CC 2021-03-23_10a CCB Operating Agreement
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
BILL ROBESON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
BY: ROB FITZROY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE
CENTRAL COAST BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION
OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Review, discuss, and consider approval of the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement
and adoption of a Resolution adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
There is no immediate fiscal impact from the actions described herein. However, there is
a significant financial impact for the overall cost of the Central Coast Blue project as
shared previously with the Council. There are five types of costs associated with the
Central Coast Blue project: pre-construction, property acquisition, construction,
operations and maintenance ongoing costs, and debt service costs. The Operating
Agreement also provides for reimbursement of funds paid to date by the City from other
agencies. Current estimated costs of the project, including Arroyo Grande’s share based
on the terms of the proposed Operating Agreement, are:
Item 10.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COAST
BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
MARCH 23, 2021
PAGE 2
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council review and approve the Central Coast Blue Operating
Agreement and adopt a Resolution adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and directing the City
Clerk to file the Notice of Determination for the Central Coast Blue project.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Pismo Beach is the lead agency for the Central Coast Blue project, a regional
recycled water project. The project is a multi-agency effort between three of the four
Northern Cities Management Area agencies (the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
and Pismo Beach) and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
to construct a regional recycled water project that will enhance supply reliability by
injecting advanced purified water into the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB). This
will reduce vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion
barrier and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater. Water for the project will
be sourced from two of the region’s wastewater treatment facilities: the Pismo Beach
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Phase 1 of the project and the SSLOCSD
WWTP in Phase 2. Prior to injection to the SMGB, water will be treated to an advanced
level of purification at a proposed advanced treatment facility (ATF) to be constructed at
a site in Grover Beach. The proposed ATF will treat a combination of flows from the Pismo
Beach WWTP and flows from the SSLOCSD WWTP for injection into the SMGB and/or
for agricultural irrigation. Project components in addition to the ATF include an advanced
purified water storage tank, an equalization basin, a pump station, distribution pipelines,
injection wells, monitoring wells, one new production well, and potential agricultural
irrigation pipelines if used for agricultural purposes.
The partner agencies, which consist of the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and
Pismo Beach, have formed a subcommittee which has met several times to help draft a
framework outlining how costs and benefits for the project will be distributed. These items,
along with others, were placed in a draft Framework. In addition to outlining costs and
benefits, the Framework indicated how non-participating agencies will manage their
groundwater resources without impacting the benefits from Central Coast Blue and
provides a way for non-participating agencies to join Central Coast Blue at a later date.
The Oceano Community Services District (OCSD) has been participating in the
development of the project and has expressed support for it, while also indicating that it
does not need the water produced from the project and that it cannot afford to participate
in the project financially.
Item 10.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COAST
BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
MARCH 23, 2021
PAGE 3
An initial draft Framework was presented to all of the partner agencies in late 2019 and
early 2020. Feedback was received from each of the agencies and the Framework was
revised accordingly.
At the June 9, 2020 Arroyo Grande City Council meeting, Water Systems Consulting
(WSC), presented information regarding the draft Framework and received input from
Council. Based on this input and collaboration between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) staff and
representative elected officials, a final revised version of the Framework was presented
to Council on August 11, 2020 and approved. Based on the Framework, the Central
Coast Blue Operating Agreement was developed and is attached for Council’s
consideration (Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Phase I
As outlined in the attached Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement, during Phase 1, the
facility will receive and treat secondarily treated effluent flows from the Pismo Beach
wastewater treatment plant, and is expected to accept an initial influent and treatment
capacity of up to 1.3 million gallons per day (MGD). During Phase 1, the City of Pismo
Beach will operate and maintain the facility. Costs of operations will be shared among
the parties as shown below.
Pismo Beach will, on a semi-annual basis, invoice each other party for its pro rata
percentage of the expenses incurred, as established in the annual operating budget.
Such expenses shall include salaries, health and retirement benefits, and workers’
compensation insurance of the water and wastewater operators assigned to the facility,
utility and supply costs for facility operations, and an additional administrative charge
equal to two percent (2 %) of the respective shares of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach
to reimburse Pismo Beach for its administrative costs in tracking and invoicing expenses
for operation of the facility. The percentages are as follows:
PROJECT Contributing
Water Purveyors
Cost Share
Percentage
Arroyo Grande 39%
Grover Beach 36%
Pismo Beach 20%
Unsubscribed 5%
Total 100%
Item 10.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COAST
BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
MARCH 23, 2021
PAGE 4
Until a contributing water purveyor is identified for the unsubscribed portion noted above,
the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages will be as follows:
PROJECT Contributing
Water Purveyors
Cost Share
Percentage
Arroyo Grande 40.7%
Grover Beach 37.7%
Pismo Beach 21.7%
Total 100%
These contribution amounts are consistent with the approved Framework.
The Operating Agreement addresses a number of issues that were not contemplated in
the Framework. These include:
limiting payment obligations to the parties’ water enterprise fund revenues
potential formation of a management committee consisting of nine members, three
from each party, to be appointed by the city managers to address budget issues,
develop policy recommendations, and non-policy level operational and funding
protocols
good faith effort by project contractors to hire locally
project site ownership issues; and
the potential addition of new parties and their buy-in costs.
Phase 2
Because the precise details of Phase 2 of the project’s financing, construction, and
operation remain to be determined among the parties, the agreement proposes to require
the parties to cooperate reasonably to consider appropriate amendments to the
agreement to allocate responsibility for the governance, financing, construction, and
operation of Phase 2 of the project.
Environmental Review
The Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement is a project under CEQA, and the City of
Pismo Beach is the lead agency for the project. Both the cities of Grover Beach and
Arroyo Grande are considered responsible agencies for the project because the project
requires their participation and approval. Because an EIR was prepared by Pismo Beach,
the City of Arroyo Grande will rely upon that document in its entirety to comply with CEQA.
As a responsible agency, the City is also required to make findings for each significant
effect of the project and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
The City of Pismo Beach certified the EIR on February 16, 2021. Subsequently, on March
16, Pismo Beach adopted the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement, Statements of
Item 10.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COAST
BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
MARCH 23, 2021
PAGE 5
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
EIR. The complete EIR is available online at www.centralcoastblue.com and is also
available on the Pismo Beach website at www.pismobeach.org.
The EIR identified significant impacts associated with project approval. The following
environmental issue areas were identified as having potentially significant environmental
impacts from implementation of the Central Coast Blue project:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazard and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Transportation
Of these environmental issue areas, construction noise and land use impacts associated
with 24-hour well drilling activities for the injection, monitoring, and production wells in
close proximity to residential land uses were found to be significant and unavoidable. As
a result of these significant unavoidable impacts a statement of overriding considerations
must be adopted balancing the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits
of the project against its unavoidable impacts. The required responsible agency findings
and a proposed statement overriding considerations are included in Attachment 2.
Approval Process
As described above, the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement involves three primary
parties, the cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. Pismo Beach was
the first of the agencies to approve the agreement, which occurred on March 16, 2021.
On March 16, Pismo Beach adopted the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement,
Statements of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the EIR. Grover Beach will be the second agency, and consider approval on
March 22, 2021, which will also include the Operating Agreement, Statements of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Arroyo
Grande will be the final approving party, and, if approved at the March 23, 2021 City
Council meeting, this will complete the Operating Agreement approval process and
adoption of Statements of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Program process.
Item 10.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL COAST
BLUE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE PROJECT
MARCH 23, 2021
PAGE 6
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Approve the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement and adopt the Resolution.
2. Do not approve the Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement or adopt the Resolution.
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement is a critical step in the process and is legally
binding. However, there are opportunities at a later date to discontinue participation in the
project if the Council prefers that option. Approving the agreement is an important action
toward obtaining an additional reliable water source for the City.
DISADVANTAGES:
None.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1.Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement
2.Proposed Resolution Adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Item 10.a. - Page 6
Page 1 of 20
OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE WATER PROJECT
THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE WATER PROJECT (“Agreement’)
is made and entered into as of _______________, 2021 (“Effective Date”), by and among the
City of Pismo Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Pismo Beach”), the City of Grover
Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Grover Beach”), and the City of Arroyo Grande, a
California municipal corporation (“Arroyo Grande”), (collectively “Parties” and each individually
a “Party”).
RECITALS
A.The Parties have worked collaboratively to manage groundwater pumping in their
portion of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB) since development of a 1983
Gentlemen’s Agreement, which allocated the estimated available groundwater
among municipal and agricultural water purveyors and pumpers; and
B.The Gentlemen’s Agreement was further formalized in a 2002 Agreement Regarding
Management of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin which was later
incorporated into a 2005 stipulation as part of the SMGB adjudication; and
C.In response to the detection of incipient seawater intrusion into the SMGB caused
by drought and unsustainable pumping, the Parties dramatically reduced their
groundwater pumping in the SGMB and began investigating supplemental supply
opportunities to improve water supply reliability and groundwater protection; and
D.It is the declared policy of the State of California, pursuant to Water Code Section
461, that the primary interest of the people of the State in the conservation of all
available water resources requires the maximum reuse of reclaimed water in the
satisfaction of requirements for beneficial uses of water; and
E.The California Legislature has found and declared, pursuant to Water Code Section
13511, that a substantial portion of California’s future water requirements may be
economically met by beneficial use of recycled water, and that the utilization of
recycled water by local communities for domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational, and fish and wildlife purposes will contribute to the peace, health,
safety and welfare of the people of the State; and
F.Treated effluent wastewater from the Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) wastewater treatment plants was identified as
a significant water supply source that could be put to beneficial use; and
G.There continues to be legislative and regulatory pressure to limit ocean outfall
discharges that could impact the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD wastewater disposal
operations; and
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 10.a. - Page 7
Page 2 of 20
H. Central Coast Blue is a regional multi‐phase groundwater protection project that will
allow beneficial use of water currently discharged to the ocean as a seawater
intrusion barrier; and
I. Phase 1 of the Central Coast Blue project will provide for the advanced treatment
and groundwater injection of wastewater flows from the Pismo Beach wastewater
treatment plant, and Phase 2 of the project is anticipated to add flows from the
SSLOCSD wastewater treatment plant for additional injection or delivery to
agricultural and other users; and
J. The Parties, by this Agreement, wish to set forth the Parties’ respective rights and
responsibilities in the planning, development, construction and operation of Central
Coast Blue.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the matters recited and the mutual promises, covenants,
and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall be dated as of, and become effective on, the date of its execution by the
last of the Parties.
2. TERM
This Agreement shall terminate on ___________, 20__, and shall include the construction
periods (allowing for Facility construction and acceptance testing) as well as twenty (20) Years
of operation; provided, however, as set forth in Section 7(b) in no event shall this Agreement
terminate while any Certificates as defined below are outstanding. A Party may terminate this
Agreement as to that Party only upon giving one‐hundred (180) days’ advance written notice to
all other Parties. Notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement as to a Party, that Party
shall be obligated to pay such costs as are set forth in Exhibit “A” to this Agreement, which is
hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
3. DEFINITIONS
“Applicable Law” means any law, rule, code, standard, regulation, requirement, consent decree,
consent order, consent agreement, permit, guideline, action, determination or order of, or legal
entitlement issued or deemed to be issued by, any governmental body or court having
jurisdiction, applicable from time to time to any activities associated with the siting, design,
construction, equipping, financing, ownership, start‐up testing, acceptance, operation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of any part of the Project, and any other obligations of
Item 10.a. - Page 8
Page 3 of 20
the Parties under this Agreement. Governmental bodies include local, county, state and federal
agencies and all successors thereto.
“Certificates” mean any bonds or certificates of participation used for Project construction that
are payable from the Net Revenues of a Party’s water or wastewater enterprise systems.
“Enterprise” means the Party’s water system, including all facilities, works, properties and
structures of the Party for the treatment, transmission and distribution of potable and non‐
potable water, including all contractual rights to water supplies, transmission capacity supply,
easements, rights‐of‐way and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for
such facilities, together with all additions, betterments, extension and improvements to such
facilities or any part thereof hereafter acquired or constructed.
“Environmental Impact Report” or “EIR” means the Project’s final environmental impact report
dated ______, 2020, State Clearinghouse #2019120560.
“Environmental Law” means any federal, regional, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, rule,
regulations, code, order, decree, notice, directive or judgment relating to human health,
pollution, damage to or protection of wildlife, air, surface water, groundwater, soil, and/or the
environment, including but not limited to the following, as amended from time to time: (a) the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et
seq., (b) the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., (c) the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., (d) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., (e) the Safe Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq., (f) Clean Air Act 42
U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., (g) the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended 40 U.S.C.
§ 5101 et seq. (h) the California Air Resources Act, Cal. Health and Safety Code § 39000 et seq.,
(i) the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Cal. Water Code § 13300 et seq., and (j) any
regulations promulgated under the foregoing.
“Facility” means the advanced water treatment facility that will receive and further treat
wastewater influent from Pismo Beach’s and/or SSLOCSD’s wastewater treatment facilities,
which as of the date of this Agreement is proposed to be constructed on Assessor’s Parcel
Number 060‐543‐016 in the City of Grover Beach, including the facility’s equalization basin,
storage tanks, pump station and associated piping and equipment from the Pismo Beach and
SSLOCSD wastewater treatment facilities.
“Gross Revenues” means all gross income and revenue received or receivable by the Party from
the ownership and operation of its Enterprise, calculated in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, including all rates, fees and charges (including fees for
connecting to the Enterprise and any water stand‐by or water availability charges or
assessments) received by the Party for water service made available or provided by the
Enterprise and all other income and revenue howsoever derived by the Party from the
Enterprise or arising from the Enterprise; provided, however, that (i) any specific charges levied
for the express purpose of reimbursing others for all or a portion of the cost of the acquisition
Item 10.a. - Page 9
Page 4 of 20
or construction of specific facilities, or (ii) customers’ deposits or any other deposits subject to
refund until such deposits have become the property of the Party, are not Gross Revenues and
are not subject to the lien of the Agreement.
“Hazardous materials” means any substance defined as hazardous substances, hazardous
materials, or toxic substances in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act, as amended 40 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; and any substance defined as hazardous waste in Cal. Health
and Safety Code § 25117 or as hazardous substance in Cal. Health and Safety Code § 25316,
and/or in any regulations adopted and publications promulgated under these laws.
“Maintenance and Operation Costs” of the Enterprise means the reasonable and necessary costs
and expenses paid by the Party for maintaining and operating the Enterprise, as determined in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, including but not limited to (a) the
reasonable expenses of management and repair and other costs and expenses necessary to
maintain and preserve the Enterprise in good repair and working order, including the cost of
water, and (b) administrative costs of the Party attributable to the Enterprise and the financing
thereof; but excluding (x) depreciation, replacement and obsolescence charges or reserves
therefor, (y) capital expenditures other than as set forth in subsection (a) above, and
(z) amortization of intangibles or other bookkeeping entries or a similar nature.
“Municipal Pumping Entitlement” means a Party’s annual allocation of groundwater to a Party
under the adjudication of the water rights in the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin.
As of the date of this agreement, the Parties’ annual entitlement is as follows:
Party Municipal
Pumping
Entitlement (Acre‐
Feet/Year)
Arroyo Grande 1,323
Grover Beach 1,407
Pismo Beach 700
“Net Revenues” means, for any period, all of the Gross Revenues during such period less all of
the Maintenance and Operation Costs during such period.
“Order” means all of the following: (a) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, or successor permit, establishing requirements for the Project’s discharge of
treated wastewater, (b) and, if separate, the Water Reclamation Permit, or successor permit,
establishing requirements for reuse of Recycled Water, as may be issued, modified or reissued
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or successor governmental entity.
Item 10.a. - Page 10
Page 5 of 20
“Pismo Beach Environmental Site Assessments” means the (1) Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment of Approximately 1.5 Acre Parcel, Huber Street Grover Beach, California prepared
for City of Pismo Beach, Public Works Department by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Project 19‐
07931) dated June 21, 2019, including any attachments, exhibits and appendices thereto and
(2) the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of Approximately 1.5 Acre Parcel, Huber Street
Grover Beach, California prepared for City of Pismo Beach, Public Works Department by Rincon
Consultants, Inc. (Project 19‐07931) dated July 22, 2019 including any attachments, exhibits and
appendices thereto.
“Project” means the Central Coast Blue groundwater protection project, and each phase of the
Project.
“Project Yield” means 100 % of the total annual amount of Recycled Water injected into
injection wells pursuant to this Agreement.
“Recycled Water” means water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater influent to Pismo
Beach’s and/or SSLOCSD’s wastewater treatment facilities, is suitable for the direct beneficial
uses allowable for Recycled Municipal Wastewater as defined by Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3
of the California Code of Regulations.
“Regional Board” or "RWQCB" means the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Coast Region.
“Replacement Water Rate” means the acre‐foot unit cost for Project Recycled Water, which
shall be calculated by adding all the Project’s capital costs, financing charges, variable costs of
treatment, delivery and injection, and operations and maintenance costs for a given calendar
year, divided by the Project Yield for that year.
“Senior Obligations” means all bonds, notes, loan agreements, installment sale agreements,
leases or other obligations of the Party outstanding as of the date of the Agreement or incurred
by a Party after the date of the Agreement, payable from and secured by a pledge of and lien
upon any of the Net Revenues.
“User” means a Party, or other person or entity using Recycled Water provided by the Project
pursuant to this Agreement.
4. PROJECT FUNDING (PHASE 1)
The costs incurred in the Facility site acquisition, permitting, design and construction of the
Project shall be allocated according to the cost sharing provisions in Exhibit “A”.
5. PROJECT OPERATION (PHASE 1)
Item 10.a. - Page 11
Page 6 of 20
a. Operation
During Phase 1, the Facility will receive and treat secondary treated effluent flows from the
Pismo Beach wastewater treatment plant. Grover Beach by its entry into this Agreement,
consents to the location of the Facility within the corporate boundaries of Grover Beach and
subject to the terms of this agreement will consider acceptance of title of the Property located
at APN 060‐543‐016. During Phase 1, the Facility is expected to accept an initial influent and
treatment capacity of up to 1.3 million gallons per day (MGD). During Phase 1, Pismo Beach
shall operate the Facility, furnishing such employees, operators, electricians, mechanics, and
administrative staff as are necessary to operate the Facility, including but not limited to
operation and maintenance of the injection, monitoring, and production wells, well inspections,
monitoring of pressures, cleaning out well casings, removing microbial build‐up, and
backflushing.
