Grover Beach City Council
February 15, 2022

AGENDA

GROVER BEACH CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022, 6:00 PM
Next Resolution No .22-03
Next Ordinance No. 22-00
Given public health conditions and consistent with Assembly Bill 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council meetings will be held by teleconference only until further notice.

CALL TO ORDER

CALL TO ORDER

MOMENT OF SILENCE

FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL Council Members Anna Miller, Robert Robert, Daniel Rushing, Mayor Pro Tem Karen Bright, and Mayor Jeff Lee

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
On Monday, January 24, 2022, at 8:40 p.m., the Council met in Closed Session regarding the following items:

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APN No. 060-542-014
Agency Negotiators: City negotiators will be City Manager, Matt Bronson, Community Development Director Bruce Buckingham,
Negotiating Parties: Unknown
Under Negotiation: Instruction to Negotiators will concern both price and terms of payment.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Consideration of initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (One potential case).

At 9:05 they came back into Open Session and announced that for Item A there were no reportable actions and for Item B it was pulled from the Calendar and not discussed.

Meetings can be viewed on Channel 20 and are live streamed on the City’s website via www.slospan.org. Members of the public may provide public comment during the meeting by calling (805) 321-6639 to provide public comment via phone (the phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting at 6:00 PM) or written public comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to the Council meeting no later than 3:00 PM. If submitting written comments in advance of the meeting, please note the agenda item. Written comments will be read out loud during the City Council meeting on the appropriate agenda item subject to the customary 3-minute time limit.

Agenda: Grover Beach City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of the day. The Council should by motion adopt the agenda as presented or as revised.

CEREMONIAL CALENDAR

PRESENTATIONS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
During this time, the Council will allow up to 15 minutes for Public Communication with additional communication, if necessary, allowed after the Regular Business Items. Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed three minutes total on any item of interest within the jurisdiction of this Council. The Council will listen to all communications; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot act on items not on the agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. Recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. Members of the audience may speak on any item(s) listed on the Consent Agenda. Any Council Member, the City Attorney, or the City Manager may request that an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow for full discussion. Items withdrawn from the Consent Agenda will be heard after the rest of the Consent Agenda is approved.

1. Minutes of the City Council Meeting on Monday, January 24, 2022. (Recommended Action: Approve the minutes as submitted or revised.)

VOICE VOTE

2. Adoption of Findings Related to AB 361 Allowing Continued Teleconferencing Meetings – City Attorney Hale
(Recommended Action: Adopt required findings with respect to the City of Grover Beach’s continued utilization of teleconferencing meetings in conformance with AB 361 (Government Code Section 54953.)

VOICE VOTE

3. COVID-19 Response Update – City Manager Bronson
(Recommended Action: Receive an update on the countywide and City response to the COVID-19 pandemic.)

VOICE VOTE

PUBLIC HEARING
None

REGULAR BUSINESS

4. Pilot Program to Co-locate Four Pickleball Courts at the Mentone Basin Park Tennis Court – Parks and Recreation Director Petker
(Recommended Action: Approve the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission to start a pilot program to co-locate four pickleball courts at the Mentone Basin park tennis court.)

ROLL CALL VOTE
Agenda: Grover Beach City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

5. Central Coast Blue Cost Sharing Agreement and State Revolving Fund Loan Application – City Manager Bronson and Public Works Director/City Engineer Ray (Recommended Action: Approve the Central Coast Blue Cost Sharing Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City and adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to file an application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the project.)

ROLL CALL VOTE

6. Homelessness Response Update – City Manager Bronson
(Recommended Action: Receive an update on the current status of the City’s response to homelessness in Grover Beach and actions the City is taking to address this issue and provide input and directions to staff.)

7. Adoption of Community Grants Policy – Deputy City Manager Eriksson (Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution approving a Community Grants Policy for providing assistance to community-based organizations to provide services or programs for Grover Beach Residents.)

ROLL CALL VOTE

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed three minutes total on any item of interest within the jurisdiction of this Council. The Council will listen to all communications; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot act on items not on the agenda.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating.

Five Cities Fire Joint Powers Authority Jeff Lee (Alt: Daniel Rushing) South SLO County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) Jeff Lee (Alt: Karen Bright) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Karen Bright (Alt: Anna Miller) SLO Council of Governments / SLO Regional Transit Authority Karen Bright (Alt: Anna Miller) (SLOCOG / SLORTA)
South County Transit Committee Karen Bright (Alt: Anna Miller) Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) Anna Miller (Alt: Jeff Lee) REACH SLO Advisory Commission Anna Miller (Alt: Robert Robert) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Robert Robert (Atl: Karen Bright) SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) Robert Robert (Alt: Staff) South County Chambers of Commerce Daniel Rushing (Alt: Karen Bright) Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee Daniel Rushing (Alt: Anna Miller) Zone Three Advisory Committee Daniel Rushing (Atl: Karen Bright) League of California Cities - Policy Committee Reports and Other League Matters Transportation, Communication & Public Works Policy Committee Jeff Lee Agenda: Grover Beach City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
This item gives individual Council Members the opportunity to seek consensus for scheduling a specific item on a future agenda, authorizing staff time to provide background information and prepare a staff report for a future agenda, or to comment on Council business, City operations, projects or other items of community interest.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS AND COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORTS AND COMMENTS

CLOSED SESSION
It is the intention of the City Council to meet in Closed Session concerning the following item:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
In accordance with subsection (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code City of Grover Beach v. Albert Bruce et.all., 21CV0452

ADJOURNMENT
* * * * *
Per Resolution No. 17-21, the public portion of City Council meetings will be scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m. and conclude no later than 11:00 p.m. Any open session items remaining on the agenda at 11:00 p.m. that have not been discussed or considered by the City Council will be continued to an adjourned meeting of the City Council (scheduled before the next regular meeting). However, the City Council may choose to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. upon a proper motion and a 4/5ths vote in favor of such an action. * * * * *
Staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are available from the City website www.groverbeach.org and on file in the City Clerk’s Office. A public counter copy is available for public inspection and reproduction during normal business hours at City Hall, 154 South 8th Street, Grover Beach, CA. Related materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available in the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the appropriate City Department. Any writings or documents regarding any item on this agenda, not exempt from public disclosure, provided to a majority of the City Council and distributed subsequent to distribution of the agenda packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office during normal business hours.
* * * * *
Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions or call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 473-4567 for more information.
* * * * *
The agenda and staff reports are also available on the City’s website: www.groverbeach.org

CITY OF GROVER BEACH

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT AND DECORUM AT COUNCIL MEETINGS (Pursuant to Resolution No. 07-44, adopted 04-16-07, revised 02-18-2020) The City Council and staff welcomes and encourages civic participation and debate on issues. The Council values the public’s opinion and in every Council meeting invite and encourages the public to address the Council on any matter of interest. The Council adopted these policies and procedures for appropriate conduct and decorum at Council meetings and establish guidance for public participation during Council meetings.

These policies will foster and provide greater clarity to preserve the intent of open government and maintain a positive environment for public input and City Council decision-making.

1.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – IN GENERAL

1.1 The presiding officer is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times.

1.2 The presiding officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Council member to appeal to the City Council by majority vote. If any appeal is taken, the question shall be “Shall the decision of the presiding officer be sustained” in which event a majority vote of the Council shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order.

1.3 All Council members, staff members and members of the public should speak respectfully and avoid the use of profanity, vulgarity and slanderous comments. Recognizing that the First Amendment precludes the City Council form prohibiting speakers from speaking based upon the content of their speech, the presiding officer shall use their best efforts, short of enforcement action, to remind and encourage all participating in the meeting to keep their speech respectful towards others and within bounds appropriate for children and persons of sensitivity toward course language as a courtesy to others present or otherwise viewing Council meetings.

2.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – COUNCIL MEMBERS

2.1 Manner of Speaking.

Any Council member desiring to speak shall first address the presiding officer. Upon recognition by the presiding officer, the Council member shall speak only to the question under debate.

2.1(a) Questioning Staff.

A Council member desiring to question the staff should address his question to the City Manager, or, in appropriate cases, the City Clerk or City Attorney, who shall be entitled either to answer the inquiry or to designate some staff member for that purpose. Such a designation may be made at the time of any staff presentation or on the agenda listing for the item.

2.1(b) Interruptions.

Once recognized, a Council member shall not be interrupted while speaking unless called to order by the presiding officer; unless a point of order is raised by another Council member, or unless the speaker chooses to yield to questions from another Council member.

3.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – STAFF

3.1 City Manager Responsibilities
The City Manager is responsible for ensuring that members of the administrative staff observe the rules of decorum and order set forth in this Policy.

3.2 Addressing the City Council
Any administrative staff member desiring to address the City Council or members of the public shall first be recognized by the presiding officer. All remarks shall be addressed to the presiding officer and not to any individual Council Member or member of the public. Administrative staff members shall accord the utmost courtesy to the City Council, other administrative staff members and the public.

4.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

4.1 Addressing the City Council
Any member of the public desiring to address the City Council or members of the public shall first be recognized by the presiding officer at the appropriate place on the agenda. All remarks shall be addressed to the presiding officer and not to any individual Council Member, City Manager, City Attorney or member of the administrative staff or member of the public.

4.2 Time Limitation for Addressing the City Council
Public comment when addressing the City Council shall be generally limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. Depending on the extent of the agenda and the number of persons desiring to speak on an issue, the presiding officer may, at the beginning of the hearing, set a different time limit for each speaker. Any person may speak for a longer period of time upon approval from the presiding officer, when deemed necessary, for instance when a person is speaking on behalf of a group or has a graphic or slide presentation requiring more time.

4.3 Failure to Yield, Disruptions
Any person who refuses to relinquish the floor after their allotted time or while attending the City Council meeting engages in conduct or speech which disrupts the business of the meeting shall be brought to order and/or removed from the room if the sergeant-at-arms is so directed by the presiding officer.

Disruptive remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, clapping, whistles, yells and similar demonstrations shall not be permitted by the presiding officer who may direct the sergeant-at-arms to remove such offenders from the room.

4.4 Prosecution
Aggravated cases shall be prosecuted on appropriate complaint signed by the presiding officer.

5.0 ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM

5.1 The Chief of Police or his designee shall be the ex-officio sergeant-at-arms of the City Council. The sergeant-at-arms shall carry out all legal and valid orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum in the Council Chamber. Upon instructions from the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant-at-arms to remove any disorderly person from the Council Chambers or place the disorderly person under arrest or both.

5.2 As set forth in Government Code Section 54957.9, in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible or impedes the ability of the Council to hold the meeting, and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the presiding officer may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Duly accredited representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this Section. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City Council from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2022
Given public health conditions and consistent with Assembly Bill No. 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council meetings will be held by teleconference only until further notice.

CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lee called the meeting to order on Monday, January 24, at 6:00 p.m., with all Council Members teleconferencing.

MOMENT OF SILENCE
FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was led by Deputy City Manager Eriksson.

ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Anna Miller, Robert Robert, Daniel Rushing, Mayor Pro Tem Karen Bright and Mayor Jeff Lee were present via video conference.

City Staff: City Manager Matthew Bronson, City Attorney David Hale, Deputy City Manager Kristin Eriksson City Clerk Wendi Sims, Police Chief John Peters, Community Development Director Bruce Buckingham, Administrative Services Director Deanne Purcell, Parks & Recreation Program Kathy Petker, and Deputy City Clerk Nicole Retana were also present.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Attorney Hale stated there was no closed session announcements.

AGENDA REVIEW
City Attorney Hale discussed a revision to the Closed Session items on the agenda to remove Item B.

Action: Upon unanimous consensus, the Council adopted the modified agenda.

CEREMONIAL CALENDAR
None

PRESENTATIONS
None.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS The Mayor opened the floor to any member of the public calling into the meeting on the teleconference line (805) 321-6639, for comment on items of interest which were within the jurisdiction of the City Council but were not listed on the agenda. No one responded and the Mayor closed the Public Communications segment for this portion of the meeting.

Agenda Item No. 1
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2
Monday, January 24, 2021

CONSENT AGENDA
Prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda, Mayor Lee invited public comment on the items under the Consent Agenda. At this time Mayor Lee asked if there was anyone on the teleconference line that wanted to make any public comments there was on one so Mayor Lee closed public comment.

It was motioned by Mayor Pro Tem Bright and seconded by Council Member Robert to approve Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as recommended. The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members – Miller, Robert, Rushing, Mayor Pro Tem Bright, and Mayor Lee
NOES: Council Members - None.

ABSENT: Council Members - None
ABSTAIN: Council Members - None

1. Treasurer’s Report for the Period December 1, through December 31, 2021.

Action: Approved the Treasurer’s Report as submitted.

2. Treasurer’s Report for the 2017 Streets Bond Account - $15,000,000 (Measure K14:

Grover Beach Street Rehabilitation; Safety Improvement Bond Measure) for the Period December 1, through December 31, 2021.

Action: Approved the Treasurer’s Report as submitted.

3. Minutes of the City Council Meeting on Monday, January 10, 2022.

Action: Approved minutes as submitted.

4. COVID-19 Response Update
Action: Received an update on the countywide and City response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Lease Agreement for City-Owned Commercial Space
Action: Approved a one-year lease agreement with a one-year extension available between the City and Monarch Grove Winery, Inc. for the City-owned commercial space at 180 Highway 1 and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.

6. Authorization to Examine Sales and Use Tax Records from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to MuniServices and Authorized City Staff
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-03 authorizing the Examination of Sales and Use Tax Data with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

Resolution No 21-03: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California, Authorizing the Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records.

Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3
Monday, January 24, 2021

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. Third Public Hearing on the Creation of a District-Based City Council Election System and Consideration of Draft District Maps
Mayor Lee read the title to the foregoing item, declared the Public Hearing open, and deferred to staff for a report.

