HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996, 6 - REVISIONS TO WATER POLICIES IN THE WATER MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN council °
j Aq cn ba RepoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BISP0
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Directo /h-
Prepared By: Gary W. Henderson, Wate ivision Manager caw a
SUBJECT: Revisions to Water Policies in the Water Management and Land Use Sections of
the General Plan
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the negative declaration of environmental impact.
2. Adopt the attached resolution to amend the Water Management and Land Use sections
of the General Plan to: (1) allow 200 a.f. of water which has bee reserved for
intensification and infill within existing City limits to be used for annexation areas; (2)
account for reclaimed water as a new source of supply and credit it towards safe annual
yield; and (3) clarify when private wells can be used to reduce or eliminate the need for
an allocation to serve a project.
DISCUSSION
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 contained in that element 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 potential revisions to certain polices contained within the W.M.E. On March 12, 1996,
the City Council discussed the following water policies: 1) the 2-to-1 retrofit requirement; Z) the
reserve of water for intensification and infill within the 1994 City limits; 3) accounting for
reclaimed water; and 4) the use of private wells to serve new development.
The Council provided general direction to staff to begin the process to revise particular areas
within the W.M.E. and a related subject area contained within the Land Use Element (L.U.E).
At a public hearing held on June 12, 1996 with the City Planning Commission, potential
revisions to the affected sections of the W.M.E. and L.U.E. were presented for discussion and
commission recommendations.
2-to-1 Retrofit Requirement
The Council directed staff to consider a revision of the 2-to-1 retrofit policy, to require only a
1-to-1 retrofit for new development. The revision was presented to the Planning Commission
for their recommendation. The Commission voted 6 to 0 (1 absent) to recommend that the
G`7
Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Water Policies in the General Plan
Page 2
policy not be modified. There was concern that the City has not acquired any new water
resources since the recent drought and that the 2-to-1 retrofit requirement does at least provide
some assurance of attaining retrofit of the entire City in a shorter time period.
The Commission also discussed the fact that water conservation is the least expensive source of
additional water supplies. It is estimated that slightly less than 50% of existing facilities within
the City have been retrofitted and therefore the City should continue to aggressively pursue
water conservation through retrofits.
Intensification and Infill
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. "
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).
Combined with other policies in the W.M.E., Policy 8.3 reserves water available through the
retrofit program to areas within the existing city limits, which leaves only 33 acre-feet of water
available to annexation areas through retrofit offset (W.M.E. Table 8). 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 it may be desirable that vacant properties within the City develop prior to development
of outlying properties, there always have been and will continue to be undeveloped properties
within the City. The adopted policy prevents development in outlying areas, since the water is
held in reserve for infill. However, it is unlikely that total infill and intensification will happen
before the City obtains a supplemental water supply, which would also enable additional
annexation development. Therefore a certain amount of the water held for infill, that would
likely not be used for infill, could be used for development in annexation areas.
Under the current policy approximately 600 a.f. available through the retrofit program is
reserved for intensification and infill of areas within the City limits as of July 1994. The
Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 (1 absent) to recommend that the policies be revised such that.
Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Water Policies in the General Plan
Page 3
approximately one-third of the water held in reserve (200 a.f.) be allowed for use by new
annexation areas.
The revision of this policy as recommended by the Planning Commission also requires a revision
to the Land Use Element to maintain consistency between the two elements. The proposed
language revisions to the W.M.E., Sections 8 and 9, and the revision to the L.U.E. are shown
on Exhibit A to the attached Resolution.
Accounting for Reclaimed Water
The current policies relative to reclaimed water restrict how reclaimed water can be accounted
for and may tend to reduce property owner/developer participation in the water reuse project.
Council directed the policies be revised to view reclaimed water as a new water supply and
credited towards safe annual yield, consistent with other policies contained within the W.M.E.
for new potable water supplies.
As an elaboration on existing policy, staff recommends that, when deemed appropriate by the
Utilities Director, new development shall be equipped with dual plumbing to maximize the use
of reclaimed water for non-potable purposes. The additional cost of dual plumbing is not
significant since it only requires an additional connection to the main in the street and waterline
to the front yard irrigation system. This policy would be consistent with the State Water Code
which states: "The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the use of potable domestic water
for nonpotable uses, including, but not limited to, cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway
landscape areas, and industrial and irrigation uses, is an unreasonable use of water within the
meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution if reclaimed water is
available.....". The proposed language revisions relative to accounting for reclaimed water are
shown on Exhibit A, Sections 3 and 10, of the attached resolution.
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 (1 absent) to recommend that the policies be revised as
shown in Attachment A to view reclaimed water as a new source of supply and credited towards
safe annual yield.
Use of Private Welds
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.
Council has directed 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:
G-3
Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Water Policies in the General Plan
Page 4
A. A well 's be used to reduce the allocation based on the use of the well to serve
non-potable needs of the project (such as irrigation).