Pismo Beach shall, in accordance with its own ordinances, resolutions and policies and
procedures, recruit, hire, train and if necessary, discipline and terminate employees it assigns to
operate the Facility. Pismo Beach shall be responsible for the payment of all salaries, benefits,
insurance and retirement contributions for its own employees.
Pismo Beach shall, on a semi‐annual basis, invoice each other Party for its pro rata percentage
of the expenses incurred by Pismo Beach during such preceding period for operation of the
Facility, as established in the annual operating budget. The pro rata percentage for each party
shall be equal to the Party’s Water Purveyor Contribution percentage. As used herein, the
Water Purveyor Contribution percentages shall be as follows:
PROJECT Contributing
Water Purveyors
Cost Share
Percentage
Arroyo Grande 39%
Grover Beach 36%
Pismo Beach 20%
Unsubscribed 5%
Total 100%
Until a contributing water purveyor is identified for the unsubscribed portion noted above, the
Water Purveyor Contribution percentages shall be as follows:
PROJECT Contributing
Water Purveyors
Cost Share
Percentage
Arroyo Grande 40.7%
Grover Beach 37.7%
Pismo Beach 21.7%
Total 100%
Item 10.a. - Page 12
Page 7 of 20
Such expenses shall include salaries, health and retirement benefits, and workers’
compensation insurance of the water and wastewater operators assigned to the Facility, utility
and supply costs for Facility operations, and an additional administrative charge equal to two
percent (2 %) of the respective shares of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach to reimburse Pismo
Beach for its administrative costs in tracking and invoicing expenses for operation of the
Facility. Invoiced expenses shall be identified in the annual operating budget approved by the
Management Committee as described in subsection (b) below. Should Grover Beach accept title
to the Property, and to the extent any tax or assessment of any kind is imposed upon the City of
Grover Beach's ownership of the Property located at APN 060‐543‐016 or the operation of the
Facility by Pismo Beach, said taxes or assessments of any kind by any governmental agency shall
be considered expenses and allocated to the respective Parties consistent with Section 5 of this
Agreement. It is agreed by Pismo Beach that since they are a public entity, California Revenue
and Taxation Code Section 107.6 has no application to this Agreement. Payment shall be made
within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non‐disputed charges. If a Party
disputes any of the charges, it shall give written notice to Pismo Beach within thirty (30) days of
receipt of an invoice of any disputed charges set forth on the invoice. In the event that
payment is not made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non‐disputed
charges, late penalties and interest may apply at the maximum rate allowed by law.
Pismo Beach shall keep and maintain full, complete, and appropriate books, records, and
accounts related to the operation of the Facility, including all such records necessary or prudent
to evidence and substantiate in full detail Pismo Beach’s calculation of each Party’s pro rata
share of such expenses. These records, including source documents, receipts, and any other
documents shall be available to each other Party upon that Party’s request for purposes of
review or auditing.
At least ninety (90) days prior to the end of each fiscal year, Pismo Beach shall prepare an
annual operating budget and provide it to the Management Committee, if one exists. If no
Management Committee exists, it shall be provided to the city managers of all Parties for
review and approval.
b. Management Committee
If deemed necessary by any of the city managers of the Parties, a Management Committee
consisting of nine members shall be formed, with three members appointed by each Party’s city
manager. The members shall serve indefinite terms at the discretion of their appointing
authority. The committee will be assisted in clerical functions by each of the Parties on annually
rotating basis to be established by the committee. The committee shall meet on a regular
basis, not less than semi‐annually, at such times and places as may be established by the
committee.
The Management Committee shall (1) review, suggest any modifications to, and approve the
annual operating budget prepared by Pismo Beach as described in subsection (a) above, (2)
assist the Parties in developing and administering policy recommendations to be presented to
Item 10.a. - Page 13
Page 8 of 20
the city councils of the Parties on all major operational and funding aspects of the Project
including facility oversight and management, and (3) develop such non‐policy level operational
and funding protocols as will best ensure the continued operational and fiscal viability of the
Project.
c. Direct injection of Recycled Water
During Phase 1, Pismo Beach will deliver the Recycled Water from the Facility to one or more
groundwater injection wells, each of which will be capable of injecting approximately 800 acre‐
feet per year of Recycled Water into the groundwater basin. Pismo Beach shall consult with the
other Parties to determine the allocation of Recycled Water among the various injection wells
to best ensure the Project’s goals are effectively accomplished.
All Recycled Water injected into groundwater injection wells pursuant to this Agreement shall
be measured by Pismo Beach using such facilities and equipment as Pismo Beach may
determine in its sole discretion. Pismo Beach shall own, inspect, operate, maintain, repair and
replace the measuring equipment. Upon request by a Party, the accuracy of a measurement
shall be investigated by Pismo Beach and any error appearing therein shall be adjusted. A Party
may inspect such measuring equipment for the purpose of determining the accuracy thereof.
The quality of the Recycled Water injected into the groundwater injection wells shall
substantially comply with the quality criteria established by the Order and Applicable Laws,
although the Recycled Water’s quality may vary within those criteria. Pismo Beach shall test the
Recycled Water as required under the Order and Applicable Laws to ensure that it substantially
complies with the quality criteria set forth in the Order and Applicable Laws. The results of this
testing program shall be provided to the Management Committee, if one exists. If no
Management Committee exists, the results shall be provided to the city managers of all Parties.
The results of said tests shall be maintained at Pismo Beach’s wastewater treatment plant. An
annual report of the test values shall be sent by mail and e‐mail to each Party. All facilities used
for direct injection of Recycled Water are subject to inspection by any Party or the Regional
Board to ensure the protection of the public.
d. Extraction of Project Yield by Parties
Beginning at such time as permitted by the Order and Applicable Laws, each Party shall be
entitled to extract from the groundwater basin its pro rata allocation of the Project Yield. As
used herein, the pro rata allocations of the Project Yield shall be the same as the Water
Purveyor Contribution percentages set forth in Section 5(a) above.
In the event a Party extracts from the groundwater basin in any calendar year more than the
sum of (i) fifty percent (50%) of its Municipal Pumping Entitlement plus (ii) its pro rata
allocation of the Project Yield, the Party shall either (1) reduce its Municipal Pumping
Entitlement in the following year by an amount equivalent to the overage in the preceding year,
or (2) pay to the other Parties an amount equal to one hundred ten percent (110%) of the
Item 10.a. - Page 14
Page 9 of 20
quantity of overage multiplied by the Replacement Water Rate. This payment shall be allocated
between the other Parties on a pro‐rata basis according to their Water Purveyor Contribution
percentages set forth in Section 5(a), with the over‐pumping Party’s Water Purveyor
Contribution percentage being allocated between the other Parties on the same basis.
e. Extraction of Project Yield by non‐parties
In the event an entity that is not a Party to this Agreement subscribes to all or a portion of the
unsubscribed Project Yield set forth in Section 5(a) as an Additional Project Participant, at such
time as permitted by the Order and Applicable Laws, that entity shall be entitled to extract from
the groundwater basin its pro rata allocation of the Project Yield.
In the event such entity extracts from the groundwater basin in any calendar year more than
the sum of (i) fifty percent (50%) of its pro rata allocation of the Project Yield plus any other
legal entitlement it may have to extract from the groundwater basin, the entity shall, at the
option of the other Parties, do one of the following (1) reduce its legal entitlement under the
final judgment in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin litigation to pump from the groundwater
basin in the following year by an amount equivalent to the overage in the preceding year, (2)
convey an equivalent amount of water from other sources available to such entity to the
Parties entitled to receive such water entitlement or (3) pay to the Parties an amount equal to
one hundred twenty‐five percent (125%) of the quantity of overage multiplied by the
Replacement Water Rate. This payment shall be allocated between the Parties according to the
Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set forth in Section 5(a) above.
6. PROJECT OPERATION (PHASE 2)
In that the precise details of Phase 2 of the Project’s financing, construction and operation
remain to be determined among the Parties, the Parties agree to cooperate reasonably to
consider appropriate amendments to this Agreement to allocate responsibility for the
governance, financing, construction and operation of Phase 2 of the Project.
7. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION
a. Notice of Default
Should any Party default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its
provisions, except as the result of an uncontrollable circumstance, the Party claiming such
default shall provide the Party a notice of default (“Notice”) to the Party claimed to have
defaulted. In such Notice, the Party claiming such default, shall provide a description of the
specific incidents giving rise to such default or breach and identify the requested cure. Upon
receipt of notice, the Party claimed to be in default shall notify the Party claiming such default
as to the status of its performance. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice, the Parties
shall meet and confer in good faith and exchange information in an attempt to remedy such
incidents.
Item 10.a. - Page 15
Page 10 of 20
b. Resolution When Project Financing Certificate(s) Outstanding
While any Certificates for the Project financing are outstanding, the only remedy for default
shall be specific performance and there shall be no suspension or termination of the
Agreement. If the Parties cannot agree on such remedies and the claimed default or breach
occurs while any Certificates issued for the financing of the Facility are outstanding, the matter
shall be submitted to binding arbitration using an independent arbitrator. If any Party wishes
to select an arbitrator, each Party shall prepare a separate list of five (5) independent
arbitrators having experience, as applicable in the development of, or operation of similar
public works facilities, in numerical order with the first preference at the top, and exchange and
compare lists. The independent arbitrator ranking highest on the three (3) lists by having the
lowest total rank order position on the three (3) lists shall be the Independent Arbitrator. In
case of a tie in scores, the Independent Arbitrator having the smallest difference between the
rankings of the three (3) Parties shall be selected; other ties shall be determined by a coin toss.
If no independent arbitrator appears on all lists, this procedure shall be repeated. If selection is
not completed after the exchange of three (3) lists or thirty (30) Days, whichever comes first,
then each Party shall select one independent arbitrator having experience described above and
the three (3) arbitrators so selected shall together select an Independent Arbitrator. The
Independent Arbitrator shall make its determination based on the submissions of the Parties,
the provisions hereof, and other factual determinations the Independent Arbitrator may make
regarding the matter in dispute, but in any case such determination must not adversely impact
the Parties’ ability to comply with the terms of the Certificates. The determination of the
Independent Arbitrator shall be binding. The Parties shall share the costs of the Independent
Arbitrator equally for the first three dispute resolutions brought in any twelve (12) month
period commencing on July 1, and thereafter shall be borne by the non‐prevailing party, as
determined by the Independent Arbitrator.
c. Resolution When Facility Financing Certificate (s) Not Outstanding
If the Parties cannot agree on such remedies and the claimed default or breach does not occur
during the period when any Certificates issued for the financing of the Facility are outstanding,
the Parties may exercise any legal rights they have under the Agreement and under Applicable
Law, including to secure specific performance.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION AND INDEMNIFICATION
a. Each Party hereto agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of the other
Parties and their officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns from and against any
and all actual or potential claims, liabilities, damages, losses, fines, penalties, judgments,
awards, costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs and all foreseeable, unforeseeable and consequential damages) asserted against,
resulting to, imposed upon or incurred by said other Party by reason of the first Party’s
Item 10.a. - Page 16
Page 11 of 20
breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the Order or Applicable Laws. This
indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
b. Notwithstanding the above indemnity provision and to the extent this subsection (b) shall
be inconsistent with subsection (a), this subsection (b) shall govern the obligations of the
Parties for purposes of indemnification. Pismo Beach shall protect, defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande, and their respective officials, employees,
attorneys and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims,
liabilities, damages, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness
fees), judgments, settlements, mediation, and/or arbitration awards, whether for personal
or bodily injury, property damage, or economic injury, violations of California statutory or
constitutional law filed against Grover Beach and/or Arroyo Grande related to the
preparation, approval or certification of the Environmental Impact Report or any other
document related to certification under the California Environmental Quality Act used by
Pismo Beach for the approval of this project.
c. Environmental Condition of Property and Indemnity. In accordance with Exhibit "A", and
subject to the conditions contained therein, the City of Grover Beach may agree to the
transfer of title of the Property located in the City of Grover Beach at APN 060‐543‐016
(hereinafter referred to as "the Property") which is part of the Central Coast Blue ground‐
water protection project defined in Section 3, "Definitions", as "Facility" and is used for
placement of the advanced water treatment facility. If Grover Beach agrees to accept the
transfer of the Property it will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, not
inconsistent with this subsection (c), no earlier than _____________________, 2021. To the
extent subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) are inconsistent with any other provision(s) of this
Agreement, including subsection (a) of this Section 8, the provisions of subsections (c) (d)
and (e) of this Section 8 shall prevail and govern the responsibilities and obligations of the
Parties.
d. Environmental Audit. In the event of a transfer of title to the Property to Grover Beach,
Pismo Beach warrants and represents that the Property is not and, as of the close of escrow
and transfer of title of the Property at APN 060‐543‐016 to the City of Grover Beach, will not
be in violation of any Environmental Law. Pismo Beach further warrants and represents
that, during the time in which Pismo Beach owned the Property, other than as disclosed in
the Pismo Beach Environmental Site Assessments, neither Pismo Beach nor, to the best of
Pismo Beach’s actual knowledge, any third party has used, generated, manufactured,
produced, stored, or disposed of on, under, or about the Property or transported to or from
the Property any hazardous materials, including without limitation flammable materials,
explosives, asbestos, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, or related
injurious materials, whether injurious by themselves or in combination with other materials.
Pismo Beach further represents and warrants that there is no proceeding or inquiry by any
governmental authority (including without limitation the Environmental Protection Agency,
the California State Department of Health Services, or the Department of Toxic Substances
Item 10.a. - Page 17
Page 12 of 20
Control) with respect to the presence of such hazardous materials on the Property or their
migration from or to other property.
e. Pismo Beach shall indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend City of Grover Beach, its
directors, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents, and any successors to the City of
Grover Beach's interest in the chain of title to the Property, their directors, officers,
employees, and agents (“Environmental Indemnitees”), from and against any and all liability
caused by or arising from the use, generation, storage, or disposal of Hazardous Materials
by Pismo Beach or any prior owner, occupant, or operator of the Property, including but not
limited to the cost of any legally required or necessary repair, cleanup, or detoxification
under any Environmental Laws and the preparation of any closure or other required plans,
whether such action is required or necessary before or after the close of escrow or transfer
of title to City of Grover Beach, to the full extent that such liability is attributable, directly or
indirectly, to the presence or use, generation, storage, release, threatened release, or
disposal of hazardous materials by any person on the Property including Pismo Beach.
Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, Pismo Beach shall not be obligated to
indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Environmental Indemnitees from and against any
liability, claims, suits, actions, losses, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys’
fees and court costs) whether actual, alleged, threatened, or incurred that are caused by or
arising from or related in any manner to the presence or use, generation, storage, release,
threatened release, or disposal of hazardous materials by the Environmental Indemnitees
after the close of escrow or transfer of title of the Property to the City of Grover Beach.
9. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Each Party warrants and represents to the others that:
a. it has all requisite power and authority to enter into this Agreement, to perform its
obligations hereunder and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby;
b. the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized
by its governing body, or are in accordance with its organizational documents, and this
Agreement has been duly executed and delivered for it by the signatories so authorized,
and constitutes its legal, valid, and binding obligation;
c. the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement will not breach or violate,
or constitute a default under, its organizational documents or any Agreement, lease or
instrument to which it is a party or by which it or its properties may be bound or
affected; and
d. it has not received any notice, nor to the best of its knowledge is there pending or
threatened any notice, of any violation of any Applicable Laws, awards or permits which
would materially and adversely affect its ability to perform hereunder.
Item 10.a. - Page 18
Page 13 of 20
10. NOTICE
Any notice required or permitted hereunder will be deemed sufficient if given in writing and
delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage
prepaid, or delivered to a nationally recognized express mail service, charges prepaid, receipt
obtained, to the address shown below or to such other persons or addresses as are specified by
similar notice.
TO CITY OF PISMO BEACH: City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93443
Attention: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
TO CITY OF GROVER BEACH: City of Grover Beach
154 S 8th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Attention: City Manager
TO CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: City of Arroyo Grande
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Attention: City Manager
11. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement is the result of arms‐length negotiations among sophisticated parties and
ambiguities or uncertainties in it will not be construed for or against any Party, but will be
construed in a manner that most accurately reflects the intent of the Parties as of the
Agreement Effective Date. Each of the Parties acknowledges and agrees that no other Party has
provided any Party with any legal, accounting, regulatory, financial, or tax advice with respect
to any of the transactions contemplated hereby, and each Party has consulted its own legal,
accounting, regulatory, financial and tax advisors to the extent it has deemed appropriate.
12. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
The Parties will bring any lawsuits arising out of this Agreement on in courts of the State of
California, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over the lawsuits. Venue is made and will be
performed in courts sitting in the County of San Luis Obispo or Federal Court. The Parties will
conduct any other hearing or action (such as mediation or arbitration), of whatever nature or
kind regarding this Agreement, in the County of San Luis Obispo. The Parties will accept service
of process at the address where they receive Notices. This Agreement is governed by, and
construed and enforced under, the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to the
State's principles of conflicts of laws.
Item 10.a. - Page 19
Page 14 of 20
13. BINDING EFFECT, ASSIGNMENT
Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms and provisions of this Agreement will apply to,
be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal
representatives, successors, and permitted assigns. No Party shall assign its rights nor delegate
or otherwise transfer its obligations under this Agreement to any other person or entity
without the prior written consent of the other Parties to this Agreement. Any such assignment
made without the consent of the other Parties shall be void and the attempted Assignment
shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
14. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement with respect to the Regional Board, nothing
in this Agreement is intended to create any third party beneficiaries to the Agreement, and no
person or entity other than the Parties and the permitted successors, transferees and assignees
of either of them shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.
15. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
The relationship of the Parties to this Agreement shall be that of independent contractors. Each
Party shall be solely responsible for any workers compensation, withholding taxes,
unemployment insurance, and any other employer obligations associated with the described
work or obligations assigned to them under this Agreement.
16. NO WAIVER
The failure of any of the Parties to insist upon the strict performance of this Agreement will not
constitute or be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any Party’s right to thereafter
enforce the same in accordance with this Agreement in the event of a continuing or subsequent
default on the part of any of the other Parties.