City Manager Bronson introduced Deputy City Manager Eriksson who began the presentation via PowerPoint and introduced Dr. Daniel Phillips who continued the presentation.

City staff and Council reviewed all maps received and options available to Council.

Mayor Lee invited public comment on this matter. No public comments were received at this time and the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.

Council discussed map selections and Dr. Phillips reviewed the interactive map.

Mayor Lee reopened public comment on this matter.
• Krista Jeffries
No further public comments were received at this time and the Mayor closed public comment.

Action: It was motioned by Council Member Miller seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Bright to direct Staff to adjust maps to even out population for version 2 of map 901 and proceed with (four) Draft District Maps (901a; 901b; 904 and 905) and provide outreach to the Community. The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members – Miller, Robert, Rushing, Mayor Pro Tem Bright, and Mayor Lee
NOES: Council Members - None.

ABSENT: Council Members - None
ABSTAIN: Council Members - None

REGULAR BUSINESS
None.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS The Mayor opened the floor to any member of the public calling into the meeting on the teleconference line (805) 321-6639, for comment on items of interest which were within the jurisdiction of the City Council but were not listed on the agenda. No one was on the line for public comment.

Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4
Monday, January 24, 2021

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Member Robert reported on the SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC).

Council Member Rushing discussed the Zone Three Advisory Committee meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Bright reported on the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) meeting.

Mayor Lee reported on the Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) and 5 Cities Fire Joint Powers Authority meetings.

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITES – POLICY COMMITTEE REPORTS AND OTHER LEAGUE

MATTERS
None.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Bright commented on an email received regarding streetlights.

Mayor Lee discussed the concern from the Community regarding homeless issues and Homeless services.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS AND COMMENTS
City Manager Bronson highlighted that approximately 25 streets were under repair, including the major street work on South Oak Park along with water line work and thanked the public for being patient and flexible. He discussed the $10 million dollar street bond and that the City received a Double AA Bond rating which allowed us to receive a low interest rate of 2.8%. He mentioned the return of the Buy Local Program on February 1st and the Visit Grover Beach Tourism Marketing Brand is a finalist for a Statewide Award called the Poppy Award, for Best Overall Destination Marketing Plan. And lastly, he shared news about the Co-workspace with the South Chambers of Commerce, the Cal Poly Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the County of San Luis Obispo located at 391 Front Street.

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.

Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5
Monday, January 24, 2021

CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dave Hale announced closed session items.

The Mayor opened the floor to any member of the public calling into the meeting on the teleconference line (805) 321-6639, for comment on Closed Session. No one was on the line for public comment.

At 8:40 p.m., the Council met in Closed Session regarding the following items:

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APN No. 060-542-014
Agency Negotiators: City negotiators will be City Manager, Matt Bronson, Community Development Director Bruce Buckingham,
Negotiating Parties: Unknown
Under Negotiation: Instruction to Negotiators will concern both price and terms of payment.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Item has been taken off calendar.

Closed Session Announcements: At 9:05 p.m., Mayor Lee reconvened the meeting in open session with all Council Members present and it was announced that there were no reportable actions taken during Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Lee adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
_____________________________

JEFF LEE, MAYOR
Attest:
______________________________

WENDI SIMS, CITY CLERK
(Approved at CC Mtg ______)
Agenda Item No. 2

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: David Hale, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adoption of Findings Related to AB 361 Allowing Continued Teleconferencing Meetings

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt required findings with respect to the City of Grover Beach’s continued utilization of teleconferencing meetings in conformance with AB 361 (Government Code Section 54953).

BACKGROUND:

Assembly Bill (AB) 361, now reflected in Government Code Section 54953, amended and codified the modified Brown Act provisions implemented by Executive Orders of the Governor in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the provisions of the Brown Act modified by the Governor’s Orders were provisions for participation in legislative meetings by teleconferencing by phone or video platforms such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom. The Brown Act previously required that in the event any legislative body member(s) wished to participate in a meeting remotely, the exact address of the remote location(s) had to be published in advance of the meeting agenda with the remote location(s) available for public participation and comment.

Governor’s Orders N-29-20 and N-08-21 effectively suspended these provisions for health and safety reasons, making it possible for legislative body members to join a meeting virtually without the need for conducing advance noticing or providing direct public access to the location. Effective October 1, 2021, AB 361 due to the Governor’s Executive Order N-15-21 functionally codified these provisions through January 2024, allowing agencies to avail themselves of the continued teleconferencing option if desired, provided that the legislative body makes certain findings as outlined below (Government Code Section 54953 (e)(3):
(3) If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Gov. Code, § 54953
Staff Report: AB 361 Findings for Continued Teleconferencing Meetings Page 2 February 15, 2022
The City Council began its use of AB 361 provisions after the bill’s effective date of October 1, 2021, by continuing to hold a teleconferencing meeting using Microsoft Teams on October 5, 2021. Thus, the Council will be required to adopt findings before any virtual meeting it wishes to hold more than 30 days after October 5, 2021 and is required to make similar findings every 30 days thereafter as long as Council desires to avail itself of the modified teleconferencing procedures found within AB 361.

AB 361 also requires that the public be given the opportunity to address the legislative body with their comments in real time, which the City has provided continuously since the start of the pandemic and will continue to do so. In addition, the bill requires that meeting proceedings be stopped if the public’s virtual access to a meeting is disrupted, for example due to an internet outage. The City has also complied with these new regulations since the beginning of the pandemic. Should the Council choose to hold a hybrid meeting with some or all members participating in person, and some or all of the public participating virtually, staff will monitor the virtual meeting component to assure that public access is not interrupted and pause meeting proceedings in the event of a disruption.

To provide both legal compliance and practical flexibility during ongoing uncertain circumstances, staff recommends that, by minute order, the City Council must adopt the following findings with respect to the City of Grover Beach’s utilization of the provisions of AB 361, relating to Brown Act teleconferences:

Findings
1) The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency created by the coronavirus pandemic.
2) The following circumstances exist:
a) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the Council Members to meet safely in person.
b) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the recommended findings.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Approve the Findings required in AB 361 for compliance with Government Code Section 54953 and assure the flexibility for conducting future virtual City Council meetings, or

2. Give alternate direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

Agenda Item No. 3

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
SUBJECT: COVID-19 Response Update

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the countywide and City response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND
The City continues its work in addressing the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic following the direction of the County Public Health Department in coordination with other local agencies. The following is an update on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic in the county as well as the City’s continued response since the last regular Council meeting on January 24.

As of February 9, San Luis Obispo County has had a total of 49,270 confirmed COVID-19 cases with 35 current hospitalizations including eight in the ICU and 1,571 active cases at home. This is an 25% increase in total cases over the past three weeks though nearly a 30% decrease in active cases. Hospitalizations have also decreased by 35% over the past three weeks and the 14-day average number of new daily cases is now 389 which is significantly down from the alltime high of 649 on January 28.

In South County, there has been a total of 13,554 confirmed cases (approximately 28% of countywide cases) with 4,461 in Arroyo Grande, 4,068 in Nipomo, 2,406 in Grover Beach, 1,562 in Oceano, and 1,057 in Pismo Beach. Current case numbers in Grover Beach per 1,000 residents (185) continue to be lower than Oceano (223), Arroyo Grande (248), and Nipomo (254), though higher than Pismo Beach (132). There has been approximately a 35% increase in cases in Grover Beach over the past three weeks which is somewhat higher than the countywide trends in case numbers.

COVID metrics in January including cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were at the highest level since the beginning of the pandemic as predicted due to the transmission of the omicron variant.

However, conditions in the past couple of weeks have improved rapidly as seen in the decrease in hospitalizations from the peak experienced in January. This downward trend in hospitalization as well as cases was expected from the experience with the omicron variant in other parts of the country and in other countries. Given these improvements, the State on February 8 announced that the statewide mask order for indoor public places would expire beginning February 16. This mandate would still remain in place for unvaccinated individuals as well as for all individuals in higher risk settings such as public transit, child care centers, homeless shelters, and schools. San Luis Obispo County announced a similar lifting of the County’s mask order for indoor public spaces in alignment with the State.

Staff Report: COVID-19 Response Update Page 2
February 15, 2022
Vaccines are available for everyone ages 5 and up with boosters also available for ages 12 and up who received their vaccination five months ago. Approximately 67% of residents in San Luis Obispo County ages 5 and up have been fully vaccinated with 73% of residents at least partially vaccinated and 27% unvaccinated. In addition, approximately 51% of fully vaccinated residents have received a booster. Approximately 63% of residents ages 5 and up in Grover Beach are fully vaccinated and 70% partially vaccinated for reference. The rate of vaccination in the county continues to increase slowly towards the desired goal of 70%-80% of residents fully vaccinated.

The City continues to work with the County on outreach and mobile clinics in addition to the Public Health clinic at 286 South 16th Street. One of the County’s three testing sites is also located in Grover Beach at 1336 Ramona Avenue.

City Hall counter hours remain 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday to provide inperson public access during normal business hours in addition to access electronically though email or on the City’s website or over the phone. The counter is closed on Fridays to allow additional time for staff to process applications, issue permits, and carry out other administrative tasks. Employees are working primarily in the office however remote work is being carried out by some employees particularly with caregiving needs or who work in more open workspaces.

Council meetings remain virtual for now with a call-in function available for the public to make comments. However, staff is accelerating plans to return to in-person Council meetings given the upcoming expiration of the statewide and county mask orders with in-person meetings anticipated to resume shortly as COVID metrics continue to improve.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Receive an update on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic; or

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

Agenda Item No. 4

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Kathy Petker, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Pilot Program to Co-locate Four Pickleball Courts at the Mentone Basin Park Tennis Court

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission to start a pilot program to co-locate four pickleball courts at the Mentone Basin Park tennis court.

BACKGROUND:

Pickleball, a combination of tennis, badminton, and ping pong, has seen a significant increase in participation in recent years and was declared the “the fastest growing sport in America” by The Economist. This popularity is due to its ease to play on a smaller court than tennis, ability get a workout for all ages, and fun atmosphere amongst players. The number of places to play pickleball has more than doubled since 2010, and according to USA Pickleball Association there are now nearly 8,000 known public and private locations. The spread of the sport is attributed to its popularity within community centers, PE classes, YMCA facilities, and retirement communities. It should be noted that pickleball, as compared to tennis, is considered a relaxed, fun, boisterous sport where all ages are playing amongst each other.

Within San Luis Obispo County, nearly every jurisdiction has pickleball courts including private gym businesses and public agencies. Due to the smaller dimension requirements of court size (20’ x 44’) for both singles and doubles, installing a co-located or blended tennis/pickleball court includes the ability to offer 1 tennis court along with 1, 2, 3 or 4 pickleball courts. While the maximum number of players playing tennis on one court is four people playing doubles, the maximum number playing pickleball using the same space is 16 playing on four courts which further activates the park space. There are currently no pickleball courts in Grover Beach though the City frequently receives requests from the public to add such courts.

At the January 20, 2022 Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission meeting, the Commission considered a proposal from staff to begin a pilot program to co-locate four pickleball courts at an existing tennis court at either Mentone Basin Park or Hero Park. The Commission ultimately recommended that Council approve such a pilot program at the Mentone Basin Park tennis court as this court is centrally located and would continue to allow full-time tennis play at Grover Heights Park (2 courts) and at Hero Park (1 court). This pilot program would provide staff with an opportunity to gauge the co-located use for consideration of permanent changes. In general, tennis and pickleball hours at the Mentone Basin Park court would be designated for priority hours of each sport respectively on a daily basis.

Staff Report: Pilot Program to Co-Locate Pickleball Courts at Mentone Basin Park Tennis Court Page 2 February 15, 2022
Staff has subsequently consulted a local sports court company (Tennis Warehouse) and invited their staff to inspect the Mentone Basin tennis court. Staff also consulted with the lead volunteer from the City of Arroyo Grande Pickleball Club (John Rogers) who was a former Recreation Director with the City of Arroyo Grande and City of Grover Beach. Staff also met with a sports court surfacing company to review dimensions and temporary paint line estimates. Furthermore, staff consulted with local agencies to assist with establishing guidelines that would include designated tennis and pickleball play times as well as receiving information on how to implement a selfregulating pickleball club. Club members would essentially assist with setting up nets and providing gear along with locking items in a storage area to be determined with assistance of the Public Works Department.

Below are other highlights of this pilot program for the Council’s consideration:
• The existing center net at the Mentone Basin Park tennis court would stay in place for tennis play and would also be used as a divider between pickleball courts to stop astray balls from rolling into other courts
• There would be minimal line striping with the existing tennis court lines • Co-location and timing of use could limit neighborhood parking impacts during high use play times
• Noise impacts on neighbors would be limited to cheering and the sound of paddles hitting a pickleball-similar to a wiffleball
• Allows for “drop-in” play during designated times based on establishing priority times-for example: Monday, Wednesday and Fridays could be drop-in priority time for Pickleball players and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday could be drop-in priority time for tennis players.

If players of the respective sport do not show up for play, then the court would be on a firstcome, first-serve basis which is the generally accepted system used on co-located courts • Allows all players to play due to the rotation of play system for ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ so people are rotating consistently without long wait periods • Volunteer recruitment would be necessary for success in operating this co-located court.

Pending Council approval, staff would work to implement this pilot program to have the co-located courts begin this spring. The pilot program would last through this summer after which point staff would report on the results to the Parks, Recreation, and Beautification Commission and ultimately the Council to consider permanent changes.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost to co-locate the existing tennis court with pickleball courts is $20,000. This would include surface patching and paint color coding of pickleball court overlayed with tennis court lines and respective dimensions; signage, locking storage area, portable rolling nets, leaf blowing equipment, and other needed items such as equipment rental of paddles and pickleballs.

