (U
a)0E
a) a)
a)0E
c a
mU n
mU a �
o)U n
mU n
mU 2
mU 2>
W
cTi
Q o E c
a o E c
c>i
a o E c
c>i
Q o E c
Q o E c
Q o c
0.2 ` m
o o
o o m
o o
0 o rn
o° rn
J L.L OQ
-1 OQ
JL.L OQ
JLL OQ
JLL OQ
JLL OQ
of
0)
C
c
M
j
O
L
d
C fq
C: in
C y
C y
U
2
C N
C
M C
(n 0
O C
(n O_
M C
fn
ld C C
y O_ O
cn
C
fO C
fn 0
a0+
C C
N U O
C C
N O
,O
C C
(6 U .0
C -
O 7
O
U
C
U
FL E ccU
p
U
Fu
Q Q
U
C Q Q
U
C_ 0 d
U to
C
C
U
C d
C
LL U)0
LLCo0
LE U20
0-O
LLU)0
7
0
LLU)
C
O
C N
(�0
_0c
c
c
c
'D
O o
a '�
C N
a) M
O C
M.0
N C
V),0
(Q C
n O
O C
N,0
(Q C
V),�
(p U
C_ w
E L
C-
N
(6
N
i9
LE U
as
aw
0-
aw
aw
CL
°U)
C
U
c a
L)
c
U
c a
R U
c Q
a U
c a
LL Cn
Q
I.L U)
LL U)
LL U)
I.L (n
d N
N 0
(0 N0 U)
m w
O
N -
O
til (6 C 0 C E
a) () O O
cn
N N
N
U
O.L..
N
U N C
Y a.�
(0 C
N.0 Q'-
Ca U N
ti O
.E •N
.N .V +. a)
N U.7 a C 7 L..,
ca n �.0 7 N
f9 m
0 X
L
3 7
C
C CO cm
N
N to m 5
IC �O
N m 7 N° a)
(9
N O O
C wCL)
N
d fC CD
U C a) (`
N N
L 3 E
U F- •• O' ` N U° C
O1 a) .n
V1 c- D-
N
w a)
U
U E U M
L
O y �_ o
o a)
Cn D W co
O J C N C- O� "O
a)
(U
C 0 p
'y N_
f
C L C
H in
lD N 0°
E N-
U 3
f0 U° U C O n J O
L N U C a V)
a) a) U
L
C�
S"n
o
U C
C .2
(D (U c
.5 W(U a)
01 N di
O V N
.2 Q .M L �` 7 2 0 a) M
N C
E
G
N E
C >
N a) L
U) 7
a
a) w C (0 •0 O m C )n
0) C
c C
s
P64
�°
(aooE
Q�L�
con
K�OO°��md�
�oNyw?->
;n
as ate`) ri
(°mcd
rnmwm
mc�
��n
w°a
�Ua�oi�
�cN°(�'m7�
Eck
+.+
°c
C O
0)
an d C a)
m 0) m
- (V �•'
N
`1 U (0
2
a n Q.o 7 U "0
N N N a) •� (C
d y o
n d
Ca`ai
N
.S
,O
o m °)o
d E :°
T 2
(° c a)
.0. �-
'� ti '� '� _ y w c� c
LO)
E
_ w a)
-0
a)m77d
> 4-U7
U)
9c a)
ESL
3
a)mm7 xoo
a)o
wmy
d
Iy
L 7 C
U C
d O O O
L.. O) N
N O N O N a) d 0 E
a) N
b
L c E
(n •� 0.
O C O 'O
N N a) E
N
(0 7 y 0
L L
r 7 L)
0 0 0`
f0 W 7 L a) a 3 O N a)
O L U 7
a] f0 "O
O
j N
cl
N a) O
N U O N a)
_
0'
y 0 N N
N C O.
U E a) N
d N 0 c n n N N c U y
y C
O
>
0 M 0 M 0
a) c> O)
0
C N C)
c N C O n CL L�
'E U O 0
` p U
•
U L
C L_ N
7 a)
U N '0
C N O
° (6 -0
L
CO
4 ('
a) 0 C m C 0 0 0 (0
N 0 L
_
y V C
>> N N 0
0) E O L
7
N
` p) 6 -0 O) 70 T y jp
0) c a3
C
c C E H L
3- O
)
U U) LDL
C O U (6 N N
•C N co
5
COL
C p a) co
O C L
O N` "n
N
C 7 `
M
O) M 0
E U m C
a) O •0 N
O) 0 O
m 0 M 0 0 M to
CD
n `p O d
Q
O
a)
> N C
41 C C a) f6
n 0' Y
a) N (0 .N
7 E
(G 01 w
C
(� N N O EL, .� > O N n
a) N N U U p E D.
01w 0 U
(V .N
«+
N
°
LO ..L..
o 3
Ev �w >
n E
E a)
n °) (°
E U°)--�� 7o
p C.E
to
p
m
°
Q
rnN
i�i > E � CL
7 0
E
Li aci aci
E E
LL axi
(o �� E (ca cu
a)
E±_
+.+
_0)
r
C
O` N= N
(0
�
d ,C '_ •p
E O' 0)
N N n
�_ n 0.
ui aci
M d a) N C N 7 m
•�
2 L LS o
a E .N
a) (0
Q
O p
Q N U
W d (0 a)
Q CO 0.L.L.
Q
Qm (0
Q a)
O
Qm 3yJ to.0-.0)U 0.0
QY (n
N
O y
C U
O C
= A
u a
W= E
•� o
dU
N
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U cc
C
U
C
U
° LO) .2
C
C
o)
C
01
C
O
C
01
C
O)
C m
> m M
N
C
y
C
to
C
y
C
ti
C
N
C
d U •a+
m
m
m
m
m
m
J _
;
�
w
:E
w
C
LT
N
J
J
J
J
J
J
�''L
T C
T C
� •c
�''�
�' L_
•'
j N
j V)
V)
7 Mn
00 o)
00 O)
O C) 0)
7 Mn
O D 0)
7 Mn
O O 0)
7
00 0)
E
E U
U E
O
y
C)E
cn
C)E
E
C)E
N E
C)E
V) E
U
en E cOC
() 0
6E
a)0m
6E
a) a)
0E
a
a)0E
aa)
)0E
a0a)
a)E
oc
OU
ON
c
Oa)
CU
Oa)
c
W
OU
o EcaocQ
n
E
a U
o E c
¢0.