17. SEVERABILITY
If any clause or provision of this Agreement or any part thereof becomes or is declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction invalid, illegal, void, or unenforceable, this Agreement will
continue in full force and effect without said provisions; provided that no such severability will
be effective if it materially changes the benefits or obligations of any Party hereunder.
18. HEADINGS
Headings and subtitles used throughout this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience
only, and no heading or subtitle will modify or be used to interpret the text of any section.
Item 10.a. - Page 20
Page 15 of 20
19. COUNTERPARTS; INTEGRATION
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (and by different Parties hereto in different
counterparts), each of which will constitute an original, but all of which when taken together
will constitute a single Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement among
the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all previous
agreements and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. This
Agreement cannot be amended, modified, or terminated except by a written instrument,
executed by all Parties hereto. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this
Agreement by email will be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this
Agreement. The Parties agree to execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all additional
papers, documents and other assurances, and shall perform any and all acts and things
reasonably necessary in connection with the performance of the obligations hereunder and to
carry out the intent of the Parties. Should any Party request an amendment or modification of
any of the provisions of this Agreement, the Management Committee shall determine: (a)
whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the
Project as a whole; and (b) whether the requested amendment or modification substantially
conforms with the material terms of this Agreement and the Applicable Law. If the
Management Committee finds that the requested amendment or modification is both minor
and substantially conforms to the material terms of this Agreement and the Applicable Law, the
amendment or modification shall be determined to be a "Minor Amendment," and the Parties
may execute the Minor Amendment without the requirement of approval by the Parties’
governing bodies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, pursuant to resolutions duly and regularly adopted
by their respective governing boards, have caused their names to be affixed by their respective
officers as of the day and year first above‐written.
[signatures begin on following page]
Item 10.a. - Page 21
Page 16 of 20
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
___________________________________
James R. Lewis
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
David M. Fleishman
City Attorney
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
___________________________________
Whitney McDonald
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Timothy Carmel
City Attorney
CITY OF GROVER BEACH
___________________________________
Matthew Bronson
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
David Hale
City Attorney
Item 10.a. - Page 22
Page 17 of 20
Exhibit “A”
1. Project Pre‐Construction Costs are those Project costs paid by each Party, starting
with the 2017 Regional Groundwater Sustainability Program Contract through award
of the first construction contract for the full‐scale Project implementation. Pismo
Beach will contract for professional services required to obtain and perfect any
necessary permits, leases, licenses or other permissions for Phase 1 of the Project
pursuant to its own contracting policies. The Parties shall pay their pro rata share of
any professional service expenses incurred by Pismo Beach in connection with the
obtaining of such permits. Pismo Beach will enter into cost share agreements with
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach for reimbursement of their portions of the Pre‐
Construction Costs. Included in the cost share agreements shall be cost estimates for
each phase of the Project. If Project costs do not exceed the estimated amount for
each phase, approval of the respective city councils of each Party is not required. The
cost estimates for each Project phase shall include a twenty percent (20%)
Contingency to allow for additional flexibility for contract management. Change
orders and/or amendments that exceed twenty percent (20%) of the original
contract value and that total more than $100,000 shall require approval by the
respective city councils of each Party.
2. Every contractor submitting a bid to the City of Pismo Beach for a Central Coast Blue
Project public works contract shall agree to make a good faith effort to hire qualified
individuals who are local residents. A “good faith effort” means a contractor will take
the following or similar actions to recruit and maintain local residents as part of the
construction workforce:
• Contact local recruitment sources to identify qualified individuals who are
local residents;
• Advertise for qualified individuals who are local residents in trade papers
and newspapers of general circulations within San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara Counties; and
• With respect to any portion of a public works contract to be performed by a
subcontractor, identify subcontractors whose workforce includes qualified
individuals who are local residents.
3. Pismo Beach has previously purchased the site for the Facility for <PRICE>. The costs
of the purchase of the Facility site for the Project shall be included as a construction
cost of the Project. The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to Article XIII, Section
11(a) of the California Constitution, the Facility site may be considered taxable real
property. As such, the Parties shall cooperate to minimize the property tax
implications of Pismo Beach’s current ownership of the Facility site by either
allocating such property tax costs among the Parties according to the Water Purveyor
Contribution percentages, by transferring title of the Facility site to Grover Beach, or
by such other action upon which the Parties may agree. If the Parties unanimously
Item 10.a. - Page 23
Page 18 of 20
agree the Property should be transferred to the City of Grover Beach, Grover Beach
shall accept the transfer of the Property subject to the following conditions
precedent:
Grover Beach shall engage an environmental professional to conduct a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the Property prior to Grover
Beach’s acquisition of the Property, which shall be done consistent with
AAI (All Appropriate Inquiry) Standards (40 CFR §312.21/§312.31).
If the results or conclusions of the Phase I report conclude there are
some constituents or hazardous waste located on the Property or for any
other reason Grover Beach determines is appropriate, it will be in the
sole discretion of Grover Beach to hire an environmental professional to
perform a Phase II environmental site assessment.
The determination of whether to perform a Phase II environmental site
assessment or the extent and nature of the assessment shall be at the
sole discretion of Grover Beach. The determination of whether Grover
Beach will accept title to the Property will be subject to the analysis and
conclusions of the Phase I or Phase II reports and will be a determination
made at the sole discretion of Grover Beach.
Grover Beach may at its sole discretion determine to hire an
environmental professional to periodically monitor and inspect the
ongoing operations of Pismo Beach conducted within the jurisdiction of
Grover Beach. The extent and frequency of Grover Beach's monitoring
and inspection shall be defined by Grover Beach and implemented at its
sole discretion, subject to reasonable notice to Pismo Beach prior to any
on‐site inspection or monitoring. Reasonable notice for purposes of this
Section shall not be less than 24 hours prior to the inspection.
To the extent Grover Beach accepts title to the Property, the
representations, warranties and indemnity enumerated in Section 8 shall
apply during the term of this Agreement, shall survive and be binding
after the termination of this Agreement and any breach of the
requirements of Section 8 by Pismo Beach shall be considered a material
breach of this Agreement.
Any costs or expense related to any of the enumerated conditions in this
Section 3 of Exhibit "A", shall be considered an operational cost and
expense of the Project as defined in Section 5 of the Agreement and shall
be billed by Grover Beach to each of the Parties of this Agreement in the
pro rata percentages as defined in that Section and in the same manner
as other expenses are billed by Pismo Beach. All Parties agree to this
expense and will pay Grover Beach's invoices within thirty (30) days of
the date of the invoice.
Further as a condition precedent to Grover Beach taking title to the
Property, Pismo Beach and Grover Beach shall enter into an agreement
Item 10.a. - Page 24
Page 19 of 20
that defines the rights, duties and obligations of the parties related to
Grover Beach's ownership of the Property and Pismo Beach's operation,
maintenance and use of the Property. The structure of that agreement is
unknown at this time but Pismo Beach and Grover Beach shall use good
faith and reasonable due diligence in negotiating that agreement. The
agreement shall be approved by Grover Beach prior to taking title to the
Property. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4. Cost share percentages for the Pre‐Construction Costs noted in Section 1 of this
Exhibit may be adjusted (e.g. Arroyo Grande 50%, Grover Beach 50%, and Pismo
Beach 0%) to help reconcile remaining pre‐construction cost contributions for each
of the Parties, if funding is available, until the cumulative contributions by each Party
approximately match the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set forth in
Section 5(a) of the Agreement. Once pre‐construction cost contributions
approximate the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages, the remaining pre‐
construction costs will be split according to the Water Purveyor Contribution
percentages. In the event that the costs funded by Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and
Grover Beach do not match the cumulative contributions in the Water Purveyor
Contribution percentages set forth in Section 5(a) prior to construction, the Parties
shall structure the construction financing to achieve the contributions in the Water
Purveyor Contribution percentages.
5. The costs of the construction of the Project (i.e. costs that start with the first
construction contract for the Project through determination of construction
Substantial Completion) shall be allocated according to the Water Purveyor
Contribution percentages set forth in Section 5(a). In the event a non‐Party to this
Agreement wishes to participate in the Project after Project construction, such non‐
Party shall be responsible for paying a cost equivalent to that paid by the Parties to
participate in the Project, including pre‐construction and construction costs. The
actual costs shall be negotiated between the Parties and the non‐Party seeking to
participate in the Project. In the event a non‐Party to this Agreement contributes any
amounts to the construction of the Project, the Parties’ obligations for construction
costs shall be reduced according to the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set
forth in Section 5(a).
6. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments herein with respect to the
costs of the Project or in furtherance of the objective and purpose of this Operating
Agreement (“the Project Payments”) is a special, limited obligation payable solely
from Net Revenues and does not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of
each Party or of the State of California or of any political subdivision thereof within
the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. The
Project payments are payable from Net Revenues on a subordinate basis by each
Party to its respective Senior Obligations. Any Costs Sharing Agreements entered
Item 10.a. - Page 25
Page 20 of 20
into by the subject Parties to this Agreement shall be governed by this same language
and limited obligations as stated in this section.
7. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments hereunder or in
furtherance of the objective and purpose of this Operating Agreement is further
subject to the Parties establishing sufficient Net Revenues to fund the obligations of
this Agreement which includes but is not limited to approval by the Party’s legislative
bodies for an increase in water user fees sufficient to meet the above obligations of
this Agreement, the successful implementation of a Proposition 218 protest hearing
wherein the Parties are authorized to proceed with approval of a fee increase and
the obtainment of Prop 1 Groundwater Grant Program Grant Funding by State Water
Resources Control Board.
8. Any grant funding obtained for pre‐construction permitting or construction costs will
be applied to reduce the total cost of the Project. The Parties’ obligations for such
costs shall be reduced according to the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set
forth in Section 5(a).
9. The Parties shall allocate any outside legal costs incurred related to the design,
construction and operation of the Project according to the Water Purveyor
Contribution percentages set forth in Section 5(a). Outside legal costs shall not
include legal expenses attributable to a Party’s city attorney or his/her associates,
even if that city attorney is not an employee of the Party.
10. Except as set forth in this Agreement, each Party shall be responsible for the internal
staffing, legal and administrative costs it incurs in the performance of this
Agreement. To the extent this Agreement calls for one Party to make payment of any
sums to another Party, each Party agrees to submit payment within 30 calendar days
of receipt of an invoice for such payment from the other Party.
11. If a Party opts to terminate this Agreement as to that Party prior to award of the
construction contract for the first construction work for the Project, that Party shall
be responsible for its Water Purveyor Contribution percentage of all pre‐construction
costs as of the date the Party opts to terminate this Agreement as to that Party. Such
pre‐construction costs include the expense of the 2017 Regional Groundwater
Sustainability Program Contract and any outstanding contracts as of the date the
Party opts out of this Agreement.
12. If a Party terminates this Agreement as to that Party after the award of the
construction contract for the first construction work for the Project, that Party shall
be responsible for its Water Purveyor Contribution percentage of all construction
costs for the Project, whether incurred prior to or after the date of termination as to
that Party.
Item 10.a. - Page 26
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, CALIFORNIA, AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE
THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, Central Coast Blue (“the Project”) is a regional advanced purified water
project intended to enhance supply reliability by reducing the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin’s vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a multi-agency collaboration between the Northern Cities
Management Area agencies (the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo
Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District) and the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21069 of the Public Resources Code of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Sections 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and
Sections 15096 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Res., tit. 14, §15000
et seq.), the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) is a Responsible Agency for the Project and is
making the requisite Findings in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pismo Beach, pursuant to Section 21067 of CEQA and Section
15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, is acting as Lead Agency for this Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has considered
the environmental effects of the project and therefore are making the necessary Findings
herein; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pismo Beach issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft
EIR for the Project on December 20, 2019, for a 45-day agency and public review period,
ending on February 4, 2020; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082(c) and 15083, the City of Pismo Beach held a duly noticed
Scoping Meeting on January 22, 2020 which the City participated in, to solicit comments
on the scope of the environmental review of the Project and received comments; and
WHEREAS, during the NOP circulation period, the proposed locations of specific project
components were selected, including the advanced treatment facility complex, water
distribution pipelines, and monitoring wells; and
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 10.a. - Page 27
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, as a result of siting of project components, a revised NOP of the Draft EIR
was issued for 45-day agency and public review period starting on April 13, 2020 and
ending on May 28, 2020; and
WHEREAS, a second EIR Scoping Meeting was held on May 8, 2020; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to
both NOP periods; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate
impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, energy, environmental justice, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise,
transportation, and land use; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures, the Project would nonetheless result in significant unavoidable
impacts relating to land use and noise; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City of Pismo
Beach provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public on July 20, 2020, for a
45-day public and agency review period concluding on September 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, during the Draft EIR review period, the City of Pismo Beach solicited public
comment at the August 18, 2020 regular City of Pismo Beach City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pismo Beach received eleven comments on the Draft EIR, and
responses to comments were provided in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the written responses
to comments contained within the Final EIR were provided to any public agency that
commented on the EIR at least 10 days prior to the City Council’s certification of the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, the City of Pismo Beach released the Final EIR (“Final
EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the
Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all
written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and
technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the City of Pismo Beach City Council conducted a
duly noticed public hearing and Certified the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, the City conducted a hearing to consider the City of
Pismo Beach's EIR for this Project; and
Item 10.a. - Page 28
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as a Responsible Agency does hereby adopt CEQA Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as
provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion of Council Member __________, seconded by Council Member
____________, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of March, 2021.
Item 10.a. - Page 29
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 10.a. - Page 30
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. PURPOSE OF THE FINDINGS
The purpose of these findings is to satisfy the requirement of Public Resources Code
Section 21000, et seq., and Sections 15091, 15093, 15096, and 15097 of the CEQA
Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regulations, Section 15000, et seq., associated with approval
of the Central Coast Blue Project. These findings provide the written analysis and
conclusions of the City Council regarding the Project. They are divided into general
sections, each of which is further divided into subsections. Each addresses a particular
impact topic and/or requirement of law. At times, these findings refer to materials in the
administrative record.
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the environmental impact report must
identify the objects sought by the proposed project. As noted in Section 2 of the Certified
Final EIR for the Project, the Project objectives are:
1. Produce advanced purified water of a quality that can safely be used to augment
groundwater supply while maintaining or improving existing groundwater quality.
2. Create a sustainable, drought-resistant, local water supply and improve water
supply reliability for southern San Luis Obispo County.
3. Provide a new source of recharge to the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin to protect
the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion.
4. Reduce wastewater discharges to the ocean and maximize utilization of local water
supplies.
5. Facilitate continued water resources collaboration in the Northern Cities
Management Area.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Central Coast Blue (the Project) is a multi-agency collaboration between the Northern
Cities Management Area agencies (the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and
Pismo Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District) and the South San Luis
Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) to construct a regional recycled water
project that will enhance supply reliability by injecting advanced purified water into the
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB). This will reduce vulnerability to drought and
Item 10.a. - Page 31
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barrier and supplementing the
naturally occurring groundwater. Water for the Project will be sourced from two of the
region’s wastewater treatment facilities: the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and the SSLOCSD WWTP. Prior to injection to the SMGB, water will be treated
to an advanced level of purification at a proposed advanced treatment facility (ATF)
constructed at a site in the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-016). The proposed
ATF will treat a combination of flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP and flows from the
SSLOCSD WWTP for injection into the SMGB and/or for agricultural irrigation. Project
components in addition to the ATF include an advanced purified water storage tank, an
equalization basin, a pump station, distribution pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells,
one new production well, and potential agricultural irrigation pipelines. The Project will
alter the pumping regime of existing, operational production wells in the project area and
will include construction of one new production well to optimize groundwater production
in the area.
IV. CEQA PROCESS OVERVIEW
The City of Pismo Beach is the lead agency for the Project. The City is a Responsible
Agency for this Project. All issues recommended in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
were examined in the Certified Final EIR. The City of Pismo Beach distributed a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR (SCH# 2019120560) for a 45-day agency and public
review period starting on December 20, 2019 and ending on February 4, 2020. The
purpose of the NOP was to inform other public agencies, interest groups and the public
in general of the City of Pismo Beach's intent to prepare an EIR. The NOP also provided
an opportunity for those interested in the proposed project to comment on the contents of
the EIR. The NOP was also sent to the State Clearinghouse, which is responsible for
forwarding it to State agencies that might be affected. In addition, as required by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Pismo Beach held an EIR Scoping Meeting
on January 22, 2020. However, during the NOP circulation period, the proposed locations
of the ATF complex, water distribution pipelines, and monitoring wells, which were
previously undetermined, were selected. As a result, the City of Pismo Beach distributed
a revised NOP of the EIR for a 45-day agency and public review period starting on April
13, 2020 and ending on May 28, 2020. In addition, the City of Pismo Beach held a second
EIR Scoping Meeting on May 8, 2020. From July 20, 2020 to September 3, 2020, the City
of Pismo Beach circulated the Draft EIR (titled “Central Coast Blue Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report”) for a 45-day public and agency review period pursuant to
the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). During this review period, the
City of Pismo Beach held a public meeting on the Draft EIR on August 6, 2020 and a
public comment period on the Draft EIR at the August 18, 2020 regular City of Pismo
Beach Council meeting. Eleven comments were received on the Draft EIR, and
responses to comments are provided in the Final EIR. The Final EIR was certified at the
February 16, 2021 regular City of Pismo Beach Council meeting by Resolution No. R-
2021-011.
Item 10.a. - Page 32
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
V. IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS
The City of Arroyo Grande, as a Responsible Agency, hereby adopts and makes the
following findings related to its respective portion of the Project which requires approval
of the Project by the City (i.e., the full execution of the Operating Agreement by the cities
of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, acting as Responsible Agencies, full execution of
the Operating Agreement by the City of Pismo Beach, acting as the Lead Agency, along
with the Investor, Member, or Partner Agencies, to undertake the Central Coast Blue
Project). Having received, reviewed, and considered the entire record, both written and
oral, related to the Central Coast Blue Project and Certified Final EIR, the City makes the
following findings associated with significant, potentially significant, and cumulative
significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-2 Construction of the project would generate temporary increases in
criteria air pollutant emissions. Construction emissions of reactive
organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) would exceed San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) construction
thresholds during Phase I and Phase II. This impact would be
potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a) “Standard Control Measures for
Construction Equipment” has been adopted to reduce construction-related emissions of
NOx and ROG during Phases I and II. Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) “Best Available Control
Technology for Construction Equipment” has been adopted to implement Best Available
Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment during construction-related
activities.