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. This is necessary because the
City is striving to develop additional water supplies to meet the projected buildout needs as
identified in the City's General Plan. The use of a private well does not reduce the projected
amount of water which is being pursued from other water supply projects, and the City may
have a legal requirement to serve developments which utilize a well should the well become
contaminated or lost due to other circumstances.
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 (1 absent) to recommend the policy changes as shown
in Exhibit A, Section 9, of the attached resolution.
Environmental Status
The Community Development Director has approved for public review an initial study and
proposed negative declaration.
CONCURRENCES
The Planning Commission and the Community Development Department concurs with the
recommendations made within this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.
ALTERNATIVES
■ Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information, in
the form of an expanded initial study or an environmental impact report.
■ The Council may decide that the amendment not be approved. The Council may specify
different language for the text. A policy which is not consistent with the rest of the General
Plan would require further amendments to maintain the General Plan's internal consistency.
G-y
Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Water Policies in the General Plan
Page 5
A substantially different amendment may need additional environmental review before the
Council acts.
■ The Council may continue action, with direction to staff as required.
Attachments: A. Resolution to Amend the Water Management and Land Use Sections of the
General Plan
B. Initial Environmental Study and Determination
C. Draft minutes from June 12' Planning Commission meeting relative to the
amends to the Water Management and Land Use sections of the General
Plan (forthcoming)
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND AMENDING THE WATER MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE
ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1996
and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Water Management and Land Use
Elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the recommendation and records of the
Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed and recommended for adoption by
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering the draft documents and staff's
analysis, the Planning Commission's recommendations, and public testimony, finds that the
amended sections are consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo hereby approves:
SECTION I. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed text amendment to the Water Management and Land Use sections of the General
Plan, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Policy 83 of the Water Management Element and Policy 1.13.4 of the
Land Use Element are hereby amended to allow 200 acre feet of water reserved for
intensification and infill within the existing City limits to be used for new annexation areas
(specific changes shown in Exhibit A to this resolution).
SECTION 3. Policies 1.2, 3.1, 8.4, and 10.2 through 10.6 of the Water Management
Element are hereby amended to account for reclaimed water as a new source of supply and
credited towards safe annual yield (Exhibit A).
SECTION 4. Policy 9.1 of the Water Management Element is hereby amended to
clarify when private wells can be used to reduce or eliminate the need for a water allocation
to serve a project (Exhibit A).
Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
Upon motion of
seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this
1996. Y da of
,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�1 torq Y
G-7
Exhibit A
WATER SECTION
SAFE ANNUAL YIELD
POLICIES
1.1 Basis for Planning
The City will plan for future development and for water supplies based on the amount of water
which can be supplied each year, under critical drought conditions. This amount, called "safe
annual yield," will be formally adopted by the Council. The safe annual yield determination will
be revised as significant new information becomes available, and as water sources are gained
or lost. The determination will consider a staff analysis, which will recommend an amount
based on coordinated use of all water sources. Each change to safe annual yield will be
reflected in an amendment of this Plan.
1.2 Safe Yield Amount
The City's safe annual yield of getable-water is 7,735 acre-feet, based on 7,235 acre-feet from
the coordinated operation of Salinas Reservoir and Whale Rock Reservoir, and 500 acre-feet of
groundwater.
1.3 Groundwater
A. The amount of groundwater which the City will rely upon towards safe annual yield is
identified in Section 1.2. The City will maximize the use of groundwater in conjunction
with other available water supplies to maximize the yield and long term reliability of all
water resources and to minimize overall costs for meeting urban water demands. The
City shall monitor water levels at the well sites to determine whether reduction or
cessation of pumping is appropriate when water levels approach historic low levels.
B. The City will not compete with local agricultural use of groundwater outside the urban
reserve line or damage wildlife habitat through reduced natural stream flows in obtaining
long-term sources of water supply.
BACKGROUND
Safe annual yield is the amount of water that can reliably be produced by the City's water supply
to meet the water demand. It is estimated by simulating the operation of the City's water supply
sources over an historical period to determine the maximum level of demand which could be met
during the most severe drought for which records are available.
3
from the average per capita use recorded in 1986-87 is used for planning for future water
conservation programs as well as future water supply needs.
Because of the experience during the drought of 1986 to 1991, the City has developed a short
term plan to deal with immediate water shortages and has recognized the importance of water
efficiency by supporting long term programs, The City will reevaluate and update
conservation efforts in response to changing water demand, supplies, technology d economic
conditions.
WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
POLICIES
3.1 Basis of Projections
The City will project water requirements, considering long-term conditions and the full
range
of water uses in the City.
ffmde. 11--ill bee
3.2 Water Use Rate
The Cit' shall use 145 gallons per person per day (this equates to approximately 0.162
acre-foot
Per person per year) and the number of City residents to plan total projected future water
demand. This quantity will be revised if warranted by long-term water use trends, including
differences in the relationship between residential and nonresidential usage. (Throughout this
Plan, 145 gallons per person per day is used in computations of future water demand.)