This cost will be absorbed in this year’s operating budget.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following alternative to consider:

1. Approve the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission to start a pilot program to co-locate four pickleball courts at the Mentone Basin Park tennis court;
Staff Report: Pilot Program to Co-Locate Pickleball Courts at Mentone Basin Park Tennis Court Page 3 February 15, 2022

2. Do not approve this recommendation; or

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mentone Basin Park Tennis Court

2. One Tennis Court with One Pickleball Court

3. One Tennis Court with Two Pickleball Courts

4. One Tennis Court with Four Pickleball Courts

5. Tennis and Pickleball Blended Court Lines
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Agenda Item No. 5

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Greg Ray, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Central Coast Blue Cost Sharing Agreement and State Revolving Fund Loan Application

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Central Coast Blue Cost Sharing Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City and adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to file an application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the project.

BACKGROUND:

The Central Coast Blue Recycled Water Project (Project) is a multi-agency effort involving the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach with support from the Oceano Community Services District and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District to construct a regional recycled water project that will enhance groundwater supply reliability by injecting purified water into the groundwater basin. The Project will reduce vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barrier and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater. Phase 1 of the Project proposes to treat wastewater from the City of Pismo Beach to create between 900-1,000 acre-feet of additional water per year. The advanced treatment facility for the Project would be located on Huber Street in Grover Beach and is being designed to allow for future expansion to create additional water supplies if needed.

This innovative multi-agency project was awarded a Helen Putnam Award by Cal Cities in 2021 for regional collaboration. In addition, the project has received five grant awards to date totaling $4.5M and is well-positioned to receive additional grant funding for up to 75% of the project costs.

The project has also received awards for exceptional education and outreach efforts in 2019 at the WateReuse California Annual Conference, and again in 2019 at the 2019 National WateReuse Symposium.

The cities of Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach have been working diligently to develop a Cost Sharing Agreement necessary to provide assurance of funding for the remaining design and construction phases of the Project. This work following an initial Council item on March 22, 2021 where the Council reaffirmed the City Manager’s authority to enter into an Operating Agreement for the Project based on an agreement outline developed by staff of the three cities.

However, this agreement outline was subsequently approved by Arroyo Grande with certain conditions including requiring a Community Workforce Agreement for contractors working on the project. This upfront condition was not supported by Grover Beach and Pismo Beach which then led to an extensive effort by the City Managers of the three cities in summer 2021 to bring the cities back together on this important regional effort to provide additional water supply.

Staff Report: Central Coast Blue Costs Sharing Agreement Page 2 February 15, 2022
The result of this effort was a “Project Delivery and Governance Framework” which was brought to the Council on September 27, 2021. Highlights of the framework included an intent to lower Arroyo Grande’s share of Project costs, review and approval of Project costs by each Council, and formation of a Joint Powers Authority to operate the facilities. The Council indicated support for this framework and authorized the City Manager to negotiate a cost-sharing agreement and Joint Powers Agreement governing the City’s participation in CCB consistent with the framework.

Both Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach took similar action in September/October 2021 which provided necessary direction to staff in the three cities to proceed with development of the Cost Sharing Agreement and related actions. In addition, on November 15, 2021, Pismo Beach took action to obtain the remaining unsubscribed portion of the Project and increase its total share to 39%, with Arroyo Grande’s share at 25% and Grover Beach’s share at 36% pending adoption of the Cost-Sharing Agreement by each respective city.

Overview of Cost Sharing Agreement
Since fall 2021, staff for the three cities have worked to draft a Cost Sharing Agreement based on the revised framework and on January 25, 2022 Arroyo Grande took action to approve the Agreement. This Agreement (shown in Attachment 1) is being presented to the Council for review and approval and will be subsequently considered in Pismo Beach on March 1. Consistent with the revised framework, the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement includes the following key terms:
• The City of Pismo Beach remains lead agency and acts as project developer through final completion of Phase 1 of the Project.
• Costs will be shared by the three cities in proportion to their share of the benefits (water) allocated to the jurisdiction. Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande will reimburse Pismo Beach for their respective shares of the costs of the Project, including all pre-construction and construction costs. Ongoing pre-construction costs will continue to be split between Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach until each party reaches its total contribution amount for its share of pre-construction costs.
• The allocation of costs/shares are as follows:
o Pismo Beach: 39%
o Grover Beach: 36%
o Arroyo Grande: 25%
• The cities will form a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that will own and operate the Project, as well as obtain financing for construction of the Project. The JPA Board of Directors will consist of one representative of each city with each member retaining an equal vote on the Board. The JPA will own all Project assets and will employ or contract for the Project’s operations and administrative staff.
• The Agreement calls for the JPA to be formed during the design phase in order to ensure that the JPA is able to obtain financing for the Project. The Agreement also acknowledges the intent for the JPA to apply for and obtain financing from the state Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and, if financing is not available to the JPA through the CWSRF, that the parties may independently seek financing from the CWSRF. • Joint meetings of the three City Councils will be held at least once annually until the Project is constructed to provide a venue for discussion and transparency for the public on the project progress, to receive Project updates, and discuss policy issues as needed (e.g., unexpected timeline extensions, approvals of expenditures beyond the Project budget, etc.).
• A Technical Advisory Committee made up of staff from the three cities may be formed and meet monthly to evaluate pre-construction and construction costs, provide input into formation and operations of the JPA, and present reports at the joint City Council meetings.

Staff Report: Central Coast Blue Costs Sharing Agreement Page 3 February 15, 2022
• Each City Council will review and approve the scope, budget, contingency and procurement for the remainder of pre-construction and construction phases of the Project.

Costs in excess of the agreed-upon budget, plus a 20% contingency, will require approval of all three City Councils. If all three City Councils do not approve any such change order, the parties will meet and confer to arrive at an agreement on the requested change. If this process is unsuccessful, costs will be reduced to below the 20% contingency. • The Agreement does not impose groundwater pumping limitations on participating parties and recognizes the participants’ contribution of new developed water for their exclusive use. The Agreement also acknowledges that Project water will not be transported out of the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) without the prior written approval of the parties.
• An opt-out clause is included to allow exit of a party prior to award of a construction contract as long as the identified share of costs incurred to date are paid by that party. In addition to clarifications regarding formation of the JPA and the intent for the JPA to obtain financing for construction, the Agreement states that a financing plan may be prepared by the parties to describe the intended mechanisms for funding the Project. • The Agreement also states the intent for the JPA to obtain title to the Project site from Pismo Beach now that it has been determined to have the same property tax benefits as ownership by the City of Grover Beach.

The parties anticipate receiving financial assistance from the CWSRF, administered by the State Water Board, for the Project construction costs. The CWSRF provides funding to public agencies for the construction of clean water projects, typically in the form of low interest loans. In December 2021, staff was informed that General Applications for financial assistance from the CWSRF were due by the end of the calendar year for funding anticipated to be received in 2023, when Project construction is planned to begin. After consultation with design consultant Water Systems Consulting (WSC), and State Water Board staff, the partner agencies determined that in order to preserve the best possible opportunities for the Project to receive financial assistance from the CWSRF for all construction costs, each city should submit a General Application to the State Water Board for its respective share of construction costs.

Given this funding requirement and the short timeframe, each city subsequently submitted a preliminary application by December 31, 2021 which now requires an authorizing Resolution in order to finalize filling of the application. In addition, Pismo Beach submitted an application on behalf of the prospective Joint Powers Authority that is anticipated to be formed to own and operate the Project. The attached Resolution (Attachment 2) authorizes the City Manager to finalize the General Application on behalf of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
WSC prepared a Project cost estimate in 2021 that represents the best information available on anticipated costs. The estimate is provided below and includes the Grover Beach portion based on the City’s 36% participation in the project. Pismo Beach will consider award of a contract for Project design, permitting and program management to WSC on February 15 which provides updated costs for portions of the work as shown below.

Category Estimate WSC
Proposal
GB Cost
Final Design $6,157,670 $3,997,855 $1,439,228
Program Management $1,480,427 $1,373,542 $494,475
Permitting $296,085 $965,946 $347,741
Staff Report: Central Coast Blue Costs Sharing Agreement Page 4 February 15, 2022
Construction Management $4,768,442 Not Included $1,716,639 Engineering Services During
Construction $444,128 Not Included $159,886
Construction $37,084,687 Not Included $13,350,487
Total $50,231,438 $6,337,343 $17,508,456
Some important items to note include the following:
• The estimate does not include costs incurred to date (approximately $6.5 million) for property acquisition, planning and preliminary design which have been or will be paid as part of the pre-construction costs.
• The construction cost estimate has an accuracy range from -20% to +30%. This estimate does not reflect current market conditions including inflation and volatility in materials pricing.
• A priority for the next phase of work will be to update the construction cost estimate based on current market conditions.
• The cost estimate reflects the costs to carry out Phase 1 of the Project though this work would provide capacity at the treatment facility and water lines for a future Phase 2 that would involve treating wastewater flows from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for additional treated water.

For the Council’s reference, on March 22, 2021 staff presented cost estimates as supporting documentation for the Wastewater Enterprise rate study that assumed the City could support the project without grant funding. The estimated Project construction cost at that time was $38 million though this cost has risen to $50 million given the inclusion of additional needs including injection wells along with the overall increase in construction costs. Pismo Beach applied for and was awarded a Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Grant application for $1.7 million in grant funding on August 5, 2021. To date, $4,496,094 in federal and State grants have been awarded to fund the Project and it is anticipated that the Project will receive additional federal and State grants that could fund up to 75% of project costs. Based on the revised estimate and grant funding received, staff believes that the City’s approved water rates remain sufficient to fund the City’s share of the Project costs.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Approve the Central Coast Blue Cost Sharing Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City and adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to file an application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project and approve the Statement of Overriding Consideration along with all findings contained within Resolution 21-05, or

2. Provide alternate direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

Staff Report: Central Coast Blue Costs Sharing Agreement Page 5 February 15, 2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. Cost Sharing Agreement

2. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to finalize CWSRF loan application {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

COST SHARING AGREEMENT

FOR PARTIES PARTICIPATION IN THE

CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
THIS COST SHARING AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”), is effective as of __________, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Arroyo Grande, a California municipal corporation (“Arroyo Grande”), City of Grover Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Grover Beach”) and City of Pismo Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Pismo Beach”). The cities may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS:

WHEREAS, in 1983, the Parties hereto entered into a voluntary groundwater management plan to manage the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin, which agreement was updated by the Parties through approval of the 2002 Agreement Regarding Management of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin (the “Management Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2002, the Parties hereto, among others, entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) related to a 1997 groundwater adjudication litigation filed by the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District, which reaffirmed the Management Agreement, established separate water management areas (the “Original Management Areas”) to be independently managed by the Parties and others, and requiring the Parties and others to develop an equitable cost sharing agreement for any newly constructed water resource and water production facilities within the Original Management Areas; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2005, the Parties hereto entered into a stipulation imposing a physical solution for ensuring the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin’s long-term stability (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation adopted a local management approach, establishing three management areas (the “Current Management Areas”) and requiring a monitoring program to be established in each of the Current Management Areas; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2008, the Santa Clara Superior Court entered Judgment in the Santa Maria Groundwater Adjudication litigation approving the Stipulation, without qualification (the “Adjudication Decree”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to participate in the Central Coast Blue Project to construct a regional recycled water project that will enhance supply reliability by injecting advanced purified water into the Northern Cities Management Area of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (“Project”). The Project will reduce vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barrier and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater; and WHEREAS, the Project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the lead agency pursuant to CEQA is Pismo Beach. Both Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach are considered responsible agencies for the Project and are required to make findings Attachment 1
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

for each significant effect of the Project and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and
WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project includes construction of an Advanced Treatment Facility (“ATF”), treatment of all secondary treated flows from Pismo Beach’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”), construction of five injection wells and associated transmission lines, and injection of flows from the WWTP (“Phase 1”). Phase 1 proposes to treat wastewater from Pismo Beach to an advanced purification level to create between nine hundred (900) and one thousand (1,000) acre-feet of additional water per year; and WHEREAS, Phase 2 will include upgrades to the ATF to increase capacity, construction of two additional injection wells and associated transmission lines, and injection of flows from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Phase 2”); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the mechanism for establishing the fair share allotment of the Phase 1 costs in proportion to each Party’s share of the benefits of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the Parties hereby agrees as follows:

ARTICLE I
General Provisions

1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are expressly incorporated as terms of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the Recitals above and Articles I through V of this Agreement, Articles I through V shall prevail.

2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective from the last date of execution by all Parties until the date of issuance of a Notice of Completion of Phase 1 to all other Parties by Pismo Beach (the “Term”).

3. Management Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Management Agreement, the Management Agreement shall prevail.

4. Adjudication Decree. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Adjudication Decree, the Adjudication Decree shall prevail.

5. Developed Water. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the recycled water injected into the ground pursuant to this Agreement, as well as all new developed water subsequently extracted, is New Developed Water as defined in the Adjudication Decree.

6. Municipal Pumping Entitlement. Each Party’s annual allocation of groundwater, as provided in the Management Agreement including agricultural conversion credits, shall remain as follows:
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

Arroyo Grande: 1,323 acre-feet per year.

Grover Beach: 1,407 acre-feet per year.

Pismo Beach: 700 acre-feet per year.

This Agreement in no way limits any Party’s right to pump their respective annual allocation of groundwater under the Adjudication Decree and in no way limits any Party’s right to transfer, sell, or lease their allocation of water consistent with the Adjudication Decree. Further, this Agreement in no way limits any Party’s right to pump their respective share of the recycled water injected into the ground pursuant to this Agreement, as well as all other dependent agreements described herein, for subsequent extraction.