Support for Finding: According to the SLOAPCD (2012) CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
for projects with estimated construction emissions that are expected to exceed the
SLOAPCD daily thresholds of significance and the SLOAPCD quarterly Tier 1 thresholds
of significance, implementation of standard and Best Available Control Technology
measures would reduce potential air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. These
measures are required for both phases of construction activities. As shown in Table 4.1-
10 and Table 4.1-11 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Final EIR, implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) would reduce construction-related emissions
of ROG + NOX below the SLOAPCD daily and quarterly thresholds during both Phases I
and II. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) would
Item 10.a. - Page 33
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8
reduce construction-related air quality impacts during Phases I and II of construction to a
less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.1-20 through 4.1-24
Cumulative The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
2001 Clean Air Plan but would exceed SLOAPCD daily and quarterly
thresholds for emissions of ROG + NOX during Phases I and II of
construction activities. The project’s contribution to the cumulative air
quality impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a) “Standard Control Measures for
Construction Equipment” has been adopted to reduce construction-related emissions of
NOx and ROG during Phases I and II. Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) “Best Available Control
Technology for Construction Equipment” has been adopted to implement Best Available
Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment during construction-related
activities.
Support for Finding: As discussed under Impact AQ-2, the project would exceed
SLOAPCD daily and quarterly thresholds for emissions of ROG + NOX during Phases I
and II of construction activities. As shown in Table 4.1-10 and Table 4.1-11 in Section
4.1, Air Quality, of the Final EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-
2(b) would reduce construction emissions below SLOAPCD thresholds. Air pollution by
nature is a cumulative issue, and significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions
are established at the levels at which impacts would be cumulatively considerable. As
such, emissions below the thresholds would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore,
with mitigation incorporated, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the cumulative air quality impact.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.1-20 through 4.1-24 and 4.1-28 through 4.1-29
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project would result in direct and indirect impacts to
special status species, if present. This impact would be potentially
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Item 10.a. - Page 34
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 9
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) would be
implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to special-status species. Mitigation
measures include: BIO-1(a) “California Red-legged Frog Habitat Avoidance”; BIO-1(b)
“California Red-legged Frog Avoidance and Minimization Measures”; BIO-1(c)
“Southwestern Pond Turtle Avoidance and Minimization Measures”; BIO-1(d) “Monarch
Butterfly Avoidance”; BIO-1(e) “Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures”;
BIO-1(f) “Biological Resources Assessment”; BIO-1(g) “Special Status Plant Species
Surveys”; BIO-1(h) “Special Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation”; BIO-1(i) “Restoration Plan for Special Status Plant Species”; BIO-1(j)
“Endangered/Threatened Species Avoidance and Minimization”; and BIO-1(k) “Non-listed
Special Status Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization.”
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(e) require avoidance
and minimization measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts to special status species
from development of project components with known locations. Mitigation Measures BIO-
1(f) through BIO-1(k) require completion of a Biological Resources Assessment and
identification and implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce direct and indirect impacts to special status species from development of the
project components with unknown locations. As a result, implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) would reduce project impacts on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-37 through 4.2-44
Impact BIO-2 The project would result in direct and indirect impacts to riparian areas.
This impact would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-2 “Sensitive Plant Community and
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Avoidance and Minimization Measures” has been
adopted to address potential disturbance of arroyo willow habitat during project
construction and maintenance activities.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires measures to avoid, minimize,
and compensate for direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive
natural communities from construction and maintenance of the proposed project. As a
result, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce project impacts to
riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level.
Item 10.a. - Page 35
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 10
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-45 through 4.2-46
Impact BIO-3 The project would potentially impact state and federally protected
wetlands through direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption. This
impact would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-3(a) through BIO-3(c) have been
adopted to avoid and minimize impacts to state and federally protected wetlands.
Mitigation measures include: BIO-3(a) “Jurisdictional Delineation”; BIO-3(b) “Drainages
and Wetlands Impact Mitigation”; and BIO-3(c) “Drainages and Wetlands Best
Management Practices During Construction.”
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures BIO-3(a) through BIO-3(c) require preparation
of a jurisdictional delineation to identify jurisdictional areas and implementation of
avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate
for direct and indirect impacts to state or federally protected wetlands from development
of the project. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3(a) through BIO-
3(c) would reduce project impacts on state or federally protected wetlands (including but
not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-47 through 4.2-49
Impact BIO-5 The project would result in impacts to biological resources protected by
local policies. This impact would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-5 “Native Tree Inventory, Protection, and
Replacement” has been adopted to minimize impacts on native trees in the project area
that could potentially be affected by project construction activities.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure BIO-5 requires implementation of avoidance,
minimization, and compensation measures for protected trees. As a result,
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would avoid conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance, reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Item 10.a. - Page 36
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 11
Reference: Final EIR, Page 4.2-51
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-2 The proposed project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of unique archaeological resources and
archaeological resources that may be considered historical resources.
This impact would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d) have been adopted
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources. Mitigation
measures include: CR-2(a) “Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program”; CR-2(b)
“Archaeological and Native American Monitoring”; CR-2(c) “Unanticipated Discovery of
Cultural Resources”; and CR-2(d) “Archaeological Resource Studies.”
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) though CR-2(c) require
implementation of a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program, monitoring of ground
disturbance by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, and evaluation of
any unanticipated cultural resources for all project components. In addition, Mitigation
Measure CR-2(d) requires completion of archaeological resource studies for the
agricultural irrigation pipelines and new production well once the locations of these project
components are identified. These measures would require identification, evaluation,
treatment, and mitigation of impacts to archaeological resources in accordance with
CEQA. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.3-19 through 4.3-21
Energy
Impact E-2 The project would be potentially inconsistent with the energy efficiency
and renewable energy policies of the City of Pismo Beach's Climate
Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan. This impact
would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Item 10.a. - Page 37
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 12
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures E-2 “Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Measures” and GHG-2 “GHG Emission Reduction Measures” have been adopted
to achieve consistency with energy-related measures and policies of the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan.
Support for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures E-2 and GHG-2, which
require implementation of applicable energy-related measures and policies of the City of
Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan, would
achieve project consistency with these plans. Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.4-14 and 4.6-18
Cumulative The project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General
Plan, which were adopted to reduce the cumulative impact of energy
consumption in Pismo Beach and Grover Beach, respectively. The
project’s contribution to the cumulative energy impact would be
cumulatively considerable.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures E-2 “Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Measures” and GHG-2 “GHG Emission Reduction Measures” have been adopted
to achieve consistency with energy-related measures and policies of the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan.
Support for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures E-2 and GHG-2, which
require inclusion of applicable energy-related measures and policies of the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan, would achieve
project consistency with these plans. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation, the
project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative
impact related to the plans adopted for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.4-14 through 4.4-15 and 4.6-18
Environmental Justice
Impact EJ-1 Project components would be constructed in Oceano and Grover Beach,
which are identified as environmental justice communities. The
proposed project would potentially result in disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to these communities during project construction and
operation. This impact would be potentially significant.
Item 10.a. - Page 38
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 13
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been adopted to avoid and minimize
adverse, localized project impacts to environmental justice communities related to air
quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and traffic. Mitigation measures include:
Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) “Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment”;
AQ-2(b) “Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment”; HAZ-1(a)
“Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control”; HAZ-1(b)
“Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan”; N-1 “Construction Noise Reduction
Measures”; N-2 “Acoustical Analysis of ATF Complex Operations”; and T-1
“Transportation Management Plan.”
Support for Finding: As discussed under the findings for Impacts AQ-2, HAZ-1, N-2,
and T-1, implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce most of the project’s
potentially adverse localized impacts to a less-than-significant level with the exception of
the project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise impact associated with 24-
hour drilling of the injection, monitoring, and production wells. However, the entire project
area is located within the environmental justice communities of Oceano and Grover
Beach, and the project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise impact would be
evenly distributed throughout the project area at 18 well locations, not focused on a single
area. Therefore, this impact would not affect one area or population more than another.
Furthermore, construction noise impacts would be short-term, temporary, and typical of
construction projects occurring throughout the region, which often generate temporary
increases in noise. Therefore, although this impact would occur in the environmental
justice communities of Oceano and Grover Beach, this impact would not be
disproportionately high and adverse. As such, with mitigation incorporated, construction
of the proposed project would not result in any disproportionately high impacts on
minority, low income, or disadvantaged communities. Therefore, environmental justice
impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.1-20 through 4.1-24, 4.5-6 through 4.5-8, 4.7-9 through
4.7-10, 4.10-24 through 4.10-27, 4.10-32 through 4.10-34, and 4.11-11 through 4.11-13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-2 The proposed project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of
Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan. This impact would be potentially
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
Item 10.a. - Page 39
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 14
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-2 “GHG Emission Reduction Measures”
has been adopted to achieve consistency with the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action
Plan.
Support for Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which requires
implementation of applicable measures from the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action
Plan, would achieve project consistency with this plan. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.4-14 and 4.6-18
Cumulative The project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan, which was adopted to reduce the
cumulative impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Pismo Beach.
The project’s contribution to the cumulative GHG emissions impact
would be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-2 “GHG Emission Reduction Measures”
has been adopted to achieve consistency with the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action
Plan.
Support for Finding: The issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a
project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed under
Impact GHG-2, the project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of Pismo
Beach’s Climate Action Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which
requires implementation of applicable measures from the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate
Action Plan, would achieve project consistency with this plan. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2, project impacts would therefore not be
cumulatively considerable.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.4-14 and 4.6-18
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1 Construction and operation of the project would increase the routine
transport and use of hazardous materials in the project area but would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The
project has the potential to result in the release of hazardous materials
Item 10.a. - Page 40
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 15
through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions during both
construction and operation of the project. This impact would be
potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) “Hazardous Materials Management
and Spill Prevention and Control”; HAZ-1(b) “Preparation of Hazardous Materials
Business Plan”; BIO-3(c) “Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During
Construction”; and HWQ-1 “Initial Quarterly Radioactivity Testing” have been adopted to
reduce the project’s potential environmental effects with hazardous materials.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) includes preparation of a Hazardous
Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan prior to commencement of
construction activities to reduce potential construction-related impacts resulting from the
routine transport and storage of hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1(b) entails the creation and implementation of a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the ATF complex to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to occur
in the event of spills and/or accidental releases of hazardous materials. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure BIO-3(c) requires implementation of construction best
management practices, including measures for handling hazardous materials near
jurisdictional areas such as Arroyo Grande Creek, which would further reduce the
potential release of hazardous materials through foreseeable upset or accident
conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 requires implementation of
initial quarterly radioactive monitoring to identify violations of radioactivity levels and
resolution of exceedances via additional treatment processes to reduce water quality
impacts related to radioactive toxicity. Altogether, these mitigation measures would
address the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment and would
reduce the potential for adverse impacts to occur in the event of spills and/or accidental
releases of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-47 through 4.2-49, 4.7-9 through 4.7-10, and 4.8-27
through 4.8-28
Impact HAZ-2 Although construction activities for the project would be conducted in
compliance with all applicable regulations for the transport, storage, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials and precautions would be taken to
reduce potential risks, there is potential for an accidental release of
hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. This impact would be
potentially significant.
Item 10.a. - Page 41
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 16
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) “Hazardous Materials Management
and Spill Prevention and Control” has been adopted to minimize impacts related to the
handling of hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) entails development and
implementation of a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control
Plan for project construction that will include measures for minimizing risks associated
with accidental release of hazardous materials, including in proximity to existing or
proposed schools. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) would address
potential release of hazardous materials into the environment and would reduce the
potential for adverse impacts to occur in the event of spills and/or accidental releases of
hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.7-9 through 4.7-11
Impact HAZ-5 Project construction would have the potential to interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. This impact
would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure T-1 “Transportation Management Plan” has
been adopted to minimize potential impacts to emergency response routes and
evacuation routes during project construction.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce the potential for project
construction to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan by
outlining temporary detour routes and alternative emergency access routes. As a result,
implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce impacts to emergency response
plans and evacuation plans to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.7-13 and 4.11-11 through 4.11-13
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ-1 The project would potentially violate water quality standards. This impact
would be potentially significant.
Item 10.a. - Page 42
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 17
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 “Initial Quarterly Radioactivity Testing”
and BIO-3(c) “Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During Construction”
have been adopted to reduce potential impacts on surface water and marine water
quality.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 requires implementation of initial
quarterly radioactive monitoring to identify violations of radioactivity levels and resolution
of exceedances via additional treatment processes to achieve compliance with the City
of Pismo Beach’s and SSSLOCSD’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit requirements for effluent discharge from the existing ocean outfall. Mitigation
Measure BIO-3(c) requires implementation of best management practices for grading and
construction within jurisdictional areas where impacts are authorized and where
construction occurs within 100 feet from jurisdictional areas or wetlands. As a result,
implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and BIO-3(c) would reduce project
impacts on surface water and marine water quality to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-47 through 4.2-49 and 4.8-27 through 4.8-28
Noise
Impact N-2 Operation of the proposed project would potentially generate substantial
permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of local standards. This impact would be potentially
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure N-2 “Acoustical Analysis of ATF Complex
Operations” has been adopted to minimize operational noise impacts.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure N-2 requires preparation of an acoustical
analysis upon completion of the 30 percent design for the ATF complex and selection of
equipment. The acoustical analysis will determine specific operational noise impacts and
identify siting and/or design features that will be implemented to reduce operational noise
levels to below the operational exterior and interior noise level limits for stationary noise
sources during daytime and nighttime hours. As a result, operational noise impacts would
be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
Item 10.a. - Page 43
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 18
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.10-32 through 4.10-34
Cumulative Given the proximity of cumulative projects to project components with
known locations, cumulative daytime construction noise impacts would
be potentially significant. The project’s contribution to the cumulative
daytime construction noise impact would be cumulatively
considerable.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure N-1 “Construction Noise Reduction Measures”
has been adopted to minimize daytime construction noise impacts.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure N-1 requires implementation of construction
noise reduction measures that would reduce construction noise levels below the exterior
construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq.1 Furthermore, Mitigation Measure N-1
requires the City of Pismo Beach and/or its contractor(s) to schedule construction of IW-
5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C so that construction activities do not overlap with
construction of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Redundancy Project, which would minimize
the project’s contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts at residences located
west and north of the SSLOCSD WWTP property. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated,
the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant
cumulative impact related to daytime construction noise.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.10-24 through 4.10-27 and 4.10-38
Transportation
Impact T-1 Project construction would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This impact would be potentially
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure T-1 “Transportation Management Plan” has
been adopted to minimize conflicts with local programs, plans, and ordinances addressing
the circulation system.
1 dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level
Item 10.a. - Page 44
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 19
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure T-1 requires implementation of designated
construction traffic routes, damage repair procedures, and traffic control measures to
minimize and mitigate potential impacts to the movement of vehicles, public transit,
bicycles, and/or pedestrians within the project area due to construction traffic and lane
and/or road closures during project construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure T-1
requires coordination with South County Transit and designation of alternative bicycle and
pedestrian routes during project construction to compensate for impacts to transit stops
and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As a result, impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.11-11 through 4.11-13
Impact T-4 The project would potentially result in inadequate emergency access
during construction activities. This impact would be potentially
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure T-1 “Transportation Management Plan” has
been adopted to minimize impacts to emergency access in the project area.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure T-1 requires implementation of traffic control
measures and coordination with emergency response providers to minimize impacts to
emergency access in the project area due to lane and/or road closures during project
construction. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce
construction impacts related to emergency access to a less-than-significant level.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.11-11 through 4.11-13 and 4.11-15
Cumulative Given the proximity of cumulative projects to project components with
known locations, cumulative construction traffic impacts would be
potentially significant. The project’s contribution to the cumulative
construction traffic impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Less-
than-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure T-1 “Transportation Management Plan” has
been adopted to minimize construction traffic conflicts in the project area.
Item 10.a. - Page 45
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 20
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure T-1 requires coordination with other active
construction projects within 0.25 mile of project construction sites to minimize
simultaneous lane and/or road closures, major deliveries, and haul truck trips. Mitigation
Measure T-1 also requires designating alternate detour routes and construction traffic
routes that avoid these projects to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, with
mitigation incorporated, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to construction traffic.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.11-11 through 4.11-13 and 4.11-15 through 4.11-16
Findings Associated with Significant Impacts that Cannot Feasibly Be Mitigated to
a Less-than-Significant Level
Land Use
Impact LU-2 The project would potentially result in significant environmental impacts
due to potential conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. This impact would be potentially significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measures Required but Impact Not Reduced to Less than
Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR, but a significant unavoidable impact remains even after mitigation. Avoidance
of the impact altogether is infeasible taking into account economic, legal, social,
technological and/or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment for highly trained workers.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures have been adopted to avoid and minimize the
project’s potential conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mitigation measures include:
CR-2(a) “Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program”; CR-2(b) “Archaeological and
Native American Monitoring”; CR-2(c) “Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources”;
CR-2(d) “Archaeological Resource Studies”; BIO-3(a) “Jurisdictional Delineation”; BIO-
3(b) “Drainages and Wetlands Impact Mitigation”; BIO-3(c) “Drainages and Wetlands Best
Management Practices During Construction”; HAZ-1(a) “Hazardous Materials
Management and Spill Prevention and Control”; HAZ-1(b) “Preparation of Hazardous
Materials Business Plan”; N-1 “Construction Noise Reduction Measures”; and N-2
“Acoustical Analysis of ATF Complex Operations”.
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d) would address
potential impacts to known and unknown archaeological resources through
implementation of a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program, monitoring of ground
disturbance by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, evaluation of any
unanticipated cultural resources, and preparation of archaeological resource studies with
implementation of additional mitigation, as needed, for project components with unknown
Item 10.a. - Page 46
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 21
locations. Mitigation Measures BIO-3(a) through BIO-3(c) would avoid, minimize, and
compensate for direct and indirect impacts to state or federally protected wetlands from
development of the project. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b) would address
the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment and would reduce the
potential for adverse impacts to adjacent land uses in the event of spills and/or accidental
releases of hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 would minimize noise conflicts with adjacent land uses.
