HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1992, 1 - NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT T
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To: '
=DATE
TING AGENDA
L,& f � ITEM �=
. CCF:S TO:
Eor, El FYI
Subject: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO i 1J C 'W ❑ CDD DIZ
❑/Gsp ❑ FUNI.DI.R-
Lead Agency ✓r ACRO ❑ FIRECLiI1
9 Y r iTGi L'! ❑ F'd D R.
Lf CL?�d/C: ❑ KiLiCEEC
City of San Luis p L i P_'C DIR
u s Obis o
Attn: Robert Wick .,,CitT•T� I
C.p D t''LE ISI t.��I l?n.-\. I
955 Morro Street �r J_�_ zut--_
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Telephone: (805) 781-7220
The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project
identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project your
agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description,,location, and potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of
the Initial Study is attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than
30 days after receipt of Mils nonce.
Please send your response to Robert Lfvick, Water Reclamation Coordinator at the address shown above. We will need
he name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: City of San Luis Obispo Reclamation Prosect �F-fL 6 - 4 2
Project Location: San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo
- i�2es7 o y
Project Description:
The City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reclamation Program is intended to supplement the City's limited water supply.
After the construction of the required infrastructure, water from the City's Water Reclamation Plant will be distributed to
meet the demands of non-potable water use. Additionally, a portion of the reclaimed water will be used to maintain
habit ' lower Sam,Luis Obispo Creek:
1
!
2/21/52-
Arnold
21/92Amold Jonas, mm nity Development Department Director Date
Reviewed by.
William T. Hetland, Utilities Department Director Date RECEIVED
Prepared by. APR
2 1992
I / CITY OLER�K
obert Livick, Water Reclamation Coordinator D to SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Reference: California Code of Regulations.TWe 14(CEOA Guidelines)
Sections: 150E2(a).15103.15375
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
N VATER RECLAMATION PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO • UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Introduction
In the interest of conserving the City's limited potable water supplies the City of San
Luis Obispo Utilities Department (City) is developing a project that will use reclaimed
municipal wastewater. The City proposes to supply reclaimed water for irrigation,
industrial and stream enhancement purposes. By supplying reclaimed water for
irrigation and industrial uses, the amount of potable water for these uses will be
reduced. The reclaimed water supplied by this project will provide a reliable drought-
tolerant water supply.
The source of the reclaimed water will be the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (Water
Reclamation Plant). The City's plant is located at the southern end of the City of San
Luis Obispo near the intersection of Highway 101 and Prado Road. The effluent from
the Reclamation Plant is currently being discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. The
plant has.a capacity for treating 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal
wastewater and treats to a level of secondary effluent. An upgrade of the treatment
process is currently underway. After completion the plant will produce effluent that will
meet the, Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Title 22, California Code of Regulations standards
for "Tertiary-Disinfected Reclaimed Water." This upgrade is scheduled to be completed
by November 1994. The City will provide, in accordance with City Reclaimed Water
Policy, reclaimed water for irrigation, industrial, the maintenance of the instream uses
of lower San Luis Obispo Creek and other beneficial purposes.
Project Location and Description t
A pumping station will be installed at the City's Water Reclamation Plant and initially
approximately six miles of distribution piping will be installed to convey the reclaimed
water to the various customers. Additionally, the City will utilize approximately two
miles of existing piping through the City that was previously used as petroleum
transmission lines. In addition to the pumping station and piping, a storage tank of
approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons may be constructed to equalize the diurnal
flows encountered at the plant. The City may also incorporate discharge of reclaimed
water to the marshlands near Laguna Lake as apart of a habitat enhancement
program.
It is anticipated that between 800 and 1200 acre feet per year of potable water use can
be offset through the distribution and use of reclaimed water (one acre-foot equals
approximately 325,900 gallons). The plant currently discharges an average of 4,000
acre-feet per year. It is projected that the reclaimed water distribution system will be
expanded to meet future non-potable demands of the City of San Luis Obispo. The
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Page 2
attached map shows the location of the reclamation plant/pump station, potential large
users of reclaimed water and the conceptual pipeline route.
Water Quality
The City is committed to providing its customers the highest quality reclaimed water
available. After completion of the upgrade to the plant the effluent will meet the
stringent water quality standards required for discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek. In
meeting the receiving water standards, the effluent will also meet the requirements set
forth in Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Thle 22, California Code of Regulations for the use of
tertiary disinfected reclaimed water. Additionally, an extensive monitoring program of
regulated and unregulated constituents will be conducted as a part of this project and
will complement the extensive monitoring already being conducted at the plant.
Environmental Documentation
An Initial Study has been prepared by the City. The Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) will examine in detail the potential environmental impacts identified.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, a 45-day review period will allow responsible-
agencies and concerned citizens to voice their concerns about the project and
comment on the Draft EIR. All relevant comments and concerns will be incorporated
into the final EIR which will be considered by the City Council for cert cation.
Project Administration
The City will provide the necessary project management for the Water Reclamation
Project. The EIR, as well as the required engineering reports required for the use of
reclaimed water, will be prepared by the City.
Viles\eir\projeet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Page 3
04
Ad
•QTY f� \..:. L�L� `l �T •I e�r
` 74
n Luis Obispo Creek
\Proposed Water Reclamation J
Pumpstation--1
as'
sstewster Senrix Ares boundry
--- - Existing Pipeline
(Abandoned Unocal Pipeline)
— - Proposed Pipeline Routes
--.– - Alternative Pipeline Routes
- Example Existing Potential Water Reuse Area
® - Example Future Potential Water Reuse Area
NITATER RECI[.ANL4TI N PROGRAM
LOCATIONMAP
Approximate Scale 1° = 4000'
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:- City of San Luis Obispo - Utilities Department
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
(805) 781-7215 or 781-7220
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: February 18, 1992
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of San Luis Obisoo
5. Name of Proposal: City of San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Program
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of yes and maybe answers are included on attached sheets)
(T- indicates a temporary impact during construction)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the
soil? X
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? X
e. Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake? X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar
hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? T
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
EWRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM YES MAYBE NO
Page 2
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of fresh water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? X
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
d. Change the amount of surface water in any water body? X
e. Discharge into any surface waters or any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to: temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or flow rate of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts and excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? X
L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding or tidal waves? X
4. Plant Ufe. Witt the proposal result in:
a. Change In diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area or result in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Ufe. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change In diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (including: birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X
b. Reduction of any unique, rare or endangered species of
animals? X
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST FOR?d YES MAYBE NO
Page 3
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to any fish or wildiffe habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? T
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X
8. Land use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? X
11. Population. Will the proposal atter the location, distribution, density
or growth rate of the human population of an area? X
12 Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a
demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result In:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? T
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? X
C. Substantial Impact upon existing transportation systems? T
d. Alterations to present pattems of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
ENVIRONIJENTAL CHECKLIST FORiA YES MAYBE NO
Page 4
e. Afterations to air, rail or waterbome traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result
in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
C. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste disposal? X
17. Human Health.Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)? - X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X
ENMRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM YES MAYBE NO
Page 5
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of
an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archeological site? X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X
C. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of.the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildiffa
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant of animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
major periods of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term , to
the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may Impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts X
on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
Indirectly?
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOAM
Page 6
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
See attached for explanation of findings.
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initlal evaluation:
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT IS REQUIRED.
2 —2G- 9 2
TndTff Jonas, Community Development DWartment Director Date
Reviewed by.
William T. Hetland, Utilities Department Director Date
Prepared by:
A �Q
Robert Uvick, Water Reclamation Coodinator Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
«'ATER PECIA-MATION PROJECT
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO • UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. EARTH
Excavation for the pipeline will displace some pavement and soil. But, all trenches will be
backfilled and will not cause any unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic sub
structures. Soil compaction and grading will be necessary for the foundation of the
proposed storage tank and pumping station(s). The limits of the earthwork will be
determined after the location of the pipeline and support facilities are decided. The scope
of this project is such that there will not be any significant changes in the topography.
The potential impacts of the proposed earthwork will be discussed further in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).
2. AIR
During the construction phase of this project, construction equipment and employee
vehicles will emit small amounts of pollutants. Additionally, the earthwork that is involved
with the construction of the project will generate particulate matter (dust). This particulate
matter will be controlled through the use of dust control measures. The effects of the
project on the ambient air quality will be addressed further in the Draft EIR.
3. WATER
A portion of the water currently discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek from the City's
Water Reclamation Plant will now be reused. However it is City policy to continue to
provide a portion of the flow from the plant to the creek and supplement the natural flow.
This subject will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
4. PLANT LIFE
The California Department of Fish and Game has identified that the reduced flow to San
Luis Obispo Creek Luis Obispo Creek may have an impact of the plant life in and along
the creek. This result may occur even though any amount of reclaimed water discharged
is an enhancement to the natural flow of San Luis Obispo Creek. This subject will be
discussed in the Draft EIR.
5. ANIMAL LIFE
The California Department of Fish and Game has identified that the reduced flow to San
Luis Obispo Creek may have an impact of the animal life in and along the creek. This
result mat occur even though any amount of reclaimed water discharged is an
enhancement to the natural flow of San Luis Obispo Creek. This subject will be discussed
in the Draft EIR.
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Page 2
6. NOISE
The operation of the distribution facilities for water reclamation (storage, pumping and
piping) will not produce a significant increase in ambient noise levels. During the
construction of the above mentioned facilities, a temporary increase in ambient noise
levels will be experienced. These noise impacts will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
New lighting facilities may be required for security reasons at the pumping station(s). The
underground pipeline, low profile pumping and storage facilities will not obscure sunlight
to adjacent properties. The lighting facilities will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
8. LAND USE
As a result of this project, no changes in land use are proposed. Due to the increased
availability of water some changes in land use may occur. But before any land use
changes could occur, the specific project proposing the land use change would be
required to perform the appropriate environmental review. Potential changes to land use
will be discussed further in the Draft EIR.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Additional fossil fuels will be consumed during the construction of this project and building
will consume some non-renewable resources. These impacts are insignificant on a
regional scale and no resources of any kind will be depleted. No further discussion
regarding natural resources is necessary.
10.RISK OF UPSET
There are no hazardous materials involved with the distribution of reclaimed water,
therefore this project will not increase the risk of upset conditions. Any upset conditions
at the reclamation plant will be isolated from the reclaimed water distribution system. The
Draft EIR will discuss the plans to protect the reclaimed water distribution system from
upset at the plant. This project will not interfere with any emergency response or
evacuation plans.
11.POPULATION
Atthoughrthe reclamation project itself will not directly alter the location; distribution,
density or growth rate of the human population in the San Luis Obispo area, there may
be an increase in population due to the additional potable water available. These possible
growth issues will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
12.HOUSING
This project in itself will not cause an increase in the demand for new housing nor will it
cause any impact to existing housing. But, as a result of additional water supplies, other
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Page 3
projects that would use this additional water could be developed. The specific projects
that would increase the need for housing will require the appropriate environmental review.
The possible impacts to housing will be discussed further in the Draft EIR.
13.TRANSP0RTATI0Nf CIRCULATION
There will be no permanent impacts to transportation/circulation or parking facilities due
specifically to this project. But, as a result of additional available water, other projects that
would use this additional water could be developed. The specific projects that would
impact transportation/circulation will require environmental review. The possible impacts
to transportation/circulation will be discussed further in the Draft EIR.
The impacts to parking and circulation due to the actual construction of the project will be
temporary. The traffic may be temporally rerouted to minimize the impacts to motorists
during construction. Any construction traffic will only occur during the time periods
prescribed in the City's Engineering Standards and the City's Municipal Code. The
temporary traffic/circulation impacts will be addressed in the Draft EIR.
14.PUBLIC SERVICES
Because the project does not propose any changes in land use or require the
construction of any major structures, the project will not require any additional services in
the area of fire or police protection. Parks and schools will receive the benefit of a
drought tolerant water supply, but modifications to their existing onsite water systems will
be required to isolate potable water from reclaimed water. The impacts to public services
will be addressed in the Draft EIR.
15.ENERGY
The construction and operation of this project will not result in a substantial use of fuel or
energy. No new sources of fuel or energy will be required to be developed. Therefore,
no significant negative environmental impacts are associated with this project and no
further discussion of these issues are proposed.
16.UTILITIES
Minor alterations may be required for the existing water and wastewater systems.
Pumping station(s) will be required to deliver the reclaimed water. Additionally, the
proposed pumping station(s) will require both electric and telephone service. To operate
and maintain the reclaimed water system additional Utilities staff and funding will be
required. These utility issues will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
17.HUMAN HEALTH
Health and safety issues that are associated with the use of reclaimed water will be
discussed fully in the Draft EIR. The project proposes to use reclaimed water only for
those purposes identified by the California Department of Health Services and as outlined
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Page 4
in Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Title 22, California Code of Regulations as acceptable uses of
reclaimed water. If any potential health hazards are identified, measures will be developed
to eliminate them.
18.AESTHETICS
The proposed project with its low profile storage tank and pumping station and pipeline
will not obstruct any scenic vistas or views open to the public. Nor will the project result
in any the creation of an offensive site that is open to public view. Speck projects that
would rely on reclaimed water to be developed, ie. golf courses, would require their own
environmental review before they could be approved and possibly obstruct any scenic
vistas or views. Any mitigation measures for aesthetics will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
1 g.RECREATION
As a result of this project and the reclaimed water supply made available for the use on
parks and other recreational areas, the quality of recreation facilities will be increased.
Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.
20.CULTURAL RESOURCES
This area of San Luis Obispo is known to have had a diverse prehistoric and historic past
Mitigation measures for the potential impacts to the cultural resources in the areas of the
project construction will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
21.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As explained in sections 4 and 5 of this attachment to the Initial Study Checklist, the
project may have an impact on the habitat in and along San Luis Obispo Creek and will
be discussed in the Draft EIR. Mitigation to negate the impact on the cultural history as
mentioned in Section 20 will be discussed in the Draft EIR.
The long term environmental goals are enhanced by this project and its reuse of water.
However the Draft EIR will address the potential of the project to achieve short term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals.
Based on the evaluations and assessments of this Initial Study, this project will have no
substantial adverse environmental affects on human beings. The reasons for this
conclusion will be discussed further in the Draft EIR.
�-
�:;:•-:' CS41M �r � �7 � M�G MEETING y O f DGTc.'
:��I ii� ► 1 itr San tuts OBISPO
' .,� u�� ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
V-01
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director l�
,_:. . Cassidy Rowland, Administrative Analyst
Gary Henderson, Utilities En eerl'qwA
Ron Munds, Water Conservation Coordinator����
SUBJECT: Water Supply Status and Development
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff direction as per Recommendations Summary.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
The city of San Luis Obispo has experienced four years of below normal rainfall and
runoff. The City's current available storage is 5,881.42 acre feet (af) with Salinas
Reservoir below its minimum pool; Whale Rock Reservoir is at 3659% of capacity and
is projected to reach minimum pool in the fall of 1992. Groundwater wells are
producing at approximately 2,000 acre feet per year (afy) with the groundwater table
_ dropping. The City will reach its critical action level (50010 conservation) in late summer
of 1991. Water conservation efforts are still excellent with consumption at about 50% of
the 1987 base year.
Projected water supply requirements.for full build out to the City's urban reserve line is
11,580 afy and is estimated to occur in 2015. With the addition of 820 afy to adjust for
the loss of yield due to reservoir siltation and the addition of 2000 afy as a planning
reserve, the total water supply requirement is 14,400 afy by the year 2015. The City's
` current safe annual yield is 7,860 afy, leaving a supplemental water need of 6,540 afy to
be developed over the next 25 years.
Fi
aWater supply options to meet the future Total Reservoir Storage
water needs of the City were reviewed. The atter minimum pool
Water Supply Summary in Attachment 3 .o '
provides a brief overview of the projects. 25.
�,.
-. Staff recommends the City proceed with a
combination of the following projects:
Salinas Reservoir expansion, desalination of m 2s
ocean water, Hansen and Gularte Creeks4 20
,
continued emphasis on water conservation, i
and wastewater reclamation. A decision on
the State Water Project will be made after '
a City wide election is held. Expansion of s
the Salinas Reservoir requires remedial o�
work to the dam for stability and "86
modification of the spillway to increase Figure 1 Total Reservoir Storage, October 10.90
capacity. This will provide 1,600 of yearly
additional yield. The addition of a package plant to the Hansen and Gularte creek
supply will provide approximately 560 of per year of yield. The project is estimated to
- cost 5532,000. Work on a desalination project should be started immediately because of
-- the time frame required for obtaining the necessary permits and equipment ordering. It
is estimated that desalination could provide 2,000 to 3,000 afy additional }geld. j
Staff recommends retaining a contract wasteNvater reclamation coordinator in order to ' ,p'Zl3i '
t'.. direct and develop a conarehensive wastewater reclamation ro�rarn A contract water
µ Water Supply Status and Development
Page 2
-: - projects manager is also being recommended to coordinate water project development.
The water conservation program will continue its efforts to save water and will expand
programs as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The City of San Luis Obispo has LSUM
experienced four years of low runoff and X
rainfall. It has implemented mandatorywater conservation measures and developed emergency water resources.
This report will outline the current statusof the City water resources, provide
estimates`of future water supply needs and 'ha3457?.��, ,review options that are available to the '�'6 ' '9e0
City to meet those future needs. Much of
the data in this report comes from the Figure 2 Salinas Reservoir Storage -
Revised Water Management PIan staff is
currently writing. The Plan is a
requirement of the State and must be submitted to the Department of Water Resources
_ - by December 31, 1990.
-_ WATER SUPPLY STATUS
20
As of November 1, 1990, the City of San ie
Luis Obispo has 8,60332 of of water in '8
reservoirs, of which 5,881.42 of is usable "
12
storage (see Figure 1). Salinas Reservoir
= jib
storage (Figure 2) is below m;,,,,,,um pool 3
at 1,621.9 aL The City's share of Whale e
_ Rock Reservoir totals 6,981.42 of less e
1,100 of minimum pool equals usable
storage of 5,881.42 of (Figure 3). . 2
Groundwater well production has fallen ie� '� + naso
off over the past few months due to a p
dropping groundwater table --
- - PP� 8 �' (Figure 4).
Currently, groundwater provides about 150 Figure 3 Whale Rock Reservoir Storage
to 160 of per month to City customers.
Groundwater currently provides about 37% of the total water requirement of the City.
7. Mandatory water conservation is still very effective as shown by the Water Conservation
Report Card (Figure 5). Conservation continues to be very high with the month of
October at 440 of the 1987 level. Water use was reduced by an average of 51% for the
-_ prior four months, since the City went to 35% mandatory water conservation. 1
_ 22iT
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 3
#_ PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY
The Total Storage Curve (Figure 6) is
= part of the City's Annual Water PIan.
It is a model to estimate the City
reservoir water storage based on
k n historical water use, reservoir data and
available groundwater supplies. The
�i
curve also shows the different action
•° u; levels at which various conservation
measures are implemented.
