The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/23/1996, 2 - DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN WATER POLICIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE WATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (W.M.E.)��i �lllil�� ►i�I�ll city of San tins OBIspo SlaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 1996 ITEM NUMBS : FROM: John Moss,�gi`^ Prepared By: Gary W. Henderson Utilities Director Water Division Manager SUBJECT: Discussion of Certain Water Policies Contained within the Water Management Element of the General Plan (W.M.E.) CAO RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff relative to potential revisions to the following policies contained within the Water Management Element of the General Plan. 1.) 9.1.A. - Two-to -One Retrofit Requirement 2.) 8.3 - Intensification and Infill Reserve 3.) 8.4 & 10.3 -5. - Accounting for Reclaimed Water 4.) 8.5., 9. LB. & 11.1 - Use of Private Wells DISCUSSION: Report in Brief The City Council adopted the Urban Water Management Plan (U.W.M.P.) on November 15, 1994. Chapter 2 of the U.W.M.P. was adopted as the Water Management Element (W.M.E.) of the General Plan, therefore any revisions to the policies will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. At the October 3, 1995 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return to Council to discuss the following three policies: 1) the 2 -to -1 retrofit requirement; 2) the reserve of water for intensification and infill within the 1994 City limits; and 3) accounting for reclaimed water. Staff also recommends that the Council discuss an additional topic relative to the use of private wells to serve new development. The 2 -to-1 retrofit requirement was implemented with the original Water and Wastewater Management Element and Water Allocation Regulations. The 2 -to-1 requirement was originally adopted because the City was unsure of the actual ongoing water savings that could be achieved through retrofits. Since that time, several studies have shown that the estimated water savings are actually being realized. During the public hearings held before the Planning Commission and City Council for the U.W.M.P., ratios other than 2 -to -1 were discussed and the final consensus was to keep the retrofit requirement at 2 -to-l. The policy relative to the reserve of water for intensification and infill (W.M.E. 8.3) within the existing City limits also received thorough discussions prior to the adoption of the U.W.M.P. & W.M.E. This policy was also discussed during deliberations regarding services for new development when considering the General Plan Land Use Element update on June 14, 1994. .C:vp—/ ��►�uVulllll1111�� ►��lll city or sanL ,s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 2 Policy 8.3 supports the land use policy contained within the Land Use Element by holding in reserve adequate water for infill and intensification. The method for accounting for reclaimed water is addressed by Policies 8.4, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. These policies restrict how reclaimed water can be accounted for and may tend to reduce developer participation in the project. Staff would recommend revising the policies to view reclaimed water as a new water supply and credit developed reclaimed supplies towards safe annual yield consistent with other polices contained within the W.M.E. The use of private wells to allow new development without City water allocations is referred to in several sections of the W.M.E. and the General Plan Land Use Element. Applicants for several recent developments have urged staff to allow the use of an on -site well to meet the needs of multiple properties, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for a water allocation. Staff's interpretation is that this is not allowed based on the adopted policies. Staff has concerns with this issue from an administrative and legal standpoint. The existing groundwater basin that underlies the city as been extensively investigated and has proven to be unreliable from a water quality and quantity basis. If private wells are allowed to serve properties and the wells become contaminated or go dry, the City may have a legal responsibility to serve the properties. The City can not bank on the use of private wells to meet the long -term water needs of the community. Therefore, staff recommends that the policies be revised to allow private wells on individual parcels to reduce or eliminate the offset requirement only as an interim source if no water is available for allocation or through the offset program. Background Following numerous public hearings before the City Council and the Planning Commission, the Council adopted the Urban Water Management Plan (U.W.M.P.) on November 15, 1994. Chapter 2 of the U.W.M.P., containing the policies concerning water resources, was adopted as the Water Element of the General Plan. Since this is an element of the General Plan, any revisions will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The policies contained in the W.M.E. were thoroughly discussed at numerous public hearings and reflect specific Planning Commission and Council decisions. On October 3, 1995, a report titled "Water Supply Study Session" was presented to Council. The report outlined the current available water resources and the projects that are being pursued to meet the City's current and future needs. Following the presentation, Council directed staff to return to Council to discuss three policies which are contained within the Water Management Element of the General Plan. The three policies concerned : 1) the 2 -to -1 retrofit requirement; 2) the reserve for intensification and infill within the 1994 City limits; and 3) accounting for reclaimed water. These three policies will be discussed further in this report. a? 