E c
Q o a L)
Ec
U
Q o d
Ec
— a)
y_a)
V) cu
—
—aT)
J—
a O Q
J LL O Q
J LL Q
J a o Q
J FL
J L. L O Q
a)
y
O
O
_
a
a
o
o
'a
2
`
IM
Cc
N c
w
n
0
0
c '-
o
c
c
o
c
0
°
° c
c
c
m
U
U
O
aw
0
U
o
C)
a w
U
rn
c
°)
c
c a
ii cn
a
a
c n
ii cn
>
o
>
0
C
O
cn
N c
«>
rUN
CL7
C
d
o
a
U0
-0
j
j
0
Uo
y
{Lpp
O Q
O Q
p c
y 0
2
2
yO.
la)
C
m U
G to
c
a
o cn
o e
a
U
0
E
O -o
O N
N
C a
a m
a`0
a0
LLU)
a
a
=ma E
a)
N
me a
N y
'D u mm>o
w a)
Z°'m Y
a�i
m
0 c c
.>-,
'u) N U
cw U
O m L
0 c� 0
- O N D_ _ C
7o a a)U - E y o
m >, _ L C C
? a) c-o °
y m
,n �
m a� c
N p
`0 p w
U f a `p Q U p V 0
N O o N
N N
m7a)3
E 0) a) O
ro-
O ,
a)3���
C F p m m 07
mma)v)ya)my2m
L y >> m n •C O y
ay 0
C n N
90
N 0
a) O C w'0
am a) 0
7 T U
N m c 0' n 0)
7 m m
y m LL U y n y C O)
w Q O O N
a) .E in m C
m U C w U a)
m
N E a
O,
L Q C N
Zn a)N
N d
m T
m C n Q-0
.0 m m n N
0 w n o
N
d CO ..-y.. '� d
U •�+
m
LO Y N N
W Y
O- Q m O.- U E
a)
'o O O) - C
3
E O
t
C
- O.
m y 0
.O
m U>
ay)'
` C N
o. .>
Y p (n CD n C C a) O
a) c a) N
,in
y d) O C p)
O N O) p
U
O � O
fa O
"o O
E
7 C y O
•C E y O— m "'
p lu a)
it
`
L > N
N a E
y m 7 "0
J C
m a) m U
cp N ,o O
T-0
y C W o
LC "- 7 O)L
L 7 -°
N
-° O
> y
mN y
m m _N 0O
n
N .0 Co. y a y
m
0 a) L a) a)
�p c p) a) N n fV n
y U O
a ° j.w
w
m N m fm
Sr
O
C a) C N y
a)
C 0 .m �'
N C N a
` O j w
N N n c N -p
y 7 3 m «+ N p 0 a)
N L C N m
C c C m '0 m
O V w D fC6 o
y m 7
c p m
0 m
w y d C
m a) n
ul D O m '0
Q 0) C 3 L E ) Y n
N— 3 a) y n m
N
@ c >,
N d m y
N
.= y y LE5 Vl
o 0
U U fn L 'p N
7
y C� 7 O N (a ' O`
7 m a
L E2'0 d T
cO N° y 'o L
L
C>, y N
C— N C
p g m m 7
U'n
m y m N2
a 0 a) m 7
y V) Z a) o ya
C C n
? C
U 3 m m L d 0 m
m
•� ,N m C fn N
m y C_
N .7 0) .. C a)
C m C m m
w E y �C 01 N
O
y C d) n a) H E :-O D
m p ° c y C
y V p E
0 y Wo -0
0 C .L-+
"O O 'U
`m
m a) ° n u O m U y—
'C
> L m 0? C N
m v°) E U
o) y c w 3
U 0
y n� 0
a) U C
3� .4 a
v) c` n y
� 0 o, Z o M
n n u) O_ w m m U
��� � 7
C a) Q -a -o
E 7-0
m C E y
y
C
'j O Lp C C
L.L.. C O
a)
,7., L N y m
y y LO T E L y C 'C -o
S
m w a) y
c L 'C m
•r
N
p C n m O E
0E'
m m of •�
m. c L N
0 7� a) a) :7 m to a) >
C m 01 m a) O m
D O E a)
O
m
>
u
>
mo
d ld a 7
c
O N' co ()
E
m3o cai
_ L) •o E 9
m
>7
U w C. N'D 0 U E
o7c
U 0� E O M ,?
U° m N
2
y
m
O
V)
m 7 D •� m 0)
O m>-0 N
o) m p
N N- O to
N y n
C y m L 0 m C a) m c a.n
a) m
m m n a) Z
C N N L 7
w n
p V)
Q
.0
N D N a) 7
p o«
a)
m C n a)
N Q p T L N =-
72 m fa 3 m L E c_
> N �,,, m N "° c "0 3 N
N
Co M 'C a) .L.• N N
c a)
U C C w
C
o
c y L y
7 F- N
a m
O O U p
m
d m
7 a)
m T- 3 a)
c.m ° U
7 C LL C O C m
m n m y. U
,_ V)L C m m M m m y
in m .c >+L O
U L
0)0)E N°
O
--. '0
Q
cmi
•�
o
0
.. U y m N w
�� �
U D m`
N c 3
LD U 8 tl) a) N
My— ° o m�
a= c V� E� N y O�
� °nf0— °'0 E-° nc
7 C d N T=
hQ � � m �
� �
is ANY
• Lz)
O
yea
O C n
O, E
o o
O o p y C
O
O m n a n 0
O L n .- >
a)
O n m m .0 a) C L m a)
7 n L n'- m O)
m �U
o
O c a) a) Z N
C 7 a)
00 ° m c
O 0) C m
m 0
one U m
m
m L) F. _
m.0-0 3 U
m ny m.0
N� y cn m
m� m
co
O m
C U
O c
w Ia
a
r= E
'C O
a)U
4)
m
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
Q C
w
W
w
4=
0 m p
C
IT
C
0)
C
01
C
0)
c
0)
C fa
> M
V)
C
y
C
N
c
V)
C
y
C
a) L) w
J w
w
C
.L-•
.L-.
.L..
.L--
J
J
W
J
J
•''
N
j Vl
00 (3)
j N
p C) 0)
m N
On 0)
00 0)
O p 0)
Uai
U)
C:E
Uai
o'
Uai
�rn
ayi o�aci
o'S
ym
o'Sai
ac
yocai
aci
a�oE
moE
a)oE
a)0E
0E
ca
mU T
cU a
mU
>
U>nc
nEcTcmi
�UO
E
Qo E c
a o E
Qoc
Ew
Q oa
y
m
y
y
J L
JO
LL Q
-
j Q
LL OQ
JLL OQ
m
y
fa
C
O
C
O _
C
O
_
d
o
0
2
2
t
C
j
N
C
`
N
C
N
C
ON
0
c
O C
U o
N
c
O
U
O
U
o
U
mm
U
m
m
n
>
>
a
o 0
n
0
0
c
0
a
o
0
0
0
U
U
2
2
W C
mat
L
s
2
o
0
o
yo
C
N
a15
a
U
U
U
C]
a w
u
a
4
qy
d
LL cn
T
f0 d C (U m
j m Z y
y
U 07
L o
m �)
y
V) fd O_ N
.y-� 7 C
C� N y rL-.