The model is used to forecast the City's
Figure a Groundwater Production, water supply position and when to
October 1989-90 make certain recommendations. The
curve has been revised to take into account a 90D
lesser amount of groundwater production
than previously estimated.- Initially,-
' groundwater production was estimated at
t` 2,400 afy. Based on our recent production
_..- history during this drought and the
_._ groundwater basin study, it is recommended
to use only 2,000 afydurin emergency
. .,.. r level of groundwater
periods. This lowe ,
production also results in changes in the o Febim WX
action levels since they too are a function of PwCmtCar.wwwdEmMMWO
groundwater production. Attachment 1
-.. EM
PAMVC*
Wei
shows the new action levels. ® w ® wow19V ems.
'
Figure 5 Conservation Report Card
The net effect of these changes to the
Total Storage curve is relatively minor;
the curve appears unchanged due to
=:
offsetting adjustments in well production
and lake evaporation values. The action
== -� levels are higher with the critical (50%)
r_ :.....:. m
action level occurring at 6,300 af 0
storage instead of 6,000 a£ This results
in 5017b conservation occurring in August,
0 1991 instead of October; 1991. From a
- POWdecision making point of view, two
months is not significant since only swings
m. um 7 mT .w ,M of six months or more would change
PF^^,..IEC-1IONWriN20001.FNc'15recommendations regarding timing for
A:�hT relimplementing conservation measures.
- Figure 6 Reservoir Storage Model, October 1990 1 ' 13
Water Supply Status and Development
Pae 4
The Total Storage Curve indicates Council made the right decision to begin the 3567o
mandatory water conservation program last spring even though the curve had not yet
reached the Severe Action Level. Prior to implementing the 35% mandatory program,
reservoir storage was below the worst case projection. As of November 1990, storage is
now at the projected level. This is the result of increased conservation and groundwater
well development due to early Council action.
This curve also shows if the City were to experience two more dry years similar to 1989-
90, the reservoir levels will reach the minimum pool at both reservoirs in November,
1992. In other words, the City has 24 months in which to develop additional supplies
before it will run out of water, based on the worst case scenario.
WATER CONSERVATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS
The City of San Luis Obispo has been very progressive in its water conservation efforts
at a time when few other agencies showed effort in conservation. The Mandatory Water
Conservation Program has been extremely successful in achieving the City's goal of
reducing water consumption by 35%. Water savings since January 1990 are down
approximately 43% from the 1987 levels. Since the implementation-of the 35% program
in June 1990, the City has reduced water consumption by nearly 5001o. A listing of the
past 5 years accomplishments and potential water conservation programs to be
:- .., implemented are presented in Attachment 2.
. use(L4%) Web M4%) WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
5Ww MAF
W is iiod CN2%) The City currently has a safe annual yield of
-- - 7,857 afy, shown in water that tFigure 7. This is the amount
Sefr+ffi(61.1%) of he City could use during our -
< = L historical worst case dry period of six years and
=T-' : Figure 7 Current Safe Annual Yield not run out of water. The safe annual yield is a
measure of the City's, available water supply to
meet the current needs of the community and future requirements.
The City's future water supply Table 1 POPULATION PROJECTION, 1990 -2095
requirements were developed by t9so 1995 2000 2005 2010 205
determining the population for a
specific study area and multiplying 41,500 45,400 47,700 50,100 53,000
that by a per capita water use
factor. An adjustment factor for siltation and a planning reserve were then added to
determine the City's total water requirements. The water supply requirements were
determined for a specific study area encompassing the City limits of San Luis Obispo
and some surrounding areas. The boundaries are basically the Urban Reserye Line as
established by the City Council in 1977 and reaffirmed in the current general plan
update process.
Water Supply Status and Development
-�.:':: Page 5
wx _
The City's Residential Growth Management Regulations adopted in 1982 are the basis
for developing future population projections. These regulations set population growth at
an average annual rate of 2 percent during the 1980's, declining to 1 percent after 1990.
Table I lists the population projection from 1990 to 2015 basically increasing ata 1%
` compounded rate. Under the City's General Plan, full development would
accommodate a population within the City limits of 46,000 people and 53,000 within the
urban reserve limit.
As seen in Figure 8, the city limit population
level is estimated to occur around 1997 and
the urban reserve limit around 2015. Using
appropriate population levels in planning
supplemental water supplies will assure San
Luis Obispo that adequate water supplies are30
available. This planning will Tnimm; e
problems during water deficient periods and
mitigate the need to implement stringent
water conservation measures should water
demand exceed supply limits. An increased
:,.
'bili to
° o .. s +°
supply will also provide more flexiethe City regarding its future water neds. +
Figure 8 . Population Projection 1980 -2015
W Development of major water supply facilities
; :_
�_•. -. requires extensive lead time, ten years not being uncommon. It is therefore customary
..�_._,..:. , .. to review water needs on a long-term planning period of many years. We have chosen a
planning period of 25 years, from 1990 to the year 2015. But it must also be understood
tv' that additional water requirements may likely extend beyond this period.
y.' ..
Per capita water use is a unit
measurement of the water used by a
t0 community. It is calculated by dividing
+� the total water used by the community
38
17 d population. This measure includes
X ,w residential, commercial, governmental
150 and industrial water uses, as well as
d " ,a water unaccounted for such as leakage,
;.... S2. fire flows and meters under registration.
,30 Of
�o �s eo as 10 Since 1984, there has been a dramatic
�P �,��?c increase in the per capita consumption
r: approaching 200 gpcd seen in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Gallons Per Capita Use, 1970 - 1989 This sharp increase in the per capita
consumption is largely attributed to an
increase in commercial and industrial development and an escalated commuter
population. Based on this analysis and the assumption that eater conservation will,;: slightly reduce consumption and offset commuter influences, 195 gpcd is used for 5
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 6
projecting water requirements. Due to
the drought, water use over the last two.
years has decreased to the 110 to 120 50
gpcd range. There are no predictions t0
as to the level of conservation
sustainable upon end of the drought, As was
therefore, 195 gpcd will be used to 1f °
represent future per capita use. 7
,° ■. 1
Water requirements, based on the ■
population projections and 195 GPC
=`so ' es so as o g io +s s
use, are shown in Figure 10. The City ewe O„ t85 GPC use
requires 10,050 afy of water for full Erx,+mx Pop.�AcW&I AF CrWT•+ee
development within the existing city
limits and 11,580 afy by 2015 when the Figure 10-Resource Need at 195 GPC
urban reserve limit population is
reached, given current zoning.
�. , r3 eYt w�a,�•,��,,,,� It should be noted if the City was
2=AF not in mandatory water conservations
^ � s � the water consumption would exceed
°MAF '°°°"P the currently adopted safe annual
_= yield also shown in Figure 10.
u O„+Assam or.:aX_9%)leTherefore, development of additional
i.cWo �wuse �„F yield will be required for the City to
'°°"P issue new building permits, not
Figure 11 Safe Annual Yield with Planning Reserve including those due to the retro-fit
program.
Table 11 Safe Annual Yield, 2015
Studies have shown reservoir siltation reduces AF
the storage capacity and safe annual yield over Source
time. Since it is not economically practical to wells soo
remove the silt, it is necessary to develop Salinas 4,800
= supplemental water supplies to offset the whale Rock 2,060
siltation losses. Siltation loss at Salinas and Cooperative Use . soo
Whale Rock reservoirs is approximately 820 of Urban Reserve Deficit 3 820
total over the next 25 years.
Siltation Deficit
Planning Reserve 2.000
with safe Total Acre-Footage 14,400
The City has experienced problems
annual yield determinations in the past
Changes may occur in the future due to "live
stream" requirements, new hydrological data
_- based on the current drought, and changes in water rights law, etc. For these reasons, it
is prudent to have a planning reserve of additional water supplies to account for future
% in ease
unexpected conditions. Staff recommends the City develop an additional 25 ,
_ or about 2,004 of of its sale annual yield as a planning resee.
l� X13 " �
Al
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 7
=;- The City must develop a total of 6,540 of over the next 25 years, summarized in
Table IL Staff recommends the City establish a policy to obtain a safe annual yield of
14,400 afy in order to meet its current and 25-year future water needs, account for
siltation in its reservoirs and to include a planning reserve for any unexpected tyre
7 . events. By the year 2015, when the Urban Reserve limit population will be reached,
only 55% of the water needed will come from sources now on-line. This means over
45% of the water the City will need has yet to be developed.
WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS
EMERGING MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY POLICY
The City of San Luis Obispo's early water supplies came from local creeks and
groundwater. For many years, groundwater was the primary water supply for the City.
'= When the Salinas Reservoir was developed, it became the principle supply because of its
better water quality. The Whale Rock Reservoir was added to the City's supplies in the
z; 1960's. For many years, from the 1960's to just recently, storage in the two reservoirs
served as the City's only water supply. The Qty has just recently returned to
groundwater during this time of drought. The recent-history of water supply
w... .
development has resulted in an informal policy of multi-source water resource projects
for the City. With the many new water resources project alternatives the City is
:':'...
currently considering, it is togic.al to adopt a formal policysupporting. ..
amulti-source
water supply for the City.
a; Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to prepare a resolution to adopt the
=_ following strategic policy statement:
The City of San Luis Obispo will continue to develop and use water
resource projects to maintain multi-source water supplies, and in this.
x;..,.•,_ manner, reduce reliance on any one source of water supply and to increase
»:- its supply options in future droughts.
EXPANSION OF SAL.INAS RESERVOIR
The City retained the firm of Woodward Table III YIELD ESTIMATES, SAUNAS RES.
'` =
:- 20
QYde Engineers to perform a feasibility Spillway Increase (ft) 10
study for increasing the storage at the Storage volume (af) 29,330 39,300
Salinas Reservoir. The study covered three
basic areas; geotechnical and dam stability, Total Yield (afy)• 750 1.650
hydrology and costs, and permit
cant environmental *with cooperative use
requirements and signifi
issues identification.
The stability of the dam during an earthquake and its ability to handle a maximum
probable flood was reviewed. Numerous design concepts were used to evaluate the
f-:sibility of raising and widening the spillway including operable gate alternatives, fixed
` barrier alternatives, and spillway modifications. The des a� were evaluated on the basis
e.
-`,- Water Supply Status and Development
Page 8
's of raising the existing spillway by 10 feet or 20 feet. Table III presents the yield
- estimates with these modifications to the spillway elevation, assuming coordinated
operation of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs for maximum benefit. Raising the
spillway would inundate additional areas behind the dam. This increased body of water
would enhance both the fishery and the habitat for aquatic wildlife. It would also
impact and require relocation of some of the existing recreational facilities around the
reservoir. Water quality from the Salinas Reservoir would not likely change after
increasing the level of the spillway. The initial environmental analysis has not indicated
any significant environmental impacts that would preclude development of the project.
Initial discussions with the State Water Rights Board indicate the City's water right
permit would not have to be amended. Approvals would have to be obtained from the
Army Corps of Engineers, the California Division of Safety of Dams, and the State
Department of Health Services.
This is a long-term project which is rainfall dependent. Total cost of the project would
vary from $2.7 million to $7.25 million. This translates to a cost of $208 to $506 per af.
The water from this project would be available for use in 30 months, barring major
setbacks in permit processing or other requirements.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recommends Council authorize the Consultant,
~_...: Woodward Clyde Consultants, to begin design of the expansion.; develop the
_ Environmental Impact Report; and to obtain the required permits.- Staff further
"`- recommends direction to begin discussions with the Corps of Engineers and the
} County of San Luis Obispo regarding ownership of the reservoir and payment for the
; .. required remedial work.
DESALINATION
%0 The Desalination Feasibility Investigation was prepared for the City by James M.
Montgomery Engineers. The study evaluated various methods of desalination including
reverse osmosis, vapor compression and distillation. Site options, joint ventures,
permitting requirements and financing were also reviewed.
Water Ievels at both reservoirs will reach minimum pool in approximately two years if
the drought continues. As desalination is the only water supply alternative not rainfall
,. .<-
dependent and if this alternative is to be undertaken, the project must be "fast tracked"
.. - .
in order to meet this tight.time frame. Several project implementation methods have
:,- been evaluated to meet this timetable. The schedules also include a project termination
or slowdown cutoff date in March or April of 1991 to allow for a change in direction
f= based on whether rainfall is received and whether this project is viewed as a short-term
or long-term water supply.
The consultants determined 3,000 afy of desalted water could be made using the
recommended reverse osmosis technology. Figure 12 shows the flow diagram for a
_ typical reverse osmosis process. The recommendation is based on capital costs,
ts, decommissioning costs, aesthetics and enviroa.�.en:al
operation and maintenance cos
concerns. During the early phases of the study, several potential locations for the
t
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 9
I rz;�
cc
- _ 2 RO Modula Z t
5 < tJ
L s
� u
Y"
v -44
wk=n KVh Prod=Winer
Intal�a Porti car" Prau Tar&
Rhor FAw Puep .
Figure 12 Reverse Osmosis Flow Diagram
i
facilities were reviewed. Due to the limited time available, emphasis was placed on the
utilization of existing intake and outfall facilities due to the long permitting process
required to construct such facilities. Also, the availability of conveyance facilities was an
. important component of site selection. Based on these considerations, the best
alternative appears to be a site near the PG&E's Morro Bay Power Plant. The City of
Morro Bay and PG&E have been consulted and. are. receptive to discussions concerning
the use of the existing facilities." 'The power plant intake could be utilized to supply
V. water to the facility and the discharge from the desal plant could employ the use of the
:= PG&E plant's outfall or the City of Morro Bay's wastewater outfall Lystem. A plant
- located in Morro Bay would be able to convey water to San Luis O i4o s Water
Treatment Plant using the existing Whale Rock pipeline.
Several potential joint venture participants in the area were contacted to determine their
.-' interest in the construction of a desalination facility. Several indicated an interest, but
almost all elected to delay a commitment until the future of the State Water Project
Y.i .
became better defined. However, the City of Morro Bay is extremely interested in
_ .. participating in this project
7 . The project could be financed using City funds or be a "tum-key' approach using private
- - financing. The choice of which financing scheme to use should not have a significant
impact on the overall project cost.
Project im lementation can be accomplished using a vane of schemes. One end of the
j P P g ty
: . scale would be a full-service contract (i.e. privately designed, financed, constructed and
operated), such as Santa Barbara has done. The other end would be a conventional
;F. project (i.e. City hires a consultant to design the project, handle finances, bid the project
construction, and operates the plant). The recommended method may be a combination
of the two options.
- _ The project could be separated into zwo components, equipment vendor and
_ conventional constructioh (site work, pipelines, etc.). A consultant would be hired to
write equipment performance specifications which would allow bidding for the
a�
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 10
equipment to proceed before site and pipeline design is completed. This is necessary
because the equipment is one of the critical components of the schedule. While the
equipment is being procured, the remainder of the project would be designed and put
out for bid.
The estimated capital cost for a 3 mgd reverse osmosis desalination plant is $19,500,000.
Depending on whether the plant is to be considered a short-term (5 years) or long-term
(20 years) supply, the cost per acre-foot would be $2,858 or $1,883, respectively. These
acre-foot costs include operation and maintenance expenses and costs are substantially
higher than other supply alternatives at this time, but this alternative is not rainfall
dependent.
The desalination process is an energy intensive process. There is a great variance in the
amount of energy the different methods of desalination require to produce product
water, but reverse osmosis and vapor compression consume significantly less energy per
unit of product The cost of energy required for the reverse osmosis process is
estimated to be $615 per of of product water based on current energy rates. This
equates to approximately 287o of the total cost per of based on $2,215 af. If the cost of
energy were to double in the future to $1,230, it would correspond to approximately
44% of the total cost per af. Energy, therefore, plays a very important role in the cost
of desalted water. The.water from this project would be available for use in 24 months_
- _=- barring major setbacks in permit processing or other requirements.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recorrimends Council author. e staff to 1) hire a
consultant to begin design of project, to obtain the required permits, and to develop
the Environmental Impact Report; and 2) develop interagency agreements for the
project.
HANSEN AND GULARTE CREEK
Hansen and Gularte Creeks are two small creeks which run off the Cuesta Grade north
Of San Luis Obispo. The City obtained water rights on the creeks from private property
owners in the early 1900's. This supply was used for many years by adding chlorine for
disinfection and discharging the water into Reservoir #1. This practice continued until
the State Department of Health Services required full treatment before the water could
be consumed. Since treatment was very expensive other sources were available, the City
stopped diverting the water into its reservoir and instead discharged it into San Luis
Creek.
Boyle Engineering was retained to determine the feasibility and cost of developing.a
small treatment plant for these creeks. A treatment system would require a package
plant, new inlet transmission piping and control structure, chlorine feed system and
contact basin, and a filter backwash recovery system. The total cost of this project is
estimated to be 5523,000 including 20"o contingencies and engineering.
It is estimated the yield from these two creeks would be about 435 afy. One option is to
include the Firing Range Well in Reservoir Canyon in the treatment plant. This well �0
__ - a 13
y Zvi..
. : . Water Supply Status and Development
Page 11
= has only been used intermittently because of problems meeting the State's turbidity
requirements. By piping this water to the package plant, the total yield could be
increased to approximately 560 afy. The water from this project would be available for
use in six months, barring major setbacks in permit processing or other requirement.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recommends beginning design of site facilities,
purchasing treatment facilities, beginning permit application and developing the EIR
for the project.
STATE WATER PROJECT
The State Water Project is a system of reservoirs, pumping plants, canals and pipelines,
and power plants to deliver water from Oroville Reservoir and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to the State's 30 water service contractors. To date it has been a reliable
source for municipal and industrial contractors. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District has an annual entitlement of 25,000 afy in 1990. It is
proposed this water would be delivered to San Luis Obispo together with Santa Barbara
County's entitlement through the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct. The draft
EIR for this project has been completed and undergone extensive public review. The
public comment is now being reviewed by the Department of Water Resources and the
w final EIR is scheduled to be issued in the spring of 1991. .Council has directed staff to
hold an election on the State Water Project. -
Once the decision is made to build the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project is
made, the City will have to commit to the project or forever loose the opportunity to
=' participate in State Water. The water from this project could be available for use in 60
. months, barring major setbacks in permit processing or other requirement.
Recommended Council Action: Recommendations for this item are covered in a
= ' • = ' separate report and, at this time, only deals with the timing and type
(mandatory/advisory) of election.
GROUNDWATER BASIN ANALYSIS
The San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin Evaluation was prepared by Boyle
Engineering. The purpose of this study was to define the basin hydro-geology and to
assess the City's current groundwater development program. Their conclusion is that
=- during the period of 1978 to 1990, the basin has not been in a state of sustained
overdraft. The long-term records indicate water levels do decline significantly during
drought periods but the basin recovers quickly.
The estimated storage capacity of the basin is 23,900 af. This is essentially in agreement
with the California Department of Water Resource's 1958 published estimate of 22,000
AF. The estimate of "sustained yield" of the basin is defined as the maximum quantity
of water that is available from groundwater on an annual basis. Boyle estimates the
sustained yield to be 5,900 afy. A large portion of the basin underlying the downtown '
consists of a relatively thin layer, characterized by wells of low io moderate yield (100
i
r -
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 12
gpm or less). Higher yielding ground water zones exist in the southern portion of the
City, with wells up to 1,000 gpm. However, this area is heavily irrigated for agricultural
purposes with high competition for the groundwater.