Groundwater well construction requires 24-hour drilling activities, and implementation of
Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce nighttime construction noise impacts to the extent
feasible. However, it is possible that the final well locations may shift within a 50-foot
radius of their current locations during final engineering and/or during installation to
account for subsurface conditions. As a result, the final well locations may be closer to
sensitive receivers than analyzed herein such that the specified mitigation measures
would not sufficiently reduce noise levels. Furthermore, residents in Grover Beach within
100 feet of well locations and residents in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within
175 feet of well locations may voluntarily choose not to be temporarily relocated during
24-hour well drilling activities and would be exposed to a significant temporary increase
in ambient noise levels in excess of the specified thresholds, which are based on
compliance with the San Luis Obispo County Code and Grover Beach Municipal Code.
As a result, land use impacts related to the 24-hour well drilling activities would be
significant and unavoidable.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-47 through 4.2-49, 4.3-19 through 4.3-21, 4.7-9 through
4.7-10, 4.9-5 through 4.9-12, 4.10-24 through 4.10-27, and 4.10-32 through 4.10-34
Noise
Impact N-1 Project construction would generate substantial temporary increases in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project components in excess of
local standards during project construction.
Finding: Mitigation Measure Required but Impact Not Reduced to Less than
Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR, but a significant unavoidable impact remains even after mitigation. Avoidance
of the impact altogether is infeasible taking into account economic, legal, social,
technological and/or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment for highly trained workers.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measures N-1, BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-
1(j) have been adopted to minimize construction noise to the extent feasible. Mitigation
measures include: N-1 “Construction Noise Reduction Measures”; BIO-1(a) “California
Red-legged Frog Habitat Avoidance”; BIO-1(b) “California Red-legged Frog Avoidance
and Minimization Measures”; BIO-1(e) “Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization
Measures”; and BIO-1 (j) “Endangered/Threatened Species Avoidance and
Minimization”.
Item 10.a. - Page 47
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 22
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-1(j)
would require avoidance and minimization measures to reduce indirect construction noise
impacts to special status species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would entail
the use of several noise reduction measures, including mufflers and temporary sound
barriers. Use of critical grade mufflers would reduce engine noise levels from mobile
construction equipment by at least 10 dBA in comparison to industrial grade mufflers, and
installation of portable sound enclosures for generators and air compressors would
reduce noise levels by at least 10 dBA. Temporary sound barriers would reduce noise
levels from well drilling activities by approximately 9 to 20 dBA, depending on the barrier
height specified for each well location. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would
reduce daytime construction noise levels during the site preparation, well drilling, and site
restoration phases of construction for MW-1C/1D and MW-2D/2E/2F at the sensitive
receivers nearest to the injection and monitoring wells below the daytime exterior noise
thresholds. Therefore, daytime construction noise impacts related to site preparation, well
drilling, and site restoration for the injection and monitoring wells would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
In addition to mufflers, enclosures, and barriers, Mitigation Measure N-1 would require
the closure of campsites within 200 feet of IW-1, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-3, MW-1A/1B, MW-
2A/2B/2C, and MW-3A/3B as well as the temporary relocation of residents in the yGrover
Beach within 100 feet of construction activity in Grover Beach and residents in
unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet of construction activity during 24-
hour well drilling activities to reduce daytime and nighttime noise impacts. Therefore, by
closing the nearest campsites and temporarily relocating nearby residents, the nearest
noise-sensitive receivers would be located at greater distances, which would reduce
noise impacts. As shown in Table 4.10-18 and Table 4.10-19 in Section 4.10, Noise, of
the Final EIR, for the injection wells and monitoring wells, respectively, implementation of
Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce 24-hour well drilling noise levels at the nearest
noise-sensitive receivers below the daytime and nighttime exterior noise thresholds. In
addition, nighttime exterior noise levels for project components in unincorporated San
Luis Obispo County would be reduced below 55 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax, which would
result in interior noise levels below the thresholds of 35 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Lmax.2
Nighttime exterior noise levels for project components in Grover Beach would be reduced
below 60 dBA Leq, which would result in interior noise levels below the threshold of 40
dBA Leq.
It is possible that the final well locations may shift within a 50-foot radius of their current
locations during final engineering and/or during installation to account for subsurface
conditions. As a result, the final well locations may be closer to sensitive receivers than
analyzed in the Final EIR such that the specified mitigation measures would not
sufficiently reduce noise levels. Furthermore, residents in Grover Beach within 100 feet
of well locations and residents in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet
of well locations may voluntarily choose not to be temporarily relocated during 24-hour
2 Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Item 10.a. - Page 48
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 23
well drilling activities and would be exposed to a significant temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in excess of the specified thresholds. Therefore, construction noise impacts
would be minimized but not completely mitigated through implementation of Mitigation
Measure N-1. As a result, construction noise impacts related to the 24-hour well drilling
activities for the injection and monitoring wells would be significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would require preparation of an
acoustical analysis for the new production well once its location is known to determine
the specifications for noise reduction measures that would reduce construction noise
levels for this project component to below the daytime and nighttime thresholds. However,
if new production well is sited within 100 feet of residences such that temporary relocation
of residents would be required to fully mitigate construction noise impacts, residents may
voluntarily choose not to be temporarily relocated during 24-hour well drilling activities
and would be exposed to a significant temporary increase in ambient noise levels in
excess of the specified thresholds. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be
minimized but not eliminated through implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. As a
result, construction noise impacts related to the production well would be significant and
unavoidable.
Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.10-17 through 4.10-31
VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In addition to proposing mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated with the
proposed Central Coast Blue Project, the Certified Final EIR presented several
alternatives to project development. The alternatives presented included the statutorily-
mandated "No Project" alternative, a "No Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines" alternative, an
"ATF Complex at SSLOCSD WWTP" alternative, a “Modified Locations of Injection and
Monitoring Wells” alternative, an “Increased State Water Project Allocation” alternative,
and an “Increased Storage of Lopez Reservoir” alternative. The second alternative was
specifically formulated to provide an alternative that furthered at least some of the project
objectives while lessening (though not necessarily eliminating) one or more of the
Project’s significant but mitigable impacts. No Project alternatives that would both meet
Project objectives and avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise
and land use impacts were identified because hydrogeologic limitations and regulatory
requirements constrain the feasible locations of the infrastructure necessary to meet
Project objectives (i.e., injection, monitoring, and production wells). As such, it is not
feasible to site all injection and monitoring wells at a sufficient distance from residential
and hotel/motel land uses to avoid these impacts while also accounting for optimal
hydrogeologic conditions and compliance with regulatory requirements for groundwater
injection and indirect potable reuse. The Certified Final EIR presents a reasonable range
of alternatives that also allows the City Council to consider (by extrapolation) the
possibility of variations of the alternatives presented.
Each of the alternatives presented in the Certified Final EIR are rejected as infeasible.
The City Council makes this determination after taking into account economic, legal,
Item 10.a. - Page 49
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 24
social, technological and/or other considerations, including the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers. The justifications for rejecting the Certified Final
EIR alternatives as infeasible are explained below for each separate alternative.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The "No Project" alternative is mandated by CEQA. It allows for an assessment of what
the environmental consequences are of not moving forward with a proposed Project. The
No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed ATF complex, water distribution
pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, new production well, and agricultural irrigation
pipelines are not constructed. The full volume of secondary treated effluent from the
Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs continues to be discharged to the ocean via the
outfall pipeline. No seawater intrusion barrier is developed, and no additional recharge of
the SMGB occurs. In addition, no recycled water is provided for agricultural irrigation.
No change in environmental conditions would occur under this alternative because no
development would occur and site conditions would not change. This alternative would
avoid the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise and land use
impacts related to 24-hour well drilling activities and significant but mitigable impacts in
the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, environmental justice,
GHG emissions, hazards, hydrology and water quality, operational noise, and
transportation. No significant impacts would occur under this alternative, and none of the
mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project would apply.
Alternative 1 is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would
eliminate all of the anticipated adverse environmental effects of the Project, including the
Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise and land use impacts related to
24-hour well drilling activities. However, this alternative is rejected as infeasible because
it would not achieve the stated Project objectives and would not result in the Project’s
important beneficial impacts of improving water supply reliability; creating a sustainable,
drought-resistant local water supply for southern San Luis Obispo County; providing a
new source of recharge to the SMGB to protect the basin from degradation via seawater
intrusion; and potentially providing a new source of water for agricultural irrigation. The
City Council wishes instead to approve a project that would further longstanding State,
regional, and local objectives for water supply, reliability, and resiliency rather than
maintaining the current water supply portfolio as is.
Alternative 2: No Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines
Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative consists of an ATF complex (including an
advanced purified water storage tank, an equalization tank, and a pump station), water
distribution pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and one new production well.
However, under this alternative, agricultural irrigation pipelines would not be constructed
as part of Phase II of the project, and water produced by the ATF complex would not be
used to irrigate agricultural lands south of Oceano. Instead, either all advanced purified
water produced from the ATF complex under Phases I and II (approximately 3.9 million
Item 10.a. - Page 50
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 25
gallons per day) would be used for groundwater injection, or the ATF complex would be
constructed with less capacity than under the proposed Project, thereby processing less
secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs.3 The purpose
of this alternative is to avoid Project impacts associated with the construction of
agricultural irrigation pipelines across Arroyo Grande Creek. Potential impacts associated
with the remaining Project components (i.e., injection wells, monitoring wells, water
distribution pipelines, ATF complex, and new production well) would occur as described
for the proposed Project.
Of the alternatives that would meet Project objectives, Alternative 2 would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would not include construction of
agricultural irrigation pipelines and would therefore avoid all impacts associated with that
project component, including those related to air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, energy, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation/traffic. However,
Alternative 2 would not avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise
and land use impacts associated with 24-hour well drilling activities for the injection,
monitoring, and production wells because construction of the injection, monitoring, and
production wells in close proximity to residential land uses would still be required. As a
result, construction noise and land use impacts under Alternative 2 would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Although Alternative 2 would attain the basic Project objectives, it is rejected as infeasible
because the reduction in environmental impacts under this alternative would involve an
undesirable trade-off in that it would preclude the potential for the beneficial use of excess
recycled water for agricultural irrigation purposes. Furthermore, all of the Project’s
environmental impacts that would be lessened by Alternative 2 would already be
minimized and reduced to a less-than-significant level for the proposed Project through
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR.
Alternative 3: ATF Complex at SSLOCSD WWTP
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 consists of an ATF complex (including an
advanced purified water storage tank, an equalization tank, and a pump station), water
distribution pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and one new production well.
Alternative 3 would include injection of advanced purified water into the SMGB to develop
a seawater intrusion barrier. In addition, a portion of the water from the ATF may be used
for agricultural irrigation. However, under Alternative 3, the ATF complex would be
constructed at the existing SSLOCSD WWTP facility at 1600 Aloha Place in Oceano. The
purpose of this alternative is to provide an alternative siting option for the ATF complex.
Alternative 3 would result in generally similar environmental impacts as the proposed
Project because the nature of project components would remain the same and most
project components would be constructed in the same or similar locations. However,
3 The determination of whether to construct an ATF complex with less capacity rather than use all
advanced purified water for groundwater injection would be dependent on if additional groundwater
recharge is necessary for protection and augmentation of groundwater supplies.
Item 10.a. - Page 51
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 26
Alternative 3 would result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed
Project related to energy and hydrology and water quality, which would require additional
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore,
Alternative 3 would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise
and land use impacts associated with 24-hour well drilling activities for the injection,
monitoring, and production wells because construction of the injection, monitoring, and
production wells in close proximity to residential land uses would still be required. As a
result, construction noise and land use impacts under Alternative 3 would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Although Alternative 3 would attain the basic Project objectives, it is rejected as infeasible
because this alternative would result in similar or greater environmental impacts than the
proposed project and would require additional flood protection design considerations to
account for the location of the ATF complex in a FEMA-designated 100-year Special
Flood Hazard Area.
Alternative 4: Modified Locations of Injection and Monitoring Wells
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 4 consists of an ATF complex (including an
advanced purified water storage tank, an equalization tank, and a pump station), water
distribution pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, one new production well, and
agricultural irrigation pipelines. Alternative 4 would include injection of advanced purified
water into the SMGB to develop a seawater intrusion barrier. In addition, a portion of the
water from the ATF complex may be used for agricultural irrigation. However, under
Alternative 4, the locations of some injection and monitoring wells and water distribution
pipeline alignments would be modified to avoid recreational impacts to the Coastal Dunes
RV Park and Campground. Under this alternative, IW-1, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-3, and MW-
2A/2B/2C would be sited outside the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground, and the
locations of all remaining monitoring wells would shift to be located in accordance with
regulatory requirements for travel times. To accommodate the modified locations of IW-
1, IW-2A, IW-2B, and IW-3, minor modifications to the alignments of water distribution
pipelines would be needed to connect these injection wells to the ATF complex. However,
similar to the proposed Project, water distribution pipeline alignments would generally be
located in the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground, SR 1, public roadway rights-of-
way, Oceano County Airport, the SSLOCSD WWTP property, and the properties that
contain the injection wells.
Alternative 4 would result in generally similar environmental impacts as the proposed
Project because the nature of the project components would remain the same and project
components would be constructed in the same or similar locations. However, Alternative
4 would result in potentially greater impacts than the proposed Project related to biological
resources and cultural resources due to proximity to potential special status species
habitat associated with Meadow Creek and several known archaeological resources in
the vicinity of Pismo State Beach Corp Yard, which may require additional mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, Alternative 4
would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise and land use
Item 10.a. - Page 52
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 27
impacts associated with 24-hour well drilling activities for the injection, monitoring, and
production wells because construction of the injection, monitoring, and production wells
in close proximity to residential land uses would still be required. As a result, construction
noise and land use impacts under Alternative 4 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Although Alternative 4 would attain the basic project objectives, it is rejected as infeasible
because this alternative would result in similar or greater environmental impacts than the
proposed Project.
Alternative 5: Increased State Water Project Allocation
Under this alternative, the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) agencies would
seek increased State Water Project (SWP) allocations rather than implementing the
proposed Project. The purpose of this alternative is to address, in part, comments
received during the scoping period requesting analysis of alternative water supply
options. To achieve an equivalent amount of water supply as the proposed Project, an
additional 3,566 acre-feet per year of SWP allocations would need to be secured. The full
volume of secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs
would continue to be discharged to the ocean via the outfall pipeline. No seawater
intrusion barrier would be developed, and no additional recharge of the SMGB would
occur. In addition, no recycled water would be provided for agricultural irrigation. To
secure new or additional entitlements, NCMA agencies would need to negotiate with San
Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Santa Barbara,
and the Central Coast Water Authority. Furthermore, additional capacity would need to
be available at the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant and in the Central Coast Water
Authority Coastal Branch and Lopez pipelines for treatment and delivery of the additional
SWP water.
Of the alternatives that are not the No Project alternative, Alternative 5 is the
environmentally superior alternative, primarily because this alternative does not require
the physical construction of any new infrastructure. This alternative would avoid the
Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise and land use impacts and lessen
the significant but mitigable impacts of the proposed Project on air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, operational noise, and transportation/traffic. However, this
alternative may increase impacts related to energy and GHG emissions as compared to
the proposed Project because the energy intensity of SWP water is potentially greater
than that of recycled water and use of additional SWP water is not consistent with the
goals of the State’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
In addition, Alternative 5 is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the stated
Project objectives and would not result in the Project’s important beneficial impacts of
augmenting groundwater supply; creating a sustainable, drought-resistant local water
supply for southern San Luis Obispo County; providing a new source of recharge to the
SMGB to protect the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion; and reducing
wastewater discharges to the ocean. Furthermore, this alternative would be dependent
Item 10.a. - Page 53
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 28
on the completion of successful negotiations with San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, Central Coast Water Authority, and the County of Santa
Barbara, which are not guaranteed to result in increased SWP allocations for NCMA
agencies. As discussed later in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City finds
the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to be acceptable and preferable to
Alternative 5 because Alternative 5 would not achieve the City’s stated Project objectives
or local, regional, and State water supply, reliability, and resiliency objectives to the same
extent as the proposed Project.
Alternative 6: Increased Storage of Lopez Reservoir
Under this alternative, the spillway elevation of the Lopez Dam would be raised to
increase the yield of the Lopez Reservoir rather than implementing the proposed Project.
The purpose of this alternative is to address, in part, comments received during the
scoping period requesting analysis of alternative water supply options. Raising the
spillway of Lopez Dam by twelve feet would increase additional long-term yield, which
would correlate to a greater entitlement of the water supply that can be distributed to
NCMA agencies. However, the estimated water supply yield from this alternative would
not be sufficient to provide an equivalent amount of water supply (i.e., 3,566 AFY) as the
proposed Project; therefore, this alternative would need to be implemented in conjunction
with additional water supply alternatives, such as Alternative 5 or water conservation
measures, in order to provide an equivalent amount of water supply as the proposed
Project. The feasibility of this alternative would be limited by precipitation and drought
conditions, which constrain the amount of water captured by the Lopez Reservoir each
year. The existing spillway has not been used since 1998 due to low precipitation and
extended drought conditions; therefore, although this alternative could provide up to 1,005
acre-feet of water, the actual amount would vary based on year-to-year conditions. Under
this alternative, the full volume of secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach and
SSLOCSD WWTPs would continue to be discharged to the ocean via the outfall pipeline.
No seawater intrusion barrier would be developed, and no additional recharge of the
SMGB would occur. In addition, no recycled water would be provided for agricultural
irrigation.
Alternative 6 would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise
and land use impacts and also lessen the Project’s significant but mitigable impacts
related to environmental justice, hydrology and water quality, and noise. However, this
alternative would potentially result in greater environmental impacts to air quality, cultural
resources, and GHG emissions than the proposed Project due to a greater intensity of
construction activities, the potential submersion and/or destruction of historical and
archaeological resources, and inconsistency with the State’s 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan.