ARTICLE II
Definitions

1. Construction Cost. Means the cost incurred as of the effective date of the first construction contract for Phase 1 of the Project through the determination by the Parties that construction of Phase 1 is complete, including the cost of the purchase of the Facility site for the Project. Construction Cost does not include legal expenses attributable to each Party’s City Attorney, retained counsel or their associates.

2. Enterprise. Means, for purposes of application to the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, 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, rightsof-way and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for such facilities, together with all additions, betterments, extensions and improvements to such facilities or any part thereof hereafter acquired or constructed. For purposes of City of Pismo Beach, the above definition shall include both the Party’s water and wastewater system.

3. Facility or Facilities. Means the advanced water treatment facility that will receive and further treat wastewater influent from Pismo Beach’s WWTP, in Phase 1, 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, injection wells, storage tanks, pump station and associated piping and equipment from the Pismo Beach WWTP.

4. 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 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 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

the Agreement. For purposes of Pismo Beach, this definition will include all income and revenue received as defined by this provision for both the water and wastewater system.

5. Lead Agency. Means the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The lead agency for this Project is Pismo Beach.

6. Net Revenues. “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. For purposes of this provision, Maintenance and Operation Expense means all reasonable expenses incurred by the Party in causing the Enterprise to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order and condition, including payments made to any other municipal corporation or private entity for water service (or other utility service if the Party combines such service in the Enterprise and enters into a contract for such services), but not including any depreciation or taxes levied or imposed by the Party or payments to the Party in lieu of taxes, or capital additions to or capital replacements of any portion of the Enterprise. Net Revenues for the City of Pismo shall mean the above definition as it applies to both the water and wastewater systems.

7. Pre-Construction Cost. Includes the cost of planning, designing and procuring of contracts for professional services required to obtain and perfect any necessary permits, leases, licenses, or other requirements for Phase 1 of the Project, beginning with the 2017 Regional Groundwater Sustainability Program Contract through, but not including award of the first construction contract for Phase 1 of the Project. Pre-Construction Cost does not include legal expenses attributable to each Party’s City Attorney, retained counsel or their associates.

ARTICLE III
Project Delivery and Governance Framework

1. Lead Agency Duties. Pismo Beach will remain Lead Agency and act as project developer through final completion of Phase 1 of the Project. As the Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will act as the construction manager for Phase 1 and will provide administration of Phase 1 on all Parties' behalf. Pismo Beach is hereby authorized and empowered to represent the Parties in construction supervisory and coordination activities, including the authority to issue field work directives and/or change orders on behalf of the Parties, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

As Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will contract for professional services and is responsible for obtaining and perfecting any necessary permits, leases, licenses or other approvals for Phase 1 of the Project, consistent with its own contracting policies. The Parties shall pay their pro rata shares of Pre-Construction costs for any professional service expenses incurred by Pismo Beach in connection with obtaining such Phase 1 approvals, in accordance with Article IV below. a. Contract Awards. Pismo Beach shall adhere to all federal, State, and local laws in awarding contracts for Phase 1 and, to the extent any federal grant funds are used to finance contracts for Phase 1, specifically in compliance with Title 2 of the Federal Code of Regulations, part 200 et seq.
b. Local Hire. Subject to Section 1.a., above, every contractor submitting a bid to Pismo Beach for a public works contract for Phase 1 of the Project shall agree to make a good faith effort to hire individuals who are local residents. A “good faith effort” means a contractor {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

will take the following or similar actions to recruit and maintain residents of San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County as part of the construction workforce:
i. Contact local recruitment sources to identify individuals who are local residents;
ii. Advertise for individuals who are local residents in trade papers and newspapers of general circulation within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties; and
iii. With respect to any portion of a public works contract to be performed by a subcontractor, identify subcontractors whose workforce includes individuals who are local residents.
c. Grant Funding and Financing. As Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will apply for available grant funding for Pre-Construction and Construction Costs of Phase 1 of the Project, including but not limited to Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Grant Funding from the State Water Resources Control Board and Title XVI WaterSMART Water Reclamation and Reuse Grant Funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The Parties may jointly develop a financing plan describing the anticipated mechanisms for obtaining the necessary funding to construct Phase 1 of the Project.

2. Phase 1 Accounting. Pismo Beach will maintain Phase 1 accounting and will invoice the other Parties consistent with the Water Purveyor Contributions identified in Article IV of this Agreement. Pismo Beach shall, on a monthly basis, invoice each Party for its pro rata percentage of the Pre-Construction Costs and Construction Costs incurred by Pismo Beach during such preceding, if not reimbursed by other funding sources, as established in the annual operating budget, and further detailed in Article IV of this Agreement. All Parties agree to pay Pismo Beach’s invoices within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice subject to and consistent with Article IV, Section 4 of this Agreement.

3. Joint Powers Authority. Contemporaneously with preparation of this Agreement, the Parties are negotiating a Joint Powers Agreement to establish a Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”), pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq., that will own and operate the Project and have the power to issue debt and enter into loans or financing agreements to finance the Construction Costs for Phase 1. The Joint Powers Agreement will contain provisions addressing, without limitation, acquisition of the Facility site from Pismo Beach, ownership of the Facility, and financing of Construction Costs, including repayment obligations of the Parties consistent with the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages identified in Article IV, Section 2.a of this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that the JPA shall apply for and obtain financing through the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund for Construction Costs or other financing mechanisms not otherwise covered by grant funding awarded to the Project and for the JPA to comply with all requirements to obtain such financing. The potential loans could be separate installment sale agreements based on the respective share of each Party, and repayment would be paid either directly to the JPA by each Party consistent with the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages identified in Article IV, Section 2.a of this Agreement or directly to the State Water Resources Control Board or bond trustee, depending on the funding {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

mechanism. In the event that the JPA is not able to finance the Construction Costs, the Parties will seek financing consistent with the financing plan described in Article III, Section 1.c above, which may include applications by each Party to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund for its respective share of Construction Costs. Any financing mechanism for construction of Phase 1 of the Project, ownership, and operation of the Facility will be addressed in the Joint Powers Agreement. The Joint Powers Agreement will also contain provisions regarding governance of the JPA that will include, at a minimum, the following requirements: the JPA will be governed by a three-member Board of Directors consisting of one elected official from each Party; each JPA Director will retain equal voting rights on the JPA Board of Directors; and the JPA Board of Directors will meet bi-monthly or quarterly.

4. Parties Review of Construction Scope, Schedule and Budget. Prior to initiating construction, the City Council for each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and approve the scope, schedule, and budget of Phase 1 of the Project. The approved budget for Phase 1 shall include a twenty percent (20%) contingency to allow for appropriate flexibility for contract management by the Lead Agency. Change orders and amendments that exceed twenty percent (20%) of the most recently-approved contract value shall require approval by the City Council for each Party. If a Party does not grant such approval, the Parties will immediately confer in an attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the additional costs below 20% of the current contract value and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Construction Costs in excess of this amount absent a written amendment to this Agreement.

5. Technical Advisory Committee. The City Managers of the Parties may create a temporary Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) to assist the Parties in reviewing the technical aspects of Phase 1 and the Phase 1 budget. The TAC will consist of nine (9) members with three members appointed by each Party’s City Manager. If created, the TAC will be established within one (1) month of the Effective Date and will meet monthly until completion of Phase I of the Project. The TAC will provide technical input on the following: (1) review and suggest any modifications to the pre-construction and construction plans and agreements for Phase 1; (2) assist the Parties in deliberating on technical matters that could be of issue in the development of Phase 1, and make recommendations to be presented to the City Councils of the Parties on all major technical aspects of Phase 1 of the Project; and (3) develop, for consideration by the Parties’ City Councils, joint operational protocols for the JPA to ensure the continued operation of the facilities and viability of the Project in the future. The TAC will be disbanded upon completion of Phase I of the Project.

6. Joint Agency Meetings. During design and construction of Phase 1, the City Councils for each Party will meet jointly at least once but no more than twice per year to provide a venue for discussion and transparency for the public on the progress of Phase 1, to receive Phase 1 updates, and discuss policy issues as needed. The TAC will present a summary of their work and analysis of Phase 1 at all the joint meetings.
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

ARTICLE IV
Pre-Construction and Construction Costs

1. Facility Purchase. Pismo Beach has previously purchased the site for the Facility at a total cost of $1,815,373 (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price shall be included as a Construction Cost of Phase 1 of the Project. The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to Article XIII, Section 11, subdivision (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, as defined in Article IV below, by transferring title of the Facility site to the JPA, or by such other action upon which the Parties may agree.

2. Water Purveyor Contributions. The Parties shall pay their pro rata share of all PreConstruction and Construction Costs incurred by Pismo Beach in connection with Phase 1 of the Project.
a. The Parties agree to the following cost allocation of the total PreConstruction and Construction costs for Phase 1 for each Party:
i. Arroyo Grande shall contribute 25%.
ii. Grover Beach shall contribute 36%.
iii. Pismo Beach shall contribute 39%.
b. Pursuant to Section VII.3(c) of the Stipulation, as adopted by the Adjudication Decree, the Parties may engage in contractual transfers, leases, licenses, or sales of any of their water rights, including voluntary fallowing programs, for drought protection, conservation, or other management purposes; however, no groundwater produced within the Current Management Areas, including water produced by Phase 1 of the Project, may be transported outside of the Current Management Areas without the written agreement of each Party.

3. Pre-Construction Cost Review and Adjustment. Following approval of this Agreement, the City Council for each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and approve the scope, schedule, and budget of the remaining Pre-Construction Costs for Phase 1 of the Project, which will include a twenty percent (20%) contingency to allow for appropriate flexibility for contract management by the Lead Agency. Change orders and amendments that exceed twenty percent (20%) of the current Pre-Construction Cost contract value shall require approval by the City Council for each Party. If a Party does not grant such approval, the Parties will immediately confer in an attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the additional costs below 20% of the current contract value and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Pre-Construction Costs in excess of these amounts absent a written amendment to this Agreement. Cost share percentages for Pre‐ Construction Costs may be temporarily adjusted 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 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

2, above, taking into account the payments already made by Pismo Beach, and the contributions already made by Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande, for Phase 1. Once Pre‐Construction Cost contributions approximate the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages, the remaining PreConstruction 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 2, above, prior to construction, the Parties shall structure the construction financing to achieve the contributions in the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages.

4. Invoicing. Pismo Beach shall, on a monthly basis, invoice each other Party for its pro rata percentage of the expenses incurred, as established in the budget approved by the Party’s City Councils for all Pre-Construction and Construction Costs. 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 as to all non‐disputed charges consistent with this Section, interest may apply at the maximum rate allowed by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Construction Costs financed by the JPA shall be invoiced to and paid by the JPA consistent with any financing agreements entered into by the JPA, including the time frames and other requirements included in the financing agreements. In the event that the JPA does not obtain financing for the Construction Costs and each Party obtains financing for its respective share of Construction Costs, invoices will be paid consistent with the financing agreements entered into by the Parties, including the time frames and other requirements included in the financing agreements. Pismo Beach agrees to provide all documentation necessary for the JPA, or for a Party individually financing its share of the Construction Costs, to receive reimbursements for Construction Costs consistent with the financing agreement entered into by the JPA or the Party.

5. Payment Limitations. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments herein with respect to the Pre-Construction and Construction Costs of Phase 1 or in furtherance of the objective and purpose of this Agreement, is a special, limited obligation payable solely from net revenues of each party’s respective Enterprise fund(s), 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 payments made under this Agreement are payable from net revenues of each party’s respective Enterprise fund(s) on such a basis as is dictated by each Party’s existing debt instruments. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments hereunder or in furtherance of the objective and purpose of this 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 City Councils for an increase in Enterprise 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 attainment of Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Grant Funding by the State Water Resources Control Board.
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

6. Grant Funding. Any grant funding obtained for Pre-Construction or Construction Costs will be applied to reduce the total cost of Phase 1. The Parties’ obligations for such costs shall be reduced according to the contribution percentages set forth in Section 2, above.

ARTICLE V
Miscellaneous

1. Indemnification.
a. Each Party hereto agrees to protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each of the other Parties and their elected officials, 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 in, imposed upon, or incurred by said other Party by reason of the first Party’s breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the Adjudication Decree, the Management Agreement, or applicable federal or State law. This indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
b. Notwithstanding the above indemnity provision, costs and expenses arising from an action challenging the preparation, approval, or certification of the Facility Environmental Impact Report (Facility EIR) or any other document related to certification under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) used by Pismo Beach for the approval of the Project, shall be considered a Pre-Construction Cost subject to pro-rata division. However, if the challenge is successful, Pismo Beach shall pay any award of attorney’s fees.

2. Records. Pismo Beach shall maintain identifiable records regarding any and all costs and expenses subject to this Agreement, including records of billing, payment, and other documents related to the execution of its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties and their designated agents shall have the right to inspect all records maintained by Pismo Beach associated with this Agreement at any time during normal business hours, with fifteen (15) business days’ advanced written notice to Pismo Beach.

3. Assignability. This Agreement shall not be assignable by any Party hereto to any other Party or non-party.

4. No Third Party Beneficiary. This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever.

5. Notice. Any notice or communication required hereunder between the Parties must be in writing and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express, UPS, or other similar couriers providing overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Party whom it is addressed. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the Party to whom notices are to be sent; or {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

(ii) five (5) calendar days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar overnight courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any Party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) calendar days’ written notice to the other Party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below:

To City of Arroyo Grande: Whitney McDonald
City Manager for City of Arroyo Grande
1375 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
With copy to: White Brenner LLP
Attn: Barbara A. Brenner, Esq.
1414 K Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
To City of Grover Beach: Matthew Bronson
City Manager for City of Grover Beach
154 S. Eighth Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
With copy to: David Hale, City Attorney
1233 W. Shaw Ave. Ste. 106
Fresno, CA 93711
To City of Pismo Beach James R. Lewis
City Manager for City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
With copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon
Attn: Dave Fleishman, Esq.
847 Monterey Street, Suite 206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

6. Amendments. No alteration of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties and incorporated into this Agreement.