The current grounds water program uses six municipal wells and two or more irrigation
wells. Approximately 40%, about-160 of per month, of current domestic demand is
being met from groundwater supplies. Four of the existing wells are now showing sharp
declines in pumping water elevation and are being operated on a rotation basis. Based
on the above analysis, the opportunity for additional well development within the City
limits during the current drought is limited. Also the City's current identified yield of
500 afy from groundwater is realistic. Boyle concludes the City can extract several
thousand acre feet (2,000 to 3,000 afy) of groundwater per year if steps are taken to
increase available recharge from the wastewater treatment and if the basin is properly
managed to better utilize recharge from surface stream flows. Additional long-term
sustained yield from groundwater is not practical.
The City is still pursuing the use of some private wells in order to spread out the wells
within the basin and to obtain a site for relocation of the existing carbon filtration tanks.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recommends no further expansion of the
. . : . groundwater program and the existing groundwater wells be maintained as a part of
currently adopted safe annual yield of 500 afy.
the City's water supply at the
COASTAL STREAMS DIVERSION PROJECT
The Coastal Streams and Storage Project is a joint project with the Whale Rock
Commission and the City of Morro Bay. The project proposes a series of small seasonal
Y dams on the three coastal creeks between Morro Bay and the Whale Rock Reservoir.
High runoff flows during the winter would be pumped back to the Whale Rock
Reservoir for storage. The study includes review of the environmental impact on the
streams as a fishery and habitat Due to inadequate runoff these past three years, the
fisheries stream analysis has not been performed.
The City contracted with Leedshill-Herkenhoff to review the project in light of the City's
current water resources and determined the direct benefit to the City of San Luis
x: Obispo. Their analysis shows the City could receive from 60 afy up to 230 af. The
limiting factor in the yield of the project for the City is a constraint in the Whale Rock
pipeline. The cost of the project is S7.2 million and water costs range from $1,900 to
59,500 per af.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recommends no action at this time since the
fisheries analysis has not been completed. However, due to the limited yield, the
high capital cost and the high water processing costs, this project appears to have
limited feasibility.
-:_..
--.Water Supply Status and Development
Page 13
NACIMIENTO RESERVOIR
The Nacimiento Reservoir is owned and operated by the Monterey County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District has an agreement with Monterey for 17,500 afy. About
1,300 afy are used around the lake area, leaving 16,200 afy for distribution to other parts
of the County. There are currently no specific allocations for the Nac=ento water to
the other agencies in the county. The probability is that the North County will desire to
retain a substantial portion of the available water. Due to the length of the supply line
to San Luis Obispo and without the agencies to share in the project, the cost to the City
could be quite high. With the primary focus on the other water supply alternatives,
Nacimiento Reservoir will probably not be developed until sometime in the future.
Monterey County has recently completed a study of additional water resources. A
number of the options involve Nacimiento Reservoir and these may provide the
opportunity for joint participation with other agencies.
Recommended Council Action: Staff recommends no specific action at this time
other than to continue to monitor the activities of Monterey County in the
development of additional water resources.
_. TANKER DELIVERY OF WATER Table N TANI�RED WATER COSTS
— Term AFY 'Cost AF
In April, 1990, the City of Santa Barbara solicited 5 yr 2.500 =6,902
proposals to evaluate tankering of water for two 5,000 $3,200
7,500 $3,200
contract duration possibilities: (1) a five-year 13,600 52,700
duration with a commitment to purchase a
minimum of 2,500 of of new water yearly for the 10 yr 5,000 $3,100
first three years and to purchase water thereafter on 10,000 $2522
an as needed basis; and (2) a ten-year duration with 25 yr 10,000 52,000
= a commitment to purchase 2,500 afy and on an as
L` needed basis for the final seven years. The RFP • does not include capital costs
further required the successful water supplier to be
able to supply up to 5,000 afy for the full five or
ten-year contract duration, if needed.
The cost of the new water in the proposals being evaluated by Santa Barbara are
presented in Table IV. In an informational report prepared by Boyle Engineering for
the City of Ventura, tanker delivery of Canadian water was outlined. The following is a
summary of some of the thoughts presented:
1. Tanl:ering potable water is not new, it is used in several places in Europe.
2. Canadian water is of excellent quality, however, tankered water requires chlorination
during transport and treatment prior to use.
3. Tanker loading facilities in Canada will cost between 2 to 5 million dollars.
Refurbished oil tankers would be used and they hold between 70 to 200 AF.
4. Off-loading facilities would cost between 10 and 20 million dollars to build. One
a. 3 ��
.> Water Supply Status and Development
Page 14
problem with tankering is the relatively shallow coastal water which will require
extensive offshore mooring and transmission facilities.
5. A round trip takes approximately 8 to 12 days with a daily cost between $20,000 to
$40,000. To be economically viable, the tankers would have to be off-loaded in one
to two days.
6. The onshore facilities required to receive the off-loaded water in one to two days
would need to be able to handle/store between 21 to 65 million gallons.
The City's treatment plant capacity now is only 11.5 mgd with a storage capacity of 4
- mgd. Tankering is probably not viable as a source for a single city but may be as a
regional source; with a long-term contract for 20,000 afy the cost might be down to
$1,500 af. The volume of water required to make the option economically feasible
appears.to be much greater than the City needs. Importing water with tankers does not
appear to be a viable quick, inexpensive drought relief measure; however, it might be
viable as an option for long-term supply when compared with other options. Based on
the information available to us at this time, it appears that this option is roughly in the
same cost range as desalination.
_ Recommended Council Action: Staff recomm3nds tankering of water not be pursued
at this time; further consideration may be in order should the drought continue or
other recommended options fail to meet expectations.
7.
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
In the past, reclaimed water was not considered a cost effective water supply and
subsequently was not included as a viable option in the water management plan. The
changing environment in water resources, combined with the high quality water that can
be produced by upgraded wastewater treatment facilities, has made reclaimed water a
and available water supply. Reclaimed water must now be
potentially cost effective
considered a component of the overall water management plan for the City.
In order to facilitate the.development of wastewater reclamation projects, the first step
is to hire a program coordinator who would:
_ - identify potential uses and users of reclaimed water,
evaluate each potential use based on cost and benefit to the City,
identify capital improvements necessary for installation of the required
infrastructure,
- explore available grants and loans for funding options, and
- develop a pricing structure and accounts for the sale of the water.
It is estimated the additional position will cost about $40,000 per year for a total of
$120,000. Program development should be coordinated with the completion of the
wastewater facilities improvements to allow water reclamation to begin as soon as
- - tertiary water is available.
62� 3 . j �
Ti
Water Supply Status and Development
a, Page 15
Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to retain a contract Wastewater
Reclamation Coordinator for a period of three years.
PROGRAM STAFFING
Should the Council choose to proceed with the projects being recommended, additional
Water Division staff will be necessary to coordinate project development. It is not
anticipated the new program staff will do detailed design and therefore not need an
engineer; the project staff would manage the water supply projects and would interface
with the design engineers and other professionals necessary to make the project a
reality. Requirements for the position will include experience in overseeing project
development, permit processing, environmental review, and contract administration.
Staff recommends a contract Water Projects Manager be retained on a four-year
contram Clerical staff will also be necessary to support this position and assist in the
overall increase in the department's workload. It is estimated that the additional
positions will cost about $75,000 per year for a total of $300,000 for the four-year
contract period.
Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to retain' a contract Water Projects
Manager and necessary support clerical staff for a period of four years.
4
WATER PROJECTS SUMMARY
The water resources alternatives now under consideration by the City are summarized in
Attachment 3, Water Supply Summary. The purpose of this one page summary is to
provide a comparison of the different alternatives as concisely as possible. The safe
annual yield for each project is identified as is the capital cost required to build the
project; operation and maintenance costs are shown where available. The cost per acre
foot includes both capital and operation and maintenance costs except where indicated
otherwise. Captal costs are amortized over 20 years at 10% interest. In an effort to put
info perspective the impact each project would have on the individual consumer, a
percentage rate increase in the current water rates was determined. This was then
translated into a typical water bill fora single family residence using the non-
conservation City average of 24 units. A time line for development of the project
a= including design, permit processing and construction is shown. Environmental and. other
concerns are briefly indicated.
The four water supply alternatives being
recommended include Salinas Reservoir Table V Yield of Recommended Alternatives
Expansion, Hansen and Gularte Creek,
Desalination, and the State Water Project Yield (afy)
Project. The potential yield of these Salinas Reservoir Expansion 1650
projects is shown in Table V. The Hansen and Gularte Creek 560
timeline necessary to develop the Desalination 3000
.: different projects varies from 12 months State Water Project 3000
- to 5 years Figure 13 shows the best Total 8210
estimate of when each project may be y e
_ - 5
W.
Water Supply Status and Development
Page 16
operational and the amount of yield that ould be provided. These four projects, if all
were fully developed, could deliver over 8,200 of of increased safe annual yield. This
exceeds the required yield necessary to meet the City's urban reserve limit development
plus the adjustment for siltation and planning reserve. Staff recommends all these
projects be pursued at this time because there are no guarantees that all these projects
can be developed nor that the maximum yields will be as estimated.
Each project has the
potential to run into ,B
problems that could ,
seriously impact the ="
completion of the project.
Salinas Dam expansion will
require the approval of the
Corps of Engineers; the _
project schedule could be
: prolonged if the ownership
issue of the reservoir itself
2-1
becomes a major concern.
The City Council has
determined that the State Timeline for Projects Dmiopmert
Water Project will require a ®Currerd SAY ®.Ha=erVGuWrte Desalination i
vote of the people before it
p p Salinas Res. State water Project
can be approved.
Desalination will require
the cooperation of Pacific Figure 13 TIMELINE FOR WATER PROJECTS
and Gas and Electric and
the City of Morro Bay; major permitting is also required for this project. Hansen and
GuIarte Creek development will require permits and an environmental impact review,
x.: either of which could be an obstacle.
FISCAL IMPACT
New water supply projects will require additional revenue for the Water Fund. The
exact amount will have to be determined when the projects are completed and precise
amounts for debt financing and operation and maintenance are known.
In order to assess the cost impact each project would have on the City's Water Fund and
its service customers, staff used the existing water rate model to determine the change in
_ the current water service rates. The analysis was made assuming existing water rates
and consumption levels would approach the pre drought conditions. Rates were then
developed to determine how each project would individually impact water rates. Since
multiple projects will be required, rate increases will be additive. These rates were then
used to determine what a typical single family residential bill. The analysis did not take
into account an increase in connection fees which will occur and help offset the required
I � a� 3
-
"`` Water Supply Status and Development
Page 17
revenue from water rates.
The current budget has sufficient funds to begin the projects being recommended at this
time. The budget has 5.1.5 million-from the groundwater phase three program still
unexpended and approximately SOS million in budget carryovers. Requests for
- additional funds will be made in the future as needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
The staff recommendations presented in this report are summarized into two categories;
Water Policies and Staffing and Water Supply Projects.
Water Policies and Staffing
1. Water Policies - Direct staff to develop an amendment to the Water and
Wastewater Management Element to incorporate a key water strategy policy or a
balanced water resources program.
2. Wastewater Reclamation - Authorize the position of Wastewater Reclamation
'r Coordinator to develop and implement a detailed wastewater reclamation project
-- and direct staff to proceed with the recruitment
3. Water Projects Staffing - Authorize the position of Water Projects Manager and
I direct staff to retain the Water Projects Manager and secretarial support for the
implementation of the adopted-water supply projects.
F
Water Supply Projects
4. Salinas Expansion Project - Authorize retention of the Salinas Reservoir
=- Expansion consultant, Woodward Clyde, to begin design, permit processing, and
EIR development for maximum yield of the project..
�. . 5. Desalination - Authorize retention of the Desalination consultant, James M.
a'==` Montgomery Engineers, to design, processing permits, developing EIR and
interagency agreements for the project
r.:;.
6. Hansen and Gularte Creeks/Reservoir Canyon - Authorize retention of th
Cae
Hansen and Gularte Creek consultant, Boyle Engineering, to design site facilities,
purchase of treatment facilities, process permits and development of EIR for the
project
The necessary amendments, resolutions and contracts to specifically accomplish the
above recommendations will be presented to the Council in the future.
Attachments: 1. Water Action Levels
2. Water Conservation Accomplishments
3. Water Projects Summary
=_ 4. Executive Summaries; Salinas Reservoir; Hansen and Gulare tree OW
Groundwater Bain; Desalination ) , 1
g11TEMMtrtl_ AGENDA
.L_ � DATE #
- L3ECEI ECS
WILLIAM R. MILLER and HEIDI LEWIN-MILLER
AP 211992 472 MITCHELL DR.
CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA (805)544-9225
COP::_CTO:
ryl
Comet J/CDDDa April 21, 1992
Penny Rappa G^,o ❑ r 7.L�tR
San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ 7`F`r�"
San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93401 �'` ' ❑ F`u`r'
_ GIF
❑jc G Y�� 1L T TJTIL
Dear Ms . Rappa:
We hear with alarm the rumor that you are considering reversing
your earlier position in opposition to the State Water Project .
We want to let you know , that we are very opposed to the State
Water project from these standpoints:
1 . Local Environmental effects : The bulldozing, grading and
desecration of stream beds and hillsides will be a travesty
against nature.
2 . Environmental effectsin the Delta: We feel that .
draining an additional drop of water from the beleaguered
Sacramento River Delta would be a crime. We understand that
the percentage of water that we would draw would be a small
portion of the total , but that is no justification. We
believe that large gains begin with small contributions, and
that we must set an example for others .
3 . Social Responsibility: We feel an area' s population must
learn to live within that area' s resources . To continue to
divert resources all over the globe is a bad idea, one that
has too many negative side effects . We must learn to live
within the means of our low rainfall years as well as our
plentiful years .
4. Local Growth: We wish to see a slowing of local growth.
This means we will slow the growth of our resource demands .
We are very active in the local environmental , cultural and
health communities . We are registered and regular voters . If
you were to vote in favor of State Water, you can be assured that
the previous election is the last time we will vote for you..
Sincerely,
MEE' 7 009A
DATE l=qa AGENDA I
a
ITEM 0_.._
April 21, 1992 1 COP: TO:
Adon
Mayor Ron Dunin �CDD]SR
Penny Rappa I1 CAO FH..L7fR. _
Peg Pinard V ACn0
Jerry Reiss A'T NE'Y F❑ D-1 R.
Bill Roalman ❑ 1•.iC➢.4T.TE_:! L yT-_7c .? C
Dear RO-A '
My wife and I are strong advocates for bringing State Water to the
city of San Luis Obispo and we are more than willing to pay our fair share of
the cost.
Our reasons in support of this position are:
1) The six-year drought caused severe water rationing and
damage to city and county vegetation;
2) The need for more than one source of water;
3) The relatively low cost of State Water as compared to
alternative sources;
4) The millions of dollars already spent to preserve the
city's rights for State Water; and
5) The- controlling of growth in SLO should be accomplished
by means other than limiting our water resources.
As residents of San Luis Obispo for over 24 years, we firmly believe
that both State Water and Lake Nacimiento water are badly needed, and that the
California State Water Project should be first priority. It would be very un-
fortunate to lose our rights to State Water (and the millions invested) especially
when the pipeline will be coming right through this county.
Please vote to bring State Water to the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
. arry Voss
611 Al-Hil Drivej
San Luis Obispo APk 2 "t lGw
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Too
MEETING AGENDA /
DATE h`, ITEM =
c7 Lr,i
S--17L
tIQ CDD e�'P�
�J Q CAO ❑ FitDj
i-tRE
C1/ a ✓ Y� ! 4C40 ❑ Cry'
gsl7 Y� / ATTv ci ❑ F-KyM.
/07tOLiCECfi
C7e7 D
Q r7 r a/ n C_PlA i'kip"'. t1 1L Dail.
� 49 V-
a Ci l J
s �a LJL1 7�/
RECEIVED
D
APR 2 V'19'92
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
NG AGENDA_
DATE �''a=ITEM #
Dear Council Member,
please reject the State water proposal. It's frustrating to have this matter considered
once again. Our community has already voted no to State Water. "You will serve
everyone best, including businessmen and developers, by pursuing local resources.
There's a lot of rhetoric and emotion on both sides of the issue,thus I'll save your
time and get right to the point. To me,the entire matter comes down to individual rights
and/or sovereignty. Our need at this time in history is less government and more
commerce. Taxes have become astronomical and it shouldn't be this way. Rejecting State
Water in favor of local development is a small humble step towards economic recovery.
It's a founding principle we've strayed from.
We rely on State government too much already,when we should rely on the strength
of our small community. When the State funds a project then they get to call the shots,
and we lose some of our say in the matter, we lose some rights.
Given the current budget overload/short-fall in Sacramento, I am concerned about
what's being done with my tax dollars. Case(s) in point, State government has%orrowed"
$1.5 Billion from the CSEA pension account without permission. They've "temporarily"
diverted funds from the anti-cigarette-smoking campaign. Then there's SB2557 ... which
makes it expensive to take criminals off the street ?! This kind of crud builds up and I
feel violated. Someone needs to be accountable for this,though who?
Further note the Twin Bridges financing bog. The level of Federal and State paper-
work/forms is perhaps more trouble than the floodwaters. The higher non-local
government agencies dictate the design parameters,etc. Lastly, note the unrealistic State
requirement to build a thousand or so homes each year. As the saying goes, "not in my
backyard."
The truth is you can't always grow. Droughts come and go. The Council has likely
been bugged and pestered tremendously over water rationing. Bet here we are, we
survived, we're not in too much red-ink, so let's not over compensate.
I don't have a million dollar solution, other than to say -- we need less government
and more business, less public-sector spending and more private-sector decisions. By
staying within our(local) means, we should see some real growth. Developing local
resources and relying on the strength and diversity of our community will add to the net-
worth of our property and maintain local sovereignty.
Please do not vote different than what our citizens have already requested.
/Lfyrx% beodc COP113TO:
E ❑-Dr-&--b A&-an / ❑ FY!
S LA;s J6;,ra E CI camel KJ Q)Dl&_
_ACAO ❑ �P,E+�-llE��
�A1TCZ\iEY ❑ FUt'Dfl2.
I
CLERK/On'..". L_l� i,.,LiCEQL APR 2 1992
EDMC,iAT.TE,?!.! f. ::EC.DIR
K -rtT! gr &K CITY CLERK
- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
From the desk A!jMEMNfico F A
- ITEM,0
Charles Delmartini
1224 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-1470
•
wrlsTO:
❑.Dc-notm Action ❑ FYT
April 21, 1992 VC°"s'� CDD DUL
rd'CAO ❑ Fel.DI&
9CLE-VK/0.TZ'i7-
ACAO ❑ Fr'EMEP
ATTORNEY EJFN DRMayor R. Dunin C_] Tr,-L;�aa.
City of San Luis Obis ❑ hlCl11.T&.;.! _ I :',FC..DI!?
❑ C F.EAD ME 111 iTiL DT:.
Dear Mayor: - L -
We are definitely in favor of us acquiring
. state water .for use and future need as might
be determined by another drought period.
Very truly yours,
Charles Delmartini
Evelyn Delmartini
r.