'oZ ►�►mi ►ilulllllllllp °�u'9111111 city of sar. .pis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 3 Staff suggests Council discuss an additional topic relative to the use of private wells to serve new development. Developers have requested that the City allow the use of a private well to serve multiple properties. Staff's interpretation is that this is not allowed based on a number of policies contained within the W.M.E. which are discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. 2-to-1 Retrofit Requirement Section 9 of the W.M.E. outlines water allocation and offset policies. The policy requiring the 2 -to-1 retrofit for new development is contained in Policy 9.1.A. as shown below: "When there is no safe annual yield to allocate to a project, that project may be built if the developer makes changes, in facilities served by the City, which will reduce long -term water usage equal to twice the allocation required for the project, consistent with policy 8.3. " Prior to affirmation of this policy, ratios as low as 1 -to -1 were considered. The 2 -to -1 requirement was implemented with the original Water and Wastewater Management Element and Water Allocation Regulations when the actual water savings that could be achieved over the long term were not confidently known. Therefore, to be conservative, the City required a 2 -to-1 retrofit to insure that even if the estimated water savings were not correct there would be a safety factor in the calculations. There have been several studies done in recent years that validate the water saving assumptions that the City uses to estimate the water saved through retrofitting existing facilities. At this point, staff is confident that the estimated water savings are actually being realized. Following adoption of this policy, Council adopted a financial policy that is related to the retrofit requirement. The policy credits $150 per bathroom retrofitted (ie. toilet, showerhead, and faucet aerator) against the water impact fee which must be paid as part of the new development. The $150 per bathroom credit is the estimated average cost to actually provide the retrofits. Therefore, the financial implications to the developer are essentially the same since the water impact fee is reduced by the cost of the retrofit requirements. It should be noted that the per, capita planning figure of 145 gallons per person per day which was adopted as part of the W.M.E. (Policy 3.2.) is based in part on the assumption that all toilets within the City have been retrofitted, while approximately 43 % actually have been. With the adoption of the 145 gpcd figure, the water use factors that are used to project the water demand of new projects (development) have been reduced by 20% thus lowering the required retrofit requirement for new projects. The original water use factors were based on figures 3 �� i��iuulllillllll ►��u��llh city of San t__.s OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 4 developed assuming per capita usage rate of approximately 165 gpcd which was reduced by 20% assuming an aggressive ongoing water conservation program. Alternatives to current policy. 1. Reduce the requirement to a 1 -to-1 retrofit. Pros: May be perceived as more equitable requirement for new development to offset the estimated water demand on the City's water system. Additionally, projects which are consistent with the General Plan may be feasible and proceed. Cons: The retrofit of the entire City may take longer to accomplish. There would be no net gain of water savings as development occurs. 2. Eliminate the retrofit requirement. Pros: The City would receive the full water impact fee which could allow a more aggressive toilet retrofit rebate program. Also, the retrofit upon sale ordinance and the lack of availability of toilets and fixtures other than low flow will eventually result in the retrofit of the majority of the City. Cons: The retrofit of the entire City will take longer to accomplish. If retrofits through other programs do not keep ahead of new development, the City could be placed in a vulnerable position if another drought occurs. If the 2 -to -1 requirement is reduced, several projects that have not obtained all their building permits will have excess credit. Staff recommends that if the policy is revised, it should only apply to projects that initiate the planning process after adoption of the revisions. Intensification and InJW Policy 8.3 relative to the reserve of water for intensification and infill is contained in the W.M.E. as shown below: "A sufficient amount of water supply, including the potential savings from replacing water fixtures in the City (policy 9. 