Alternative 6 is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the Project objectives
and would not result in the Project’s important beneficial impacts of augmenting
groundwater supply; creating a sustainable, drought-resistant local water supply for
southern San Luis Obispo County; providing a new source of recharge to the SMGB to
Item 10.a. - Page 54
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 29
protect the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion; and reducing wastewater
discharges to the ocean. Furthermore, this alternative would present significantly greater
regulatory and permitting challenges associated with modifications to the Lopez Dam as
compared to the proposed Project. As discussed later in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the City finds the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to be
acceptable and preferable to Alternative 6 because Alternative 6 would not achieve the
City’s Project objectives or local, regional, and State water supply, reliability, and
resiliency objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project.
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
In approving the Central Coast Blue Project, which is evaluated in the Certified Final EIR,
the City Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support
of its findings on the Certified Final EIR. After review of the entire administrative record,
the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other
anticipated benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts and therefore justify the approval of the Project (i.e., the full
execution of the Operating Agreement by the City of Pismo Beach, acting as the Lead
Agency, the City of Arroyo Grande, acting as a Responsible Agency, along with the
Investor, Member, or Partner Agencies, to undertake the Central Coast Blue Project). The
City Council finds that the Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that, on balance, the remaining
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable because the benefits of
the project outweigh them. The City Council finds that each of the overriding
considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for such a
finding.
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects
The Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to noise and land use, as
set forth under Findings Associated with Significant Impacts that Cannot Feasibly Be
Mitigated to a Less-than-Significant Level. The City Council has balanced these
significant unavoidable impacts of the Project against the Project's benefits and, based
on the entire record before it, hereby determines that the identified impacts are
acceptable.
Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by the Project should it be implemented.
Such significant irreversible environmental changes may include the following:
Use of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the
project that would be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or non-use unlikely.
Item 10.a. - Page 55
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 30
Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway
improvements that provide access to a previously inaccessible area) that generally
commit future generations to similar uses.
Irreversible damage which may result from environmental accidents associated
with the project.
As discussed in Section 6, Other CEQA Required Discussions, of the Certified Final EIR,
construction of the Project would require the use of building materials and energy, some
of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with
any development projects in the region and are not unique to the Project. Operation of
the Project would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources
such as petroleum and natural gas for vehicle fuels, space heating, and generation of
electricity. Increasingly efficient building fixtures and automobile engines as well as
implementation of the State Renewable Portfolio Standard are expected to offset the
demand to some degree. It is not anticipated that the Project would significantly affect
local or regional energy supplies. Section 4.4, Energy, of the Certified Final EIR includes
a full analysis of potential impacts related to energy resources by construction and
operation of the proposed project.
The Project would incrementally contribute local traffic, increase ambient noise levels,
and generate regional air pollutant and GHG emissions throughout the duration of Project
operation. These topics are discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, Section 4.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.10, Noise, and Section 4.11,
Transportation/Traffic, of the Certified Final EIR. However, these impacts would be less
than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and N-2.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Certified Final EIR,
the Project may result in reasonably foreseeable accidental spills and/or releases of
hazardous materials at the ATF complex location, and implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1(b) would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
However, given the limited quantities and nature of hazardous materials to be used during
Project operation, these accidental spills and/or releases would not result in irreversible
environmental damage.
The impacts described above are further articulated under Findings Associated with
Significant, Potentially Significant, and Cumulative Significant Impacts that Can Be
Mitigated to a Less-than-Significant Level and Findings Associated with Significant
Impacts that Cannot Feasibly Be Mitigated to a Less-than-Significant Level. The City
Council has balanced these significant but mitigable irreversible impacts of the Project
against the Project’s benefits and, based on the entire record before it, hereby determines
that the identified impacts are acceptable.
Specific Findings
Project Benefits Outweigh Unavoidable Impacts
Item 10.a. - Page 56
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 31
The City Council hereby finds that the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of
the Project are acceptable in light of the following substantial benefits of the Project, which
constitute the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that
justify the approval of the Project.
1. Improves Local Water Supply Reliability and Resiliency for NCMA Agencies
The Project is a water infrastructure project that would significantly improve water
supply reliability; create a sustainable, drought-resistant local water supply for
southern San Luis Obispo County; and provide a new source of recharge to the
SMGB to protect the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion.
Implementation of the Project would allow the NCMA agencies to increase
groundwater pumping levels (within their respective pumping limitations
established in the SMGB Adjudication Judgment) as compared to recent years
during which they have voluntarily decreased groundwater pumping below their
respective allocations in response to the 2009 groundwater monitoring event that
indicated incipient seawater intrusion.4 Because the Project would develop a
seawater intrusion barrier, the Project would improve local water supply reliability
and resiliency by protecting the existing groundwater supply for continued use by
NCMA agencies as a reliable source of potable water. In doing so, the Project
would have a beneficial impact on groundwater levels and supplies and would
further the City’s goal to develop a reliable source of clean water that is available
and protected at all times (Principle P-5 of the Conservation/Open Space Element
of the General Plan). The Project would also further the goals of the State’s 2017
Climate Change Scoping Plan to 1) develop more reliable water supplies through
a more resilient, diversified, sustainably managed water sources system and 2)
reuse water more efficiently through water recycling and reuse to help meet future
water demands and adapt to climate change.5
2. Supports Planned Population Growth
The Urban Water Management Plans for the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach,
and Arroyo Grande all anticipate full use of each city’s groundwater allocation in
calculating the supply sources available to meet projected water demand in normal
year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. However, in recent years,
the NCMA agencies have voluntarily decreased groundwater pumping below their
respective allocations in response to the 2009 groundwater monitoring event that
indicated incipient seawater intrusion.6 As discussed above, implementation of the
Project would allow the NCMA agencies to increase groundwater pumping levels
(within their respective pumping limitations established in the SMGB Adjudication
Judgment). As a result, the Project would support NCMA agencies in meeting
4 GSI Water Solutions. 2020. Northern Cities Management Area 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. April 23,
2020. Available at: https://oceanocsd.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2020/05/NCMA-2019-
Annual-Report_Final.pdf
5 California Air Resources Board. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
6 GSI Water Solutions. 2020. Northern Cities Management Area 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. April 23,
2020.
Item 10.a. - Page 57
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 32
demand generated by the existing population, activities, and land uses in the
Project area and would be consistent with water planning policies and projections
for the NCMA, particularly in light of California’s ongoing challenges with cyclical
drought conditions. The Project would also be consistent with the City’s policies to
investigate and pursue additional alternative water sources to increase existing
supply and support development envisioned by the General Plan (Policies F-36
and F-41 of the Facilities Element of the General Plan).
3. Reduces Wastewater Discharges to the Pacific Ocean
Under existing conditions, the City of Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs
discharge all secondary treated effluent to the Pacific Ocean via the existing ocean
outfall pipeline. Under the Project, this secondary treated effluent would be
conveyed to the ATF complex, where it would be further treated for beneficial reuse
via indirect potable reuse through groundwater injection as well as potentially
agricultural irrigation. Although approximately 10 to 30 percent of water treated by
the ATF complex would be discharged via the existing ocean outfall as reverse
osmosis concentrate, the Project would beneficially reuse approximately 70 to 90
percent of the secondary treated effluent from the WWTPs, which would greatly
reduce the amount of secondary treated effluent discharged to the ocean. As such,
the Project would beneficially utilize locally-produced secondary treated effluent,
which would otherwise be lost to the ocean, to augment local potable water
supplies.
The Project would include developing a reliable source of clean water that is
available and protected at all times. In addition, the Project would advance the
goals of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Control Policy
for Recycled Water to 1) increase the use of recycled water to 2.5 million acre-feet
per year by 2030; 2) reuse all dry weather direct discharges of treated wastewater
to enclosed bays, estuaries and coastal lagoons, and ocean waters that can be
viably put to a beneficial use;7 and 3) maximize the use of recycled water in areas
where groundwater supplies are in a state of overdraft.8
4. Project is Funded by Grants and Low Interest Financing
The current cost estimate for Phase 1 of the Project is $43.5 million. The Project
has applied for and/or received both state and federal grant funds and could
receive approximately $35.4 million in grant funding. As of spring 2020, the Project
has received $2 million from the State’s Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program
and $796,094 from the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART
program. The Project also plans to apply for the next round of funding through both
programs. In total, the Project could receive grants for up to 50 percent of the
7 For the purpose of this goal, treated wastewater does not include discharges necessary to maintain
beneficial uses and brine discharges from recycled water facilities or desalination facilities (State Water
Resources Control Board 2018).
8 State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water.
December 11, 2018. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/policy.html
Item 10.a. - Page 58
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 33
implementation costs through the Prop 1 Groundwater Grant Program
(approximately $21,730,950 based on current cost estimates) and 25 percent of
total program costs through the WaterSMART program (approximately
$10,865,475 based on current cost estimates). The remaining $8,069,381 would
be eligible for low interest financing through the State Water Resources Control
Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Based on economic analysis done for the Project’s Title XVI WaterSMART
application, the Project benefits include $142 million of benefits to the local
agricultural and tourism industries plus the numerous qualitative benefits to the
local communities discussed earlier, including improved water supply reliability,
reduced reliance on imported water, improved groundwater quality, reduced
wastewater discharges to the Pacific Ocean, and efficient utilization of local water
resources.
Balance of Competing Goals
The City Council hereby finds it is imperative to balance competing goals in approving the
Project and the environmental documentation of the Project. Not every environmental
concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing concerns to a
certain extent. The City Council has chosen to accept certain environmental impacts
because of the many benefits inherent in the attainment of City, regional, and State goals
as described above, as well as the implementation of required mitigation measures, would
balance the potential for environmental impacts to occur.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project and the supporting
environmental documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and
that the economic, social and other benefits to be obtained by the Project outweigh any
remaining environmental and related potential detriment of the Project.
Overriding Considerations
Based upon the objectives identified for the Project, the City Council has determined that
the Project should be approved and that any remaining unmitigated environmental
impacts attributable to the Project are outweighed by the specific economic, social and
other overriding considerations as described above.
The City Council has determined that any environmental detriment caused by the Project
has been minimized to the extent feasible through mitigation measures identified herein,
and, where not feasible, has been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant
social benefits to be generated to the City, its residents, and the region.
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The City Council recognizes that any approval of the Project would require concurrent
approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which ensures
performance of identified mitigation measures. Such an MMRP would identify the entity
responsible for monitoring and implementation, and the timing of such activities. The City
Item 10.a. - Page 59
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 34
will use the MMRP to track compliance with proposed Project mitigation measures. The
MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP
is included as part of the Certified Final EIR, and is hereby incorporated by reference,
and included as Exhibit B to this Resolution.
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR, Certified Final EIR, and the findings
provided herein are based on and are supported by the following documents, materials,
and other evidence, which constitute the Administrative Record for the Central Coast Blue
Project:
1. The December 2019 NOP, April 2020 NOP, comments received on the NOPs, and
all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Certified Final EIR (i.e.,
Notice of Availability);
2. All associated references, appendices, and technical materials cited in the Draft
EIR;
3. The December 2020 Final EIR, including comment letters, oral testimony, and
technical materials cited in the document;
4. Minutes, transcripts, and recordings of the discussions regarding the project and
hearings held by the City of Pismo Beach for the project; and
5. Staff reports associated with City Council meetings on the project and written and
oral testimony submitted at these meetings.
X. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The City Clerk is the custodian of the Administrative Record. Due to the closure of City
Hall as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the documents and materials that
constitute the administrative record are available for review online at
https://centralcoastblue.com/recent-updates/.
XI. FILING NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination regarding
the approval of the Project within five business days of adoption of this Resolution.
Item 10.a. - Page 60
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 35
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Item 10.a. - Page 61
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project
approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public
Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and
ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For
each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR),
specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and
the agency or department responsible for oversight.
Item 10.a. - Page 62
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-2 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Air Quality AQ‐2(a): Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment The following standard mitigation measures shall be implemented during Phases I and II of construction activities to reduce construction‐related emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases: Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; Fuel all off‐road and portable diesel‐powered equipment with California Air Resources Board (CARB)‐certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non‐taxed version suitable for use off‐road); Use diesel construction equipment meeting the CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off‐road heavy‐duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off‐Road Regulation; Use on‐road heavy‐duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on‐road heavy‐duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On‐Road Regulation; Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; All on‐ and off‐road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than five minutes in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485 and Section 2449(d)(3) of the CARB’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Regulation. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas 1. Include standard control measures in construction contractor specifications 2. Field verify compliance with standard control measures 1. Prior to start of construction 2. During all construction activities 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications 2. Periodically City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 63
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-3 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments and on job sites to remind drivers and operators of the five‐minute idling limit; Electric‐powered equipment shall be used when feasible; Gasoline‐powered equipment shall be substituted in place of diesel‐powered equipment, where feasible; and Alternatively fueled construction equipment shall be used on site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel. AQ‐2(b): Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment The following Best Available Control Technology for diesel‐fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during Phases I and II of construction activities to reduce construction‐related emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases: All equipment used during the building construction phase of the ATF complex shall be equipped with minimum Tier 3 certified engines, and air compressors, drill rigs, and generators used during injection/monitoring/production well construction shall be equipped with minimum Tier 4 Final certified engines; Repower older off‐road equipment with Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines where feasible; Utilize heavy‐duty trucks meeting the standards of the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation for on‐road heavy‐duty diesel engines, which requires nearly all trucks to have 2010 or newer model year engines; and Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies on construction equipment. Examples include, but are not 1. Include requirements for Best Available Control Technology in construction contractor specifications 2. Field verify use of Best Available Control Technology 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. During all construction activities 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications 2. Periodically City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 64
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-4 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments limited to, diesel particulate filter systems, Purifilter Engine Control Systems, diesel retrofit systems, and Sootfilter systems. Biological Resources BIO‐1(a): California Red‐legged Frog Habitat Avoidance Injection well, monitoring well and water distribution pipeline locations and associated construction work areas (including staging, access, and laydown) shall be sited outside of native vegetation communities, such as arroyo willow riparian. Prior to construction, the limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted. 1. Review engineering plans for compliance 2. Include avoidance requirements in construction contractor specifications 3. Field verification of fencing installation 1. Prior to construction of each project component 2. Prior to construction of each project component 3. Prior to construction of each project component 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each set of contractor specifications 3. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach BIO‐1(b) California Red‐legged Frog Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek: A qualified biologist shall survey the project site no more than 48 hours before the start of construction and ground‐disturbing maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a California red‐legged frog (CRLF) is found within the project footprint, no work shall begin, and consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be initiated. Work shall not begin until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a 1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre‐construction survey for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and review survey results 2. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct daily surveys for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of 1. Within 48 hours prior to construction and ground‐disturbing maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 2. During ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐1. Once for construction of each project component and once for each instance of ground‐disturbing maintenance activity 2. Daily prior to the start of ground‐disturbing construction City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 65
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-5 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Permit issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. For construction activities occurring during the wet season (October 15 and April 15), daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint, work shall halt, and consultation with the USFWS shall be initiated. Work shall not re‐commence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Permit issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. Before any construction or ground‐disturbing maintenance activities begin, a biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of CRLF and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to avoid dispersing CRLF, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions. All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. A spill prevention plan shall be established in the event of a leak or spill. Work shall be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. If construction activities occur at night, a biological monitor shall be present. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the Arroyo Grande Creek and review survey results 3. Consult with USFWS, as needed 4. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a training session on CRLF for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 5. Include avoidance and minimization measures in construction contractor specifications for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek, as applicable 5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek during the wet season (October 15 to April 15) 3. As needed 4. Prior to the start of construction and ground‐disturbing maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 5. Prior to the start of ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and maintenance activities 3. As needed 4. Once for each project component 5. Once for each set of contractor specifications Item 10.a. - Page 66
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-6 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. Water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract CRLF. All excavations or trenches shall be covered when not actively under construction or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for CRLF to escape to avoid entrapment of CRLF or other wildlife species. Herbicides shall not be used on site during construction. No pets shall be permitted on site. A biological monitor shall be present during all initial ground‐disturbing activities for construction and maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. All construction and ground‐disturbing maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching) conducted at injection well, monitoring well, and water 6. Field verify compliance with avoidance and minimization measures 7. Retain a biological monitor for monitoring for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 6. During ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 7. During construction and ground‐disturbing maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 6. Periodically 7. Daily Item 10.a. - Page 67
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-7 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek shall be conducted during dry conditions (i.e., days with less than 0.1 inch of predicted rainfall), outside of the wet season (October 15 through April 30), unless authorization is provided by the USFWS or a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement issued by the USFWS for the project authorizes work during such conditions. BIO‐1(c): Southwestern Pond Turtle Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek: A qualified biologist shall conduct a visual survey of work areas within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek within 48 hours of initial ground‐disturbing activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching, associated with construction of injection wells. The survey area shall include the proposed disturbance area plus a 100‐foot buffer. Prior to the survey, suitable receptor sites shall be identified within Arroyo Grande Creek. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall be present for activities that require the removal of riparian habitat to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site. For the duration of project construction activities at the IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre‐construction survey and review survey results 2. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct daily surveys, relocate turtles as needed, and flag egg clutches as needed and review survey results 1. Within 48 hours prior to initial ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 2. During ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of 1. Once for each instance of ground‐disturbing activities for each project component 2. Daily during ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 68
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-8 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments 5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek, daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a turtle is observed in the work area, a biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site. All excavations or trenches shall be covered when not actively under construction or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for southwestern pond turtle to escape to avoid entrapment of southwestern pond turtle or other wildlife species. In the event that a southwestern pond turtle egg clutch is discovered during pre‐construction surveys, the location shall be surrounded with high visibility fencing under the guidance of a qualified biologist. The nest shall be avoided by construction activities until a qualified biologist determines that the clutch has hatched. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall also be contacted to provide additional guidance in the event that a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered. If, during construction, a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered, construction shall cease immediately upon the discovery, and CDFW shall be notified. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled outside of the typical nesting season for southwestern pond turtle, which is April through August (Stebbins 2003). 3. Include avoidance and minimization measures in construction contractor specifications for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek, as applicable 4. Field verify compliance with avoidance and minimization measures Arroyo Grande Creek 3. Prior to the start of ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 4. During ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek 3. Once for each set of contractor specifications 4. Periodically Item 10.a. - Page 69