J
r
N
T0: MAYOR RON DUNIN MEETI�� AGENDA
DATE ITEM#�
DEAR MAYOR DUNIN,
PLEASE INCLUDE MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND AS SUPPORTERS OF STATE WATER.
WE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND WOULD LIRE OUR VOTES
COUNTED.
OUR NAMES AND ADDRESS ARE:
DAN L. HATHAWAY AND CAROL J. HATHAWAY
1364 VISTA DEL LAGO
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93405
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT IN BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
SINC Y,
7
COFES TO:
❑' -c`-^��c*on ❑ FYI
CJ.' HATHAWAY I1� Co�c CDD DUL
CAROL AROL2 �
5? CAO ❑ FIN.111
S;VACAO ❑ rIRSa=1
la���/yy��I C:Tv'a f ❑ F N DSR.
I&J/C=K/GR..", FCUCECFL
FTT PlLr !L� '�D;, .
I
SI f1' COU'ICiL
SAN LU!S OEfl'PO. CA
000,Z
_ MEETING
AGENDA
DATE /
ITEM #
R R M D E S I G N G R O U P
Archifeaure Phvming•En,�irrecrirt,�• Interiors• I_lutllxnpe Ai Irifrdurc
April 20, 1992
X01=I�'1'•'A:
❑" 7^_::o:c:; aceta ❑ r II
Ms. Penny Rappa, Council Member
i I�'ct,�t<,ra IJ cTsrtnt,.t.
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 1 c3; .=''i' ' _ ::::c V,i n
Z .Z T
RE: California State Water Project
Dear Penny:
I know this letter is coming to you at the last moment before what, I'm sure, is a very
difficult decision for you to make. However, I couldn't let the occasion go by without
expressing my opinion and my support for your decision regarding state water.
Penny, in my opinion, all of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo learned a very hard
lesson about using water resources as a method for controlling growth during the last four I
years. The lesson to be learned from the last four years is that using water resources as
a method to control growth is folly. The resources necessary to sustain life in any
community need to be present and, ideally, should be present in abundance so that
residents are not forced to live in a constant state of crisis, worrying whether next year's
rains are going to cause a change in lifestyle or cause the loss of a valuable investment.
The proper place for making decisions regarding growth management is in the community
general plan, which is developed specifically for that purpose.
I hope you will follow through with your decision. to support the state water project. I
know you will be criticized no matter which way you vote on this rough issue. I urge you
to vote yes on state water and secure the resources now for future generations.
Sincerely,
RRM SIGN GROUP �aV
APR
Victor Mo ome CITY couiICIL
Chief ecut* O c r SAN LUIS "�'�``,' CA
a/vm-penny.rap
,o:6 South Higuera Street,San Luis Obispo,California 93401 li05/543-1794
lou-lith Street,Modesto,California 95354 209/544.1794
.1 l'+Irlr.,,iur t....l............:L'rr,n•ha.nr........y , L-rr.r Nirr,il•.•ir,l link,
1:6V , * AGENDA
AGENDA '
DATES ITEM #
City of San Luis Obispo
State Water Project Presentation Outline Ci7PR= 710:
April 21, 1992, 7:00 PM ❑°D^cEz--Act'cn� El F17
Odd Fellows Hall, 520 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo y Co�,� J/CGDDRR I
LW CAO ❑ I
I i-OF ACO ❑ -IF
R
_
CT
I. Introductions ❑ .Si 3,T .Tc•1 .' �� REC.DI'
C.FL:.DFRLE V,C7i 9
A. Staff, consultant presenters or resource people - Hetland
1. City Staff
a. John Dunn, City Administrator
b. Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
C. Bill Hetland, Utilities Director
d. Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager
d. Bill Statler, Finance Director
e. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
L Glen Matteson, Planner
2. County Staff
a. Clint Milne, County Engineer
b. Melissa Mooney, Environmental Specialist
C. Lisa Burns, Ogden Environmental
3. Central Coast Water Authority
a. Steve Amerikaner, Hatch and Parent, General Counsel
b. Doug Brown., Brown and Wood, Bond Counsel
C. David Houston, Smith Barney, Bond Underwriter
B. Summary of Presentation - Hetland
1. All three staff reports will be presented at one time
2. Questions will be taken from City Council after all presentations
3. Floor will be opened for public comment on items before the Council
4. City Council make decisions in the following order
a. Further consideration of participation in the SWP
b. If further consideration is approved, then make environmental
determinations
C. Approve the execution of necessary agreements
II. Staff report presentations
A. Introduction - Hetland
B. State Water Project Participation
1. Current Water supplies and future requirements - Henderson
2. Water supply summary and status - Henderson
3. State Water Project - Hetland
a. Description
b. Environmental Impacts
(1) Reliability
(2) Water Quality
(3) Environmental Concerns
APR 12
;.iiY CJUf�CI�'
S:... "''S ., ::S.FC. CA
(4) Growth Inducement
(5) Costs
4. Fiscal Impacts
5. Summary
C. Environmental Determinations - Matteson
1: Coastal Branch EIR & Local Facilities EIR
a. Tiered EIRs
b. Brief summary of documents
2. Resolution making certain environmental determinations for City
participation in the SWP
D. Approval of Agreements for State Water Project - Hetland
1. Introduction - Amerikaner
a. Relationship of agreements
(1) SWP Water Supply Contract
(2) Master Water Treatment Agreement
(3) Water Supply-Agreement
(4) Water Treatment and Local Facilities
b. Central Coast Water Authority
(1) Who are they?
(2) Why do they exist?
2. Water Supply Agreement - Milne
a. Purpose
b. Summary of key provisions
C. Article 6(b) requirement
3. Water Treatment & Local Facilities Agreement - Brown/Amerikaner
a. Purpose
b. Summary of key provisions
C. "Step-up" provisions
M. City Council questions for staff and resource people
IV. Public Comment - Mayor Dunin
A. Rules of Public Presentations
1. Purpose of public comment is to take public testimony on the issues.
Questions will be noted, summarized and answered by staff after the
conclusion of public comments.
2. Encourage testimony not to repeat previous testimony
3. State name and address
4. Presentations should identify which areas they are commenting on
5. Limit presentations to 3 minutes maximum regardless of number of
areas commenting on
B. PUBLIC COMMENT
V. Council Discussion & Decision
P\SILL\svpout1i.vp
i
MEETI IP AG
PTE WILSON, fio.ernor
'ALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY' _ _
UAI
)RNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
.TRAL COAST AREA
V11
;BA ZA 93101
371 September 9 ,
_ y •
C3
.ate Clearinghouse 1
-tn.: Tom Loftus >r
+00' Tenth Street
3cramento, CA 95814 ;
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Notice of Completion for SCH #
]010931 , State Water Project, Local Distribution Lines and Facilities.
ear Tom Loftus,
] There seems to be no significant environmental impacts associated with
this project.
J The Commission has no comment at this time. However, a Coastal
Development Permit will be required from our office.
J The Commission has no comment; please refer to your certified LCP when
issuing the Coastal Development Permit for this-project.
J There are some significant coastal issues raised by this project.
Please contact at our office: .
[X] The Commission may have some comments; however, due to budget and staff
limitations, we are unable to comment in the given time frame.
pC) The project appears to located outside- the coastal zone. All public
agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone
that could have direct impact on resources within the coastal zone
shall consider the effect of such actions oil the coastal zone. conic To:
resources. (PRC Section 30200(a)) . ! ❑'='��. Ac_oa ❑
COI—mca J CDD DIR.
CAO ❑ FT-;.MR.
SB ACRO ❑ r-TrE�=--;,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. j t�it AMMN—Ef ❑ FAYDUZ•
I fiXcLERK/0--. . �l PCUCEr_-!
❑ t,10I-r.TE%::3 I Dlr
Sincerely ❑ C:T:&� :=E Or t_TT
mes hn on
rea' Ma er RECEI f! E ®-
BB/JJ F!
c 4 " " APR 2 1992
SAN LUlfj()013Pd,CA .
55
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
C' 'RAL COAST AREA OFFICE
APTTOLA ROAD
SANTA CRUZ CA 95062
(408) 479.3511
April 14, 1992
Melissa Mooney; Environmental Specialist
County Environmental Coordinator's Office
Room 370, County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Subject: Environmental Impact Report, State Water
Project, Coastal Branch (Phase II) , Local
Distribution Lines and Facilities
Dear Ms. Mooney:
James Johnson, Manager of the Coastal Commission's South Central Coast Area
Office, responded to the draft of this EIR in a letter dated September 9,
1991 . Essentially, no comment was made due to budget and staff limitations
(see copy of letter, attached) .
As you may know, responsibility for Coastal Act oversight in San Luis Obispo
County has been transferred to the Coastal Commission's Santa Cruz Office.
Staff in this office have reviewed the Final EIR and Appendices and would like
to make the following comments.
1 . The Chorro Valley pipeline would be largely within the Coastal Zone and
would pass through many areas of the Commission's appeal jurisdiction and
at least one area of Coastal Commission original jurisdiction where a
permit would be required from the Commission (Toro Creek) : The
construction of this pipeline would be very disruptive to habitats along
Chorro Creek and its tributaries, and could exacerbate the problem of
siltation of Morro Bay. Coastal Commission staff does not support the
Chorro Valley pipeline. .
2. Since a pipeline from Whale Rock reservoir to San Luis Obispo exists, the
Whale Rock Exchange is the preferred alternative if State water becomes a
reality. This would preclude the building of the Chorro Valley pipeline
and the majority of problems associated with it. The water treatment
plant required under this alternative in Cayucos and/or some of its
ancillary facilities would, overall , be less significant impacts than the
Chorro Valley pipeline.
3. Even with the Whale Rock Exchange, a pipe would need to be constructed to
serve Baywood/Los Osos. This pipeline would apparently pass through
Coastal Commission original jurisdiction and would require a Coastal
Development Permit from the Commission.
Melissa Mooney, Environmental Specialist
County Environmental Coordinator's Office
April 13, 1992
Page 2
4. The Lake Nacimiento alternative should also receive high priority since
this does not require construction of the Chorro Valley pipeline and
therefore reduces coastal impacts.
5. Additional water from any project should be used to offset groundwater
basin overdrafts before being used for•additional growth allowing/inducing
purposes.
Thank you for providing us with this document.
Sincerely,
David Loomis
Assistant District Director
Steve Guiney
Coastal Planner
DL/SG/cm
Enclosure
6223A
/
Q__ _��� 00
�~����� FYI .
M
CDDrR E�I ^
--, AGENDA �
CAO mi.rift. DATE
JWaJTaNsY 0 FW DOL
^9~^-~~`,~..1 '
� '
'--
San Luis Obispo County Green Party
PO Box 1934
San Luis Obispo CA
93406-1934
The Honorable Penny Rappa
San Luis Obispo City Council
PO Box 8100
San Luis Qbispo CA
93403-8100
Ms. Rappa:
This letter is to inform you of our decision to oppose the
State Water project" At our latest meeting, information was
presented to us atlout pumping damage and THM chemicals.
The Sacramento—San Joaquin River Delta area can not
withstand the large pumping called for oy State Nater; reverse
flow would be created in portions of these rivers, making it
impossible for fish which migrate downstream to reach the ocean.
Species which are already threatened in this area inclule the
Ninter~run Chinook Salmon, Delta Smelt, and Striped Bass .
Water from marsh/bog areas (the Delta area is a large bog)
contains amounts of THM (Trihalometnane) chemicals. The
compounds Trifluormethane, Trichloromethane, and Tribromomethane
are hazardous and untreatable; these should not be present, even
in trace amounts, in tap water.
The San Luis Obispo County 8reen Party Chapter has voted
unanimously to oppose this project. Please be aware of this
decision made by Voting residents of your district.
'��
Kevin BaugIr
Secretary,
SLO County Chapter,
6reen Party
`
�� ���� � N ��� E"
�� ��.� �� � � � ��
��� �� U �w,^�
APR ` � �
COY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPQ.CA
•8Q
MEETING Pm AGENDA 1
DATE ITEM I
Patricia L.Gordon
52 Del Sol Court
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
April 21, 1992
COPIESTO:
❑.Derotf,-AcEon ❑ m
V Council 9/CDD DM
Mayor Ron Dunin ®' CAO ❑ My.DIR.
V
rACAO ❑ i7RE i-=-
City Hall �a ATFORNEY ❑ FW DIR.
990 Palm Street VCLERK/O.°.IG. ❑ M- LiCECFLL
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 13 M GME TEAM `1-1 MC DIR
k ❑ F.EAD r'ILS i�1G,tITIL DIR.
Dear Mayor Dunn. WT— [VIM—
My husband and I are residents of San Luis Obispo and we wish to
express our strong support for your position,and that of Council members Reiss
and Rappa,for State Water. We are very concerned that if the City does not take
advantage of State Water,the quality of our lives and the economic stability of
our community will be seriously eroded. We believe that participation in State
Water would be a good first step toward solving our water problems.
Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Patricia L.Gordon
lot.
Op 9 i 1992
SAN LUlg Q81SpK CA
1
MEETIN 7 • AGENDA
DATE.a�11a1 ffm# I
RICHARD N. RACOUILLAT
1301 CHORRO STREET ppTO:
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 j�•a=o0tC5Artion ❑ FYI
9 Coendl Nf CDD DIR
V CAO ❑ FIN.DIR.
ACAO ❑ -rr%ECH=-
April 20.. 1992 n7-ral��rsY ❑ Fav DWlam•=,,K/('C.. D pOLICE CI-L
f ❑ 6d0dT. REC.DIP
I IG�O rf�� �iff '.�,� 1
Mayor Ron Dunin -
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Ron:
My wife and I appreciate your firm stand supporting State Water. We
hope that you will continue to suR ort State Water after the April 21 meeting
and that you will continue to exercise responsible management of our
resources. We support State Water and we support caution on growth issues
because the quality of our lives depends on water and responsible
management of our resources.
Sincerely,
Richard N. Racouillat
APR 2 1 1992
CITY CLERK
iviEETING 7� AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
1176 Pismo Street ' �`DD,3.
FI
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Y `C L_ Ec. =
20 April 1992 L;4',1 1--T OR
_, 17yCjj,.
Ms . Penn Ra a �4. ❑ .i t,•t .res] C; Dl..
Y PP _ 1 C :• 4Dr;_e G"rLD1
Councilman €
City of San Luis Obispo APR 9 U^ 1992 —
Dear Ms . Rappa , CITY CLERK
r_AN LIJ!� 0i31SP0, CA
I am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to state water
for the city of San Luis Obispo . I am opposed for a number of
reasons including the following:
1 . The state water project is an unreliable source of water ; it
seems to be able to supply water anytime when water is not in
short supply but would have supplied a very small amount of water
this year for example had we not had normal rains this year . We,
do not need to pay for expensive water during the majority of
years when water is not in short supply only to have it largely
unavailable when we need it . Given that this drought was a
"hundred year drought" which means that a similar drought can be
expected only once in a hundred years , we may be paying
drastically higher water bills for a hundred years before we need
the water again and then when we do need it only a small amount
will be available .
2 . We have just gone through the worst drought in history yet
with only one year of normal rain we have largely recharged the
city ' s water sources .
3 . Though the citizens did a good job of decreasing water usage ,
if necessary, much more could have been done. My family for
example ( 3 people including a baby ) received the " lifeline"
allotment yet we never used more than 2/3 of our allotment and I
never felt truly inconvenienced, installed a small landscape ( on
drip) and operated a hot tub during the period. People are
extremely wasteful of water and by small steps could, for
example, have kept their landscapes alive. The truth is , I
' cvtelieve , that many people let the drought be an excuse for
C>1 x cletting lawns die so that they wouldn ' t have to maintain them!
C\, U04 . The best way to solve water problems is to use it wisely and
c �- -perhaps to look at other local options such as expansion of the
.1 -Salinas reservoir . The state is not a reliable nor a cheap
_. Rsupplier of water .
Finally, I would like to remind you that the people of this city
voted in the advisory vote against state water ; it is your duty
as our representative to vote according to our wishes . This is
especially true since you promised us to heed our advice on water
and we voted for you for that reason . Voters nowadays feel truly
.7 ; ,-.,..F,-�...+h; �ori__ ii• Annanit acnm to mattor wbnt wa want--thA
politicians always do what they want . It doesn ' t- matter what a
politician promises because it always changes later . I hope that
you will be one politician who will carry out our wishes .
Sincerely yours ,
7R o!4er ttRice Jr .
Taxpayer and Voter
71,R
MtETI&
.,.AGENDA
DATE "jITEM #
TO:
Actcnn EJ
1176 Pismo Street
xicl
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 0 ❑
FEN,.
20 April 1992 10 CDD DIR
R E,
I V
Mr . Ron Duni nLi
APR 2 0 1992 1 13
Mayor
D R L
t
City of San Luis Obispo I- ,P445
C:TY CLERK
SAN LUZ OBISPO,CA
Dear Mr . Dunin ,
I am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to state water
for the city of San Luis Obispo . I am opposed for a number of
reasons including the following:
1 . The state water project is an unreliable source of water ; it
seems to be able to supply water anytime when water is not in
short supply but would have supplied a very small amount of water
this year for example had we not had normal rains this year . We
do not need to pay for expensive water during the majority of
years when water is not in short supply only to have it largely
unavailable when we need it .
2 . We have just gone through the worst drought in history yet
with only one year of normal rain we have largely recharged the
city ' s water sources .
3 . Though the citizens did a good job of decreasing water usage,
if necessary, much more could have been done . My family for
example ( 3 people including a baby) received the " lifeline"
allotment yet we never used more than 2/3 of our allotment and I
never felt truly inconvenienced , installed a small landscape (on
drip ) and operated a hot tub during the period . People are
extremely wasteful of water and by small steps could , for
example, have kept their landscapes alive . The truth is , I
believe, that many people let the drought be an excuse for
letting lawns die so that they wouldn ' t have to maintain them!
Finally, I would like to remind you that the people of this city
voted in the advisory vote against state water ; it is your duty
as our representative to vote according to our wishes . Voters
nowadays feel truly disenfranchised--it doesn ' t seem to matter
what we want--the politicians always do what they want . I hope
that you will be one politician who Will carry out our wishes .
sin rely yours , APR ? 0 1992
CITY CLERK
LUIS GpI_,po, CA
Robert P . Rice Jr .
Taxpayer and Voter
ML AGENDA
z
DATE&= /
San Luis Obispo
Property. Owners Association
P.O. Box 12924
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
April 20,, 1992
City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo City Council APR 2 0 1992
Post Office Box 810
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 CITY QLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Members of the City Council:
The San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association strongly advises that the city
council support a YES vote on State Water. We realize that this has been an
emotional issue with considerable input over the last year. We feel we have
weighed the evidence, both pro and con, and have reached an informed decision
to support State Water.
Given the recent years of drought, and no certainty that this cycle will be broken,
we feel that the State Water Project is imperative and in the community's best
interest. To be locked out of the system for generations to come would be
ludicrous and is not an acceptable alternative. Please do not make the same
mistake that the County Board of Supervisors made on Nacimiento Lake many
years ago. Let that be a lesson learned and give us a viable alternative in State
Water. Please vote in favor of the State Water Project!