M
C
q) '
m fa Wc co O m U w>
C
.N
C �O C
Q)m
U L C « O 7 a) 01 O
C
C L
f0 N
'ia O_ Q f0 N>
LL
'S
�
2 y N m L C Q y ` C
j O C~ C y CL O
Z' O f6 O 4.
N� > N
Q:= l9 y
0
d f0 .E
m y C >, U U
N T d
a) C
O C p_ 0 0 fa O E N
�+
p '- m Q U
y f0 O C
N
y N C 0.
7 O C
O
N
m
L. O p -0 2
- 7 C TJ C
O m
Cpp
.L+ w M ,�
O C
y N 7 Z, VI mn > y N
01 y - C L Q 7
O E
G�"
j O a) .7.
d
m rA
N Q N y0
L f0 'O f6
y •C y a) m U
a f0 'L-'
ff1
- O �O a N 7 C
.� tT'0 U O N U w' _
m .0 w C t"fGil a)
Q U fD _ 3 >
m E > N�
'"U_O 0)
0
O m y� Q U. O
d
p C fC O
.T�
L C 0 ( D - p� O
O
iy
r.N �� OLL fo
7 'U 0 Z
a"i m y af0i >
Q
`° o �= ° ma E
m Q •� T >
m ° �" y
c6 2
m a�i= m� N o m m
f6 E-0 _ C L.
iZf
tu
Q O E N Q U y
Q y m �7,
y E� Z
O f0 'U m
C a) Y () V y Q
m m m N O W N
2 Q N
- y C a)
.L-�
Q m (6 N O 'O iD Q
E Q U 7 f0 N f6 C
N cp M C —p .L,,, Y
y Q C U
L O .0 is U 2 O
L O O U _T
'0 E y m m Y 0) w N
s.
0 2 S o o mo
n0
`—° m mL� ��•� E
`gU
c°i� Z E 2 o aci 0 `°9 2
C
U C C m O L) N
f6 d Q- Q
L f0 f6
"; m
3 ld 7 T 7 .0 0 E a) 7
0 1] -0 m Q O
•m y m p
w' C >' �'
N O 7 Q .0 E U
Y y. a) a) N fC
W
O
+� U C NUN
6,02
y
N N C O LL
O
m 'C N 3 c fU E m
`O
m >, U 7
.92
-
y '0 N N" 7 Q 7 m 0
W O 7 T--0
0 0 m 0 E
N "0 U 0 U U
f6
O 0) U c T.0 2
7 0 3 Q
U L w 0
'�
a) p E L -a fQ j y ff C 2
O N a)
p y
CU O y L N m O
N D) N O
O.S (6 .0 C
p C j m y
O" C N 0 M-0 y L m
m.m,0.0
p a) d
Q m O E 2
O fa Y 30 (6
Q m •) 7 L O O a
Q
7 m m �Z
C U 0
i). m.2 °
2 y
ME `O Q �
co CL w f6
QZ"
O m 0'
L1 Tc — t:=� m
�j m C/) La O O y
2) O a) Q -a !2 m y
U Q C N
N E N
m m
y to 7 m m m .�
U C E QL _
O `)
m> T
`is 7 U O y Q o E m m
W � m U
` y
fa Q C a) L O 'C
C m m
U Q C.L.. m
H
7 f6 N 3 w w ,.5 O) N�
C T•C N N
0
d 9 o
m 7 U 0 U Y 7 U C w
�
Q
`
'
C N a w N E
o >
( p O w
m•
C 3 LL m y C 7
o Ow �'r a
y 0 N 'C
m E 1°
`
-0` 0° !� io
.Fm a)
C O 0 m w° 7
U N y C 7 W E
0 �
0 'U C m o
CL
U 10 3 U C U p N Y
° � o o c'3
y-M
� f6
7
°w
f/7 N 7 y N C N N
c � m oa �ma mw
p
m
m z � c°i 0cj
-°
0
> E �
aim' a`Qi
.v N m a p .(0
a�i �
M '-' L) f0
—
C� N 0
O O V) V1 R)
d y M y C-0
f0
O C U
7
.2 m L
O C m
M 0p
LL m m U U •� T f0
1� !F d 0 m Z
y
a H
d V U m 7 0 N m
�� CL
j C
O N O Q T
D O N y C° O p T
7 � C
N U
•
a
O? d y L j "C
�- C fp
O c L fa Q
p i� �'
0
O D y d D E U
y— N C
O lD m L (U
r
0
J 7= w _ 2 Cif
m U V) M O>� fa w m
°
00 Q- o y a fa
y
m Qy Q� a)
m U �� fa.Sa af°i m
Fa 4 0 o m
U
U�aci Qll mU
E
rn
2
Q C S
J w I
0
O O
C U
O C
Y R
u a
r- E
'C 0
>v
d)
m
m
(m
m
U
Q
W
:
0
O
C
U
O)
N
N
> m Lm
O U w
C
C
Jw�
C
w
Lm.
N
O)
N
N
N
J
�
J
U
a)
Ec'i
00C) 01
U E
0L-J m
UoE
�
N C
a) • (U
N 2
ED
w Q
E
C1 U a) >,
5 o E
C U N >,
lL
yoEa)
0 .2 O Q
NDEa)
O 0- 0)
JLL OQ
a)
m
O
N
L
a
•
o. )
of
C
N
C U
7 Q
C
C
O
O)
o
U
0 .E
ca
0
5
m7
�9
�3 .N
Q 0
c
o
aa))
—
:.
d
C N
_0
C N
m C
-6 :>
C U
7 Q
d m
L
N 2
C
O O
�C
a)O
a
m U
a w
rn�
E
_y
a)
_. E7
ii cn
6
m,g
a) �' N a) N
° g °� °� m a�' o w N act m 0 3 8 E wcq
N
m 0'
L a
~
a0)
.N. a w 0 Y U'0 O j L m .V U C C 7 N N M
N C N C N U >, C N U) L a) d &.0 0 .2 0 a) N C O N W
L O C a 0 0 c O
C 7 a)
7 0 0 E
'O •0)
U>
`d
a) E �E a) C C` C L N 1= p C> m 0' a C >, f- y N «' 7
m a) w CO
U E n `p m C m m O N
O N
` O a
7
0 a
m
j, m« y C a) y E a) C a) a) — N
d N C Q' O O a) N E `•� m O W Y 0= 7 C p O L E °� O m o a) E y N N C0
m� EQ E
O U E
'c
N
`) C
a o -0 a� C QU m orn ) o Eta am E U mU�:= 0
<D N >, m m N (9 C C m N U N d d N U 0 7 70 - m m U O N C a' > 7 7 0 N
m -Fmw
0 V O Y
E
m m
.L..
t — n cn c a> ` m � m 0 i�.0_ cOu m D-�U
W w N a) w m C m a) C V y o C 7 L m— C a) N o a) U m o_ `O- m N a� a%
U-0 > j w 0 C 'E 7 0 f6 O C N> p C p Z U O
m OL_
N
0>
7' a) m .� 0 C ,U
m U a) N_ .cu U m .V a) C N m N 0 U N •— 01 N U m n L) m Q� C a) O_ f0 7 C N
a) O m E C C U D>
O) Q (` C
p 0
Z C m N E 0 m C C' N v d 0 O O_ U N
a) E m a) > a) U a) U C r m a) a) ._ O C N C E m m 0 •� o N.