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-9 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments BIO‐1(d): Monarch Butterfly Avoidance The ATF complex and associated construction work areas shall be sited outside of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. Prior to construction and during the overwintering period for monarchs in the region (i.e., October through February), a survey shall be conducted at the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the ATF complex to determine if monarch butterflies are utilizing the habitat for overwintering. If monarch butterflies are confirmed to overwinter within the eucalyptus grove, the grove shall be considered ESHA ,and design of the ATF complex shall be modified to incorporate the appropriate setbacks included in the City of Grover Beach LCP and GBMC. The limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing in order to avoid work within designated setback areas. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted. If butterflies are present, all construction adjacent to overwintering habitat shall be conducted outside the overwintering season (i.e., October to February), if feasible. However, if construction must occur during this time period, construction may only commence if a City‐approved monarch butterfly expert determines that the construction activities would not adversely impact foraging, roosting, or other behaviors of the species. 1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a monarch butterfly survey and review survey results 2. Review site plans for compliance with setback requirements, as applicable 3. Include avoidance measures in construction contractor specifications for the ATF complex, as applicable 4. Field verify compliance with avoidance measures, as needed 1. Prior to the start of construction of the ATF complex 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the ATF complex, as needed 3. Prior to the start of construction of the ATF complex, as needed 4. During construction of the ATF complex, as needed 1. Once 2. Once 3. Once 4. Periodically City of Pismo Beach BIO‐1(e): Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction activities: 1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey and review survey results 1. Within 14 days prior to initial disturbances in the construction work area for 1. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 70
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-10 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Initial site disturbance shall occur outside the general avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible. If initial site disturbance occurs in a work area within the general avian nesting season indicated above, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initial disturbances in the work area. The survey shall include the entire area of disturbance area plus a 50‐foot buffer (relevant to non‐raptor species) and 300‐foot buffer (relevant to raptors) around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work should be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer should be a minimum of 50 feet for non‐raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required and/or smaller buffers may be established depending upon the species, status of the nest, and construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) should be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist should confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer. If a white‐tailed kite nest is detected during the nesting bird survey no work shall begin until the CDFW is consulted to confirm that implementation of the project and avoidance buffers are sufficient to avoid “take”. 2. Field verify compliance with any avoidance requirements, as needed each project component 2. During initial site disturbance activities, as needed, until nests are inactive 2. Weekly, as needed Item 10.a. - Page 71
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-11 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments If construction activities in a given work area cease for more than 14 days, additional surveys shall be conducted for the work area. If active nests are located, the aforementioned buffer zone measures shall be implemented. BIO‐1(f): Biological Resources Assessment Once locations are determined for the project components with unknown locations (i.e., new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines), a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment (BRA) or similar type of study to document the existing biological resources within the project footprint of these components plus a buffer and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities/critical habitat, potentially jurisdictional features, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, further technical studies (i.e. protocol surveys) and/or consultations with the USFWS, CDFW and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Mitigation Measures BIO‐1(g) through BIO‐1(k) shall be incorporated, only as applicable, into the BRA for projects where specific resources are present or may be present and impacted by the project. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the BRA where suitable habitat is present. 1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct a BRA or similar type study and review the study 2. Conduct further technical studies and/or consultations and incorporate Mitigation Measures BIO‐1(g) through BIO‐1(k) in the design and construction of the new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines, as applicable 1. Upon selection of locations of new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines 2. Upon completion of the BRA 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 72
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-12 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments BIO‐1(g): Special Status Plant Species Surveys If completion of the project‐specific BRA (Mitigation Measure BIO‐1[f]) determines that special status plant species may occur on site, surveys for special status plants shall be completed prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species identified in the project‐specific BRA. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the City no more than two years before initial ground disturbance. All special status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site‐specific aerial photograph and topographic map. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct special status plant surveys and review results Seasonally timed within two years prior to vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity associated with the new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach BIO‐1(h): Special Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation If federally listed, State listed or California Rare Plant Rank 1B species are found during special status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO‐1[f]), then the project shall be re‐designed to avoid impacting these plant species, if feasible. Rare plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. If avoidance of state listed or federally listed plants species is not feasible, impacts shall be fully offset through 1. Re‐design plans for new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines to avoid impacts to special status plant species, as necessary and feasible 2. Consult with CDFW and/or USFWS, as necessary 1. Prior to final design for new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines that result in impacts to special status plant species 2. Prior to final design for new production well 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 73
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-13 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments implementation of a restoration plan that results in no net loss (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐1(i]). Prior to the start of construction and maintenance activities that result in impacts to listed plants, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS and acquisition of any required permits and/or authorizations shall also be completed. and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines that result in impacts to special status plant species BIO‐1(i): Restoration Plan for Special Status Plant Species If avoidance of state listed, federally listed, and/or non‐listed CRPR 1B.1 species is not feasible, all impacts shall be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (number of acres/individuals restored to number of acres/individuals impacted) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type) Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved) Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values) Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]) Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal 1. Retain a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist to prepare an HMMP 2. Review HMMP for compliance with mitigation requirements and approve HMMP 3. Review quarterly and annual monitoring reports 1. Prior to start of construction activities for new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines that would impact special status plant species 2. Prior to start of construction activities for new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines that would impact special status plant species 3. After completion of restoration installation 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project component 3. Quarterly for the first year of monitoring and annually for the next four years City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 74
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-14 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule) Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year, along with performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, and annual monitoring reports for a minimum of five years at which time the City shall demonstrate that performance standards/success criteria have been met Success criteria shall be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 70 percent absolute cover by vegetation type. Absolute cover will be determined in comparison to a reference plot for native species An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation Contingency measures (e.g., initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism) BIO‐1(j): Endangered/Threatened Species Avoidance and Minimization The habitat requirements of endangered and threatened species that have the potential to occur are variable throughout the project area where project components with unknown locations may be sited. However, several avoidance and minimization measures can be applied for a variety of species to reduce the potential for impacts such that no net loss of the species occurs. The following measures shall be applied to aquatic and/or terrestrial 1. Include avoidance and minimization measures in construction contractor specifications for project components within or adjacent to sensitive habitat that may support threatened or endangered species 1. Prior to the start of ground‐disturbing activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 75
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-15 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments species, as determined to be appropriate by the BRA prepared under Mitigation Measure BIO‐1(f): Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete project construction and maintenance. The project limits of disturbance shall be flagged. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance. All ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching) occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. All project activities occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federal‐ and/or State‐listed endangered/threatened species shall have a City‐approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, the biologist shall conduct daily pre‐activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities are completed the biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are being fully implemented. 2. Retain a qualified biologist for monitoring initial ground‐disturbance activities and conducting daily or weekly pre‐activity clearance surveys for project activities within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support threatened or endangered species and review survey results 3. Conduct water quality sampling and monitoring, as needed, and review results 4. Prepare, review, and approve a diversion plan, as needed, and field verify compliance 5. Notify CDFW and/or USFWS of occurrence of endangered/threatened species and of any accidental harm to such species, as needed 2. During ground‐disturbing construction and maintenance activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 3. During construction and maintenance activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines, as needed 4. Prior to the start of and during construction and maintenance activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines, as needed 5. During construction and maintenance activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation 2. Daily and weekly 3. Periodically to establish the pre‐project baseline and for monitoring during construction 4. Once for each project component 5. As needed Item 10.a. - Page 76
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-16 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS. If at any time during construction or maintenance of the project an endangered/threatened species enters the construction or maintenance site(s) or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A City‐approved biologist shall document the occurrence and the City shall notify the CDFW and/or USFWS as appropriate. All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies. No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel, unless authorized by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through issuance of permits authorizing such activities. All equipment operating within streams shall be in good conditions and free of leaks. Spill containment shall be installed under all equipment staged within stream areas, and extra spill containment and clean up materials shall be located in close proximity for easy access. If construction or maintenance activities could degrade water quality, water quality sampling shall be implemented to identify the pre‐project baseline and to monitor during construction for comparison to the baseline. pipelines, as needed Item 10.a. - Page 77
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-17 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments If water is to be diverted around work sites, a diversion plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City prior to the start of any construction or maintenance activities (including staging and mobilization). If pumps are used, all intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters to prevent animals from entering the pump system. It should be noted that diversion and dewatering of creeks, rivers, lakes and ponds may require permits to be issued by the CDFW, RWQCB, USFWS and/or NMFS. At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment. All trenches, pipes, culverts or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling. The City‐approved biologist shall remove invasive aquatic species such as bullfrogs and crayfish from suitable aquatic habitat whenever observed and shall dispatch them in a humane manner and dispose of properly. If any federally and/or State protected species are harmed, the City‐approved biologist shall document the circumstances that led to harm and shall determine if project construction should cease or be altered in an effort to avoid additional harm to these species. Dead or injured special status species shall be disposed of at the discretion of the CDFW and USFWS. All incidences of harm shall be reported by the City to the CDFW and USFWS within 48 hours. 6. 7. 8. Item 10.a. - Page 78
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-18 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments BIO‐1(k): Non‐listed Special Status Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization Several State Species of Special Concern may be impacted by project components with unknown locations. The ecological requirements and potential for impacts is highly variable among these species. Depending on the species identified in the BRA [Mitigation Measure BIO‐1(f)], several of the measures identified under Mitigation Measure BIO‐1(j) shall be applicable to the project. In addition, measures shall be selected from among the following to reduce the potential for impacts to non‐listed special status animal species, as determined to be appropriate by the BRA prepared under Mitigation Measure BIO‐1(f): Pre‐construction clearance surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization) in a work area. The surveys shall cover the entire disturbance footprint of the work area plus a minimum 200‐foot buffer, if feasible, and shall identify all special status animal species that may occur on site. All non‐listed special status species shall be relocated from the site. A report of the pre‐construction survey shall be submitted to the local jurisdiction for their review and approval prior to the start of construction. If construction activities in a given work area cease for more than 14 days, additional surveys shall be conducted for the work area, and additional reports of special status animal species shall be prepared. A qualified biologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, to recover 1. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre‐construction clearance surveys and review survey results 2. Retain a qualified biologist to monitor initial ground disturbing activities 3. Retain a qualified biologist to conduct presence/absence surveys for special status bats and review survey results 4. Install exclusion devices and bat boxes, as needed 1. Within 14 days prior to the start of construction activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 2. During construction activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 3. Within 30 days prior to the start of construction activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 4. Prior to the start of construction activities for the new production well and/or agricultural irrigation pipelines 1. Once for each project component 2. Daily for each project component 3. Once for each project component 4. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 79
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-19 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments non‐listed special status animal species unearthed by construction activities. If special status bat species may be present and impacted by the project, a qualified biologist shall conduct presence/absence surveys for special status bats where suitable roosting habitat is present within 30 days prior to the start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted using acoustic detectors and by visually searching suitable roost trees and other areas where bats may roost. If active roosts are located, exclusion devices such as netting shall be installed to discourage bats from occupying the site. If a roost is determined by a qualified biologist to be used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through coordination with the CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500‐foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately. BIO‐2: Sensitive Plant and Community and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring vegetation disturbance within arroyo willow habitat. Temporary impact areas to arroyo willow habitat shall be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each 1. Retain a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist to prepare the HMMP 2. Review HMMP for compliance with mitigation requirements 1. Prior to start of construction and maintenance activities within arroyo willow habitat 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 80
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-20 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian function. Permanent impacts shall be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in‐kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to arroyo willow habitat. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components: Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type); Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; Specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved); Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site); Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate and approve HMMP 3. Review quarterly and annual monitoring reports 4. Include avoidance and minimization measures in construction contractor specifications for project components within arroyo willow habitat 5. Field verify compliance with avoidance and minimization measures 2. Prior to start of construction and maintenance activities within arroyo willow habitat 3. After completion of restoration installation 4. Prior to start of construction and maintenance activities within arroyo willow habitat 5. During construction and maintenance activities within arroyo willow habitat component 3. Quarterly for the first year of monitoring and annually for the next four years 4. Once for each set of contractor specifications 5. Periodically Item 10.a. - Page 81
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-21 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments (activities, responsible parties, schedule); Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type; An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts; Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).During construction, the project shall make all reasonable efforts to limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on site should be used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material shall be obtained from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species. During construction, the project shall make all reasonable efforts to limit the use of Item 10.a. - Page 82
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-22 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on site should be used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material shall be obtained from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species. All equipment and vehicles must be free of weed seeds/propagules before accessing and leaving the work areas. BIO‐3(a): Jurisdictional Delineation Prior to final determination of the water distribution pipeline locations and associated construction work areas within the Oceano County Airport property, a qualified biologist shall complete a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to aid in the siting of the water distribution pipeline alignments as well as other project areas. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the extent of the jurisdiction(s) for local agencies (i.e., the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo), CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth by each agency. Retain a qualified biologist to complete a jurisdictional delineation and review results of jurisdictional delineation for compliance with agency requirements Prior to final determination of water distribution pipeline locations within Oceano County Airport property Once City of Pismo Beach BIO‐3(b): Drainages and Wetlands Impact Mitigation Impacts to drainages and wetlands identified by the Jurisdictional Delineation (Mitigation Measure 3[a]) shall be mitigated at a minimum of 1:1 (acre impacted: acre restored/created). Restoration on the project site is preferable. However, the City may approve off‐site restoration at a location in the same watershed as where the project impacts occur that results in equal compensatory value. An HMMP shall be prepared which identifies the approach for implementing the compensatory mitigation. The HMMP shall be prepared by a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist and shall outline the compensatory mitigation. As part 1. Retain a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist to prepare the HMMP 2. Review HMMP for compliance with mitigation requirements and approve HMMP 1. Prior to start of construction of water distribution pipelines in Oceano County Airport property 2. Prior to start of construction of water distribution pipelines in 1. Once 2. Once City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 83
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-23 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments of the HMMP, a final mitigation implementation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to project implementation. Specifically, the HMMP shall include the following: Description of the project/impact site (i.e. location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type); Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved); Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site); Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports); Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, 3. Review quarterly and annual monitoring reports Oceano County Airport property 3. After completion of restoration installation 3. Quarterly for the first year of monitoring and annual for the next four years Item 10.a. - Page 84
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-24 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type; An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts; Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism). BIO‐3(c): Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During Construction For all project components the following best management practices shall be required for permitted grading and construction within drainages or wetlands. In addition, the measures shall be required at locations where construction occurs within 100 feet from drainages or wetlands. Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize impacts to other federal and State waters, including locating access routes and ancillary construction areas outside of jurisdictional areas. To control erosion and sediment runoff during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control materials shall be deployed, including but not limited to straw wattles, and maintained in the vicinity of the project footprint. Project activities within the drainages or wetlands shall occur during the dry season in any given year to the extent practicable. The dry season is typically between May 1 1. Include best management practices in construction contractor specifications for project components within 100 feet of drainage or wetlands 2. Field verify compliance with best management practices 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. During construction 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications 2. Periodically City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 85
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-25 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments and September 30; however, this timeframe may be extended depending on year‐to‐year precipitation and drought conditions. During construction, no litter or construction debris shall be placed within drainages or wetlands. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. All project‐generated debris, building materials, and rubbish shall be removed daily from jurisdictional areas and from areas where such materials could be washed into them. Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project‐related activities, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering drainages or wetlands. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from drainages and wetlands and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur. If installation of the agricultural irrigation pipelines requires the crossing of Arroyo Grande Creek, a Frac‐Out Contingency Plan shall be prepared and, and in the event of Item 10.a. - Page 86
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-26 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments frac‐out, it shall be implemented. The Frac‐Out Contingency Plan shall include the following: The purpose of the contingency plan; Preventative measures to minimize the likelihood of a frac‐out; The planning and design of the augur boring or horizontal directional drilling; Pre‐construction requirements; and Contingency response to contain and remove drilling fluids and closeout procedures. The contingency response shall include general guidelines with all equipment required, guidelines for terrestrial frac‐outs along the banks and riparian corridor of Arroyo Grande Creek, guidelines for aquatic frac‐outs within Arroyo Grande Creek, and bore abandonment. BIO‐5: Native Tree Inventory, Protection, and Replacement A Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist to inventory native trees that would be trimmed or removed by construction. Native trees shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall include, but would not be limited to, an inventory of trees within the construction site plus a 50‐foot buffer zone, requirements for setbacks from trees and protective fencing, restrictions regarding grading and paving near trees, and direction regarding pruning and digging within root zone of trees. If removal of native trees is required, the trees shall be replaced consistent with the requirements of the local agency which has jurisdiction as well as the associated tree removal permit that may be issued. 1. Retain certified arborist to prepare Tree Preservation Plan 2. Review Tree Preservation Plan 3. Include tree protection and replacement measures in construction contractor specifications, as applicable 4. Field verify compliance with tree protection and replacement measures 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 3. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 4. During construction of each project component 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project component 3. Once for each set of contractor specifications 4. Periodically and at the end of construction of each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 87
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-27 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Prior to the onset of construction activities, highly visible orange construction fencing shall be installed around existing stands and individuals identified in the Tree Preservation Plan to be retained at a buffer/extent radius of six feet beyond the canopy dripline, wherever feasible, or otherwise marked in the field to protect them from harm during implementation of the proposed project. Cultural Resources CR‐2(a): Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground‐disturbing activities. The training should be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). Archaeological sensitivity training should include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. Retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training for each project component and review documentation of training Prior to ground‐disturbing activities for each project component Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach CR‐2(b): Archaeological and Native American Monitoring During initial ground disturbance for the project, a qualified archaeologist and locally affiliated Native American monitor shall monitor construction activities within the project area. Initial ground disturbance is defined as disturbance within previously undisturbed native soils. A cultural resources monitoring plan shall be completed prior to the commencement of monitoring, which outlines monitoring procedures, stop work authorities, and procedures to be taken in the 1. Retain qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to conduct daily construction monitoring 2. Review and approve cultural resources monitoring plan 1. Prior to ground‐disturbing activities for each project component 2. Prior to ground‐disturbing activities for each 1. Daily for initial ground disturbance for each project component 2. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 88