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Rollie McCormick corm_0- I
❑0 lutes Aeon
[c� F17
ePresident Coune] ❑/cDDDIX
San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association 9,CA0 ❑ M.mg,
Lil ACRO ❑ ME CHIEF
Q� ��11TfOf��iEY ❑ FW DUL
IXCLEfiK/04G. ❑ POLiCECI-L
O MGMT.TEA-lel C1 �n„EC DIR
DiI2.
5,,:' Imo'
NMLETIN!°P�m' AGENDA
DATE '21.9ot ITEM #=
COMESTO:
❑,-�/•Dcm'ca Action J ❑ FYI
10 Councl Ifs CDD DIR.
April 16 , 1992 CAG ❑ FU%I.D1R.
ACAO ❑ FIEF:=r-
A 1TOMN Y ❑ ON DIR.
1:3 POUCE CH
Ms. Penn Ra a ❑ n:c\•T.icr?.1 C'.1/:cEC.D11t
Y PP F-1C.i�1DPIILE 1Q 'JrLJI
San Luis Obispo City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ms. Rappa,
When you ran for the office of City Council in both 1985 and
1989 you ran on the promise that you would abide by a city
wide vote on the issue of State Water, as well as issuing a
statement that you opposed State Water.
tr aij ! ;y,
Now, as the time comes for you to take a stand on that very
same issue, you seem to be back tracking on your statement,
as well as the promise you made to the people of San Luis
Obispo, who voted for you.
When I voted for you in both 1985 and 1989 , I felt that I
was voting for a candidate with a desire to serve her
constituents and their beliefs. I no longer feel that way,
I feel that you are going to change your opinion and
probably your vote. I feel upset, cheated, and very
disappointed once again in our local politicians.
With that in mind:
- I am asking you as someone who voted for you, based
on your beliefs and promises , to vote NO on State
Water !
- I am also asking you as someone who was prepared to
vote for you as Mayor, to vote NO on State Water !
Ms. Rappa, I am asking you as a City Council member elected
to serve her constituents , to vote the way I thought you
would (and you promised you would ) when I voted for you.
Sincerely ,
John K. Thomas
F /Ci=- IVrr
545 Stoneridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APR 9 u" 1992
805 549-8304 CITY CLERK
^F.^: LUES OBISPO,CA.
.
MEETIN �D�m.
DATE 421-941 AGENDA
ITEM#
'
"2-TO:
D-mo'es Ac'_oa ❑ Y1
A Caine] V'CD7 G.R. s
10 CA.O LJF tr.DER.
April 17, 1992 �eACAO ❑ :�.l:
!„ I rc-CvsY ❑ r+j DJR.
�C FaA F-:- nh
Councilperson Penny Rappa - -
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O Box-8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Penny:
We wanted to write you a short note to express our appreciation for your public
stance with regard to state water. Maggie and I have been in favor of the State Water
Project for some time and believe it is the most reasonable alternative we have for new
sources of water.
We admire your strength of conviction in making this difficult decision. And, if all
goes as it should, it is gratifying to know that the short sided decisions of the past
regarding water resources will not be repeated. You have our complete support.
Sincerely,
Dave & Maggie Cox
(C
APR ? U 1992
CITY CLEFK
CA`: LU;S OS" 0,CA
_ B A R N E T T C 0 X 8 A S S O C I A T E S 2511 Gorden Rood 1319 Chorro
MONTEREY SAN LUIS OBISPO Bldg.B,Suite 160 Son Luis Obispo
Monterey,CA 93940 CA 93401
408.375.7634 805.545.BS87
Fax 408.375.8012 Fax 805.545.0860
MEETIN� p� AGENDA
DATE 8 ITEM #
4-15-92
Ms. Penny Rappa
City Councilperson
Ms. Rappa :
We are voters in San Luis Obispo . Two years ago when the
majority of us decided against state water you said you would
abide by our wishes. We would greatly appreciate it if you
would do so and vote no on state water or call for a new vote
by the citizens of San Luis Obispo .
We feel that the cost (which is bound to be more than
expected ) , the impact on the environment , contributing to the
destruction of the delta region in northern california , the
questionable quality and quantity of water that would be
delivered in a serious drought situation, the probable
stimulus for growth , and the alliance with the State Water
Bureaucracy which is out of our control are all reasons not
to proceed with this project .
Let ' s be one of the only communities in Southern-Central
California that lives within it own resources. We feel this
approach will go a long way in maintaining the life styles we
all enjoy here in San Luis Obispo .
Sincerely;
Dr . and Mrs. Walter Rogers
242 Marlene Dr .
San Luis Obispo , Ca.
93405
546-7774
COPIESTO- :
!� ❑-D" c'�AcYon ❑ Fri f
f 5
CAO
�CDDDIR. 1
El FIN.DIX
i� ACAO ❑ FREOilEr
r. _ ATTORUEy ❑ FN DIR.
�CLCI iC/O 'f. ❑ POLICFCH.
D
I,PR ? OREAFLEI Gil LDIR.
U 1992
CVTY
�r Ll�S OBIS?O•CA
MFS :acDA
I ,2529 Santa Clara Street -
` San Luis ObispoCA
,
s ,r Apri116; 1992� a
Z. STUNWv
Ms:Penny Rappa tr ' Action D bYl
Councilmember w I�CDD DIX
_ City Councsl
n r L
t r ..n ° , r;� t r der. �LsK® `� r ❑. CLL�G•�..[uCJ•
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Y r r Ate./ : I��y,}Fyw� D/r_�R/ _
Re;• Ci Council Vote on: Nat>�'t°,TRa1t_ M IM
1 REQ DR
State Water Project . „®:"
: Dear Coiffdlmemiier Rappa '-
:The'purpose.:of out• letter Fis to c`_onvey:our sentiments regarding the r
City Councils upcoming_dec>sion on state water Unfortu-ately;,:we.
will be .
- '
unable to attend the'Apri121 City Council meeting on this unportant issue
IT
ti. .
_ However, we feel strongly enough; that +flus subject �s'"too critical to go
without ou`r input: Obviously,both sides of this debate'sari recite various ;
coM iiiif"tecli*al arguments;'for,and against state water Most of these
sitions-sound logical and in the.be-st int rest of our city However;we prefer to== -
tTom+ r .a m ..� ' '4•-rrv',� �•e•^�—+–T,I
takeYa somewhat"sialplistic view 6fthus issuer SuYiply put; in fiftTyears an .. -
5 established'water delivery:system will have long since been amended beside our
community: ThLs`systent-willlikely be providing Ovate=or be'available as aback
up water supply to many of ourrn-eighboring Communities 4,
r '' The thought that our ci mold forever be "locked=out" of'the"s`,stem strikes
` tis'as a potentially_grievous error We believe that the future of our community,'
and its residents (our children) deserve better;%-,
- '-a
Frankly,'given;the uncertainties involved we do no+ spew state,water,as a
r. r!j "jf T.,z.Yf
particularly; attractive,water.source However; it is infniitely prefeiable to the =
M,
alternatives. Our commuiuty will be relying upon your leadership at this-most
critical lunchire Please leave a legacy of foresight on Behalf of our children, and
Y
Vote to support the'state water prolect1
r � - L
Thank you for considering our views
x
fd
r r n 7.
ti
Y � Y ter, N i y t,. I .1 •J r I - I k J
G
S.lr,_4.rZt1.� - a 4�:Y. � _ — [ 1 —
Todd,O.Murphy " ° ` Heather S.{Mu>:phy
(805.541
� - = i br APR x:8'1992, ,r r4
y 1 y "Jr .Sr
", r•,. � rt.. ;b4 ,d } � t.11L
CITY,CL�ERK+ -
` SAN LUIS OBISPO..CA
1100
DENNIS B. WHEELER, JR. MEETING It AGENDA
DATE q�j _qA ITru a
843 Via Esteban Son Luis Ob'ispoM'
r
0 PIESTO
Dmaes Action ❑ FYI
O',Ap v CDD DII
CAO . 0 FIN.DIR.
FWr ACAO 0 FIFE CHEF
u n c I i -i riv A11TOMEY 0 T-W DIR.
wi m_- n Psi F.Z:� I.a
Cit'✓ Ha I I
eCLEWOR."G. 13 POLICE CPL
9, F a 1 -n Street 0 1`4CMTTF-kN1 Q TSC DIX
San L u 01:,ispo. CA 93!401 CFEFARLE VTj'7LD12.
F---r many .1,,,-nths I have 'beti-n watc-hin1 with interest the
deliberati :,ns and comings and coinzs on the State Water
iSSUe .
Nv if ji
and I ware o,-ne the past ccuple of weeks. anti I
that vC:U CBM: Out With a stand for State 'A;Zt6r
jurinz our aLsence. I f,-el thSt -.. t:jl.i are to to Cz:nzratulated !
I that the issue is 'u ] I --If miSinformation, and of
1:'ol iti::;al Oveftolle- . hoWe'.16r . the fact remains that we
CsnrOt t o, -,e c d
z&& ; I the future as to what our, Leeds s will be . To
d�lnv tht= future tg?7enerations of at least makinq decisions
r Z.1,.f C" i r;z w.a t e r that a f f e.C t them w 0 U I d be' f 0 1 1 Y.. T c. a p p r o v
Stare allows thtzm that -:pportunity.
] f .,,, ,--;wf h is the real issue . lets deal with zrr--wth. and not
use ,,,atrar as an "e:-(cuse " t.z, deny future growth.
Azain. on vour stand.
r
APR
v F U
? n 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
T
,La ,Lomita e fich
DATEMEETI al-9a MtlAGENDA
❑°DE icltea ActonJ ❑ M j
April 15, 1992. seGoundl CDDDIR. i
C<<o ❑ FTX DIR.
FP ACAO ❑ F-LRc.Ci-1- "
0.)'.TTCT:L\TEY ❑ FA!CI...
Mrs. Penny Rappa ❑ I G T.� !] C! ciu:,
City Council C r�4n>L: -`r: : ..
San Luis Obispo, CA 934��-- a
Dear Penny.
Courage and leadership are qualities which
have been sorely lacking from our local elected
officials.
You have shown both - with your stated position
on State Water.
Not only does it make sense - but it is what
you feel is right for our community .- now, and
in the future.
I personally believe you have solidified your
position of leadership for our City with this
position and have became a rallying point for .
the "silent majority" who will support you in the
caning elections.
Being a leader is lonely, at times. . But I'm
proud of the way in which you have handled the
issue.
Best persongards, APR 2 i 1992
G'7t'
SAN LU:S OE:ErO,CA
Dou las ock
4501 Orcutt Road, San is Obispo, California 93401
Office: 805/543-8475 Telefax: 805/531-6271
l
1
L.
1 � �
'. ABO J2d:slldao aad suoIIs!D
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G O W Co 1*- Co In `d- co N T O
Z co
N T T T T T T T T T T
laa � I
a 3r
c D -0 .............
!
° [4
i SII
00
U)
■ i a
cz
� o - oI
>' LO
Li
r• �� c -
._
jp CIO
CL
4 04 7 v � co cb Co C) co co N _
W (spuesnoy_L)
w ICY)
uoilaindod
O ' zy
Z UZ M;
RMIN _ 9 AGENDA_: ,./
D'• _ ITEM f_..._
city ® sAn. vuis oaspo
�
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
April 20, 1992
COPD TO:
❑• Mxfls AGion FYI
CDDDIR
TO: Councilperson Pinard �,O ❑ RN.DIR.
g CAO E3ME CHMF
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorne �'ra:LVEY ❑ FwDIIt
f3 a KI _. G. ❑ POUCECH
❑ ❑
SUBJECT: State Water Proiect MGMT.TEA 3.a PZC aIP-
F11-E
Ouestion:
This memorandum is in response to your telephone request on
Thursday, April 16, 1992, for a written opinion on whether. a City
Council decision to participate in the State Water Project would
constitute a "legislative" or "administrative" act. The
significance of the distinction is that a legislative act may be
subject to referendum, whereas an administrative or adjudicatory
act is not.__ _
Analysis:
As a preliminary comment, it is important to note that whether an
action is legislative or administrative is dependent upon the
specific facts and law applicable to each unique situation. While
the courts have interpreted what constitutes legislative or
administrative action in numerous cases, none of those cases is
exactly analogous to the State Water Project issue and therefore, ,
it is not possible to say with certainty how a court might rule if
called upon to do so_ in this particular instance.
While the power of referendum is to be liberally construed to
uphold that power whenever it is reasonable to do so, it is also
well established that the exercise of the referendum power is
limited to matters that are legislative, and conversely,
administrative acts are not subject to referenda. Unfortunately,
the test for determining what is legislative and what is
administrative or adjudicatory is not always clear. Perhaps the
best test is as follows:
"Legislative acts generally are those which
declare a public purpose and make provisions .
for the ways and means of its accomplishment.
Administrative acts, on the other hand, are
APR 201992
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISP_O,CA
those which are necessary to carry out the
legislative policies and purposes already
declared by the legislative body. . . . " Fishman
v. City of Palo Alto, 150 Cal.Rptr. 326, 327
(1978) . Merriman v. Board of Supervisors, 188
Cal.Rptr. 343, 344 (1983) .
Applying this test to a City Council decision to participate in the
State Water Project by approving the water supply and water
treatment agreements, if the State Water Project is viewed as an
isolated, single policy decision, independent of any other City
plans or policies, then an argument can be made that it may
constitute a legislative act under the Fishman and Merriman test,
to the extent that the Council's action would " . . . declare a public
purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of its
accomplishment. " On the other hand, if a City Council decision to
participate in the State Water Project by approving the water
supply and water treatment agreements is viewed as one means of
implementing already existing plans and policies such as the City's
General Plan, Land Use Element, Water and Wastewater Management
Element, multi-source water policy, and other adopted policies to
provide the City with an adequate water supply, then an argument
can be made that participation in the State Water Project would be
an act necessary to carry out the legislative policies and purposes
already established by the City, and therefore an administrative
act under Fishman and Merriman.
The only case I have identified dealing specifically with approval
- ' of contracts held that aside from any express or implied provision
in a charter, the making of contracts by a city's legislative body
is an administrative, not a legislative function. Earl v. Bowen,
146 C. 754 (1905) .
Although beyond the scope of your inquiry, there are other judicial
limitations on the referendum process which could potentially have
applicability to this situation. Thus, a referendum may not
interfere with powers exclusively delegated to the City Council,
either under state - law or the charter; it may not impair an
essential government function, and it may not conflict with an
adopted general plan. Since your inquiry was directed to an
analysis of legislative vs. administrative acts, I have not
conducted significant research into these issues.
Conclusion:
While the answer to your question is not entirely certain, I
believe a stronger argument can be . made that a City Council
decision to participate in the State Water Project by approving
the water supply and water treatment agreements, taken in the
context of all of the City's adopted plans and policies concerning
water, is an administrative act to implement the City's water
supply needs, and therefore not subject to referendum.
2
In the event the City is presented with a referendum petition, it
would be my. recommendation that we consult with an independent
' expert on this'. issue. As you may recall, the City previously
contracted with Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. and Thomas C. Wood of the
law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Ennerson for an analysis
of the W.A.T.E.R. Initiative. Mr. Curtin is perhaps the foremost
authority in California on municipal law, and his. firm is. the
author of the leading treatise on the subject of referenda
entitled, "Land Use Initiatives and Referenda - in California, "
Solano Press Books,. 1990. Mr. Curtin did a thorough and objective
job of analyzing the W.A.T.E.R. Initiative and would be a valuable
, .resource to the City should the need arise.
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
contact- me at your convenience.
JGJ/sw
cc: City Council
John Dunn.
Ken Hampian
Bill Hetland
Arnold Jonas=_== =
3
i -. '. .. – '._. s- L .: -. 1.- •.r—..M ..' ' .•.. a...—U. .. _. . .. • .... - .. - —
r
MEETING AGENDA
April 17, 1992
DATE e- ITEM # L =0°�
Mayor Ron Dunin
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Dear Mayor Dunin,
As an active and concerned citizen of San Luis Obispo, I am
deeply distressed over the prospect of our tax dollars going towards
support of the State Water Project. I will limit my argument against
SLO participation in the SWP to the financial consequences for
ourselves and our heirs.
1) President Bush has appointed William Bennett, a
knowledgeable, strong environmentalist, as head of the federal
Environmental Protection Agency.
2) Governor Wilson has appointed James Strock, a
knowledgeable, strong environmentalist, as head of Cal-EPA.
3) The people of northern California already dislike and
distrust the people of southern California specific to water issues and
water rights.
Put that combination together with the documented
degradation of the Sacramento Delta region and you can go ahead
and pay millions of dollars into the SWP and guaranteed litigation
from those combined forces at a not-too-distant date will STOP
delivery of our entitlement.
The people of San Luis Obispo voted and have spoken. Heed
our words. Do not spend our tax money on the State Water Project!
Sandra D. Sigurdson roPIESM;
665 Buchon St. 0*5;1asAcdw ❑ FYI
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 �c°'w ❑ CDDDR
544-2507 ICAO ❑ FIN.DM
� .�✓� �/ � Lam! ACAO ❑ ME CHIEF
B ATr M NEY ❑ FW DIR.
APR 1 b Eff a.ERK/OPIc. ❑ POLICECI-r.
❑ MCMT.TELrd ❑ ,EC DIR
CITY COUNCIL CTR�FADFILL [1((
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
r
MEETING AGENDA 7=°
DATE '4'21-92 f W # I p
con sro:
❑•Denotes Acton ❑ FYI
if comca ❑ CDDDIR.
4a'CAO ❑ RN.D<R.
ACRO ❑ FM CLUE'
A'FTOMNEY ❑ FVV DIP,
April 16, 1992 aiwonuc. ❑ mucE t-L
�r l FLE VTI _a
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Office�?�
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director uJN'
SUBJECT: State Water Project Questions
Listed below are answers to the questions generated from the State Water Project
(SWP) briefings with Council members.
1. Section 11(d) of the Water Treatment Agreement provides for an increase in
non-defaulting contractor costs. Please provide a thorough explanation of the
effect of this provision, particularly what facilities would be included for which
the City would be required to pay.
The purpose of this provision is to provide financial integrity to the bond
holders which will result in lower interest costs to the contractors. The
provision allows the district to pass on the costs of a defaulting contractor to
the other non-defaulting contractors up to 25% of the non-defaulting
contractors costs. In return, the non-defaulting contractor would obtain a
proportionate share. of the water entitlement of the defaulting contractor. The
defaulting costs would include both the treatment plant costs and local facilities
costs such as a spur line to serve the defaulting contractor. There are also
provisions in the contract for the District or CCWA to pursue recovery of costs
from the defaulting contractor. It is very unlikely that contractors would
default since the contractors are public agencies, and it would only be likely
that a small agency would default, which would have little impact on the City.
2. Who is CCWA? How are they organized, what authority, including taxing
authority, if any, do they have? Provide background information concerning
the JPA.
CCWA is the Central Coast Water Authority and is composed of the water
agencies from Santa Barbara County that have entitlement to State water.
Only the public agency members have voting rights. CCWA has the authority
RECEIVED
APR 1 11992
CITY CLERK
tAN LUIS(%ISPQ.CA
State Water Project Questions
Page 2
to obtain financing, design, construct and operate various facilities including
treatment plant and local distribution lines. The only taxing authority that they
have is what the individual member agencies possess, and that is limited by
Prop 13 restrictions on taxation.