7. Severability Clause. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

8. Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of interpretation of this Agreement.

9. Opt-out Clause. Any Party may opt-out of this Agreement prior to the award of the first Phase 1 construction contract. Any Party exercising this opt-out clause shall be responsible for their pro rata share of the Pre-Construction Costs as set forth in Article IV up to the date of opting-out.

10. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement, the disputing Party shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of discovery of the event(s) giving rise to the dispute, notify all Parties to this Agreement in writing of the basis for the dispute.

Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of said notice, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to informally resolve the dispute. Except as provided in Article III, Section 4, and Article IV, Section 3, all disputes that are not resolved informally shall be settled by non-binding mediation. Within ten (10) calendar days following the failed informal proceedings, each Party shall nominate and circulate to all other Parties the name of two (2) mediators. Within ten (10) calendar days following the nominations, the Parties shall rank their top three among all nominated mediators, awarding 3 points to the top choice, 2 points to the second choice, and 1 point to the third choice, and zero points to all others. Each Party shall forward its tally to Pismo Beach, who shall tabulate the points and notify the Parties of the name of the mediator with the highest cumulative score, who shall be the selected mediator. In the event of a tie vote, or in the event the selected mediator declines or ceases to act, Pismo Beach may develop a procedure for approval by the Parties for selecting a mediator. Upon completion of mediation, if the controversy has not been resolved, any Party may exercise all rights to bring a legal action relating to the controversy in state or federal court, as applicable.

11. Statutes and Law Governing Contract. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California.

12. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Luis Obispo.

13. Waiver. The Parties’ waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or breach of any other term, condition, or covenant.

14. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled.

15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach relating to Phase 1 of the Project. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect.
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

16. Good Faith. To the extent reasonably required, each Party to this Agreement shall, in good faith, cooperate and assist the other Party in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

17. Authority. The Parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, counties or cities represented, or purported to be represented, by such entities, persons, states, counties or cities and that all former requirements necessary or required by state or federal law in order to enter into the Agreement have been fully complied with. Further, by entering into this Agreement no Party hereto shall have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which such Party is obligated, which such breach would have a material effect hereon.

18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and all such executed counterparts shall constitute the same agreement. It shall be necessary to account for only one such counterpart from and executed by each Party hereto in proving this Agreement.

19. Other Agreements. This Agreement shall not prevent any Party from entering into similar agreements with others. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

20. Drafting and Ambiguities. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement with its own legal counsel, and based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into this Agreement. Each Party has participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement.

Any rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party, does not apply in interpreting this Agreement.
[Signatures on Following Page]
{CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT
City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
a municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________
_______________________, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
_______________________, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________
__________________________, City Clerk

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
A municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________
________________________, City Manger
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
_______________________, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________
__________________________, City Clerk

CITY OF PISMO BEACH
a municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________
_______________________, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
_______________________, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________
__________________________, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH,

CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE APPLICATION 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, 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 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 Grover Beach (“City”) is a Responsible Agency for the Project and is making the requisite CEQA Findings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grover Beach held a hearing on March 22, 2021 to consider and approve the CEQA environmental documents and adopted CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and WHEREAS, as part of that adoption, Council approved Resolution 21-05, which included the purpose of these findings which 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, and
WHEREAS, Resolution 21-05 also included the Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve the project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant impacts that were not subject to feasible mitigation along with an analysis and explanation as to why the project’s benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts, and
WHEREAS, Resolution 21-05 contained the substantial evidence to support those findings as required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093, and Attachment 2
Resolution No. 22- Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grover Beach desires to finance the costs of the Central Coast Blue Project, specifically the CWSRF Project No. C-06-8255-110 Central Coast Blue Project (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach intends to finance the construction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), and WHEREAS, the Cities of Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande and Pismo have negotiated a Cost Sharing Agreement that sets forth those provisions that are necessary to provide assurance of funding for the remaining design and construction phases of the Project, and WHEREAS, staff is requesting Council’s approval of the Cost Sharing Agreement and delegation to the City Manager to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City of Grover Beach.

NOW, THERFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES DELARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

1. The WHEREAS provisions are hereby incorporated by reference as if set out in full.

2. Resolution No. 21-05 containing the Council’s prior review and approval of the EIR and all pertinent CEQA documents as mentioned herein are attached as “Exhibit A” and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set out in full and that all findings contained therein are hereby made as part of the approval of this Project.

3. The City Manager (the “Authorized Representative”) or designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Grover Beach, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Central Coast Blue Project (the “Project”); and

4. This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto; and

5. The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the City of Grover Beach in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

6. The attached Cost Sharing Agreement is hereby approved by the City Council and the City Manager is authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Grover Beach and is delegated to do whatever is necessary to finalize and execute the agreement.

Resolution No. 22- Page 3 of 3
On motion by Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member ____, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members –
NOES: Council Members –
ABSENT: Council Members –
ABSTAIN: Council Members –
RECUSED: Council Members –
the foregoing Resolution was PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California this 15th day of February 2022.

JEFF LEE, MAYOR
Attest:

WENDI B. SIMS, CITY CLERK
**DRAFT**
RESOLUTION NO. 21-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH,

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 Grover Beach ("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 consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093; 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
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
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 21-05 Page 2 of35
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 public meeting to consider the City of Pismo Beach's EIR for this Project; and

NOW, THERFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES DELARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: that the City Council of the City of Grover Beach 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 8, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 3 of 35
On motion by Council Member Bright, seconded by Council Member Robert, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

Council Members - Bright, Miller, Robert and Mayor Lee
Council Members - None
Council Members - None
Council Members - None
Council Members - None
the foregoing Resolution was PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California this 22nd day of March 2021 .

Attest:

LO~~
WENDI B. SIMS, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 21-05 Page 4 of 35

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. Pr".Jduce advanced purified water of a quality that can safely be used to augment groundwater supply while maintaining or improving existing g~oundwater 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 uti:ization of local water supplies.

5. Facilitate continued water resources collaboration in the Northern Cities Management Area.

Ill. 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 pu_rified water into the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMG8). 'This will reduce vulnerabliity to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barri9r and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater. Water for the Project will be sourced from two of the Resolution No. 21-05 Page 5 af 35
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, distributicn 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 reyiew 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, wh:ch 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 seccnd EIR Scoping Meeting on May 8, 2020. From July 20, 2020 to September 3, 2020, the City of Pismo Beach circulated the Draft !::IR (titled "Central Coast Blue Project Draft Environmental Impact Report") for a 45-day public and agency review period pursuant to th~ requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). During this re'iiew 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. R2021-011 .

V. !MPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS
T:11e City -:,f Grover Beach, as a Respcnsible Agency, hereby adopts and makes the following findings related to its respective portion of the Project which requires approval Resolution No. 21-05 Page 6 of 35
of the Project by the City (i.e., the full execution of the Operating Agreement by the City cf Grover Beach, acting as a Responsible Agency, full execution of the Operating Ag,eeme:it by the City of Pismo Beach, acting as the Lead Agency, along with the !:i\1estor, ~J1ember, or Partner Agencies; to undertake the Central Coast Blue Project).

Havi;ig received, reviewed , and considered the entire record, both written and ora!, rel.atFJd to the Central Coast Blue Project and Certified Final EIR, the Citv makes the fo.ll0wing findings associated with sigr:ificant, potentially significant, and cumt.:lative significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level tr.rough implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR.

EIR Consideration Findings
The Final EIR was presented to the City Council at a hearing before the public and reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the Project.

The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgement and analysis as a Responsible Agency.

Aii 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) wo:Jld 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) Feasil;)le and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been requirec' in, or incarporated into, the project that avoid or substantia;ly lessen the significant envir'Jn.77ental 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, fer projects with estimated construction emissions that are expected to exceed the S~_.'.JAPC:D daily thr8sholds of significance and the SLOAPCD quarter!y Tier 1 thresholds of significance, implementation of standard and Best Available Coi1trol Technology Resolution No. 21-05 Page 7 of 35
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 red·Jce 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 Lessthan-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.

Mitigaticn 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 cor.struction equipment during construction-related activities.

Support for Finding: As discussed under Impact AQ-2, the project would exceed SLOAPCD daily and quarterly threshol9s for emissions of ROG + MOx 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 AQ2(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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 8 of 35
Biological Resources
Impact 81,0-1: 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 Lessthan-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 810-1 (a) through 810-1 (k) would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to special-status species. Mitigation measures include: 810-1 (a) "California Red-legged Frog Habitat Avoidance"; 810-1 (b) "California Red-legged Frog Avoidance and Minimization Measures"; 810-1 (c) "Southwestern Pond Turtle Avoidance and Minimization Measures"; 810-1 (d) "Monarch Butterfly Avoidance"; 810-1 (e) "Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures"; Bi0-1 (f) "Biological Resources Assessment"; 810-1 (g) "Special Status Plant Species SuNeys"; 810-1 (h) "Special Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation"; 810-1 (i) "Restoration Plan for Special Status Plant Species"; 810-1 U) "Endangered/Threatened Species Avoidance and Minimization"; and BI0-1 (k) "Non-listed Special Status Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization." su·pport for Finding: Mitigation Measures 810-1 (a) through 810-1 (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 810- 1 (D through 810-1 (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 p;oject components with unknown loca~ions. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures 810-1 (a) through 810-1 (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 Ur.ited States Fish and Wildlife SeNice to a less-than-significant level.

Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-37 through 4.2-44
Impact 810-2 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 Lessthan-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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 9 of 35
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 810-2 "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 810-2 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 810-2 would reduce project impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level.

Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-45 through 4.2-46
Impact 810-3 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 Lessthan-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 BI0-3(a) through BI0-3(c) have been adopted to avoid and minimize impacts to state and federally protected wetlands.

Mitigation measures include: BI0-3(a) "Jurisdictional Delineation"; BI0-3(b) "Drainages and Wetlands Impact Mitigation"; and BI0-3(c) "Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During Construction."
Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures BI0-3(a) through BI0-3(c) require preparation of a jurisdictional delineation to identify jurisdictional areas and implementation of a\,oi.dance, minimization and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate ~or direct and indirect impacts to state or federally protected wetlands from development of the project. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-3(a) through 81-0- 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, fill ing, hydrological interruption, or other means to a less-than-significant level.

Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.2-47 through 4.2-49
Impact 810-5 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 Lessthan-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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 10 of 35
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BI0-5 "Native Tree Inventory, Protection, and Replacement" has been adopted to minimize impacts on native trees in the project area t!1at could potentially be affected by project construction activities.

Support for Finding: Mitigation Measure BI0-5 requires implementation of avoidance, minimization, and · compensation measures for protected trees. As a result, !:i~p~ementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-5 would avoid conflict with any local policies or 0rdinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or o:-,jinance, reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level.

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 Lessthan-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated intot the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant env.;ronrr,ental 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 potentia, impacts on archaeological resources. Mitigation measures include: CR-2(a) "Worker's Environmental Awareness Program"; CR-2(b) "P..F::;haeological and Native American M;:,nitoring"; CR-2(c) "Unanticipated Discovery of Cu!tural 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 a.nd Native American monitN, a!ld evaluation of any unanticipated cultural resources for all project components. !n adc:tion, Mitigatio:1 Measure CR-2(d) requires completion of archaeological resource studies for the agricultural irrigation pipelines and new production well once the locatio!ls 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-thansignificant level.

Reference: Final EIR, Pages 4.3-19 through 4.3-21
Resolution No. 21 -05 Page 11 of 35
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 Lessthan-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 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 Lessthan-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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 12 of 35
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 Oceana 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.

Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-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 Oceana 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 Oceana 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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 13 of 35
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 Lessthan-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially Jessen 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 Lessthan-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially Jessen 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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 14 of 35
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 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 Lessthan-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"; BI0-3(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 BI0-3(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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 15 of 35
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.

Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-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 Lessthan-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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 16 of 35
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.

Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-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 SSLOCSD'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 \/icinity of the project in excess of local standards. This impact would be potentially significant.

Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 17 of 35
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 mitig_ation incorporated.

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 Lessthan-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 IW5A, 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.
1 dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level Resolution No. 21-05 Page 18 of 35
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-Significant Level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as id9ntified 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.

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 Lessthan-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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 19 of 35
Finding: Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible and Required, Impact Reduced to Lessthan-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.

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, Pages4.11-11 through4.11-13and4.11-15through4.11-16 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"; BIO3(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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 20 of 35
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 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 the City within 100 feet of well locations and residents in uni:icorporated 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, Resolution No. 21-05 Page 21 of 35
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 BIO1 U) 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 U) "Endangered!Threatened Species Avoidance and Minimization".

Support for Finding: Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-1U) 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-1 C/1 D 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/1 B, MW2A/2B/2C, and MW-3A/3B as well as the temporary relocation of residents in the City within 100 feet of construction activity in the City 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 noisesensitive 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 . 2 Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Resolution No. 21-05 Page 22 of 35
:t 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 the City 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. 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 statutorilymandated "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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 23 of 35
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, 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 VW\/TPs 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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 24 of 35
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 Oceana. Instead, either all advanced purified water produced from the ATF complex under Phases I and II (approximately 3.9 million 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 \/IM/TPs. 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 E!R.