1), will be held in reserve to serve intensification and infill within existing City limits as of July 1994. " ,7-4/ City of sar► .pis OBISPO i SMorma COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 5 In their deliberations regarding services for new development when considering the General Plan Land Use Element update on June 14, 1994, Council approved a policy which states, '— development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and build -out within the City limits as of July 1994° (1.13.4, Development and Services, General Plan Land Use Element). Water Management Element Policy 8.3 supports this land use policy by holding in reserve adequate water for infill and intensification within the existing city limits. Combined with other policies in the W.M.E., this policy reserves water available through the retrofit program to areas within the existing City limits, which leaves only 33 acre -feet (W.M.E. Table 8) of water available to annexation areas through retrofit offset. This policy will limit the amount of annexation development that can occur until a new water supply project is initiated. The Water Reuse Project has the greatest potential at this time to be accomplished within a relatively short time frame, but even this project is not expected to deliver water before late 1998. While there may be a valid planning reason for the reserve requirement, that is, it is desirable that vacant properties within the City develop prior to development of outlying properties, as a practical matter, there always has been and will continue to be, undeveloped properties within the City. Their failure to develop, as the policy now stands, prevents development in outlying areas as the water held in reserve for infill, even though it is not being used, is precluded from being used for other purposes. In short, the assumption that sufficient water has to be held in reserve for total infill and intensification is somewhat unrealistic, because that situation has not and likely will not happen. Alternatives to current policy. 1. Allow some portion of the amount of water that is reserved for infill to be allocated to new annexation areas on a first come first serve basis. Pros: Additional projects which are consistent with the General Plan may be feasible and proceed. Cons: If additional new water supplies are not completed in a timely manner, water allocations may not be available in the future to all properties located within existing city limits. a -s ��h�Irl llllllllllllll� ►iii��iil��11 city of San l s OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 6 2. Delete the requirement to reserve water for intensification and infill within the existing City limits. Allocations would be available on a first come first serve basis. Pros & Cons: Same as alternative above. Accounting for Reclaimed Water The method for accounting for reclaimed water is contained within several areas of the W.M.E. The specific language of the policies relative to accounting for reclaimed water are shown below: ■ 8.4: "Reclaimed water shall be accounted for as a "non potable" supply as identified under policy 10.3. Use of reclaimed water shall not be considered a component of the City's safe annual yield, but may reduce demand for potable water supplies as reclaimed water use increases. " ■ 10.3: "As reclaimed water supplies new development or substitutes for potable water in existing development, reliable yield of non potable water will be increased. Reclaimed water will be credited to non potable reliable yield not when it is potentially available at the treatment plant, but when it is actually available to a user upon completion of the necessary distribution facilities. " ■ 10.4: "When the City provides distribution facilities that allow substitution of reclaimed water for potable water, the resulting reduction in potable water demand will be given offset credit for government projects (including new City parks and buildings), under any policies or rules limiting the amount of water which can be allocated to development projects. " ■ 10.5: A. "When a developer of a private project provides distribution facilities that allow substitution of reclaimed water in facilities that have used potable City water, the resulting reduction in potable water demand will be credited to any allocation of potable water needed for the developer's project, at a two-to -one ratio, similar to the offset credit. " B. "When a developer of a private project provides distribution facilities that allow use of reclaimed water in that project, any required potable water allocation for that project shall be reduced by a corresponding amount. " ��i�►�►►�I�IIIIIIIII��ll�lil city of Sark .pis OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 7 These policies restrict how reclaimed water can be accounted for and may tend to reduce property owner /developer participation in the project. Alternatives to current policy. Council could consider a range of alternatives to the existing policies. The existing policies could be considered to be at one end of the range. The other end would consider reclaimed water as a new water supply and credited towards safe annual yield consistent with other policies contained with the W.M.E. for new potable water supplies. If there is no potable water to allocate to new development, offset credits could be developed using reclaimed water to offset existing potable water use within the City consistent with the policies contained within the W.M.E. Staff would recommend revising the policies to view reclaimed water as a new water supply, which is consistent with the development of the water impact fees contained within Appendix VII of the U.W.M.P. Use of Private Wells The use of private wells to allow new development without City water allocations is referred to in several sections of the W.M.E. and the General Plan Land Use Element. The interpretation of the policies is not clear and has led to disagreement between developers and staff. The specific policies are listed below: ■ 8.5: "When developments are supplied by private groundwater wells, the yield of those wells will not be counted toward the City's safe annual yield. Such yield, however, will result in the demand for City water supplies being lower than it otherwise would be, which may necessitate adjustments of the per capita water usage figure used to estimate overall demand. " ■ 93.B.: "The City may exempt a project from needing an allocation or an offset, or may reduce the amount of the