3. In the event of a default by another contractor, are we responsible to pay for
that contractor's pipeline and other local facilities unrelated to the water
treatment plant?
Yes, up to the extent of 25% of the City's costs under the Water Treatment
and Local Facilities Agreement. See question #1.
4. Please provide a copy of the provisions of the Cayucos contract allowing them
to withdraw in the event an exchange is not negotiated.
Cayucos and others are allowed to opt out of their agreements prior to the
issuance of any bonds by CCWA. If they do so, by that time there will not be
costs passed on to the other contractors. A copy of the agreement section is
attached.
5. Discuss the various aspects of the County's (District) decision concerning
unallocated reserve.
The District has an entitlement to 25,000 afy of State water. It is very unlikely
that they will have contracts for all the water. Their dilemma is what they
should do with the rest of their unallocated State water. Their options include
only requesting the amount of water for which they have contracts. This would
be the most cost effective option for the City of San Luis Obispo because we
would only pay for our costs. The worst case option from a cost stand point
would be for the District to take their full entitlement of 25,000 afy. This
would place the burden on the water contracting agencies to carry the cost of
the treatment plant and local facilities. General SWP costs would be passed
on to local taxpayers county-wide. The most logical approach for the District
to take would be to retain a small amount of unallocated water for those
agencies that have requested SWT water but were not included in the initial
environmental work. After the environmental work is completed, those
agencies would pick up their respective costs. This approach would have the
minimal impact and risk for the City.
6. What would be the impact of the Seymour Bill on the SWP (where the State
would gain control over Federal water, i.e., Central Valley Project, "CVP")?
The CVP was initially planned as a portion of the State Water Plan. When
bonds could not be sold in the late 1920's because of the depression, the
federal government took over the project. The CVP is considered to have
excess water supply but deficient transportation capability. The SWP, on the
State Water Project Questions
Page 3
e-5� ;ea- ie other hand, has
deficient supply but excess water transportation capability. . By the State taking
over the CVP, it would provide greater flexibility in making water deliveries which
would help project reliability and could improve release schedules to the delta.
7. If the City obtains water from all three water sources (State, Nacimiento, and
increased capacity of Salinas Reservoir), would not the City have more water
than it needs, and how would we pay for the extra water?
If the City were to develop all of the three water resource projects mentioned,
it would have more water than is needed to meet the requirements and policies
of the current General Plan. The main problem is that there are no guarantees
that all the projects can be developed and deliver the quantities of water
anticipated. Over the last three years, the City has looked at a number of potential
water supply projects and has had to reject many of them because of either cost
or environmental reasons.
8. What "entanglements" does the receipt of State water involve? Can it lead to
future mandates from the State in other areas?
None can be foreseen at this time. The State water contract can only be changed
by the consent of each party. The State can not unilaterally place new
requirements on the contractors. This does not mean that there could not be
major changes in water right laws or interpretations, or court decisions which may
have an impact on the SWP. But, in all likelihood, they may also similarly impact
local projects. While all cities and water districts in California are ultimately
"creatures of the State", our status as a charter City gives us as much "local home
rule autonomy" as any unit of local government in the State.
9. If the average use were lower than 195 gallons per resident per day, would State
water still be needed (with Nacimiento and Salinas Reservoir increase in
capacity)?
At some lower per capita consumption rate, the City would not need the SWP.
In order to lower the per capita consumption, it would require a permanent
reduction in water use through water conservation. There is very little data or
experience in order to make a judgement at this time as to the level of permanent
reduction that could be achieved. The City looked at a major retrofit program
and concluded that it may result in only about a 10% reduction in the per capita
use. This reduction in use and the uncertainty of the Salinas and Nacimiento
projects is not enough justification for not pursuing the SWP. There are many
factors which can affect the City's water use. The City has tried to make
assumptions based on conservative and realistic estimates. If estimates that are
too aggressive are used, and the assumptions are not validated, the City can
experience shortfalls in their water resources as occurred over the past few years.
State Water Project Questions
Page 4
10. If the County decides on all unallocated reserve, and in the event of default by
other State-water-using agencies, would County taxpayers be subject to a tax to
make up the payment for the defaulting agency (per Clint Milne memo of
March 2, 1992, attached)?
The two costs associated with the SWP are costs for the SWP facilities
including all the existing aqueducts, including the Coastal Branch, pump
stations, dams etc. and the local costs for the regional treatment plant and the
distribution lines like to north county or Morro Bay. In the case of a default,
it is proposed that the costs for the SWP facilities would be recovered from the
tax rolls (since that has been approved previously by the voters) and the local
costs would be recovered from the other non-defaulting partners, in accordance
with the Agreement. See answer to question #1.
11. Is the City liable for part of the payment for an extension of a State water
line to North County (Templeton, for example)?
Yes; see questions #1 and #10.
Attachments:
Article 33 - Assignment and Conditions Precedent from the
WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8 (Cayucos)
Clint Milne memo dated March 2, 1992
ATTACHMENT
Article 30 Joint Powers Agreement and/or Authority.
No provision of this agreement is intended to prohibit the District and
Contractor, in conjunction with other contractors, from entering into a joint
powers agreement, or from forming a joint powers authority, concerning any
subject matter contained in this agreement provided, however, that it is
understood that this paragraph shall not be construed as requiring District or
Contractor, or any other contractor, to enter into any such joint powers
agreement or form such joint powers authority.
ARTICLE 31. Advisory Group.
District and Contractor shall use their best efforts to form, with other
Contractors for Project Water, an advisory group, the membership of which shall
be representatives of District and Contractor and of other Contractors. The
purpose of the advisory group shall be to monitor all aspects of this agreement
and related agreements and to advise the governing bodies of District and
Contractor on the functioning of this agreement and related agreements, and to
recommend to the governing bodies of District and Contractor any modifications
to said agreements that may, from time to time, be appropriate.
Article 32. Agreements to be Uniform.
Agreements executed by the District with other agencies shall be
substantially similar to this agreement with respect to basic terms and
conditions, and shall differ primarily with respect to quantities and payment
amounts; except that any such agreement(s) with San Luis Obispo County Waterworks
District No. 8, Morro Rock Mutual Water Company and/or Paso Robles Beach Water
Association may include provisions for exchange of water in lieu of participation
in the construction of Local Facilities, and, also, conditions precedent
concerning the construction of Local Facilities.
Article 33 Assignment and Conditions Precedent.
Because the cost of Contractor's water service amount would be prohibitive
in the event that the City of Morro Bay did not participate in the construction
of the Local Facilities 'necessary to deliver Project Water to Contractor and
because the most economical manner for Contractor to make additional water
available to its customers is by means of an exchange of water with a member
agency of the Whale Rock Commission, District and Contractor further agree:
(1) On or before Contractor may, without . the prior
approval of District assign of its rights and obligations under this
agreement to the Whale Rock Commission, or a member agency thereof. Upon
such assignment Contractor shall be relieved of any and all of its
obligations under this agreement and the assignee shall assume all of
Contractor's rights and obligations under this agreement except that the
assignee shall not be responsible for any obligation of Contractor to
participate in the cost of any Local Facilities consisting of a pipeline
from the City of San Luis Obispo to the City of Morro Bay; provided
further, that if by. (date) Contractor shall not have
successfully concluded sai exchange agreement and assigned Contractor's
rights and obligations hereunder, Contractor may, by giving written notice
to District by _(date)_. relieve itself of any and all of Contractor's
obligations hereunder, and in such event District shall succeed to
Contractor's rights hereunder.
1S
(2) The execution by the City of Morro Bay of a Water Supply Agreement
and a Water Treatment and Local Facilities Agreement and the participation
of the City of Morro Bay in the financing and construction of the Local
Facilities necessary to the delivery of Project Water to Contractor shall
be conditions precedent to Contractor's obligations and rights under this
agreement unless Contractor shall waive, in a writing delivered to.
District, all of said conditions precedent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the
date first above written.
ATTEST: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By By
ATTEST: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WATERWORKS
DISTRICT NO. 8
By By
stw\ww8.agr.cmc
` fl0 LUIS OBISPO COHN - EP RTMENG
COUNTY G01V.rlsmf.N7 CINIFR • ROOM 207 • SAN LUIS OSISI.O. CAUFORNIA SSAG6
CliIN-10N MIINE rHOKE ;605) 5.5.5;`52 • FAX (ECS) !A6.1,"
Count' Eng;nctr
G::N L.tnpZr
71 ,.:0.r:•lKrwllt .
-,CF. uwG tG.
�
5.l:�.71•r.(+:.}.wS:l.tAt '� lJ J J
J! �!•' � � Rb00 CCS-"t;
w�;i!C
I Cr.S:NATIC
jPAR 3!nf !:�S CCwn.-r wrvr-c
March 2, 1992 D6'M
DOJ F.o OF K
�t1h"T OF 5.x.4!!FS OoISPJ .
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Blakely, Supervisor District 5
FROM: Clinton Milne, County Engineer 3IZ�n?j
SUBJECT: S;.ate Water Proved - Response to'your Memo of February 18,:1992.
The following is my response in answer to your questions:
'1. Can the local purveyors contract directly with the State, leaving the County out of the.
dealt
-`t
In my opinion, the answer is 'No.' I suppose were the State Mlling to accept, and the
District willing to relinquish some of its enddement and recommend that the State ;
contract with the local purveyor that such could be done. It is my opinion that this
could potentially adversely affect the financial in!ggrity of the State Wateran
the State would not approve the transfer.1 One of the things that the State requires is
security that in the event of default in payment, the District would impose a tax to
make up for the default; a local purveyor could not provide that security (becau a of
Proposition 13).
12. is the County ultimately responsible if the purveyors cannot pay the obligations that
they have for the State Water? if so, how will the County propose covering that cost?'
In the agreements, we intend to make it as nearly foolproof as possible that there will
be no need for the District tax to back up any defaulting contractors. If such an ]for
should occur, then the tax can be imposed to back up the payments to the Statthe State facilities. That is the security that v as developed so that the bond bwould provide a low interest rate on the bonds. Suchwas approved by the voters
to Proposition 13 and therefore, is nottgoverrled by Proprsition 13.
In :h2 Cc$e Of rera)''lerlt for lL2 ;oCEl ;CCIIiJ2$ IiCC CJ ill tcK2 S,, rrOCd Katef
(regional L•eatment plan, spurlines, etc.), v.'e are propasing agreernenrs wn;ch would
provide that if one purveyor cefaLlts, ot`-er purveyors would provide up to a 25
�-F k
n -
�+r
backup so that the District would not have to cover the cost. (These local facilities-,
cannot be backed up with taxes.) This kind of backup should prove to the benefit of I
all participants because it would give the bond buyers more security with the result of
a lower interest rate. Also, should the unlikely event ever occur, then the defaulting
purveyor's water entitlement would be transferred to the other purveyors. Should the
25% backup not be adequate for the local facilities, then the bond buyer would take
the loss, not the District
'3. Is it possible to have the local jurisdictions bond or provide some collateral to cover
their requested amounts of water?'
It is not traditionally done between public agencies and in light of the proposed
agreements, it would not appear to be necessary.
4
Frankly, I believe the risk of default on a water supply project is about as minimal as
can be achieved.
a\m\swpres.mmo.ams
. ................ ... . _._.. ........................ . .. .... . .......... . . ..._... .............. .. .......... ._ . ..... .
CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY VOTING
Orlg SWP Participating VotingVoting_ Y A
.._... _
As of 9/25/91 Entitlement Entitlement Entitlement Percent E N B Tally
WATERSHED (see note) - S 0 S
. _........ .........
Pudic Agency Member? laty] IaM
SOUTH COAST
.. .. ..................
...
Y Carpinteria CWD 2,700 2,000 2,000 7.64
Y Summerland CWD 300 : 300 300 1.15%
Y Montecito WD 2,185 2,700 21185 8.35%
Y Santa Barbara, City of 3,000 3,000 3,000 11.4796
. ..... _._ ......... ... ... ..._ . ... .. . .....
YGoleta WD 4,500' 4,500 4,500 17.20%
N La Cumbre MWC 1,000 1,000 0
N SBCFCBWCD � 250 0 0
N Santa Barbara Aesearch.Center 50 5o 0
.... . ...
N Morehart Land Company - 200 , 200 0
S C Total 13,750 11,985 45.81%
SANTA YNEZ
.... ....................:..
Y Santa Ynez RWCD, 1.D. #1 2,000 ; 2,000 2,000 7.64%
Y Buelfton CSD 578 : 578 578 2.21%
... ....... .. ..
N C csm
:.._p0c. ! ... . . 4.000 0 O
N Mission HQIs CSD 500 0 0
N Vandenberg V111age.CSD
600 0 0
S Y Total 2,578 2,578 9.85%
SAN ANTONIO
' . ..
N Casmalia CSD ,mtl.1' '.1( 23 0 0
.. ..... ..... ..
. ....... ..
N Vandenberg AFB 8,000 . 0
S A Total 8,000 0
SANTA MARIA
...._ ....... ..... ....................
IN
Guadalupe, City of 300 : 550 300 1.15%
Santa Maria,. City of....................... .......11,300 : X16,200 11,300 '. 43.19%
_ ., _. ...
Southern C i6rnla Water Co:t`7 3,000.4 :: :::...4C, 9,000 0
S M Total 25,750 11,600 44.34%
CUYAMA r
N Cuyama CSD 1,000 . 0 0
Cuyama Total 0
TOTAL 45,486 : 50,078 26,163 100.00%
Note:Voting entitlement Is the lessor of original entitlement 50%—> 13,082
or Participating Entitlement.
Only pudic agency member are entitled to vote. �I ��
MEETING AGENDA I
DATE 4=rrEM # I P,
1349 Descanso
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 C P Ammon ❑
April 17, 1992 FYI
Camdl ❑ CDDDR
iW CAO ❑ FIN.DTR.
Q'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ka'AT 1MNEY C3Ftv DrR.
2 CI z0r;G. ❑ POLICE01
Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council ❑ MGMT.TEa.'bl ❑ P.EC.DIR.
City of San Luis Obispo 13:CREADF'I.E
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: State Water Project
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
Please, PLEASE vote YES on State Water!
Prior to the drought, most of the homes in our community had
beautiful, well-maintained landscaping, and people had pride in
the appearance of their property; this civic pride contributed to
San Luis Obispo's famous ambiance which we are all trying hard to
protect. But when mandatory water rationing went into effect, it
seemed like everyone let their yards go to ruin to save water.
I personally saved over 40 units of water a month just by not
watering my very large lawn area (and this was with the addition
of two babies to our household) ! of course the lawn died, and
became a cracked, arid weed patch. Then when the rains came this
past winter, my "lawn" burst into a sea of green. . .weeds!
Now we have to spend hundreds, maybe even thousands, of dollars
redoing the landscape, as will most of my neighbors. Of course
this time I will drastically reduce the lawn area, plant drought
tolerant plants, and use drip systems instead of sprinklers
BECAUSE THE DROUGHT COULD RETURN NEXT YEAR, and in times of
recession when money is tight, and in my case, with a new family,
replanting landscaping every few years is financially ludicrous!
We need to keep all our options open for additional, economically
feasible water sources; to refuse State Water at this time would
be selfish and short-sighted in the extreme.
We need State Water, NOW!
sincerely
RECEIVED
Cy✓ thia F. Silva APR 1 1 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
MEETING �°0�'AGENDA
v0 DATE
PenfieldSmith
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
1000 MILL STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
April 17, 1992 805.544-5445 • FAX 805.544-4872
The Honorable Ron Dunin
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mayor Dunin:
I support City participation in the State Water Project.
The City of San Luis Obispo has a serious long term shortage of water.
This shortage has adversely affected- the citizens of the City. The City
should pursue a policy of obtaining a diversified water supply. The City
should implement new water sources as they become available or in order of
cost. A diversified water supply will minimize shortages of water during
droughts.
I applaud the City's efforts and success in implementing the following
water supply sources:
Local Surface Reservoirs
Conservation Policies
Reclaimed Water
Emergency Groundwater Mining
I support the far sighted and sound policy of participating in the State
Water Project. This project will provide:
Affordable, Quality Water
Geographic Diversity of Rainfall Sources
Availability of "Borrowed" Emergency Water
Future diversification of our water supply, including Lake Nacimiento
Water and Desalination, will not be precluded by participation in the
State Water Project. Do not let the door close forever, future
generations will look back on your vote.
Your Council has all the tools necessary to implement the not so hidden
agenda of "no growth" which detractors of the State Water Project harbor,
if•the community supports that policy. Vote for sound planning and water
resource management: I COPMTO-
VOTE YES FOR STATE WATER Cl•D Z;Acun ❑ FYI
13 FIN.DIR
Very truly yours, Q,CCbu ❑ CDDDIR.
ilr.CeI VEE)E) a ACAO ❑ FMC M,
PENFIELD,, & SMITH ATrOR,'VEy ❑ FyD�
APR 1 6 1992 �`.'�i °�P�� a i
� COUNCIL DIR
a C READ F1Y L Id U7IZ�nf(4.
Dan Watson, P.E. BISMCA �—
DKW:es P S
MEETING AGENDA 004
DATE Mid#LLL�r
R R M D E S I G N G R 0 U P
April 14, 1992 COPIESTO:
0-Demotes Accton FYI
O�,�mca El CDD DM
Mr. Bill Hetland 2 CAO 0 FN.1XFL
Utilities Department W(,ACAO 0❑ F—ME OMF
City of San Luis Obispo VATTOINV 0 FW DR
25 Prado Road C=/OPIG. EJ POUICEC3-L
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ MGMT.TEAeC—W FLE.11 0PEC LDIR.L
Dear Bill:
As we discussed, I'm forwarding a copy of the estimated ultimate annual water demands
associated with the development of the Airport Specific Plan Area. It appears these estimates
are likely more accurate than your estimates, as they are based on more detailed land use
assumption. These estimates were prepared by RRM as part of the request of the Airport
Area Property Owners of Cal Cities Water Company to expand their service area and to
obtain State Water independent of the City should the City decide it does not want to move
forward with the annexation of the Airport Area.
I would also note that the Los Nomadas project, should it be annexed to the City, would
need an additional 150 acre feet of potable water — and conceivably upwards of 1,600 acre
feet beyond that for golf course irrigation should the City decide it cannot or will not allow
that project to use the City's treated wastewater effluent.
Finally, please note that these figures do not include any water uses associated with the
potential golf course on the Unocal property. Again, if Unocal cannot use wastewater to
irrigate their golf course, you may have to give them an additional allocation of State Water.
As I understand it, the City Council will be considering the issue of State Water at their April
21st meeting. I would appreciate receiving copies of any staff reports that might be submitted
to the Council as part of that hearing. Otherwise, please call with any questions or comments
you might have with the materials we are forwarding you.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
A0 e---W- 6
T. Keith Gurnee
Senior Vice President
Planning Division RECEIVED
cc: John Dunn APR i 11992
Arnold Jonas Gjn, ,CLARK
San Luis City Council Members CAW LU!e CA
Doug Murdock
io26 South Higuem St."t,San Lois Obispo.California 93,401 9";;;43-1,94 c/kg-nomad.het
2f19/544-1,Y4
.1 ................ ..........
f J
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL DEMAND
Prepared by: RRM Design Group -
January 1992
Scope
Estimate the water demand for the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Executive Summary
The total water demand for the Airport Area Specific Plan is estimated to be 1,230 acre
feet per year (AFY). The Water Use Demand Table categorizes the water demands based
on proposed land uses. Each of the land use categories has an associated gross area,
water use factor, and a water demand.