Alternative 3: ATF Complex at SSLOCSD \/IM/TP
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. 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 suppl ies.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 25 of 35
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 \/WI/TP facility at 1600 Aloha Place in Oceana. 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, 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 MW2A/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 IW1, IW-2A, IW-2B, and IW-3, minor modifications to the alignments of water distribution pipel ines 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-ofway, Oceana County Airport, the SSLOCSD \/WI/TP property, and the properties that contain the injection wells.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 26 of 35
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 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 Polonia 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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 27 of 35
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 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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 28 of 35
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 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, 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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 29 of 35
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.
• 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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 30 of 35
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
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, 4 GSI Water Solutions. 2020. Northern Cities Management Area 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. April 23, 2020. Available at: https://oceanocsd .org/wp-contenUu ploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2020/05/NCMA-2019- Ann ual-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/defauIUfiles/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf Resolution No. 21-05 Page 31 of 35
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 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 \/WvTPs 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 VWvTPs, 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 therefore further City goals and policies expressed in the General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP), including ensuring a sustainable and safe water supply through a combination of conservation and maximizing supply (Policy COS-5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element), the City shall continue to pursue adequate water supplies to serve the projected population build-out in 2030 (LCP Section 6.7.1.1 ), the City shall continue to investigate opportunities to procure additional allocations from existing supplies and shall continue to investigate opportunities to secure new water supply sources in order to provide greater supply reliability (LCP Section 6.7.1.3), and recycling of treated wastewater as an alternative to ocean disposal of all effluent treated in the treatment plant shall be strongly supported and encouraged by the City when reclamation is economically feasible (LCP Section 6.7.2.1 ) .. 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 6 GSI Water Solutions. 2020. Northern Cities Management Area 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. April 23, 2020.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 32 of 35
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 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. 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 Resolution No. 21-05 Page 33 of 35
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 en\Jironmental 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 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 of Pismo Beach 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 ://centra lcoastbl ue. com/recent-updates/.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 34 of 35
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.

Resolution No. 21-05 Page 35 of 35

EXHIBIT B

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 e1ects 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.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit AA.

Agenda Item No. 6

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
Bruce Buckingham, Community Development Director
Greg Ray, Public Works Director/City Engineer
John Peters, Chief of Police
Kathy Petker, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Homelessness Response Update

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the current status of the City’s response to homelessness in Grover Beach and actions the City is taking to address this issue and provide input and direction to staff.

BACKGROUND
This agenda item is an update on the City’s efforts to address homelessness issues in Grover Beach following a previous update provided to the Council on November 8, 2021. Homelessness continues to be a significant challenge not only in Grover Beach but throughout the entire county and state. The Council has recognized the importance of addressing this challenge with the selection of Housing and Homelessness as a Major City Goal for FY 2021-23 which states:

Housing and Homelessness. Update City codes and standards to encourage housing construction to meet diverse needs; collaborate with developers and non-profits in efforts to increase overall housing stock with a priority on affordable housing availability; and partner with regional agencies and organizations to address homelessness and related sheltering issues in the city and region.

This issue has strong resonance with the community as evident by the City’s recent community survey conducted in fall 2021. Homelessness was identified by respondents as the most important issue facing the city (cited by 35% of respondents) exceeding the next most cited issues of road and infrastructure improvements (27%), affordable housing (11%), and crime and safety (11%).

When asked if the City should do more to address homelessness, 70% of respondents indicated yes with the most supported activity to address homelessness being temporary or permanent shelter space for homeless individuals (46%) followed by outreach to homeless on accessing services and housing (39%) and clearing encampments and enforcing camping ordinances (28%).

As the Council is aware, the City has a long-standing record of working with partner agencies and organizations on addressing homelessness including securing over $1,000,000 in past years in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for eviction prevention and security deposits administered by the 5Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) to prevent homelessness among Grover Beach residents. The City also received over $450,000 in additional CDBG funding in 2021 from the federal CARES Act to support the South County winter warming center, provide assistance to homeless individuals including mental health services, and expand child care Staff Report: Homelessness Response Update Page 2
February 15, 2022
opportunities which supports employment. The City also declared a homeless shelter crisis in October 2018 along with other jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County given the increased number of unsheltered individuals in our communities. San Luis Obispo County currently has one of the highest percentages of unsheltered homeless individuals in the nation with limited shelter space available in the county and none in South County. The updated Point In Time Count occurring in late February will provide further information on the current number of homeless individuals in the county. In addition to these actions by the City, the 5CHC has run a winter warming center for homeless individuals on a temporary basis in various locations in Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande over the past five years.

Access to housing is particularly critical yet incredibly difficult given low housing supply in the region especially with rental housing. As an example, as reported in November 2021 by 5CHC the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County (HASLO) recently received more than 500 applications countywide in two months for securing one of 156 emergency housing vouchers which were fully leased in October. The City has taken a step forward in addressing this housing issue by approving a 53-unit affordable housing project by People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH) and HASLO on South 13th Street. Once built, this project will provide housing for those with low and very low-income levels who are often close to or experiencing homelessness.

However, given the increased challenges with homelessness in our community and in recognition of the related Major City Goal, staff is regularly updating the Council on current and pending actions the City is taking to address this significant community issue. These actions are not taken in isolation but are being carried out in coordination with the County, 5CHC, and other cities given the extent and impact of homelessness throughout our communities. The City’s overarching goals with addressing homelessness are to demonstrate compassion with enabling unhoused individuals to obtain needed housing and services while ensuring order with maintenance and cleanliness of public spaces including public parks. Homelessness is an issue much larger than the traditional role of cities and while cities did not create homelessness, we are having to address it and the impacts it creates in our communities. This is truly a regional issue with substantial engagement by the County in establishing safe parking areas, coordinating trash removal efforts, providing social and human services, and facilitating grant funding opportunities.

The City’s efforts and those of other public agencies are complicated by the legal ramifications of the Martin vs. Boise case. This case law from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibits enforcement of camping prohibitions in public spaces if there is no designated shelter space or public space for unhoused individuals to go. This law governs communities throughout the western United States and has a profound impact on the ability of local government to legally address homelessness particularly in areas like South County that do not currently have available shelter space.

Temporary Emergency Shelter at County Property in Grover Beach First, staff wished to update the Council on the creation of a temporary emergency shelter on County property at 286 South16th Street in Grover Beach. On September 28, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance establishing local standards and procedures for the design, site development, and operation of emergency homeless shelters at public facilities which authorizes this shelter location. The County is serving as the lead permitting authority given the location on County property with support from the City as needed. This temporary shelter will be co-located with other public facilities including the County Public Health Clinic and Alcohol and Drug Services along with a Superior Court courthouse. The shelter concept involves installation of up to 20 “pallet homes” (also called cabins) roughly 100 square feet in size that would be connected with 24/7 case management and support to clients. Attachment 1 provides images Staff Report: Homelessness Response Update Page 3
February 15, 2022
showing these pallet homes and Attachment 2 shows the location in relation to other public facilities along with the proposed site plan. These pallet homes have been installed in numerous communities in California in recent years including Sonoma, Redondo Beach, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Isla Vista as emergency housing though have not yet been used in San Luis Obispo County.

In addition to the 20 cabins, 5CHC will also install bathing and bathroom facilities, administrative offices, communal spaces, shaded eating and resting area, and a storage area as shown on the site plan in Attachment 2. The facility will be managed and monitored 24/7 with 5CHC staff with security cameras and privacy fencing installed. The Grover Beach Police Department will be lead agency in responding to safety issues as needed. The facility will house individuals on a reservation rather than drop-in basis and designed to provide temporary transitional housing for up to 90 days along with wraparound services. Homeless individuals from throughout South County are eligible to stay at the shelter though there would be specific outreach within Grover Beach including at Ramona Park.
5CHC is the lead agency for this temporary emergency shelter in partnership with the County and City. 5CHC is now working with the County on the final stages of the development review process to prepare the site for installation and operation of the units beginning this spring. Additional Information about the shelter is available on the 5CHC website at https://5chc.org/temporaryshelter/ with additional public communication to be shared as the facility is under construction. The shelter is scheduled to be operational through December 2022 unless the Board of Supervisors extends the enabling ordinance to allow this temporary shelter to continue depending on the success and impacts of this facility.

Additional Shelter Spaces
Despite the significance of this initial shelter space, it is just a temporary location and only provides 20 housing units towards meeting the need for shelter space in South County. Providing shelter space is critical to enable homeless individuals to secure stable housing and services while enabling the City to enforce camping prohibitions in public spaces. The City is working with other cities along with the County and 5CHC on potential sites in the South County area for additional shelter spaces both temporary and permanent. 5CHC has looked at potential sites for shelter space over the past 10 years throughout the South County area but has not been able to secure suitable and available property.

A potential site for transitional housing, a winter warming center, and case management services and administrative offices was identified by 5CHC and People’s Self-Help Housing (PSHH) in 2019 at the former Hillside Church in Grover Beach using approximately $2 million in Homeless Emergency Aid Program grant funding from the State. However, this site did not move forward given a property ownership dispute and the funds were reallocated to other homeless-related facilities including transitional housing for PSHH in Pismo Beach and case management and administrative offices for 5CHC in Grover Beach. However, the winter warming center facility was not addressed and remains an outstanding need.
5CHC is working diligently to locate suitable and available property for homeless facilities which could include an emergency shelter, youth and family shelter, adult transitional housing, winter warming center, day use shelter, and/or safe houses that are more residential in nature. 5CHC is assessing property options in the South County area and funding availability to purchase such property. As the Council is aware, the City has allocated up to $800,000 in the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) $1.6 million funding this year towards homeless facilities and services in Grover Beach in a flexible manner based on the needs with acquisition of any property for this Staff Report: Homelessness Response Update Page 4
February 15, 2022
purpose requiring Council approval. If property was secured, 5CHC would seek additional funding for homeless facilities from State Homekey grant funds as well as from the County, other cities, and private sources and foundations.

Encampment Cleaning on Public Property
Lastly, in addition to the City’s work to help homeless individuals access services and housing and create temporary and permanent shelter space, the City is also taking action to clean and remove trash at homeless encampments on public spaces to improve the appearance and safety of these areas. The City has periodically taken such actions near the train station along Highway 1, wooded area near North 4th Street and El Camino Real on the Grover Beach/Pismo Beach border, and at Ramona Park. The Boise case law has placed significant limitations on actions that cities can take with regards to homeless areas on public property. Specifically, while a city can clean and remove trash from areas in public spaces where homeless individuals are located, a city generally cannot enforce camping prohibitions if there is no shelter or other public space nearby for homeless individuals. The City may by adoption of an ordinance impose prohibitions on camping or sleeping in limited public areas to the extent there are reasonably available public spaces elsewhere the homeless may use.

As the Council is aware, the City took action in November 2021 to clean and remove trash from homeless encampment areas in the wooded area near North 4th Street and El Camino Real. This area has had approximately 30-40 homeless individuals in recent years in densely wooded open space which is primarily City open space with some property in Pismo Beach and State Parks jurisdiction. A City contractor removed vegetation and carried out trash removal and cleaning of active encampment areas. All legal requirements regarding noticing of this work and disposition and storage of personal property were followed and 5CHC provided outreach in the encampment area to notify individuals of this work and connect them where possible to services and housing.

Additional cleaning and removal of trash near encampments is being done by the private property owner at 950 El Camino Real which is the site of a future hotel project currently in building permit plan review. The cost of this cleaning and trash removal work on the City’s public property was approximately $75,000 and will be funded through ARPA funds given the linkage to homeless services and outreach.

The next area of focus for encampment cleaning is Ramona Park where there is currently an encampment of approximately 20 homeless individuals. Ramona Park has historically been a place where homeless individuals have congregated given a lack of regular visitors to the park aside from special events along with a makeshift shelter area created by a gazebo and adjacent open space. Some members of the community also stop by the park and provide provisions and equipment to homeless individuals which goes beyond outreach provided by 5CHC to help individuals access services and housing. While the number of homeless individuals at the park has fluctuated over time, there has been a recent increase in this population which could be due in part to movement and displacement of homeless individuals from other sites. This has led to a noticeable deterioration in park conditions around the gazebo and restrooms and a related increase in public concerns expressed to the City particularly from nearby residents.

The City recognizes the need to improve park conditions despite the legal challenges of enforcing camping prohibitions with the lack of shelter space. The current conditions at the park are not acceptable for ensuring the park’s function as a public space for all to use. The Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Police departments are working on cleaning the park on a more regular basis along with more significant actions including removal of the gazebo, potential closure of the restroom facilities, and more regular patrols with zero tolerance for code violations such as smoking or drinking. 5CHC would also continue to provide outreach to assist homeless individuals Staff Report: Homelessness Response Update Page 5
February 15, 2022
in accessing services and housing. The City’s actions would begin in the coming weeks and are proposed to continue this spring in tandem with the opening of the temporary shelter at 16th Street which would provide needed shelter space to allow the City to enforce its camping ordinance at the park consistent with legal requirements. Staff would note that the estimated cost for significant cleaning at the park would be $5,000 with regular cleanings likely necessary on a weekly or biweekly basis which would quickly increase costs. While this work would be carried out by a contractor, Public Works staff time would still be necessary to oversee the work and administer the contract and Police staff time would also be needed to help clear the site. This staff time would displace time needed for other operations and maintenance work as well as Police patrol time.

Despite these efforts, there still may not be enough space available at the temporary shelter to carry out enforcement of camping prohibitions at the park. An approach the Council could consider is adoption of an ordinance that limits such enforcement to designated public parks until additional shelter spaces were available. Council could provide staff with direction to bring such an ordinance to the Council this spring for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for potential homeless facilities and services including encampment cleaning has been allocated as part of the City’s ARPA funds appropriated in this year’s operating budget. The cost for the encampment cleaning and trash removal work along El Camino Real in fall 2021 was $75,000 with an unknown cost for work at Ramona Park that will be determined based on the necessary level of cleaning frequency.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Receive an update on the current status of the City’s response to homelessness in Grover Beach and actions the City is taking to address this issue and provide input and direction to staff; or

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act and a copy was provided to the 5Cities Homeless Coalition and to individuals who have contacted the City with concerns about homelessness.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Examples of Pallet Homes

2. Temporary Emergency Shelter Location and Site Plan
Examples of Pallet Homes
Attachment 1
Temporary Emergency Shelter Location
Attachment 2

Agenda Item No. 7

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 15, 2022 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Kristin Eriksson, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of Community Grants Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution approving a Community Grants Policy for providing assistance to community-based organizations to provide services or programs for Grover Beach Residents.