required allocation or offset, to the extent that the project is supplied by a private well which will not significantly affect the yield of City wells. Such a well may be operated by the owner of the property containing the well only for the owner's use. The City will consider the cumulative effects of wells in the groundwater basin in making this decision. Such wells may be used only when: 1. The City Council approves the well proposal as part of a specific land development project approval, and the proposed well system meets all City standards. a'f7 ��m�►r►ii►�IIIIIIIIiI��' glUlll city of san *S OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 8 2. A quaked, independent, hydrological investigation demonstrates that the well (s) reliably can provide sufficient quality and quantity of water for the proposed land development project and will not impact the yields from City wells. " ■ 11.1.: "The City will be the only purveyor of water within the City. " Property owners have the right to utilize water which underlies their property for use on the property which contains the well. Use of the water for areas outside the property where the well is located falls under appropriative water rights which essentially means that the well is being used to supply other property owners. This would be in violation of Policy 11.1 above. Appropriative rights are second to overlying property rights and can be lost in the future if a groundwater basin is overdrafted or adjudicated. Applicants for several recent developments have urged staff to allow the use of an on -site well to meet the needs of multiple properties, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for a water allocation. Staff has concerns with this issue from an administrative and legal standpoint. The existing groundwater basin that underlies the city as been extensively investigated and has proven to be unreliable from a water quality and quantity basis. The largest producing city wells have been shut down due to contamination that was drawn into the wells, from areas surrounding the wells, due to constant pumping. If private wells are allowed to serve properties and they become contaminated or go dry, the City may have a legal responsibility to serve the property. It should be noted that the use of an on -site well does not reduce the amount of water that the City is pursuing through new water supply projects such as Salinas Reservoir and Nacimiento Projects. The City still needs to develop adequate supplies to serve all properties consistent with the General Plan. The City can not bank on the use of private wells to meet the long -term water needs of the community. Another closely related issue involves private properties which utilize a well to reduce or eliminate their water bill but are connected to or rely upon the water system to meet the fire protection needs of the property. These properties are benefiting from the water system but may not pay any bill because the City's current water billing is strictly based on commodity charges. Recommendation Staff recommends that the policies be revised to clearly not allow private wells to reduce or eliminate the need for an allocation to serve a project, with the following exceptions: o�v ��►► H�i��i��lllllll�p►iu�ui��`IIII city of sar, .pis OBISPO i MosZo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT W.M.E. Policies Page 9 A. A well may be used to reduce the allocation based on the use of the well to serve non - potable needs of the project (ie. irrigation, etc.). B. When an allocation or potential offset is not available, a private well may be allowed to reduce or eliminate the required allocation or offset only as an interim source. The development must still pay water impact fees associated with developing new water supplies and eventually receive or develop an allocation when available. All policies relative to the use of private wells should clearly state that the well can not serve multiple properties. Also, staff recommends that the Council direct staff, as part of the annual rate review, to consider alternatives for billing properties that utilize the water system to meet their fire protection needs but use private wells to meet their consumptive demands. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department concurs with the recommendations made within this report. FISCAL EMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the City associated with the proposed revisions contained within the body of this report. Any revisions directed by Council will require additional staff time to prepare and take through the public hearing process. —� January 11, 1996 A aye `�y4, Cis+ -,,.}t c c • b, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2156 Sierra Way • P.O. Box 1489 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 TELEPHONE (805) 781 -5544 • FAX (805) 78111211 John Dunn City Administrative Officer City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: People's Kitchen— Temporary Relocation At the request of City Officials, I visited the Welding Shop at 609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo to determine whether the shop would pose any apparent health or safety hazards to People's Kitchen diners. Assuming the shop meets structural and fire code occupancy requirements, I believe the welding shop would be satisfactory for the proposed temporary use providing: -All unsecured overhead items are removed or properly supported. -All nonessential /extraneous items are removed to proper storage facilities or recycled. -The shop is thoroughly swept out and the interior of the building is water flushed or steamed cleaned to remove accumulated dust, spider