Methodology
Exhibit 1 shows the Airport Area Specific Plan with known and proposed land use
categories. Areas with known acreages were used wherever possible, all other areas were
determined by planimeter. Land use changes proposed by the County in December 1991
are outlined in Exhibit 1 as well as changes proposed by RRM Design Group.
Yearly water demand is for total development and the life of the project The. water use
factors used reflect the high end range of water usage without regard to current water
rationing ordinances. Parks and streetscapes are assumed to be irrigated with reclaimed
water and not considered in the analysis.
Development densities used are projections from Glen Matteson of the City Planning
Department and Erik Justesen with RRM. All water demand values from previous EIR's,
specific plans, and actual meter readings were used wherever possible. All other water use
factors were based on current City water use factors and from commercial baseline
allotment standard.
v/dh-airpt.est
w
T 1
SMMI
•
a
LU L
U •co
Z
LU .0
c a mU U U 00000 0 WLLLC7
W
LL
W
Q
L
v D
0 �
Z E
co
w Q
� C)CT U) LO n coc0) CqNCY) N
LL T
Q N r c J
3
v C
`0 3
m
G7 U
Z Q
g co
a
CDQ
U Q c � � � - 0 UU U Q
F- �- �' Q �Q�QDpQQQQQ Q y O
z Wr W } LLa-wMLLa- LL }}LLLL U-
< m
i
WU_ aL MNCN7NNNn ¢ C7n r > m
LLLLQ11 w N C �O �..�C CfV t'FOO C y `
[L a Q J
3 L U
3 CL O
Q U
Z CD
X L C
yy O
61
m U d m co
V f0 Q li 6 N
v r 3 3
Lo Nm .. v VN Nor TC) m � N � n •O'D mo a)
C\j_ [[ N r _ E c0 `Z°
cc
Q @ m 0. J
m CL r
cc,:!.! C U
0 0 C 7 L
yymON O)
• mmQ'll) r Q
m 33Fmm
co
c (D CD m
0 a+ + y roo a
+ + J
o m m 0 c m m ? ro o a E E m E E c
� �
� �`O m LL 0 EcnAxtS ooycyocya °c
O f0 7 2 f9a. '` a) t C In to N y
C m 7 0 m ¢ > Y S y O :ism m cc � yy m
Lu me ca215 �v � � � v � a E -0U �ma mf4ccc �
CO 3 ° N ` � c c c � � 2 � @m � a � �•�mamm
v d ccm v v E E E y Y E o rn Q �Omm
m m 0-M 7 m m d o o o 7 a N � o V m w Q + +
a2 0 aa[ ¢ m 000m � H m LL � F- • + + + +
REFERENCE LIST
A. Water use factor of 2.5 AFY/AC is from RRM's analysis of local golf course water
consumption. Value is averaged from Morro Bay Golf Club, San Luis Bay Golf
Course, and Black Lake Golf Course.
B. Yearly demand is from increased airport allocation in April 1992 to 1,730 units per
billing period. Master water meter readings for April 1990 — March 1991 were
5,145 units, Klaasje Nime-Airport Operations.
C. 281 GPD for single family residential, 211 GPD for multi-family residential are from
City of San Luis Obispo baseline water allotments and confirmed with Debbie
Keeler -- City Water Conservation Department.
D. Water use factors are from City of San Luis Obispo meter readings for water use
factors taken from 1981 - 1985 by Glen Matteson, City Planning Department.
Values were compared to City of Santa Barbara water demand factors and
Monterey County water use factors.
E. Water demand from Table D-5 of Final EIR for Southern California Gas Company
annexation, January 1987.
F. Water demand from Fiero Water Company Water Usage and Allocation Table.
G. Water demand from Table T-4 of Margarita Area Concept Plan.
v/dh-airpt.wtr
EEnNG 7 00P AGENDA
. ATEREM#L_
�►�I III IIIII I� IIII����������@III lull I
city of sAn hAis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 16, 1992 _
TO: ED
City Council
FROM: s
SUBJECT: F SUPERVISORS STATE WATER HEARING-FINAL MINUTES
Attached are the final minutes from the County Board of Supervisor's March 25, 1992
meeting on the State Water Project. These supercede the minutes that were included in
your agenda packet as a part of report 1B, pages 1B-36 through 1B-44.
PV:klc
COPLx5TO:
❑-Denotes Action ❑ FYI
Council ❑ CDD DIR.
C'I CAO ❑ FIN.DR
ACAO ❑ FIRE ai Er
l� ATTORNEY ❑ RV DIR.
CLEERK/OILG. ❑ POLICE CH.
❑ NGMT.TZMA U `FC 1351C1C BEAD P.L^ UTIL Lim .
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
M J COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Wednesday ------ -,19- -March 25 92
----- ---------------- --
PRESENT: Supervisors Harry Ovitt, Ruth.Brackett, David Blakely,
Chairperson Laurence L. Laurent
ABSENT: Supervisor Evelyn Delany
In the matter of the State Water Project & RESOLUTION NO. 92-167:
This being the time set for hearing to consider various actions
pertaining to the State Water Project. The items that will be
considered in this hearing, but not necessarily in the specific
order of approval for the project to allow for further processing
are: determination of degree of participation in State Water
Project; approval of forms of agreements with local purveyors and
Central Coast Water Authority; certification of the SIA Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; adoption of required Findings,
Conditions and Statement of Overriding Considerations; direct County
Engineer to work with communities to develop final commitments for
State Water; direct County Engineer to work with agencies, which
have not been included in the environmental documents but which have
expressed interest in participating .in State Water Project.
Chairperson Laurent outlines the rules and procedures that will be
followed today. SUPERVISOR EVELYN DELANY IS NOW PRESENT. Mr. Clint
Milne, County Engineer, introduces the staff present today; gives a
brief history of the project; 1960 the voters in the County approved
the bond issue for the Coastal Branch; changes to the General Plan
in 1980 changed the County's growth and created the need. for an
update to the State Water Plans; the first EIR on the Coastal Branch
was certified and approved by the State. in May 1991; the Board will
' consider the second EIR for the local project today; explains that
the County is obligated to pay for what is already completed in the
County but can withdraw - if this occurs he will want the Board to
authorize staff to sell the County's options; if the project is
approved they will go forward and get the signed contracts to move
the project ahead; these decisions will all need to be made by June
3, 1992. Supervisor Laurent questions the withdrawal and selling of
the County's interest. Supervisor Blakely discusses the two EIR's -
one for the Coastal Branch and one for the local project and
questions what the focus is today. Ms. Ellen Carroll, Environmental
Coordinator, speaks to the EIR process from both the State and local
levels. Supervisor Blakely questions why the County is involved
with the EIR from the State if it is already approved. Mr. Wyatt
Cash, Deputy County Counsel, discusses the first resolution in the
1 C-1
packet and it being "the need to consider" and not "approve" the
tate's EIR. Supervisor Ovitt speaks to the need to show the
relationship between the two EIR's. Supervisor Blakely questions
what control the County has on the pipeline passing through this
County. Ms. Carroll corrects the coverletter from her office on the -
first page (C-1-12), the last paragraph under Summary,I to reverse _
the numbers in the references to Exhibits in the fourth and last
lines; presents correction pages for the Exhibit to the second
resolution; briefly discusses what the two resolutions cover with
respect to the to EIR's. Ms. Melissa Mooney, Environmental
Coordinators staff, discusses the Coastal Branch Phase II - this
branch is 87- miles and outlines the locations of the pipeline and
the local distribution lines; presents slides of the locations for
the pipeline; discusses the potential impacts as they relate to the
blue oak and the kit fox; discusses the States mitigation plans for
the various environmental concerns; shows what the disturbances in
the corridors would look like and again in one year, based on
photographs taken in Santa Barbara County; shows the site where one
property owner will be dislocated. Ms. Lisa Burns, ERCE, discusses
the Class I unavoidable impacts to the Air Quality during
construction; growth inducements; resource constraints; water supply
by 2010 would exceed the demand; Class II impacts - those that can
be mitigated; regarding vegetation replanting, painting tanks
earthtone colors. Ms. Kathryn Hon, ERCE, discusses the significant
impacts that can be mitigated; water resources, quality of water and
2ublic health issues; air quality impacts. Ms. Burns continues
discussing the biology impacts, giving a list of insects and animals
that would be impacted; discusses transportation impacts. Ms. Hon
discusses the risks'of upset associated with transportation,
handling and storage of hazardous materials; seismic risks and
regarding public services. Ms. Burns discusses Class III issues
relating to adverse but not significant impacts. Ms. Hon discusses
the beneficial impacts (Class IV) . Supervisor Blakely addresses his
concerns to the liability of the State Water project. Ms. Carroll
speaks to the issues staff is reviewing with regard to the
reliability issues. Mr. Milne speaks to the Master Water contract;
temporary shortages versus permanent; changes, in the past, to
proposed entitlements during the drought and after the rains..
Supervisor Blakely questions the air quality mitigations with and
without the Clean Air Plan with Ms. Carroll responding. . Supervisor
Blakely speaks to how the facilities fee program will help mitigate
1 C-1 (page 2)
.................. .... .... -- - __ ._. _._ _ _-_--------------------------- -� _
issues in the unincorporated areas of the County but is concerned as
to how the cities will help with this; suggests requiring the cities
to adopt the same type of program as the County has with Ms. Carroll
responding. Supervisor Brackett speaks to the countywide mitigation
measures outlined in the packet. Supervisor Laurent questions the
groundwater resources and prolonging same and repairing any - -
deficit. Ms. Carol Nelson, State Department of Water Resources
(DWR), discusses the groundwater resources and what the State has
suggested as alternatives. Supervisor Laurent comments to a letter
from DWR dated 9/19/91 in the EIR (Phase II) with Ms. Nelson
responding. Supervisor Blakely speaks to the local program and
monitoring the project with Ms. Carroll responding. Mr. Milne
discusses the entitlements and. participation in funding
possibilities. Mr. Gere Sibbach, County Auditor-Controller,
addresses the tax rate scenarios at 3%, 5% and 7%. Supervisor Ovitt
comments to the cost differences from 1960 to today. Mr. Jon
Jenkins, Deputy County Counsel, responds to the question of who has
been paying for the water; speaks to Exhibits 5 and 6 regarding the
water supply contracts; and the requirements to pay even if one
chooses not to participate. Mr. Doug Brown, Bond Counsel, speaks to
the Central Coastal Water Authority (CCWA) ; addresses the water
rights ownership in Santa Barbara County and a master water
treatment agreement. Supervisor Laurent questions various issues
relating to financing and to additional water purchases with Mr.
Brown responding.. Mr. Bob Burch, Smith-Barney, speaks to the
financing issues they dealt with in Santa Barbara County; and states
.that in his opinion single financing was the least expensive
method. Mr. Milne gives the staff recommendations. Ms. Rose Marie
Sheetz, Mayor for the City of Morro Bay, addresses several
corrections to the EIR; highlights the letter she presented to the
Board; a Water Plan is in place in Morro Bay; they currently do
retrofitting and they don't like the idea that the County is voting
on what the cities do. Mr. Tom Wuriu, Council member for the City
of Morro Bay, speaks to the need for State Water; discusses various
aspects of the staff documents. Mr. Richie Ray Walker, addresses
his concerns to the State Water Project; concerns ,to speculation
versus actual information on the amount and cost of the allocations;
states he is opposed to State Water. Mr. Jon Seitz, attorney for
the. 0ceano Community Services District, addresses the position of
the District; their concerns to the language of the agreements;
gives their views on the allocations. Mr. Pat Veesart, general
contractor, feels there is no hurry and wants there to be plenty of
1 C-1 (page 3)
time for the public to speak to this issue; expresses his concerns
D the project. Ms. Judy Skousen, attorney for the City of Morro
Bay, feels that the Flood Control and water Conservation District
(FC&WCD) does not have the right to restrict water to Morro Bay as
the voters have already said that they want State Water; concerns to
the language in the agreements and gives several propgsals for
changes to these agreements. Mr. Burt Fugate, Nipomo Valley Water
Users Association (NVWUA) , speaks to the unallocated reserves;
states they will be ready for the timed receipt of State water in
1996; they need to be able to ensure continued farming in their
area. Mr. Bill Vincent, NVWUA, states they don't want to miss this
opportunity and wants the Boards support. Mr. Mike Cavaletto,
NVWUA, addresses the state of his wells over the years, impacts to
his ranch and the negative impacts if he has to go without State
Water. Ms. Donna Mehlschau, NVWUA, gives the history of the Nipomo
Valley. Mr. Gene Mehlschau, NVWUA, speaks to his farming operation
and the need for State water. Mr. Roger Brett, Cal Cities Water,
speaks to their reliance on supplemental water systems; asks that
their current request be updated. Mr: Rollie Cavaletto states that
he lives on an avocado ranch; speaks to the need to maintain this
orchard and wants the water here from the State. Mr. Frank St.
Denis states that Morro Bay supports State Water. Mr. Edgar L.
Smith speaks to the support in Morro Bay for State Water. Mr. Toru
Miyoshi, past Supervisor for Santa Barbara County, outlines the
iccurrences in Santa Barbara County; presents information for the
record. Mr. Carolee Krieger, Santa Barbara County resident, speaks
to her experiences with State Water and the cost impacts to her.
Mr. Arve Sjouold, Santa Barbara County resident, comments to'the
monitoring process they performed on this process; outlines the
results of this review; feels that the County does not need to deal
with the CCWA. Dr. Gordon Fulks, Santa Barbara County resident,
addresses the impacts the drought had on communities and there will
be additional increases on water to pay for the State Water. Mr.
Charles Gulyash, President of Citizens Planning Alliance, speaks to
desalination plants; with the alternatives to State water that are
out- there, it casts a doubt on the EIR that was prepared. Mr. Don
Smith states that he feels the local EIR was done very hurriedly;
believes that the EIR is faulty in its responses to growth inducing
impacts; wants the Board to reject the State Water. Mr. Dennis
Johnston feels that State Water means increasing costs to the
residences; concerns to the impacts of the project if subjected to a
1 C-1 (page 4)
massive earthquake. Mr. Warren Dorn addresses his experiences with
water reservoirs as the mayor of southern California city and in
Morro Bay. Mr. Jim Ashcraft, City of Pismo Beach, speaks to the
letter they submitted and outlines their concerns. Mr. Bill Bianchi
requests that prior submissions to the Board be included as part of
his comments today; addresses various points of the tjo EIR's. Ms.
Shirley Bianchi is opposed to this State Water project; asks that
the Board not go with the CCWA; presents information for the
record. Judge Wicksom Woolpert speaks to being the past attorney
for the Cayucos-Morro Bay Water District and for the Whale Rock Dam
group; addresses the issue of State Water; need to keep the trunk
line one size; comments to the costs of alternatives to. State
Water. Mr. John Lemons speaks to the need for State Water. Mr.
Bill Hetland, City of San Luis Obispo, addresses their concerns to
the language of the agreements. Mr. Dan Reddell addresses his
concern to lawsuits over the use of water and wants the language
amended in the contracts as recommended by Morro Bay. Mr. Bill
Raflowski speaks against State Water. Mr. Ken Appleby discusses
sound growth management; concerns to the quality of life in the
County and feels that the County needs the State Water project. Mr.
Andrew Moynagh speaks in support of State Water. Mr. George
Protopapas, retired County Engineer, feels this is a reliable
project; feels many of the issues today could have been avoided if
the project would have gone through 5-6 years ago; feels that the
surface water resources are limited. Mr. Charles King addresses the
issue. Ms. Bonita Borgeson gives her views on the State Water;
discusses various issues that have been before the Atascadero City
council regarding State Water; discusses the agricultural lands this
project would pass through. Mr. Ray Ball, representing the
Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, discusses the makeup
of the group he is representing and water supplies to the County.
THE BOARD DOES NOW RECESS FROM THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT 3:30 P.M.
AND RECONVENES AT 6:30 P.M. AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS AT
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER IN SAN LUIS OBISPO. Thereafter, on
motion of Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and
unanimously carried, the Board agrees to continue the meeting past
5:00 o'clock p.m. Dr.. Richard Kransdorf addresses issues of
overdrafting, protecting the quality of life, the Clean Air Act;
asks the Board not to act today on this. Mr. Larry Allen, Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) staff, speaks to the air quality
impacts addressed in the EIR and what the district requirements are;
addresses several issues relating to the Clean Air Plan. Supervisor
Blakely questions the monitoring of ozones by APCD with Mr. Allen
1 C-1 (page 5)
-.sponding. Ms. Ilona Ing addresses her concerns to the unreliable
jurce of water from the State; that the growth in the County is
artificial and there is a need to keep our wetlands. Ms. Lehua Kahela
feels supporting State Water is like giving her rights away. Ms.
Coralie McMillan speaks to the loss of migrating birds with this
project; asks that the Board not allow this County to )become a dumping - -
ground for toxic waste and is against the State Water project. Mr.