BACKGROUND:

In 2021, the City was allocated $3.2 million in one-time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding over a two-year period or $1.6 million each year. As part of the FY 2021-23 budget adoption on June 14, 2021, Council provided direction to staff to use $100,000 of the first-year funding for nonprofit assistance grants for agencies serving Grover Beach. The City does not currently have a policy to govern the provision of funding for these types of grants. Previously the City has provided such grants on a limited basis to select social services and housing nonprofit organizations who contacted the City requesting funding assistance. This funding allocation last occurred in 2019 and staff at the time recommended that the City develop a formal policy before conducting a future grant program.

Building on this recommendation, the Council is asked to approve such a policy (see Attachment 2) to provide guidance on the award of City discretionary money, allocated to be awarded by the City Council in any budget year. The policy establishes eligibility criteria for agencies or organizations and allowable services or programs for community grant funding. The policy also establishes scoring criteria for applications for community grant funding. Staff reviewed policies in other agencies for providing nonprofit funding including Morro Bay, Arroyo Grande, and the County. Staff would note that the County is currently conducting a “Request for Applications” for community nonprofit agencies also using ARPA funding.

Pending Council approval, staff will use the approved framework in guiding the process to make recommendations to the Council to approve funding appropriations to eligible nonprofit agencies for FY 2022-23. Staff will convene a review panel, including the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and community stakeholders to score and recommend allocations to the Council this spring of up to $10,000 per agency or organization. Due to the City’s use of ARPA funding for the FY 2022-23 Community Grants program, organizations must demonstrate either that: 1) the organization was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; or 2) the proposed projects or programs respond to the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Attachments 3, 4, and 5 show examples of the application form, grant agreement, and annual report form respectively. A tentative timeline for the FY 2022-23 Community Grants program selection process is shown in Attachment 6.

Staff Report: Adoption of a Community Grants Policy Page 2 February 15, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact of adoption of the Resolution approving a Community Grants Policy. Any award of community grants will be brought to the Council for approval at a future meeting. The Council has allocated $100,000 of the City’s ARPA funding this year for this grant program.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:

1. Adopt the resolution approving a Community Grants Policy; or

2. Provide revisions to the policy and approve the amended version; or

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Community Grants Policy

3. FY 2022-23 Community Grants Application Form

4. Sample Agreement

5. Annual Report Form

6. Timeline
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach wishes to establish a Community Grant policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach’s Community Grant Policy includes an application form, an annual performance report and a Community Grant Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach’s Community Grant Policy will aid in the accountability of use of City funds which demonstrates the City’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and prudent management and is consistent with Government Accounting Standards; and

NOW, THERFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City hereby adopts the Community Grants Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect on the date it is approved.

On motion by Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member ____, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members –
NOES: Council Members –
ABSENT: Council Members –
ABSTAIN: Council Members –
RECUSED: Council Members –
the foregoing Resolution was PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach, California this 15th day of February 2022.

JEFF LEE, MAYOR
Attest:

WENDI B. SIMS, CITY CLERK
**DRAFT**
Attachment 1
1 City of Grover Beach
Community Grants Program Policy
Policy Statement
The City Council sets legislative financial management policies, as recommended by staff and advisory committees. Historically, the City Council has awarded community grants, when possible within budgetary constraints, to contribute toward the funding of programs conducted by non-profit organizations that actively enhance the quality of life for Grover Beach residents.

This Community Grants Program Policy is designed to establish guidelines to allow for such funding, furthering City Council Goals.

Policy

1. Non-profit organizations must file a City application for the community grants funding program in accordance with the City’s timeline for grant applications, which may vary from year to year. Notification of the open grant period will be provided on the City’s website.

Applications must be submitted to the City Manager’s Office and forms are available on the City’s website or at City Hall. The application format and requested information is provided as Attachment 1.

2. Public funds shall be made available only when the funds are to be expended for a community program or service that will benefit the community and residents of Grover Beach.

3. Funds will not be allocated to the following organizations and activities (so as to maintain local government impartiality towards political campaigns, religious activities and fundraising endeavors):
a. Political action committees, political candidates, political campaigns, or programs engaged in partisan political activity;
b. Any organization conducting, promoting or denigrating religious activity wherein the funds would be used for sectarian purposes;
c. To support an organization’s fundraising event or activity;

4. Funds requested from membership-based adult organizations will not be considered if the funds requested are to be used to directly benefit its members and not the community of Grover Beach at large.

5. Requests for funding will be considered for award by the City Council only during the periods determined in this Council Policy and if submitted on the appropriate City application form.

6. Funding of a program will not constitute a precedent for contributions in subsequent years.

Attachment 2
2 Eligibility
To be eligible for award of a community grant, agencies must:

1. Submit a separate, completed application form for each project or program (see Attachment 1).

2. Be incorporated as a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation (IRS 501-C) and/or exist as another government entity.

3. Operate in or provide direct services to the community of Grover Beach.

4. Demonstrate the managerial and financial capability to receive and expend grant funds.

5. Assure compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws including but not limited to non-discrimination requirements.

In the review panel’s sole discretion, an otherwise qualified applicant (who is unable, pursuant to an articulated justification consistent with promotion of City’s needs, to reasonably meet application requirements) may be granted an exception by the panel from one or more application requirements.

Programs for which funding is requested must qualify under one of the categories below:

1. Community and Social Services: Funding for programs and services that address identified community needs or problems (as stated in the City’s General Plan, Major City Goals, or other policies). These may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Crisis Intervention and/or Centers
b. Health and Safety
c. Youth-Serving Agencies
d. Social service agencies and programs.
e. Bilingual service agencies
f. Low-income service agencies
g. Homelessness

2. Project: Funding for one-time projects designed to address a significant community need or problem. City funding shall be limited to a specific timeframe, usually not more than one year.

Funding Request
All applications must submit a completed City application (Attachment 1) and the following attachments unless already on file with the City:

1. Names/addresses of current Board of Directors

2. Board approved current operating budget
3 Evaluation/Scoring Criteria
All applications will be submitted to the Office of the City Manager, C/O of the Deputy City Manager, for consideration. The Deputy City Manager will forward all qualifying applications to a review panel comprised of City staff and community stakeholders for review and consideration.

The review panel will score each qualifying application up to a possible total of 100 points, using the following criteria:

Criteria Total Possible Points
Degree to which the program or services
focus on the City of Grover Beach and its
residents
25 Projected impact or outcomes 25
Alignment with Major City Goal or other
Council Goals and priorities
15 Reasonableness of the proposed budget for
project or services
15 Ability to leverage other funding from
alternative sources
10 Organizational stability/competency 10
100 Total Possible Points
After review, the scored applications will be presented to the City Council for their consideration.

At the time of consideration and evaluation, staff will advise Council of available funding amount to be awarded. The Council will determine which applications will receive available funding and will direct staff to include that funding in the draft proposed budget.

Post Funding Application Requirements
Following award of community grant funds, the recipients will be asked to sign a City Grant Agreement (Attachment 2) stipulating the following conditions:

1. Carry adequate liability insurance naming the City of Grover Beach as additional insured as may be required by the City.

2. Not discriminate in employment or in clients served because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or sex.

3. Be accountable for revenue and expenditures through standard bookkeeping procedures.

An annual audit or review at the applicant’s expense may be required, with the results available to the City of Grover upon request.

4. Provide access to periodic reviews by City staff and City Council for purposes of monitoring the program should the City wish to do so.

5. The funded applicant shall provide the City with a year-end report, including a full financial accounting and narrative report (Attachment 3).

The end-of-the-year report shall be in writing and submitted within 60 days after the oneyear grant period. This report must include a complete financial statement detailing all expenditures of City monies for the program(s) covered under the grant and a narrative 4 report on the project or program and its significance. The financial and narrative report should compare actual expenditures and accomplishments with the budget and objectives cited in the original proposal.

Failure to comply with the reporting requirements by the stipulated dates may lead to termination of the grant agreement and funds being returned to the discretion of the City Council. Failure to comply with reporting requirements will also automatically exclude an agency from eligibility to receive community grant funding from the City for the following two fiscal years

6. Funded applicants must return to the City any unexpended funds at the end of the oneyear period, or agreed upon project or program timeframe, or whenever the City reasonably determines that the applicant has not performed in accordance with the approved program proposal.

7. Any funds returned in accordance with this policy shall be returned to the fund from which they were allocated from.

8. City moneys shall be used only for the purpose and program(s) duly authorized and in accordance with the approved budget. Any deviation from the approved program proposal may be made only with the City’s prior written approval which requires Council authority.

If moneys are used outside the approved program proposal without prior written approval from the City, funds must be returned immediately to the City.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION
Project/Program:

Project/Program Name:

Project/Program Manager Name:

Grant Request Amount:

Short Project Description (50 words or less):

SECTION II: AGENCY/ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
Agency/Organization Name:

Site Address:

Mailing Address:

Project/Program Contact Info:

Name/Title:

Phone:

Email:

General Information
Year Established
Name of Executive or CEO
Number of Paid Full Time Employees
Number of Paid Part Time Employees
Tax Information
Federal Employer Tax Number
State Employer Tax Number
Does the Agency/Organization have a not-forprofit status in the State of California? Attachment 3

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
SECTION III: PROJECT/PROGRAM INFORMATION
(Note: additional pages may be added as attachments, if needed. Please indicate the section number applicable to each attached added page in the heading).

A. Project/Program Narrative: Please provide your agency/organization’s Mission Statement and Goals, brief history, programs and population(s) serviced, organizational structure and experience with proposed grant activities. If your organization provides programs countywide, indicate the percentage of services provided in Grover Beach.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
B. Community Need Statement: Describe briefly the demonstrated need in the Grover Beach community for the program. Cite data sources as appropriate. What local challenge or need does this grant address? How will Grover Beach residents and residents of adjacent areas and or countywide benefit? How will all eligible participants have the opportunity to participate in the program?
C. COVID-19 Response Statement: Describe how either 1) the applicant organization has been negatively impacted by COVID-19 pandemic; or 2) the proposed project or program will serve to respond to the negative economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
D. Project Approach: Please provide an explanation of project approach, identified strategies and anticipated outcomes. Please quantify the number of Grover Beach residents to be served. Include a list of planned activities, timeline and staff/volunteers responsible for the proposed program.

E. Outcome/Results Evaluation: Please indicate how you will evaluate or measure the outcomes or results of the proposed project or program.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
F. Project Timeframe: Please include a timeline for the proposed project or program.

G. Collaborative Partners: Please describe any partners who will collaborate in this project/program, if any. Please provide a description of prior collaborative activities and proposed responsibilities of collaborative partners.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
SECTION IV: PROGRAM FISCAL INFORMATION
A. Program Budget: Please complete the following summary tables to reflect the budget for your organization and program. All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.

Alternatively, please attach single page revenue/expense summary sheets for the program for which funds are requested and a separate summary for the organization.

Budget Summary
Budget Data
Requested Grover Beach grant
funding
$
Total Program budget $
Total Organization budget $
Funding Summary
Revenue Source
FY 2022-23
Program
Budget
Grover Beach grant: $
Other municipal funding
Please specify:
$
County funding
Please specify:
$
State funding
Please specify:
$
Federal funding
Please specify:
$
Fees for services $
Donations $
Reserve contingency fund $
All other sources
Please specify:
$
Total $

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
H. Fees for Proposed Services: Please indicate what, if any, fees are associated with the proposed project or program.

I. Previous Funding: If your organization has received previous funding from the City of Grover Beach for the proposed project within the last year, please provide the outcomes in measurable terms and a case example of the grant impact.

J. Travel Expense Disclosure: If Community Grant funds are to be used for staff travel expenses, please describe.

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING
K. Required Attachments: Please attach the following to this application:
a. Agency/Organization Board roster
b. Most recent financial statements or a copy of the agency/organization’s last tax return (IRS 990)
c. IRS Determination Letter (confirming approval of 501(c) status) (http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facilty=Y) d. Copy of current status of the organization business form the Secretary of the State of California authorizing the organization to transact business (https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/)
e. Proof of public liability insurance
f. Additional pages, as needed

CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FY 2022-23 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING

CERTIFICATION
The applicant hereby proposes to provide the services as listed in this proposal. If this proposal is approved and funded, it is agreed that relevant federal, state, and local regulations, including nondiscrimination laws and other assurances as required by the City of Grover Beach, will be adhered to.

Furthermore, I certify that the applicant is fully capable of fulfilling its obligation under this proposal as stated herein.

Grantee agrees to provide immediate written notice to the City if significant changes or events occur during the term of this award which could potentially impact the progress or outcome of the grant, including without limitation, changes in Grantee management personnel or losses of funding.

This grant is requested with the understanding that the City has no obligations to provide any, other or additional support or grants to the Grantee.

On behalf of the applicant organization, I understand and agree to the foregoing terms and conditions of the City’s grant, and I hereby certify and attest to my authority to execute this agreement on Applicant’s behalf.

This application and the information contained herein are true and correct and complete, to the best of my knowledge.