webs, loose paint, etc. If you would like for this Department to reevaluate the temporary dining structure after these cleanup activities have been completed please contact me at 781 5552. l STEVE CARNES, R.E.H.S. Supervising Environmental Health Specialist rCWn&n.W A DEPARTMENT OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY Pacific Gas and Electric ipany Los Padres Division 4325 S. Higuera Street Jan 19, 1996 P.O. Box 8592 U�3' San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 -8592 805/546 -3864 Dennis Hennessy Manager MEETING AGENDA DATE / J3' ITEM # As you will recall, PG &E has been discussing the possibilities of annexation of our property at 4325 South Higuera to the City of San Luis Obispo to enable us to receive city services. However, the recent council action to move forward with the Airport Area Annexation, which our property is included in, presents some new possibilities that we believe would be beneficial to both the City of San Luis Obispo and PG &E. Specifically, we would like to request the City to consider allowing PG &E to obtain fire water service to our property at 4325 South Higuera, for fee, on a pre - annexation basis. PG &E needs to satisfy an agreement with CDF to either upgrade our on -site fire suppression system or obtain fire water service from the City of San Luis Obispo. We would like to satisfy this need to improve our fire water capabilities by the end of the year. Recently we were exploring the possibility of annexation of our property separate from the airport annexation. After discussions with city staff regarding this it became apparent that this approach would not be financially feasible. Annexation as part of the Airport Area would provide this opportunity, however, our timeline for improving our fire water capabilities is sooner than the expected annexation. The City's land use element policy 1.13.1 states that the City shall not provide services to areas outside the city limits, although there are some exceptions. Given the council's recent action to annex this property at some point in the future, we believe the costs we would incur to upgrade our on -site system would be better used to fund upgrades to the city's fire mains, or be held for future annexation upgrades, and should, therefore, justify an exemption to the current policy. We estimate our costs for upgrading our on -site fire water system to be $80,000 to $100,000. In our opinion, we would rather put these funds toward the future annexation costs in exchange for connection to city fire water service. This request is only for fire water service, not domestic water or waste water services. RECEIVED JAN 1 9 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN 1.1)10 ng1SPp. CA 0 UUNGIL ❑ ODD DIR AO ❑ FIN DIR Mayor Allen K Settle City of San Luis Obispo ld GAO A TTORNEY . : CLERWORIG 9 FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHI I 990 Palm Street ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 94301 1 ❑ C R D FILE W(UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle: Dennis Hennessy Manager MEETING AGENDA DATE / J3' ITEM # As you will recall, PG &E has been discussing the possibilities of annexation of our property at 4325 South Higuera to the City of San Luis Obispo to enable us to receive city services. However, the recent council action to move forward with the Airport Area Annexation, which our property is included in, presents some new possibilities that we believe would be beneficial to both the City of San Luis Obispo and PG &E. Specifically, we would like to request the City to consider allowing PG &E to obtain fire water service to our property at 4325 South Higuera, for fee, on a pre - annexation basis. PG &E needs to satisfy an agreement with CDF to either upgrade our on -site fire suppression system or obtain fire water service from the City of San Luis Obispo. We would like to satisfy this need to improve our fire water capabilities by the end of the year. Recently we were exploring the possibility of annexation of our property separate from the airport annexation. After discussions with city staff regarding this it became apparent that this approach would not be financially feasible. Annexation as part of the Airport Area would provide this opportunity, however, our timeline for improving our fire water capabilities is sooner than the expected annexation. The City's land use element policy 1.13.1 states that the City shall not provide services to areas outside the city limits, although there are some exceptions. Given the council's recent action to annex this property at some point in the future, we believe the costs we would incur to upgrade our on -site system would be better used to fund upgrades to the city's fire mains, or be held for future annexation upgrades, and should, therefore, justify an exemption to the current policy. We estimate our costs for upgrading our on -site fire water system to be $80,000 to $100,000. In our opinion, we would rather put these funds toward the future annexation costs in exchange for connection to city fire water service. This request is only for fire water service, not domestic water or waste water services. RECEIVED JAN 1 9 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN 1.1)10 ng1SPp. CA Mayor Allen K. Settle January 19, 1996 Page 2 Your staff has suggested we request this to be considered as a part of your upcoming Water Management Plan Policies study session on January 23, 1996. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Bob Burke at 546 -5236. IVILUIdgur cc: City Council Members John Dunn, City Administrator Ken Hampian, Asst. City Administrator John Moss, Public Utilities Director