E m
O. f0
CD
0
N �`
L O_ N O N a U m N O a) p �`p •� N L o m E .2 0 .Nl Cl.0 = a)
mC •-+ C>
m 0 Q 7
a C
U)
m m N 0 al an d .E a) ? a) o C a) p N a) L p m C C> O >O a) m =' N 0 U U N
N m N O
m C 7 U
.0. a)
E �)
m
.L.. p 0-0 a) L - U (6 L C m N N (0 m ` , a) a) O) +-' U- y O C y0 m O
" 0 E 2 m m L z 3 2 N a% a) E U 7 — 7 E 'N m L O N m N N Y
7-0 Z O m
C 0 O C
O
G!
U
L •�
(, U Q U N j "0 >, ( �-� 0 C N
a E a) U O > L L :2
C C a -0 0 �(n N a_ U a'o�p 7 0 o 7 a) 0 Q m 0 >'
0c.
.
O
o
O N O .m 7 N
U N N 0 70 p 2 C 'N N of 'O O N -L N N N-0 Co co .E m
.L.. 7
ii
m
m a) N a) 0¢ a) rL-. 0 U C
y� L L � C io L m a) N C p U" ? 7o n y E j m m U D
N> a)
U L
f
B ,U
U
m '3 0 0 a O
=C`) C U •O
m U
a, U m
o
a) L U L m Z N d V C f09 N O y N N () a) C Q O 8
'0 N W N C COffi ` U o Q J a.— L O).N w a) 10 a) O Q E - -0 E ._ O m
+Lm„
m p-0
In n
,O
c
a)
CD
O) C C. O o t0i) C m L m � O C U N m 01 2 O� C� Co L O CO O O' C O-'C N L -
�._L C
o
U
7 m 0.0
m
U Qr co
2
C O CD C N -O
C) j 0 N N� w N d d C m�
a) .0 ��
�+"
C
d
N
O
.L-+
S U a)
C N� � a) cm
C E S L E « a)
•6 d W E E w
E m m
IGy
=
'O C
O E
C N O� p . 0 o Z � 7= E 0 !t q) N q 7
(
U n C U w N .�
d •O 7 3 N E p) d� C
N 0)C >,
CL C ;-L
�G
0
.o
a) U25 > 7 N N N
(D� ca N L cm 0tom- y
C D o O N '' a d 7 L N> 3 C U
'� j
L N C
7 C C N a) L U C a% N m C .>
aaUm77 ca cu
co O
(U CL o 7
N
O
m
O L E
3 m 7 �C: ) 0)
01 ? d O O j C C N 'L' N C �p C 0 0 N
N �_ cn
E L Q 0 C '�
'p C w
~ E
M C
'r
d
C E
C w E U 4= N a) t� Q E 7 L co 7 w m
J 7 a) a L O U a) 0 ai 0= m 0 C 0 U 0 Z w C f0 d 0 O N C C7 C m C L d
COY Q n W J W a) 2 .-
N
J 7 0 '0
2
m p
N C C C N U 7 d O Q N 7 >+.g) N E L u) m 0 c L
o md. Nz Q w `� = Na NU; N a U u E U m �.
N
U rn m
W
° y
C U
O
R
� a
w E
r_ o
>V
m
c
U
c
U
c
U
c
U
° V -
O)
D)
C)
O)
C M
> 01
y
C
(q
C
y
C
y
C
a) U R.
J � �
a)
(6
N
a7
C
N
J
J
J
J
C
rT.
j y
IS
c tz
C
00 C)
c
7 ,y
O D O)
c
7 ,y
O D C)
7 h
O D C)
c
>
U
U
o'
y C
U
o
y C
C)c
0
y C
U
0'
y C
�rn
�aa)0E
CU0E
ao)0E
aoi0E
w Q
C)U >.
C)U N A
C)U N >+
C)U N >.
W
N O E
N O E
0 E
o E N
C)
O p O)
y
O p O)
y
O° O)
JO
E:OQ
JL.L OQ
JL.L OQ
-DE OQ
N
C
C
O
O)
c
D
C
O
c
O
d
2
2
2
�
c N
c
C C C
N
N
c
O
C
°
u) 0 O
m
C
U
C
U
cd
4r--
rn
rn
O
2
C
U N
C
C
C
7
0
a 0
LL (A U
7
0
7
O
c
o
0
0
U
a
U
U
10
CD
G U)
2
y
c n
C
C
2
a
O
�
C
i)
4))
0
)
ci
a
E
C
d
L)
o)
C
rn
C
7
a7 >+
C L
U C
a o N N ,O C
L a U y
L
c
L r
~
y a)
O C) C a w
°�•cC7
>�
a) L C
_C
�f6�o a)Q� a oCl)ww o
U
�
y
o°
-
r,=
y
a) 01 N r o a U X C Oi
p C C U O C O 7 N y L
a M '� .- y y
� a) C
.7... a) E
y
0 8
O M
7 U
M M 0 U? E U
y w O
c y L O C=
C r d p
N
C) y a N
o o° a) 0 N .r a) y a)
a) w- r y w a) � U a) O y r 0 O 4,1
O y c p N d r E a) a> a) > a N •y
N t N
� U
O C) WO p
'C
C
a O y=
a O C
Z
a7 � O Q
E ° U Z
tr
'y y Co
f°
y
` a) a3 N r a C a) (0 - `O O (0 7 r d 7 O
X 0 o y U
C .� C O)
> C
N 01
0)
a°
,y
'c > a)
o
ri
ayi o
aa'n M
m wwa 3 a) �� rno a n �a c'in
w — cam Q o c w
8 c o)o o a_rnM.z ooCY c E,o E 0 m aa))c,5
o a� o o
my a)-o 3
> a
Nww �
2 c.