Date: ________________________, 2022
________________________________
Organization Name
________________________________
Executive Director
________________________________
(Print Name)

GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH AND
[NAME OF GRANTEE]
2022-2023
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of _________, 2022, and is effective as of the 1st day of July, 2022 by and between the CITY OF GROVER BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter CITY), and [NAME OF GRANTEE], a nonprofit corporation of the State of ____________________ (hereinafter CONTRACTOR).

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, CITY received a one-time allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fund, and;
WHEREAS, CITY appropriated funds in its Fiscal Year 2021-23 Budget for allocation to community service agencies, and;
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide services as permitted pursuant to CONTRACTOR'S non-profit purpose for the public purpose of the benefit of the residents of CITY (hereinafter "PROGRAM"), and CITY has appropriated funds for this purpose, to be utilized during the time period between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE, as follows:

I. COMMUNITY GRANT POLICY
The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has read and understands the CITY's Community Grant Policy Governing Community Grants attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference [hereinafter Community Grant Policy] and agrees that it shall be bound by that Community Grant Policy in its performance under this Agreement, with the sole exception of any express exemptions from that Community Grant Policy as provided herein. In case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Community Grant Policy, the terms of this Agreement shall take precedence.

II. PROGRAM COORDINATION
A. CITY: The CITY Manager or his/her designee, shall be the PROGRAM MANAGER and shall render overall supervision of the progress and performance of this Agreement by CITY. All services agreed to be performed by CITY shall be under the overall direction of the PROGRAM MANAGER.

B. CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR shall assign a single PROGRAM DIRECTOR who shall have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall timely provide notice to PROGRAM MANAGER Attachment 4

of the name of the PROGRAM DIRECTOR. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this Agreement require a substitute PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY immediately of such occurrence in writing. PROGRAM DIRECTOR and CONTRACTOR staff will fully cooperate with CITY'S PROGRAM MANAGER relating to the PROGRAM, areas of concern, and the impact of PROGRAM on residents of CITY.

C. NOTICES: All notices or other correspondence required or contemplated by this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses:

CITY CONTRACTOR
City Manager
City of Grover Beach [NAME OF CONTACT]
City Manager’s Office [NAME OF GRANTEE]
154 S. 8th Street [ADDRESS OF GRANTEE]
Grover Beach, CA 93433 [ADDRESS OF GRANTEE]
III. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. Contract Compliance: CITY staff shall provide reasonable assistance to CONTRACTOR in connection with:

1. Obtaining conformity of the PROGRAM with the CITY's policies and procedures and all CITY codes, ordinances, directives and laws.

2. Performance review under the Agreement for compliance purposes and evaluating PROGRAM based on Semi-Annual and/or Annual reports received from CONTRACTOR and on-site monitoring of client-based data.

IV. OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR shall file Semi-Annual and/or Annual narrative reports with CITY on the types and numbers of services rendered to beneficiaries through the operation of PROGRAM, which reports shall evaluate the manner in which PROGRAM is achieving its goals according to standards established by CITY. The reports shall be due on January 31, and July 31, or the first working day thereafter and shall cover the entire two quarters immediately preceding the date on which the report is filed, and shall be made on forms approved by CITY.

V. PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR
A. Method of Payment:

1. CITY agrees to provide CONTRACTOR a sum of money not to exceed [AMOUNT OF GRANT IN WORDS] ($[AMOUNT OF GRANT IN
NUMERALS]), including all allowable costs and expenses, by __________________.

2. CITY grant funds are meant to fund CONTRACTOR for all allowable costs and expenses incurred in providing the PROGRAM Payment shall be made solely for services set forth in Exhibit B, and subject to CITY’s review of CONTRACTOR performance.

3. CITY may, at any time and in its absolute discretion, elect to suspend or terminate payment to CONTRACTOR, in whole or in part, under this Agreement, or not to make any particular payment under this Agreement, in the event of unsatisfactory performance or noncompliance with this Agreement.

VI. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
CITY, to the extent allowed by the California Public Records Act, and CONTRACTOR agree to maintain the confidentiality of any information regarding applicants for services offered by the PROGRAM pursuant to this Agreement or their immediate families which may be obtained through application forms, interviews, tests, or reports, from public agencies or counselors, or any other source. Without the written permission of the applicant or court order, or as otherwise required by law, such information shall be divulged only as necessary for purposes related to the performance or evaluation of the services and work to be provided pursuant to this Agreement to designated persons having responsibilities under the contract, including those furnishing services under the PROGRAM through subcontracts.

VII. ASSIGNABILITY AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS A. The relationship of CONTRACTOR to CITY is that of an independent contractor.

CONTRACTOR is responsible for the results of its PROGRAM and compliance with the terms of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR has full rights to manage its employees subject to the requirements of the law. All persons employed by CONTRACTOR in connection with this Agreement shall be employees of CONTRACTOR and not employees of CITY in any respect. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all employee benefits, including, but not limited to, statutory workers' compensation benefits.

B. None of the work or services to be performed hereunder shall be delegated or subcontracted to third parties without prior written CITY approval.

C. No subcontractor of CONTRACTOR will be recognized by CITY as such. All subcontractors are deemed to be employees of CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR agrees to be responsible for their performance and any liabilities attached to their actions or omissions.

D. This Agreement is based on the unique services of CONTRACTOR. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the written consent of the CITY. No changes or variations to this Agreement of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the CITY Manager.

VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
CONTRACTOR shall become familiar and comply with and cause all its subcontractors and employees, if any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and decrees including, but not limited to, the City’s Community Grant Policy as provided in Exhibit A. Failure of CONTRACTOR to, in any manner, observe and adhere to law as described herein or as amended shall in no way relieve CONTRACTOR of its responsibility to adhere to same and CONTRACTOR herein acknowledges this responsibility.

IX. TERMS AND AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be requested in writing by the party desiring such revision, and any such adjustment to this Agreement shall be determined and effective only upon the mutual Agreement in writing of the parties hereto unless the Amendments are made by the CITY as corrective actions under the Community Grant Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, in which case they will be adopted as ordered.

X. LEGAL MATTERS
A. Integration
This document, including Exhibits A and B, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

B. Binding Effect
The terms of this Agreement shall bind, and inure to the benefit of, the parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns.

XI. HOLD HARMLESS
A. CONTRACTOR hereby releases and agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless, and indemnify CITY, its CITY Council, its officers, attorneys, employees, agents, volunteers and elected officials, boards and commissions, from and against all claims, injury, liability, loss, costs and expense, or damage, however same may be caused, including all cost and reasonable attorney's fees in providing the defense to any claim arising therefrom, for any loss or damage to property (real and/or personal) and for personal injury to or death of any person or persons arising out of, occurring by reason of, or in any way connected with CONTRACTOR's PROGRAM activities or omissions, or in consequence thereof.

B. CONTRACTOR shall hold CITY, its CITY Council, officers, attorneys, employees and boards and commissions harmless from CONTRACTOR's failure(s) to comply with any requirement imposed on PROGRAM by virtue of the utilization of Federal funds. CONTRACTOR shall reimburse CITY, for any disallowed costs and/or penalties imposed on CITY, because of CONTRACTOR's failure to comply with Federal, State or legal regulations or requirements, including any CITY costs, including attorney’s fees, reasonably necessary to secure such reimbursement.

C. CITY shall indemnify and save CONTRACTOR, its officer, employees, and officials harmless with respect to any judgements arising from CITY’s sole negligence or intentional actions or omissions in performance of CITY’s obligations under this Agreement.

D. CITY and CONTRACTOR agree that CITY’s indemnification shall extend solely to the payment of any judgements and is not intended to require that a defense to suit be provided by CITY, or to limit in any manner CONTRACTOR’s duty to defend all suits, actions, claims and causes of action arising out of the services CONTRACTOR provides pursuant to this Agreement.

XII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. Minimum Scope of Services

1. CONTRACTOR agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her organization/firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.

2. CONTRACTOR agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the CITY all certificates of insurance, with original endorsements effecting coverage. CONTRACTOR agrees that all certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences.

4. CONTRACTOR agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession in amounts not less than $1,000,000 which is sufficient to insure CONTRACTOR for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement.

B. General Liability

1. The CITY, its CITY Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered and named as additional insured as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR; products and completed operations of CONTRACTOR, premises owned or used by the CONTRACTOR. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions.

2. The CONTRACTOR's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its CITY Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the CITY, its CITY Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the CONTRACTOR's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the CITY, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers.

3. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the CITY, its CITY Council, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

4. The CONTRACTOR's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

C. All Coverages
Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the CITY. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the CITY Clerk.

D. Workers’ Compensation
In addition to these policies, CONTRACTOR shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law and shall provide evidence of such policy to the CITY before beginning services under this Agreement. Further, CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by CONTRACTOR provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees.

XIII. WHEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WAIVED
In no event shall any payment by CITY or any acceptance of payment by CONTRACTOR hereunder constitute or be construed to be a waiver by CITY or CONTRACTOR of any breach of covenants or conditions of this Agreement or any default which may then exist on the part of CITY or CONTRACTOR, and the making of any such payment while any such breach or default shall exist shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to CITY or CONTRACTOR with respect to such breach or default.

XIV. TERMINATION
A. Termination for Cause and Reimbursement

1. Termination for Cause. This Agreement may be suspended or terminated at any time before the date of completion by CITY if:
a. CONTRACTOR fails to comply with conditions of the Agreement. b. CONTRACTOR refuses to accept any additional conditions that may be imposed by the Federal or State Government.
c. CITY Council determines the CITY can no longer fund the monies for the Agreement.

2. Reimbursement. CONTRACTOR expressly agrees and understands that if in the sole reasonable written determination of the CITY the grant funds provided by CITY to CONTRACTOR are not used exclusively for the agreed upon intended purpose, in whole or in part, CITY may terminate this Agreement for cause, and CONTRACTOR will promptly reimburse CITY in full for the entire amount of the grant funding provided by the CITY, or on a pro rate basis as determined by the CITY.

B. Termination for Convenience
CITY or CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part when both parties agree that the continuation of the PROGRAM would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds.

The two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated.

C. Upon Suspension or Termination, CONTRACTOR shall:

1. Not incur new obligations, and shall cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible, as such obligations concern the PROGRAM.

2. Be paid only for services actually rendered to CITY to the date of such suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated for fault of CONTRACTOR, CITY shall be obligated to compensate CONTRACTOR only for that portion of CONTRACTOR's services which are of benefit to CITY.

3. Turn over to CITY immediately any and all copies of studies, reports and other data, prepared by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, whether or not completed, if any, in connection with this Agreement; such materials shall become property of CITY. CONTRACTOR, however, shall not be liable for CITY's use of incomplete materials or for CITY's use of complete documents if used for other than the services contemplated by this Agreement.

D. CITY is not liable for any CONTRACTOR expenses incurred after the termination or closing date of the Agreement.

XV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. The Caption
The captions of the various sections, paragraphs, and subparagraphs of the Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of the interpretation.

B. No Third Party Beneficiary
This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an Agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever.

C. Severability Clause
In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.

D. No Pledging of CITY's Credit
Under no circumstances shall CONTRACTOR have the authority or power to pledge the credit of CITY, or incur any obligation in the name of CITY.

E. Disputes
In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as reasonable costs.

F. Nondiscrimination

1. Neither the CONTRACTOR nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of persons because of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, religion, physical or mental disability, or marital status, unless based upon a bona fide qualification under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

2. Neither the CONTRACTOR nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the provision of any services or programs because of race, color, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, religion, physical or mental disability, or marital status, unless based upon a bona fide qualification under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

G. Venue
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.

H. Non-liability of City Officers and Employees
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the CONTRACTOR, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the CONTRACTOR or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

I. Interpretation
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

J. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[Signatures on the following page.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first herein above set forth.

City of Grover Beach [NAME OF GRANTEE]
__________________________ __________________________
Matthew Bronson [NAME OF CONTACT]
City Manager Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
David Hale
City Attorney
EXHIBITS:

A. Scope of Services
B. City of Grover Beach Community Grants Policy
C. Annual Report Form
City of Grover Beach
Community Grant Funding Program
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT- FY 2022-23

GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of Organization: ______________________________________Phone: _______________________ Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________ Zip: _______________ Report Preparer: ___________________________________ Title: ______________________________ Contact Number: __________________________________ Email: ______________________________ Funds Approved: $________ Funds expended per report period: $________ Funds remaining: $________

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

1. Describe in detail how grant funds have been used:

Attachment 5

2. List dates, name of activities, and event locations for special events funded with City of Grover Beach Grant funds, as relevant (Note: attach activity fliers/advertisement/agendas, as relevant to funded activities):

3. Total Number of Individuals Served: ________ Number of Grover Beach Residents Served: ___________

4. List the goals that were achieved by your project during this report period:

Community GRANT Page 2
Report Form

5. Authorizations:

I hereby certify and attest that both the information contained in this report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, as well as I am authorized by the organization discussed herein to present this report as its duly authorized representative. I also hereby certify that our organization is in compliance with all state, federal, and local laws regarding licensing and employment practices.

Print Name of Report Preparer: ___________________________________________Title: __________________________________ Preparer Signature: ____________________________________________________Date:____________________ Print name of President or Authorized Officer: ___________________________________ Title: ______________________________ President Signature: ______________________________________________________________Date: ________________________ Return this completed report to:

City of Grover Beach
Administrative Services
154 S. 8th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Attn: Administrative Services Director
Office (805) 473-4550
Email: [email protected]
Action Date
Community Grants Policy to Council 2/15/2022
Public Announcement of Program/Instructions March 2022
Application Period 4/1-4/30
Applications to Raters 5/2/2022
Application Review Period 5/2-5/13
Recommended Awards to Council 5/23/2022
Allocate Funding June 2022
Grant period 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023
Tentative Timeline for FY 2022-23 Community Grants Program Attachment 6