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-28 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments event of a find. The monitoring plan shall also provide a monitoring form template to be completed by the monitors for each monitoring day. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist determines that the construction activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources (e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed, non‐native soils, or within a soil formation not expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or eliminated. If cultural resources are identified during initial monitoring, work in the immediate vicinity shall halt until the resource has been evaluated for significance. 3. Review monitoring forms project component 3. During initial ground disturbance for each project component 3. Weekly CR‐2(c): Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources If cultural resources are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. Should cultural resources be discovered during excavation, additional studies including data recovery efforts may be needed to reduce project impacts and/or consultation with local tribes and the City, acting as lead agency, may be necessary to mitigate any significant impacts/adverse effects. 1. Retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, if needed 2. Field verify required evaluation of the identified resource 3. If avoidance is infeasible, prepare plan to reduce impacts to less than significant and conduct required consultation, if needed 1. During ground‐disturbing activities for each project component, as needed 2. During ground‐disturbing activities for each project component, if cultural resource is identified 3. During ground‐disturbing activities for each project component, if cultural resource is identified 1. As needed 2. As needed 3. As needed City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 89
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-29 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments CR‐2(d): Archaeological Resource Studies Prior to initial construction activities for the new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines, a Phase I Cultural Resources Study shall be conducted for each project component by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s standards in archaeology. The Phase I study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site to identify potential surficial archaeological resources and sufficient background archival research and field sampling to determine whether subsurface prehistoric or historic remains may be present. Archival research should include, at minimum, a records search conducted at the Central Coast Information Center and a Sacred Lands File search conducted with the Native American Heritage Commission. Any cultural resources so identified shall be avoided and preserved in place, if feasible. Where preservation in place is not feasible, each resource shall be evaluated for significance and eligibility for listing in the CRHR through the implementation of a Phase II evaluation program. Phase II evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations as well as mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine horizontal boundaries and depth below surface, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains. If the resource is found eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or local register, a Phase III data recovery program shall be conducted to mitigate the impacts to the 1. Retain qualified archaeologist to prepare Phase I Cultural Resources Study 2. Incorporate all feasible recommendations for mitigation of any identified impacts 1. Prior to issuance of construction permit for new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines 2. Prior to issuance of construction permit for new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines 1. Once for new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines 2. During construction, as needed, for new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 90
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-30 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments resource if avoidance remains infeasible. A data recovery program shall include the development of a site‐specific research design, testing program, laboratory analysis, and reporting with the intention of extracting data from the resource to the point of redundancy. Any excavation at Native American sites shall be monitored by a local tribal representative. Cultural materials collected from the sites shall be processed and analyzed in the laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of archaeological resources shall be determined using radiocarbon dating or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the California Register of Historic Resources. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historical Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” Upon completion of the work, all artifacts, other cultural remains, records, photographs, and other documentation shall be curated an appropriate curation facility to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis in consultation with the City and interested parties (e.g., tribal organizations). If any of the resources meet CRHR significance standards, the City shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of impacts are incorporated into the final project design. Any necessary archaeological data recovery excavation shall be carried out by a Registered Professional Archaeologist according to a Item 10.a. - Page 91
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-31 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments research design reviewed and approved by the City, as the lead agency, and prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. As applicable, the final Phase I Inventory, Phase II Testing and Evaluation, and Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City and the applicable land use permitting agency prior to final inspection of a construction permit. Recommendations contained therein, including, at minimum, requirements to follow for unanticipated archaeological discoveries during construction, shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. Energy E‐2: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures The proposed project shall implement the following energy efficiency and renewable energy measures: The advanced treatment facility (ATF) building shall incorporate LEED Silver design standards, such as outdoor and indoor water‐efficiency features, energy‐efficiency and conservation features, energy metering, demand response technologies and programs, and renewable energy systems, where feasible. The orientation of the ATF building shall be designed to accomplish the following to the maximum extent practicable: Maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons Avoid solar heat gain in warm seasons Review site plans for the ATF complex to verify compliance Prior to the issuance of a building permit Once City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 92
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-32 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Enhance natural ventilation and effective use of daylight Maximize opportunities for the installation of solar panels Facilitate the use of sunlight for direct heating and illumination whenever possible Take advantage of natural ventilation and shading to cool a building. The ATF building shall use exterior shading devices, skylights, daylighting controls, high performance glazing that allows the transmission of light with minimal heat gain, and high thermal mass building components to the extent feasible. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG‐2: GHG Emission Reduction Measures The proposed project shall implement the following greenhouse gas emission reduction measures, as identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan: The ATF complex shall include a solar photovoltaic system. The ATF complex shall include recycling receptacles. Review site plans for the ATF complex to verify compliance Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the ATF complex Once City of Pismo Beach Hazard and Hazardous Materials HAZ‐1(a): Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan Prior to the start of construction, the construction contractor(s) shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan (HMMSPCP) that includes a project‐specific contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations. The HMMSPCP shall be applicable to construction activities and shall establish policies and procedures according to 1. Include requirements for HMMSPCP in construction contractor specifications 2. Review HMMSPCP to verify compliance 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications 2. Once for each project component City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 93
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-33 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments applicable codes and regulations, including but not limited to the California Building and Fire Codes and federal and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations, to minimize risks associated with hazardous materials spills. Elements of the HMMSPCP shall include, but would not be limited to the following: A discussion of hazardous materials management, including delineation of hazardous material storage areas, access and egress routes, waterways, emergency assembly areas, and temporary hazardous waste storage areas; Notification and documentation of procedures; and Spill control and countermeasures, including employee spill prevention/response training. 3. Field verify implementation of HMMSPCP 3. During construction of each project component 3. Periodically during construction of each project component HAZ‐1(b): Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) shall be prepared for the ATF complex. The HMBP shall include, at a minimum, a hazardous materials inventory, site plan, emergency response plan, and requirements for employee training. The HMBP shall be prepared prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the ATF complex. The HMBP shall inform staff and contractors of the chemicals that may be used at the site and how to respond to potential hazardous material emergencies or exposure. Signage specified in the HMBP shall be posted at the ATF complex and at associated chemical storage areas, and a copy of the hazardous materials inventory, site plan, and emergency response plan shall be kept at each chemical storage area. The hazardous materials inventory shall be consistent with chemicals ordered during Prepare and review HMBP to verify compliance Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the ATF complex Once City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 94
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-34 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments operation and maintenance of the ATF complex. Hydrology and Water Quality HWQ‐1: Initial Quarterly Radioactivity Testing Initial quarterly monitoring will be conducted at the full‐scale facility for the first year of operation to establish future monitoring requirements and possible additional analysis of beta/photon emitters. If monitoring detects violations of the maximum contaminant level for radioactivity specified by California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 5, Section 64443 occur, these exceedances shall be resolved. Potential treatment process to resolve identified exceedances would include, but would not be limited to, ion exchange, lime softening, and coagulation filtration. 1. Review results of initial quarterly monitoring 2. If needed, field verify installation of additional treatment process(es) and results of follow‐up monitoring 1. At the end of the first year of operation 2. After installation of additional treatment process(es), if needed 1. Once 2. Once City of Pismo Beach Noise N‐1: Construction Noise Reduction Measures The following construction noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction activities: Well drilling activities for IW‐1, IW‐2A, IW‐2B, IW‐3, MW‐1A/1B, MW‐2A/2B/2C, and MW‐3A/3B, shall be scheduled during the non‐peak season for the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground to the extent practicable, as defined by the County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department. Construction of individual injection, monitoring, and production wells located within 0.25 mile of each other shall be scheduled so as not to overlap to the extent practicable. Construction of the water distribution/agricultural irrigation 1. Include construction noise measures in construction contractor specifications, as applicable 2. Coordinate with the County of San Luis Obispo for temporary campsite closures 3. Provide non‐automated telephone number for local residents to submit complaints 4. Field verify compliance with construction noise reduction measures 5. Prepare and review acoustical analysis for new production well 6. Implement recommended construction noise reduction 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. Prior to the start of construction 3. Prior to the start of construction 4. During construction 5. Upon selection of location of new production well 6. Prior to the start of construction 1. Once for each set of contractor specifications 2. Once 3. Once for each project component 4. Periodically 5. Once 6. Once City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 95
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-35 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments pipelines and ATF complex shall be scheduled so as not to overlap with construction of the injection, monitoring, and production wells. Noise‐generating construction activities associated with IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C shall not occur on the same days as noise‐generating construction activities for the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Redundancy Project to the extent practicable. Whenever possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. The City shall coordinate with the County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department to temporarily close all campsites within 200 feet of IW‐1, IW‐2A, IW‐2B, IW‐3, MW‐1A/1B, MW‐2A/2B/2C, and MW‐3A/3B for the duration of 24‐hour well drilling activities. The City shall provide temporary housing accommodation via hotel or other comparable accommodation for the duration of 24‐hour well drilling activities for residents and hotel/motel guests in Grover Beach within 100 feet of construction activity and for residents and hotel/motel guests in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet of construction activity. All heavy‐duty stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers. measures for new production well, as needed Item 10.a. - Page 96
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-36 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments During injection and monitoring well construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained critical grade mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. During injection and monitoring well construction, the City’s contractor(s) shall use portable sound enclosures for all generators and air compressors that provide at least a 10‐dBA reduction in noise levels. During injection and monitoring well construction, the City’s contractor(s) shall install temporary sound barriers of sufficient height and length to break the line‐of‐sight between the engines of heavy‐duty equipment and nearby sensitive receivers. All temporary barriers shall be constructed of material with a minimum weight of two pounds per square foot and shall be continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or the ground. Sound blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment may also be used in place of temporary sound barriers and shall be of sufficient length to overlap each other and the ground surface. Temporary sound barriers and/or blankets shall be installed for the entire duration of the well drilling phase for each injection and monitoring well. Temporary sound barriers shall meet the following specifications for each location: IW‐1 (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall be installed along the southern and eastern edges of the construction site. The barrier shall be at least 50 feet in Item 10.a. - Page 97
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-37 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments length along the southern edge and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern edge. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 9. IW‐2A and IW‐2B (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites. The barrier shall be at least 50 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern edge. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9. IW‐3 (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 22 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 18. IW‐5A, IW‐5B, and MW‐5A/5B/5C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall be installed along the western and northern edges of the construction sites. The barrier shall be at least 50 feet in length along the western edge and at least 100 feet in length along the northern edge. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 8. MW‐1A/1B and MW‐3A/3B (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the Item 10.a. - Page 98
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-38 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 50 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9. MW‐1C/1D and MW‐2D/2E/2F (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 15 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 50 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 15. MW‐2A/2B/2C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9. MW‐3D/3E (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 12 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 50 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 7. MW‐4C/4D (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 14 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty Item 10.a. - Page 99
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-39 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 11. MW‐5D/5E/5F (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 24 feet in height, surround all active heavy‐duty equipment at the construction sites, and be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western side. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 20. The City shall provide a non‐automated telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise during all phases of construction. The City shall maintain a log of complaints and shall address complaints to minimize noise issues for neighbors. Upon selection of the location of the new production well, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to determine the construction noise reduction measures necessary to reduce daytime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers and nighttime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 55 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers. The acoustical analysis shall only evaluate the construction noise impacts of the new production well if proposed construction activities are located within 1,620 feet of Item 10.a. - Page 100
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-40 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments sensitive receivers, as measured from the center of the construction site. The acoustical analysis shall include the following components: Identification of the nearest noise‐sensitive receivers to the location of the new production well; Quantitative analysis of construction noise levels for the production well at the nearest noise‐sensitive receivers; and Identification of noise reduction measures that would achieve compliance with the aforementioned exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, use of mufflers, portable sound enclosures, and temporary sound barriers and/or blankets. The City or its contractor(s) shall implement all noise reduction measures identified in the acoustical analysis. N‐2: Acoustical Analysis of ATF Complex Operations Upon completion of the 30 percent design for the ATF complex and selection of equipment, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared to determine whether combined operational noise levels from stationary noise‐generating equipment, including but not limited to the pump station, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, and treatment equipment, will exceed the following noise standards: Exterior noise level limits, measured at the property line of residential land use (Grover Beach Municipal Code Section 3120.8, Table 1): 1. Prepare and review acoustical analysis for the ATF complex 2. Implement recommended noise attenuation measures for the ATF complex, as needed 1. Upon completion of 30 percent design of ATF complex 2. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the ATF complex 1. Once 2. Once City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 101
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-41 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments 60 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 dBA Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Stationary equipment noise standards, measured at the property line of the receiving land use (Grover Beach Municipal Code Section 3120.10[B][6]):1 60 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at single‐family residential land uses 65 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at multi‐family residential land uses 70 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at mixed use residential/commercial land uses Interior noise limits, measured at the interior of habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms) of the affected residential use (Grover Beach Municipal Code Section 3120.9): 45 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 40 dBA Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. If operational noise levels would exceed any of the noise level limits, the acoustical analysis shall provide recommended attenuation measures to reduce operational noise levels below the standards. The City shall implement these measures at the ATF complex. Measures may include, but would not be limited to: Siting the pump station and/or HVAC equipment away from noise‐sensitive land uses Orienting the pump station and/or ATF building such that louvers face away from noise‐sensitive land uses Installing a sound barrier (e.g., a wall, berm, or combination or both) of sufficient 1 Per GBMC Section 3120.10(B)(6), any stationary noise source that operates between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is required to obtain an Exception Permit. Item 10.a. - Page 102
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-42 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments height and length to break the line of sight between noise‐sensitive land uses and noise sources at the ATF complex Screening HVAC equipment Installing HVAC equipment on the rooftop rather than at ground‐level Transportation T‐1: Transportation Management Plan A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be developed and implemented by the City, South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, and/or their construction contractor(s) during construction of the proposed project. The TMP shall conform to California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation Management Plan Guidelines and shall include but is not limited to: Construction Traffic Routes and Staging Locations: The TMP shall identify construction staging site locations and potential road closures, alternate routes for detours, and planned truck routes for construction‐related vehicle traffic, including but not limited to haul trucks, material delivery trucks, and equipment delivery trucks. It shall also identify alternative safe routes and policies to maintain safety along bicycle and pedestrian routes during construction. Construction traffic routes shall avoid local residential streets to the maximum extent practicable. Staging locations, alternate detour routes, and construction traffic routes shall avoid other active construction projects within 0.25 mile of the project construction sites to the maximum extent practicable. 1. Prepare TMP and submit for approval to the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building and the City of Grover Beach Community Development 2. Review preliminary report of existing roadway conditions 3. Review reports of any damage and associated repairs to the roadway network 4. Review documentation of coordination with emergency services, recreation facilities, South County Transit, schools, Caltrans, and nearby construction sites 5. Review documentation of public notification 6. Field verify implementation of TMP measures 1. Prior to the start of construction of each project component 2. Prior to the start of construction of water distribution pipelines 3. During construction of water distribution pipelines 4. Prior to the start of construction each project component 5. Prior to the start of construction each project component 6. During construction of each project component 1. Once for each project component 2. Once for each project component 3. Once for each project component 4. Once for each project component 5. Once 6. Periodically during construction of City of Pismo Beach Item 10.a. - Page 103
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-43 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Damage Repair: The TMP shall include the following requirements to minimize damage to the existing roadway network: A list of precautionary measures to protect the existing roadway network, including but not limited to pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage structures, shall be outlined. The construction contractor(s) shall be required to implement these measures throughout the duration of construction of the water distribution pipelines. The roadway network along the proposed water distribution alignment(s) shall be surveyed prior to the start of project construction activities, and existing roadway conditions shall be summarized in a brief report. Any damage to the roadway network that occurs as a result of project construction activities shall be noted, and the project sponsors shall repair all damage. Coordination with Emergency Services: The TMP shall include requirements to notify local emergency response providers, including Five Cities Fire Authority, the San Luis Obispo Sheriff Department, ambulance services, and paramedic services at least one week prior to the start of work within public rights‐of‐way if lane and/or road closures are required. To the extent possible, the City shall minimize the duration of disruptions/closures to roadways and critical access points for emergency services. each project component Item 10.a. - Page 104
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-44 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Coordination with Recreation Facilities: The TMP shall require coordination with owners/operators of any affected recreational facilities to minimize the duration of disruptions/closures to recreational facilities, trails, and adjacent access points. Coordination with South County Transit: If the proposed project will affect access to existing South County Transit bus stops, the TMP shall also include temporary, alternative bus stops and directional signage, as determined in coordination with South County Transit. Coordination with Schools: The TMP shall require coordination with the Lucia Mar Unified School District in the study area to minimize construction impacts during the regular school year. Coordinate with Caltrans: If the proposed project requires lane and/or road closures of SR 1, the TMP shall require coordination with Caltrans to ensure the TMP conforms with Caltrans’ Transportation Management Plan Guidelines. Coordination with Nearby Construction Sites: The TMP shall identify all active construction projects within 0.25 mile of project construction sites and require coordination with the applicants and/or contractors of these projects during all phases of construction regarding the following: All temporary lane and/or roadway closures shall be coordinated to limit overlap of roadway closures All major deliveries and haul truck trips shall be coordinated to limit the Item 10.a. - Page 105
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-45 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments occurrence of simultaneous deliveries and haul truck trips The City, its contractor(s), or its representative(s) shall meet on a regular basis with the applicant(s), contractor(s) or their representative(s) of active construction projects within 0.25 mile of the project construction sites during construction to address any outstanding issues related to construction traffic. Transportation Control and Safety: The TMP shall provide for traffic control measures including flag persons, warning signs, lights, barricades, cones, and/or detour routes to provide safe passage of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and access by emergency responders. Plan Approval: The TMP shall be submitted to County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building and the City of Grover Beach Community Development Department for review and approval. Public Notification: Prior to the start of construction, written notice shall be provided regarding potential land and/or road closures as described in the TMP. Notice shall be delivered to potentially affected properties within a 500‐foot radius of the project construction sites. The notice shall contain a brief description of the work, work dates, and contact information of the City’s Planning Division. The notice shall be delivered ten calendar days prior to beginning the work and again at two working days prior to beginning the work. The notice shall be in the form of a door hanger made of index paper with a size of 14 inches by 4.5 inches. The notice Item 10.a. - Page 106
City of Arroyo Grande Central Coast Blue Project A-46 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments shall be printed in both in English and Spanish. A revised notice shall be delivered in the event of delays in schedule as soon as reasonably possible after a delay is identified and the revised schedule is known. IW = injection well; MW = monitoring well; dBA = A‐weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level Item 10.a. - Page 107
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 10.a. - Page 108