E o, a M a) N
(D 7 a)
°
I- N M O. y C C O U (C(p: C -m a O O- O
7 E a) N
`) p a a C
'7 E >'
a M y 7
7 N
L - Y N ((D
N O N
S.i
^
�1
N a
> O w N
C N 7
'(6
r Lo., >` 7 C) O U a] (6 L U D N
y C y a) M L U y E w (0 N
L y m C C N y y w C C O' M C
co >'
Q.>`.._ U N
'j a) a)
O 0
U y
N O a) N
w- ,C coo
U (6 C) a) U l m
-'> 7 Lo w' O
Q
N C Q•
y 0 y O a O j N (°j U L .U. c) 0
-E --� O C
.0
'Ona)
U 'r U
m a) f6 N C
C E n
N U r
N N r
a '� y (n C_ a) O 'C 7 L N 0 :0'"' C a) U N U
O U a] V E a O N y w C N E C C (n
�. °- O
L
y N (Cn Y a
r
O C O U
"' r> O
r
U C .°. U y a) U N
O
a- E'
N> o O C a M a) 7 p C O a) a w O O
-
U
a) N a) N O
N C N O
Q a C fn a
N O l0
O Q c
0
o a > U C O f0 j- w y
L y a) (n
r U
L
a7
a)
N a1
E
N j
U f6
O C O �) a7 >, C O) a a7 a) m O
U' Z O C a) a E Z °�U' E C'
� >
a o C O C
a 7
U U O
C C y
o
O C as L N p
L O C r
a
Ca
o S
N E Z U
?�c aoEm• O 7
- .> 0 N= L)) ° _ N U c as N d U O.0 N
(Uaa))0
m> E o y
a)
O O) o 0
y• ooa
>, U U U `f00
Q O O
`O
8
O U a) V) L a) M 0 C a) m O O w a
f0 N p N a
O C) a) N
001) C w- N O C
,>-_,
a) C •y U
U C L .0 N C y L N a U O O= O C M 7 a r
N `a
7 L C) �
N C "'
a) O C N° U a O
r-
•� U C
� N O> a) C)
j N (6 •Lo
L L CL N O Y
E N ca y
` >y, N 2 C
Tj
d N "I L
E
O) U (o) U =_ C O
C 3
N U C
oE(vo
a7 a) O
N 7 O a) y .� a a N
V�u)(r�NTO(n)p m.-�'a)>U�7
y C V 0
�pN7N0)C
(O 7
ra>a
N d p r a)
0°`a7c a
C
O N
'p V O Q V N C a y w O� O c 'O O y
O
"70 0)0.
d N ,O
N E a)
a 0 C V 0= U
O) U y
N
(0
m
>+'.>-+
C O r C
f°Z��
a y ° CO C) -0 '� 0 a) a) O O) !A d 'M
O) O V.I a7 ° .) a L U O O a7 t p
a) >oa(D—.r?,0)
> C) a C C
a •C a) .� °
> a) E
O r 3 E
a] a)
a c .>+ u) ,L.., (') '•' U
E�c(D
t�
O
a a)
com �p
L` O C> y ` o C a C U
cc�EmE
a)� <0 a C
o yo
w C 'O U
O
:1
° a 7 7 r O
a) N N
U y f0 C o i6 a) O y 0 y f9 p C C y° C
a) a C a) ' G N 4 a U a) ' M O'
LL a) O' a) .�
O U
'O °
U O a
I- a) U a) a) C C a)
U C a3 (0
>+'ooa
c a E
�a)�8Ea�y2.2 o�EN a)a
7 )E !� a) ° U C 7 =3 y N != a) � `Z' M
;rincoE2
E O C_ E N
�2cc
N O o
r��a)O' c��
D.L. d -Op •� O U
a
O) O rn a)
}N)
p
7 N 7 U .� a a= af0) N of )) U) 7 N a a) 7 V N
E E E—
O N (0 U O
Ur
O fo0 C
U U aw
c aC O 7 E V
U 7 asrC7Q and
mrr
U o m y cc o o.E.� o mw
a� U
[rd
0y
C
O C
._ co
�a
w E
•c 0
4)U
a)
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
0 0.2
C
01
C
0)
C
D1
c
0)
C a7
>
y
C
y
C
y
C
N
C
a) U �.
J
Ew
m
:2
co
C
.L..
.L..
0)
N
J
J
J
J
U
15
u
p N m
v�'E
O .N 0)
L)
O Mn m
v�'E
O N 0)
U� c
E
v9)
O
N a)
O
N a)
O
N a)
O
N a)
rn
moE
a)oE
a)OE
a)0E
w Q
mU T
I U 2 T
�U 2 T
0)U 2 >.
W
a E c
a o E c
Q o E c
Q o E c
o
y 0- a)
JW OQ
y 0_ a)
JLL OQ
y 0 a)
J W OQ
y —
J0L.L OQ
N
O
C
O
of
L
IL
O
ao
a
C
`
�
C y
a) C
C
a] C N
y-
O C
N
_
.O
y .0
-Ma)
y
N y
y 0
C C
O UIL
C
p
U
.E
CLU
U
.0
w- •�
°
Caa aa))
a0
m a)w
m
c
o
ii co
ii c4
LL U) 0
a`
C
O C
— O
o
C
O
c
:r
Cm
a
c
C
E
C U)
a) w
a) C
U)(A
a) C m
2 N
a)
d) .)
c
c
EL
a
m
i6 c
c m
aw
U
a
aw
awa
o
LL cn
ii cn
LE cn
a`
CD
a)
N L
•3 3
O C 0 w C
'C CO
p
3
r ..
f6
` N
y N
-0L L i r� C L C
d 075 y E a) N>
O) a) C
()
c
a)
E
y> O
O)
O C � O N
0) U) O a �C 7 N` -0 U c°
cm:
m=C:
7 T c
U
0)
a)O-y7a
3:m0 0
0
a)yEcm�-0OU-0 �a)L�
ymE
vi
�°-0-0 E
c.O.
E'>°�; �w
a)
c ma m o m N a��i N•�
a E
C
E
O� _
mNEc«m
7 �> N�
oom' c'�3
(6L i0�0� C E C O N
Et�c°i>>m O$omyy� rn
W
1U_
N
cca O E 0)y
0)�:2 m Naa
NIn
m c E a) cc 0L pCL•M N N E
a) N
i.i
N a)
C U E C y
m U
a) C _ O
U 7 C :_ m
w.c
p- N E U O U. a) 0) C
E «. d y m N E L c
0) 0) M
O) a) L
w
a O
� m 0- .O
E U O N N
o .O- 0)
p)2 4) U C 0)
�c oa7^�oEaaso'>a)
E` O y C -00` N C M-Z O c 0.
cma
'� Eca
Qy
N C
m (0 C N N
a) « C L
E
f0 N m a) 3 > a) m N .2-0O
U
k2 O N
a) O
.
a= a) L
9
L U N 7
° a) O E
'° 7 > 7 y N '° .Lm a) C- •y (O C
O� .O L 7 E "j �� C 7
CL
C j E
�+
i,
y
a s
_ _
c C Q)
y L y 0 a7 c
0 rn
_
° a7 U U
m a 0�
m a 7 O U C
cm
d N a) Q C O a7 C a) L U 7 a
U U
'0
LO N O7 a) E
a) 7
C N E° 6 E
- 2 N
a C w • C Q U C T_ O V) ca U
0�a 0 `C N '0 E ca
6>
.LO..