Iry McMillan addresses toxics that will come from this project;
opposes State Water. Mr. Nathan Koren is concerned as to the impacts
this project will have on him. Ms. Mary Phillips speaks to the law;
the Morro Bay vote in support of State Water and she supports the
project. Mr. Charles Palmer who works in the area of urban water
management speaks to water pricing. Mr. Kurt Kupper feels that
irresponsible farmers have been part of the problem; feels the County
is planning by crisis. .Mr. John Goglinidini addresses the rights of
property owners; the aqueduct will run on 125 miles of private
property and does not run on government land; feels the costs should
not be borne by private citizens. Mr. Eric Greening addresses the EIR
and requests a six month extension and would like the State to put a
general obligation bond on the November ballot. Mr. Fred Frank feels
that there was not any consideration given to some of the costs
involved; feels it limits flexibility; feels no one in North County
needs treated water. Ms. Sally Pierszalowski speaks to the tank site
oroposed for her property. Mr. Craig Campbell, Engineer for the
ceano Community Services District, states that Oceano is not in a
ground overdraft; they need the project with the changes to the
agreement language. Mr. Al Switzer speaks to the need for more water
in this County to preserve the quality of life. Ms. Marlene Hubbard
addresses the issue of the overdraft of ground water; feels that the
problem will not go away it will only get worse. The Board asks
various questions of Ms. Nelson of DWR, with response. Mr. Jack
Townsend speaks to the efforts he has had to go to in order to obtain
information from the State; impacts to land owners; that the date
deadlines are State driven. Mr. George Layman feels that you cannot
ever have a perfect EIR. Mr. James Merkel asks that the Board not
certify the EIR and not approve the project. Mr. Ed Sauer feels if
the Board does not approve this project it will fail the citizens of
the County. Mr. Keith Gurnee states he is here on behalf of the
airport property owners and as a member of the Nipomo Area Advisory
Council; accepts State water as one of our tools and asks that they
accept the entire quantity and reject item 6b. Mr. Michael McGee
feels that the pipeline is a $50-100 million boondoggle with no
1 C-1 (page 6)
assurances of water. Mr. Van Laurn, City Engineer for Arroyo Grande,
feels that they do not know what the availability, costs or local
control of the water will be; feels that the EIR should have addressed
these issues and did not. Ms. Susan Mullan, councilmember for the
City of Morro Bay, speaks stating that as an individual she has
problems with the project and as a councilmember representing the
voters of Morro Bay who support the project. Mr. J.6. Lortz feels -
that the County should rely on its own resources and live within its
own means. Ms. Judith Lamore states that the project is 30 years old
and outdated and is against the project. Mr. John Beccia addresses
his concerns to going outside to solve our problems. Mr. Randy Ruff
addresses the issue. The Chairperson closes the floor to public
comment. Ms. Carroll addresses the mitigation measures in the EIR and
presents written information. Ms. Mooney addresses the issue of costs
and the Highway 229 realignment. Ms. Burns discusses the population
projections, clean air issues; pipeline vibration and corrosion
factors; and addresses the additions to the EIR regarding Morro Bay
and Pismo Beach. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Ovitt,
seconded by Supervisor Blakely and on the following roll call vote, to
wit:
AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Blakely, Delany, Brackett,
Chairperson Laurent
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
the Board amends the proposed resolution by deleting the language in
the third paragraph, first page, under NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
as follows: ".. .adopts and approves the certified Coastal Branch EIR
and. . ."; and, RESOLUTION NO. 92-167, resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and water
Conservation District making certain findings regarding the Coastal
Branch (Phase II) extension of the California aqueduct,. adopted, as
amended.
cc: Engineer; Environmental Coordinator; Auditor; 4/7/92 vms
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
Couhty of San Luis Obispo, }
FRANCIS M. COONEY
I, _____..__.._ __ __ _________________-___,County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board
of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,affixed this ----6th - -
day of----April----------------------
pril------------- 19-----. 92
FRANCIS M. COONEY
---------------------------------------------
Couoty Clerk and Es-Offlcio Clerk of the Board
(SEAL) lI/ of Supervisors
By - ---- --- - ----------
Man 1 C-1 eputy Clerk.
9' IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Wednes
-----—day-----March
-------- --------,19---
25 92
— --- --
PRESENT:Snpervisore Harry Ovitt, Evelyn Delany, Ruth Bracket t,
David Blakely, Chairperson Laurence L. Laurent
ABSENT: None
In the matter of State Water Plan & RESOLUTION NO. 92-168:
Supervisor Blakely suggests several changes to page C-1-74a.
Supervisor Brackett suggests deleting the last sentence in #2, Under
XI. Conditions of Approval (page C-1-56). The Board discusses the
agreements in the packet and changes to same. Supervisor Laurent
suggests that the language on page C-1-134 entitled "Use of Project
Water" be moved and placed under #2 Conditions of Approval on page
C-1-56. The Board discusses the potential language changes. A
motion by Supervisor Blakely, and seconded by Supervisor Ovitt to
modify Exhibit 5, Page C-1-82, 6(b) - Use of Project Water, to amend
the last sentence of the'paragraph to read: "Such commitment shall
be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance....", is discussed.
Supervisor Laurent asks the maker of the motion to also correct the
first. line of this paragraph by deleting the wording "the goal of"
and the wording "be to" in the second line, with the motionmaker
agreeing to this modification with the concurrence of the second.
Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Blakely, seconded by Supervisor
Ovitt and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Blakely, Ovitt, Chairperson Laurent
.FOES: Supervisors Delany, Brackett
ABSENT:None
the Board modifies Exhibit 5, Page C-1-82, 6(b) - Use of Project
Water, and amends the first line of the paragraph by deleting the
wording "the goal of", the wording "be to" in the second line and
the last sentence of the paragraph to read: "Such commitment shall
be manifested by the adoption of an ordinance....". Supervisor.
Delany questions who signs the contract with California Mens Colony
with Mr. Milne responding. Supervisor Ovitt suggests hearing the
issues of the unallocated portions and the approval of the project
at a later date. Supervisor Brackett wants staff, to work on the
unallocated portions. Supervisor Ovitt would like to see a motion
to adopt the resolution certifying the EIR with the staff
replacement pages. The Board discusses various issues of the
2 C-1
CD-
agreements and resolution. Supervisor Laurent questions whether the
language amended by the Board in Exhibit 5 would be the same as in
Exhibit B. Ms. Carroll suggests that the Board should make a finding
that the revised wording be adopted into the findings and conditions
for all the agreements. Supervisor Delany would like the last
sentence of #2 on page C-1-56 removed. Supervisor Laurent would like ,
to see the amended condition put in place of the existing Condition #2
on page C-1-56 and also on page C-1-74a in place of 5.16b. The Board
discusses the issue of future hearing dates. A motion by Supervisor
Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Laurent, to adopt the resolution marked
.as Exhibit 2, approve the form of the water supply agreement as
amended in Exhibit 5 and replace 42 of Conditions of Approval and 5.6b
with the amended language from the agreement and replace the pages of
the exhibit to the resolution with the pages presented by staff today,
is discussed. Supervisor Laurent suggests deleting the language in
the third "WHEREAS" of the proposed resolution regarding approval of
the Local Facilities Project. Supervisor Brackett agrees with that
deletion and suggests that that same language should be removed from
the last line of the paragraph entitled "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED. Supervisor Delany suggests that the reference to approving
the local facilities project be removed from the title of the
resolution also. The motionmaker and the second concur with these
modifications. Mr. Cash states that Exhibit A to the resolution is
not necessary, if they are not approving the project, only the Errata .
sheet with the changes for Morro Bay and Pismo Beach and they do not
need to approve the overriding considerations or the findings until
they approve the project. Mr. Jenkins states that in his opinion the
Board is not doing what the cities want unless they approve the
project. Supervisor Delany suggests that they want the cities to
decide what they want the project to be. Ms. Carroll suggests that
the language on page two of the proposed resolution entitled "BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED", be deleted. Mr. Crawford suggests that the
proposed amended condition be changed even further and correct the
.word "Contractor" to be Contractors" with the motionmaker and second
concurring. Matter is discussed and thereafter, on motion of
Supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Laurent and on the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Laurent, Delany, Brackett, Blakely
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
the Board replaces pages 43 through 50 of the Exhibit to the
resolution as presented by staff and a #9 is added to page C-1-55 and
and page C-1-74a is added; amends pages 35 (C-1-56) and page 16
2 C-1 (page 2)
1-74a) of Attachment 1, both of Exhibit A to the proposed
esolution to read: "Contractors shall adopt a water management plan
or program, which shall demonstrate that its project water shall be
used first to offset its proportionate share of groundwater basin
overdraft, if any, and to improve water quality for its consumers, if
appropriate, and to provide an appropriate reserve available for a
period of reduced water supply before being made available for other
purposes. Such commitment shall be manifested by the adoption of an
ordinance or by the adoption of a resolution or by the adoption of a
.water management plan or program which brings its proportionate share
of groundwater supply and demand into balance"; the following wording
is deleted from the proposed resolution: in the title the wording "and
approving local facilities projects"; in the third WHEREAS the wording
in the second line that reads: "approve the Local Facilities Project";
in the paragraph entitled NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the last
line which reads "in approving the Local Facilities Project; and on
page two of the resolution the first BE IT 'FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph
is deleted; and, RESOLUTION NO. 92-168, resolution of the San Luis
Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District certifying
the Environmental Impact Report and making required Findings and
Statement of Overriding considerations and imposing certain Conditions
of Approval, adopted, as amended. Further, the Board approves the
form of the water supply agreements as outlined in Exhibit 5 and as
amended by this Board. A motion by Supervisor Ovitt to approve #8 of
as staff recommendations in concept, is discussed. Chairperson
Laurent addresses his concerns to the motion with Mr. Robert Hendrix,
County Administrative Officer, asking if a modification of this would
be then to give direction to County Engineering to use these forms as
a conceptual basis to commence negotiations, with the additional
language that the Chairperson had discussed earlier about conditioning
future sales of water and directing Engineering to go forward with
this on that basis with Chairperson Laurent concurring. Supervisor
Brackett seconds the motion. Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor
Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and on the following roll call
vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Brackett, Delany, Blakely,
Chairperson Laurent
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
the Board conceptually approves the forms of agreements for (a) Master
Water Treatment agreement with Central Coast Water Authority, and (b)
Water Treatment and Local Facilities Agreement with local purveyors.
2 C-1 (page 3)
Matter is further discussed andthereafter, on motion of supervisor
Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Delany and on the following roll call
vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Delany, Brackett, Blakely,
Chairperson Laurent
NOES: None '
ABSENT:None
the Board directs the County Engineer to work with the appropriate
departments and the Central Coast Water Authority in working with
those communities which have been included in the said Environmental
Impact Reports in order to develop final commitments .on the State
Water Project. Matter is further discussed and thereafter, on motion
of supervisor Ovitt, seconded by Supervisor Brackett and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Ovitt, Brackett, Delany
NOES: Supervisors Blakely, Chairperson Laurent
ABSENT:None
the Board directs the County Engineer to work with agencies which have
not been included in the said Environmental Impact reports, but which
have expressed an interest in participating in the State Water Project
and to return to the Board with recommendations at a later date.
Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Brackett, seconded by Supervisor
Delany and unanimously carried, the Board receives all letters,
petitions and documents that have been presented for the record.
cc: Engineer
Environmental Coordinator
Auditor
4/6/92 vms '
STATE OF CAM ORA'Li
County of San Luis Obispo, } �'
FRANCIS M. COONEY
I --
---------------------------------------------------County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board
of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book.
6th
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,affixed this ..----------------
April 92
dayof----------------------,19------
FRANCIS M. COONEY
---- — and -
---------------
Clar
Coos
(SEAL) of 8ueoClerk of the Board
By -Ui-. - ----- - ---------------
m� 2 C-1 (page 4) Deputy clerk.
'TIN AGENDA ,
UHfE -•L -RA ITEM #
►�►����������i�iii���i�III�IIIl��U��►������i ►
city o san vuis OBI
990 Palm Street/Post Office.Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
April 15, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Bill Hetland, Utilities Director
From: John Dunn, City Administrative Office °
Subject: Councilmember briefing on State Water on April 15, 1992 -
further questions
1. What would be the impact of .the Seymour Bill on the State
Water Program (where the State would gain control over Federal
water) ?
2. If the City obtains water from all three water sources (State,
Nacimiento, and increased. capacity of Salinas Reservoir) ,
would not: the. City:: have more..: water than it needs, and: how
- would. we pay for the extra water?
3 =What- ea
" ta`nglements" does-. the receipt=of- State"Ovater invoI e
Can. it: lead- to" future mandates from the State in other areas.. :
4. If the average use were lower than 195 gallons per resident
per day, would State water still be needed (with Naciniento
and Salinas Reservoir increase in capacity) ?
5. If the County decides on an unallocated reserve, and in the .
event of default by other State-water-using agencies, would
County taxpayers be subject to a tax to make up the payment
for the defaulting agency (per Clint Milne memo of March 2,
1992, attached ?
6. Is the City liable for part of the payment for an extension
of a State-water line to North County (Templeton, for
example)?
JD:me = COPIESTO:
Attachments _� - -
�" �Came7 ❑ CDDDitZ
CAO ❑ FN.MI;L.
1 6 ACRO ❑ 'rIl'.E.'�i?MF
c: . City. Council Le:• A=NEY EJ MDR
CLERK/O?iC.: ❑ YOUCE CR
i}tCDLR TEA..f C1❑ MG3dT. {�
,EF.ZAD.RLC
�x�e.e�� ''�-i1_�-'F_'�• �2�•S"`'�+' GT:(� � s'��-�• ''z..'a�� tiw"�..s ++�c�-'����` .. n � R �j�',
'�'n l~�i���co'�f5..'± �'i �8��- -�. L r� r�.�� ..�a.._ :°- .R _ r�'�s�• _ �ir� ...�
'--
.��4 _F_ •� s_3�.:^= r•�^`-s'-y-�o.'L:.:-�..� rY'_ 'e J'^-f• �r�� e . -�. tea.. .tG. K`
..-:�-� :"��ti :'+so-.- i� �:'t a Y �'-• ! vfS.^_
..d�� L:R:1MirJ �a ���.��•t}N.�� C++-1��_4..�.1.�� - �� � ��{ t��{¢c, ��Sa_ -a'+ vM�1��`��.
TS`i�'� .w�.W 91 .��i1�+F Ems' -F}S✓ti mss+��iei��-wY 'v"�.3.Yxr.. -`""aG_�?y='��.n �^C,.r
� � .` !� ._ 1 � +`- -ate- � • i`
1 I �
flCLUIS OBISPO COURlyDEENGINEER
PARTMENT
COUNTY C•OVIENMENT CENTER • ROOM 707 • SAN IVIS O61SPO. CAUFOCNIA 93•OS .
r.
CLINTON MANE PHONE ;605) 5.9.5:!7 FAX (805) 5.6.1779
County E.ng;neer
G:'.w t.�tiCDt' •
-.Orl vwG __ _ .
$11c..*WPIVf•Y.••4t1•ip ) (�; lJ 1 - ro•�
TLAWA
'1 a000 ca+na
WAnt C016Ina:.04
PAR 3S2 wevr.a
March 2, 1992 y*�+D'PC3
BOARD of SUPMSYM
COUNTY OF SUi Ltle M011-M .
MEMORANDUM
R ..
TO: David Blakely, Supervisor District 5
FROM: Clinton Milne, County Engineer 31ZIgzj
SUBJECT: State Water Project - Response to your'Memo of February 18,:1992.
The following'is my response in answer to y6ur questions:
'1. d i a local purveyors contrail-directly widi the State, leaving the County 66t of the:-::
�_•:.
In m opinion, the answer is 'No.' I suppose were the State willing to accept, and the
Y P PPS S P4 ,•.'
District willing to relinquish some of its enddement and recommend that the State ;='�• .:
contract with the local purveyor that such could be done. It is my opinion that this
could potentially adversely affect the financial in!9rity of the State Water PT ar '
the State would not approve the transfer. One of the things that the State requiresis
security that in the event of default in payment, the District would impose a tax to
muse of
make up for the default; a local purveyor could not provide that security (be
Proposition 13).
'2. Is the County ultimately responsible if the purveyors cannot pay the obligations that
they have for the State Water? If so, how will the County propose covering that cost?'
In the agreements, we intend to make it as nearly foolproof as possible that there will
be no need for the District tax to back up any defaulting contractors. If such an ]for
should occur, then the tax can be imposed to bade up the payments to.the Statthe State facilities. That is the secur;ty that was developed so that the bond bwould provide a low interest rate on the bonds. Such was approved by the voters
..to Proposition 13 and therefore, is not governed by Proposition 13. .
In the case of repayment for the. Iocal, facilities needed to take State Projectwater
(regional treatment plan, spurlines, etc.),-we are proposing agreements. which would
provide that if one purveyor defaults, other purveyors would provide_up io.a_2S°Ct
:EYING 9-000p AGENDA
���II�IIh III IIIIIIIIIIII DATE (�- o_,
��III IIIIII I�IIIII�
Cl of sAn tuis oaspo
MINIMS955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
COPi-TO:
❑•Dmo:a-z Acton ❑ F17
April 15, 1992 p F�
25- CAO ❑ r-Ma-=-
ZATF0 NEY ❑ FV DR.
1�r CL RK/OP?G. ❑ POLKE CH.
❑ MCh4T.UAITA 71 RF.CD'.R
MEMORANDUM ❑ � DFILL YTIL
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Office:
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director
SUBJECT: State Water Project Information
I have received a few questions regarding the various people and contracts involved
with the current State Water Project (SWT) issues. Attached is a brief fact sheet that
lists the key agencies involved and their primary staff people and consultants. The
list also summarizes the four contracts and agreements that are involved with the
SWP. Drafts of these contracts and agreements have been presented to you
previously and as part of the Council agenda packet for the April 21 meeting.
I hope this information will be helpful in dealing with the SWP decision and the
various players involved.
RECEIVED
APR 115 1992
C TY LERK
SAN LIS BISPO,CA
WTH:bja
Attachment
1
State Water Project
Primary Participants and Players
1. California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Agency responsible for the design, construction and operation of the State Water
Project. They also are the authors of the Coastal Branch Phaseal and Mission Hills
Extension EIR.
2. State Water Project Contractors
These are the 30 agencies that have contracted with DWR for state water. They
include the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Metropolitan Water District, Kern County Water Agency and others.
3. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
The Board also sits as the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District governing body. The County provides staff to the District.
The key staff and consultants involved in the State Water Project include:
• Clint Milne, County Engineer
• Glen Priddy, Deputy County Engineer
• John Jenkins, Deputy County Counsel
• Ellen Carrol, Environmental Coordinator
• Melissa Money, Environmental Specialist
• ERCE,Consultant for Local Distribution Lines and Facilities EIR
- Lisa Burns, Senior Project Manager
4. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District)
The District is one of the State Water Contractors and has the entitlement to 25,000
afy of state water for San Luis Obispo County. All agencies within the County,
including the City of San Luis Obispo will have to contract with the District for state
water.
5. Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA)
This is a joint powers agency of State Water contractors from Santa Barbara
County which hold entitlement to the Santa Barbara County's state water
entitlement. Only pubic agency members are entitled to vote and include:
• Carpinteria CWD
• Summerland CWD
• Montecito WD
• City of Santa Barbara
• Goleta WD
• Santa Ynez RWCD
• Buellton CSD
• City of Guadalupe
• City of Santa Maria
CCWA will finance and construct the regional water treatment plant and local
facilities to delivery state water to various agencies within San Luis Obispo and
Santa Barbara Counties. The District will enter into an agreement for CCWA to
provide these services for San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County may
operate the water treatment plant and local facilities within San Luis Obispo County.
Local agencies may have additional agreements to provide for construction and
operation of their own local facilities.
Staff and consultants that represent the CCWA include:
• Robert Wignot, General Manager
• Hatch and Parent, General Counsel
- Steve Amerikaner, Attorney
• Brown and Wood, Bond Counsel
- Doug Brown, Attorney
• Smith Barney, Financial Advisor
- Robert C. Burch
Key Contracts and Agreements
1. State of California Department of Water Resources Water Supply Contract dated
August 3, 1962 between the State and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
This is the initial contract which each of the State Water Contractors, including the
District, had to enter into for state water. The other agreements reference this
contract.
2. Master Water TreatmentAgreement between San Luis Obispo County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District and the Central Coast Water Authority
This agreement provides for the construction and operation of the regional water
treatment plant and financing for certain local facilities by the CCWA.
3. Water Supply Agreement between the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District and the City of San Luis Obispo.
This agreement provides the City a portion of the District's entitlement of state
water in return the City promises to make certain payments.
4. Water Treatment and Local Facilities Agreement between the San Luis Obispo
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of San Luis
Obispo.
This agreement provides for construction of the a regional water treatment plant
and local facilities by the District through CCWA. It also includes contractor
covenants and provisions for payments and to handle contractor defaults .
P:\BILL\SWPPPC.vp