° 'L.'
._
m
c° 0 O N E
a) Q y
0) N () L U"
a) a) may., a) C L N
a) L 3
N n O, y a E O y c u C
0 E y
Ca
C a)
aJ C
U)
a)
`
5 O (? .0 U
N N
C) c a)_�
0) T> E U U a)
.0 0 Q' y O1 7
N
10
-=
>
(0 O .. C a) 2J y 0 a N 0 6 ca -0 E- C
L E' 7 •U c C O a E d •Q N r 7
T O N
C 7 U
C�
C E
7
W� c0 f6 C N
C CC a) 7
y 0 a) L" Q O
a O)N 7 8 0) Q.N
a)
!C
T
> w y 0
y- C c 7 c) C LC .L.. a) a7 _y NCa
O V U m� O a) C C E O a s
a7 v a)
O N
y a)
a)
N
d
y
p L> U y
O>' U N C
Q 0) O 7.
m 01 C f/) C
a
rZ
U- O-0 Q - L LO 0i C y U
w w) a- M
O C M ()
C N
p L 0)
i.i
O
C w Q? a y m
> C 0
N
C
0) Y Q O () a) 7
y° E y
C
N
p
a) a] W C) 0 y w
0) C O ns C c 2 a a� c m m a
O G 7 N .0 'L 7 O C N a) m E
N
0 O)
°` U C
C a
a) J= °)
•� a) p
7 N O N E N f6 N O f0 E T
C O
0
Y O
J Y
C
a c a) a] O C)
a) a) a a)
N N a) 0) ca E O O
10
a) Oa 7
C 7 U L E w- U C O) •� a) N - w co
c m E
E
a) a)
°
—w ya a)
c aa, 3 c 3
N
m 7 c $ E a) m aai Qc 2
w y a
d
�
0
r
ooma$�a
D a) 'j a) C
� Dc:cao-E3
O N a) a) p
E'�moE�oogo`. o�2��
a7 E U U y 0
C
: a7
++
c
a7 U
me
10
0) (n m C O. C
da)CCU.NM
= r E 0 y
a
ICO
N y Z g a) d N•
a y Y.0 C
Ey15aa))�D Eacic7ma°)c3f6aci
C w
ayv
c�
c
oo
rn ..a)
vi _c3•
N N
y)
-a) m Ydo3 aO 3
U U •- O C N
N
.�i
a7
01
y 01
O
°
7 N N y .00 N
r .` a) a)
c y
N a) a C a7
a 7 a ?� 7 M
a E
N
a) m y C a):N
U� y a .a) a) w a m 7 C' U
c N O a c N L (6 f0 c O c
Q U
°o aci
a)
0
W w V= a) a)
C9 c°� �.E E� E
W U a) D U
U w.5� c°i rn.5
M
x
a) a) O
x aE c°) and c°)Yt rnHwmw c°i rnc°)
x m 0
u E E
Z o m
E E
0O 0 O
w w
o m E
T 3 m
v rn
8 o
U a
c m
W LL
O of
C U
O C
�a
r= E
'r- o
jU
S'
U
U
m
U
cc
U
U
Q C
w
:
w
0 y p
U Y
C
m
C
C
0)
C
m
C
m
C m
> m
0)y
C
C
y
C
N
C
y
c
(DL) j:r
m
m
m
m
m
C
y
y
y
y
y
cn
y
a)
J
a)
J
a)
J
a)
J
(3)
J
j y
m N
j V)
j N
j Vl
C
a) T
On O)
U
00 O)
U
00 0)
U 9
O C) m
U
O 0 m
U
U
y0C
a) N
y0C
a) N
enC
a) N
U)OC
N a)
(n0C
m a)
�rn
6oE
a�oE
a�0E
�0E
m0E
cQ
m02
U QECTi
nE
U
aE
U0 aE
W
Q>
O
amy 0_
amUO ccTi
QmCcTi
O_
amc
y O
yO_O
J LL
JO
LL O Q
J LL O Q
JO
LL O Q
JcTai)
LL O Q
U)
m
m
L
a
M C
Co C
CU C
M C
M C
y 0
y 2
y 2
U) 2
y O
O
m U
m U
m U
m U
m U
aw
a�
aw
aw
aw
0
c a
c o
c
c a
c a
LL CO
LL (n
Q
LL Cn
LL (n
LL co
C
O
C y
C
O C
O C
C
CoC
O C
(UC
E L
CO
�
y ,O
c
U)C ,O
0.2
c
y ,O
C-�6
m a
m U
m U
O U
m U
m U
a
a w
a w
a w
a w
a w
E
m0
��
��
ca
m•43
ca
aoi
co_
ca
LL U)
ca
ii U
ii V)
LL w
ii U)
y
C
C N 'gym- 7m N
m y 7 N D_
C N O N
L_ > w !.-
j LLCoO
m
E
'D C
_ 3 T C m
m L U y>.
a) O `o m
C L N >, O
3 Q .L. L
o m
a) 7 E 7 m E •�
y w N N V O L
C C d
N T m m m m
CU -k
m
U O�
•�
0
�_ m O �� -0
m 0•
0
� y U U� � .L.. d
a
a) O
m:s > U C .0
m N y
a) C Y .0 L
Q cl,_
L (0
LL.
15 c 3 0 N
m >
L 'p
m 0 .y-. m
L �6 Q •_ «
a) C� c L N
E (0 — m O
p y
�1 O d E N
c
O r L d T
"' "0 N O
4) C
L
a•C E Y N O
a L C mm c C
C 0 O-0 - t7i7
y O c C
d w a U U
.' - 0
C E p� y C
7 y-0-0 .L.. O p
O- W m
it
U .� O= m•
m m L C
E f6 U
m C y m d
OU
w �.� O m C
a) .- y cp m E
I.i
U) ` y N m.0
C
a) y CL) y>� m
y y U C
d a Q)
0 m
-0 m m
CL C
m a) C
a D U c
m E p-1
d o U y E tpn
E ,0 p 0 Y N
P�
c,a)L aai m
E a� o
LU a�
w o o f
,FN, Ca
m ct� X cps
cm) y o mL'
b
o"�— c
m
U c m U
o ma
U d a)
Q2
a p a)
a 0 U Ut
W a m y C L
c � y o 2
o m T R L
'U
w ( D -0
a C y C 7
i.i
L
Q m .0 p C
m
m Y Y C y
3w `m
CO o m
m w y y y y
T a) a)
@ o 'U T m O L m,�
m
°
CO E m N •C
CO O m
w m mw
�O Up
� c
m L
c L)
N
M
U)
c U
`p C 30
—
45 E m
•3 y C
Q m
NL�
.0 p
Na
y N 2)
C
to - mL
.0)e
C C L
0 m a)
+m• L
C
dy
a
{L C a)�
C7 mL
L d
. ay a)
8 'O 0
m NL m
—0 (D )
3
UL•�'O
m y 7' y
O`
D
L N E d
y
C m m
C C L m m::
C> W 0 N> C
y o C U
CC
W) .0 O N
U N' c
p m 7
N U f0
N
c Y
m a)
N C y~ c .y m
m C O a) 30
O �) C w N 3 0 0
m a) -p C W,-a c
m O C y Z' a)
m 0_ (D U m
•�'
a .0
U W m 0
m E a._ m U
�m c
.L.+
'U N .LL.. >
m a)
m
m w a N
C O N
3
'
m
c O •�_' «. "O
m' U C
>o%ma) 7
c
y m a) m 0
y0 m y m d.., m
a m�v�
C m
N E m O
'>� n�m
c m y N-0 .� O
j C N"O C
a)
cm m ce)m« T
Q NM._ a) a)
Cf
` O C
2�L_
C
O m 3 010,
0 0
dN� UJ m
D_ Z
C m m- N � 0 w a) a)
is D yL mw O-0
10 a
0 O E> •C
QO 0'-N C
N
.+
Q m m 0
win3 Est E
m f6 p� U. m
E Co ctm
a
m 3,C
m y y O
o'mo and o a�
m to y ,C d m
Z m 3 m� T—w
C c C C a)
o°—w E
o N
a m c
m N O p.
a E
O y y 7
O U 3 U
`p O C C C
D O +L„ .m„ w a1 L �0
(6 O
m a)
y a) a
�+
N
C O
m F- E N m
E CO O E
a) c) l` N
E y � m L
N
U
C
N d
w m 7
y
m
L 7 m U y
CL 0
N' L m a)
.0 c p c U V E p
e .Q
O
j C 'O 7 E
LL m
O
C
m N
yQam Z c E
y C_
7
c
a� o y� m
m
>.
a O a
o m
m r C
me o C
N
a 0 .� �O a m
E p o_
of m
U y
c m m c
O
m 0 0
m y a) m y C.)
y 0 E N
E C Z c U
m E
N 7
O)
O
C> ,c
O m
L
_a m._
c m c +L-. N .0
a) `�
m a)
a) y L O o> r
7 N L m C
m 7 y
IC m O C
N 7 0 C
�+
A
0)
m YO
Q •� E U p
M C
o 7 E p
O
m
7 7
a' `• 3 0
E O m m
a' 0~
•0 j' a v a) (6
a' 7>
-p m E O_
.m. O Q a) O
n m
� a 0 'C_ a N
Q
a 0.
G m
•O 0-Y 10 a
E
C 7
C d _c o E y
�^+
/y
in 0 W .'� N D_
m m U E m L
S
S a) y C
S .: m .� a m y
S U m m a U N 3
S U E- E E U
Cb
m o
rn a
2 v
a
U
C t0
a) n
t E E
;
rn -ca
2 c
o m 2
u; W
OmE
o
a
0
U t m
gc
W ii
Oy
C U
O C
i+ (6
V O.
r= E
•r- O
jU
Q
V1 00 '-• U M �'
N
C
N O U M
NC O�=O
c
'r. G
O d.
U a+
a O N C O�."'O�
C ��pp C C
CD'O
a)
p
C m C
O) a) C U g)
c
_Ol
y C )6
> 10 07
U M (h O1
C M C C U C� C
M
N D
M M
C t5 C m
V)
J =
L) .m O O co O M
LwL U
-O O
U-0 ` 01 O O m 0
L L
Y
4. O N
C a) C
C C
OL
N�
!._ O V) wcn
C 2 N 2
C C
N
(n
(O a) N
� C O cc,:c.-r N 0
a
c 1
m a)
m e O� nL V) r
U) O
a)
� 7 U o Z�
z�•m
7 �..
7 L)
>,
7
7 V)
E:
N
T
N
O0 O)
U c
O� m
U c
7
OQ O)
U c
a) c
N C
M C
V) 2 C
�rn
5oE
a6ioE
ao)oE
w Q
0)U 2 >
�U >
c � >
W
N0E�
00-
yoEaci
1 OQ
JL.L OQ
JLL OQ
I
d
u!
a7
C
p
C
O_
IL
E
N
C
��
C
_
c
c
m e
V) O
7 N
c
O
p
U
id CO
_ ,_
O
C U
c
O
rn
d
m m
U c
�
c n
0
ii cnn O
a 0
c
o
c
O
O
c
`
N
O
C N
Z5
O C
j V)
E L
d0.
O
U
C C
m�,p
N O
cU
a
m
4
U c
0
LL )O
d0
w
V)
m
a
Y g
a) E
N a)
> O
w
N
-_ w ()
a) p L
N C -_
a) m
N
_ m E
C _ N C
p).N-O 'O
L m
w _O
C
N
O v1 c
O
N
CCa)
L -
N Q m N
d 1
2-5
Ow
E
n w
O
N N
E
c y
m
p N
'V� O_ -0
a)
yNTN
UO CD .2N
,
N
C�
a) C
.
O
N
ca C
N
Nym
m>
7 N
o U
N
pp
U O
(O N C C
C f0 p
co m w a) rq
O •� C d
fi
CQ
N
l`
E
L
o V o
m
N 7 U
O m 0 p) a) C
n p N
L
a) w.
O U
U N
N C
N O Ls L
U 7
'O
> C
o m O
= n� L
wO
o m
7 O
m 'y 7 Q
O
m C
in O
c CO C 'O
L a) 7
N p 0 7
QV
O ccn,L O
C O
N O
U
m
O) C
m
V1
U YO
o N
N a) C V) c
U V) O O
(Q
U N N
o a)
(0 y m E a)
-' a)
p U N
L
U O
Xm
U
C .+0-'
VCOifO
m .LO.�
N a n
V) O. -0 a)
.
ON
� .
.UO-
Oil
0.9
am C
-0
-o
a
aO
7OCm
'Owm>
ovCV)
L
V
mV)
O C
CEUc
LfCL
c
C
2 co:CL2
O
O
6
�NZ E U
fcaVNE0))
cn
U
o
o
o
DL
cE
E a)o
)
a�
o)
aya)OL
Y'OC
c 8 Sm'
-
O
E
c
O
Nmn
Xo
N�N ONE
C
all aU
N
v
y
NO
nC
oC)z
� 0
_a)
cm
E O� �°��ca)
OC2O
E
Ooo
O
OL)
p
ic
O 0a
U C ME
d
E Oa
`'CN N a�o
°)°
ai y u
f6�Ngyo
o cn
oE
w
c
o
c
m
aUr
a«m
m
a) L
aii
M m
`�
O
'D U) m
`
n L U O
E
V
N m E F-C
0
NNO
N jnf-
cC
c Cy O
EN0
C O -0)
C C a)
°
m
) y
NO
>. Cm
a) a) a
0 a) 0.`-a
R
E
mo
p
T
o
E��
y
o—
m
a) m
w
T- V)
NjVW
m-0 c
a) O
CV)
a)VC
a
aC a) O w
O
~
V 7 mm
o
La
aL a
L
co
m C
O O
O)
y
L
C
U a
J in
U U a
E
LL V) V) U
-2! a) N
m
U
C
o
O
r o
>7o�0aC.
�
z�
-o
0
LL 0 m
z rnm a) N
mz o.,Dw
E
m
o
o`
U
� m
a) i) E E E
N � �
� m w
2 E
O L L
O
v LU
o m E
LL 3 N
T Q
C
0 c
U m m
O (D
C U
O C
u O
= E
•L O
U
dco
d
c
U
c
0
c
ca
U
c
U
0 0.2
C
C
C
C
01
0)
0)
C m
> m
en
co
co
y
0 0-
t
t
w
C
y
y
y
y
VJ
J
J
J
J
�>,'
T
Mn
00 0)
U E
7 N
O D 0)
U E
7 M
00 0)
U E
7 ,N
O D 0)
U E
U
f0`1 a)
U) C
_
n 2 C
_
y 2 C
_
y 2 C
0)
NCOE
5aE
a)0E
a)0E
w Q
C U T
mU 21. T
0)U 2 >.
mU >�
w
¢ o E c
Q o E c
Q o E c
Q o E c
a1
O
y a)
O
y — a)
O
cn — a)
O
JLL OQ
JLL OQ
JLL OQ
JLL OQ
a)
CI
C
{7
7
7
°
L
IL
o
o
0)
m C C
m C C
m C
N
C
O O
y ,O O
y ,O
C
r
E
1° °
FL 2
�° U �
a w
�° �
a w
U
rn
p
U y
O.
U y
C a
U
C a
C
C O
U) 0
0
i i U) U
LL U)
7
c
o
0
o
m
-
_ 2
O C i;
a
m C
a
m C
m C N
C N
a7 m
E L
to O C
C m 0
0.2
C Z6
y 0
C 6
y O C
C Z6 O
0
m U
m
m
m U
a
aw rn
CL
aw
aw rn
t
U C
a) .0
U
U
U C
al
C a l
LLU)0
C n
LLU)
C n
LL U)
n 7
LL U)
N N
9 C:w o
ind Q
N
CDm
y N
U T y`
E U)
m 7 C
+�0., N
N N
O C 3
y m c E m m m 7 N
y �i o 0 a) y C
O m U C C
y 'O U p
A n
m
() (°) L
N
y O C m
y UO m U 0) O N m>
- '0
O
L)) O (D
'E
Y L 3
C U
- O C a)
.0 C p a'C Co L 0 Y m U
°
N U U m
m N N
U 3`
mcf°i E> c3c
W rn o a) 'cn � .c >
m cN
U
y c m
L m m
�a c a) o.
3 E o a) y 0 `p y a E
_ c— a)
C
a)�w
U V
i) n c
y m O
�1
a) Q O .O 0) N N : O N
m C ` y
D m w
E 0) L •-
co�
y
a) C d C
�y� 3
C C C N
y OL
C O E O N OL
a)
0_O N
0)((Dco
O
U� y V m
O O CCU if
p .L-. 'C Y > N U°
U U m E C O) y
E a) U 7
L C L
c 7 W
•C
o m
N° Q 7 w
01 y y
o
.0
0
0a om -c1°
Lp-c'�
m
oUn3
�c�o�
ci -0 a°im�ui m
N n O
y m C'
a) p m
U 0
y a) U w C -0 Q
C N "O a) C y 0 m y 0
C
a> O
d a) p m
0
N N �= N y
U' _T O_ () a) y m Y O' 0 y
a) L) c_ cv of a a�
y
m L a) m
m U o
E N
E C 7
E— y
a) .> O
m� c
L'D C
C
` C C O ` y p
m U) O E m 7 .y0_ a) L .0
O
a)
y m m
0 4:
O i0
y L)
y c
C
M C y N .yp. c O C C C O 3 y 0 m
M
E
C n- m
O .E N .0
m C N T
y m !F-
U N c— N
7
Ec°�a) �0 ma >oo� °o�c
m C O a) U = 0
ar
y
m�°2m
C L E
o3•1a
p C°
c-mmo_
a) - L y
i.
_ a) . -0 U :� 'U '
w C c 7 L V C y U `
T
UJ
a) m H a
E o (a E
m -0 a) o.
> O) n
0) - •p y -0
m m y 'n
p y ,�
y d c L y 7 y> C w
a)
U
a) ) O m
n y
p
O m m
O) E N
C
c
�01
C
U p m m a) -cu ata) w" 0 0 U L 4= Y C
U
0 o
�p O U
n
n U .� y
O C. C y
y
IC
m
C
O
° y L 5 U
y N •7p U f0 7 C
d 0 U C y N O y 0 m C
a7
y
O (� U
m a) a) (D
O d (u
E >
E` O
N U
Q
0 U n d N V y C C •�
C
.� N >, m
•0 p 0 a
Cc:E O
CQ
C
°
t'
°
LL m O m C a) a7 `- w U '� U.
C� > 7 :° C CL
m
d` m T C
.0 m
a` a°
m
O N C-
U
O N
-
a7
CL
y
r: tN, .L-.• 7 O
` 3 y 0 m O
LL (°j p U X O p 0 C (` v) 0 7
) 0 •U U E B U m C "O
N
a7
=
V p y
V C y
J
N y
J C N y
a)
M N C E
J C) �= a) E
C
Q 7 a) H L
�7
a)
a) L
T Q'C
H
F-� N • • •
>
L)) (moo nm
nrCLU)
M 2Z 9 E
E if
2
a �
c m
N =
'5 rn C.
iS
c -E
. N
Q 2 c
CO O
CO N W
o m
LL3E
a� 2
c �+
'o a
U f0 m
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-6976 was duly and regularly passed,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular
Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on June 23, 2015.
The vote was as follows:
AYES: DiVirgilio, Fangary, Petty, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Mayor Barragan
Dated June 23, 2015