3.3 Overall Projected Demand
Applying 145 gallons per person per day to a projected City resident population of about 56,000
at General Plan build-out results in a projected water demand of 9,096 acre-feet per year
(excluding demand from the Cal Poly campus, which has separate entitlements).
3.4 Present Water Demand
Present water demand shall be calculated by multiplying the water use identified in Section 3.2
by the current city population (as determined by the California Department of Finance,
Population Research Unit).
BACKGROUND
7
MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
POLICY
7.1 Multi-source Water Supply
The City shall continue to develop and use water resources projects to maintain multi-source
water supplies, and in this manner, reduce reliance on any one source of water supply and
increase its supply options in future droughts or other water supply emergencies.
BACKGROUND
Having several sources of water can avoid dependence on one source that would not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. There may be greater reliability
and flexibility if sources are of different types (such as surface water and ground water) and if
the sources of one type are in different locations (such as reservoirs in different watersheds).
The Water Element of the General Plan, adopted in 1987, identified multiple water projects to
meet projected short and long term water demand. Again in November 1990, the Council
endorsed the multi-source concept.
ALLOCATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLIES
POLICIES
8.1 Balancing Safe Yield and Overall Demand
When new water sources are obtained, the additional safe yield shall be allocated first to
eliminate any deficit between the adopted safe annual yield (Section 1) and the present demand
as defined in sections 1 and 3.4 at the time the new source is obtained.
8.2 Supplying New Development
A. The City will make available to new development only that amount of safe yield which
exceeds present water use (Section 3.4). Available allocations will be assigned to
development in a way that supports balanced growth, consistent with the General Plan.
Allocations from a new water supply project shall be considered available at the time project
construction is initiated.
B. Any additional safe annual yield beyond that needed to balance safe annual yield and present
demand will be allocated (A)one-half to the reliability reserve and compensating for reduced
15
6110
yields due to siltation and (B) one-half to development, subject to the requirements in
Section 8.3, "Reserve for Intensification and Infill".
C. Until all toilet and showerhead fixtures in the City are replaced with low flow toilet and
showerhead fixtures, the amount by which safe annual yield (Section 1.2) exceeds present
demand resulting from the assumption that 100% of the retrofit is complete (Section 3.4),
shall not be made available to development.
8.3 Reserve for Intensification and Infill Development
...rorty .?.�:.:.�.,;,,`..„
,�.. cls;:��;tlire::
.....;. .:..:?.r.is +.:.v.
yiyfx� "YSv.'.:.r. � qa. '+r:T'HY4'!\�� � '?:M>' %i:)":+.r:i�:•••;::
`hX + {:{:...,.+,v0:i=.� ..,+,C%:ii:'!ni?iN''Y.::}h:. r•.V:.?i.: �iL
.h. o- .n:�r•r»:i.Vii.. vi,:.:r A n.:.d.�o$>:kaV.r;v.o-.;...::.' �£ i}.�l�".�y< ::so-. ...rti.:>+.aY....:'L
}.{y��.�. ;v. ii 'aix5x:y.,+.:'4::..:,.':Yo:. .�s,.y::»,;:u.R>.a'>�;•,yp:�.;.:.:�gL\rl'i;a}i.. $�� '�
.O: 9•^.h `�:�'Yi'J�4.f7..��:: ,Y+,....u.::, _ .... ar.,:::,a c:'ti,�e... r+k. �P+.....?'.':wa
?ti:CRa':.�tua.. �£a.4`.o:.L::.YUJ.\:>a.:. �7:�.,'.+,��.,..�.,::�,'.,saAv,..�,"`? w\,,��?,yyvnn,.:��..�.::.:r::r:`r:kV�:Y:➢e?ra:'Xisn'spy� :;:.�;:..� ,aa..::.wx ..n:..
S
"fie n
3f be ee
f
8.5 Private Water Supplies
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.
BACKGROUND
The City has pursued numerous water supply projects over the years. (These projects are
discussed in Chapter 3 of the Urban Water Management Plan.) This part of the element
addresses allocation of these supplies once the yields from projects are realized. The City has
identified these potential uses for new supplies:
Eliminating any deficit between adopted planning figures and safe annual yield;
■ Compensating for reduced yields due to reservoir siltation;
■ Establishing a reliability reserve;
16
■ Providing for water requirements for future development within the urban reserve area
designated in the General Plan;
■ Providing water for habitat management.
Allocation of new supplies can balance the needs of all areas identified while not compounding
the potential water shortage problems for existing City water customers.
1:Md Fse Rement law eft In F)
and b e east of Blip
of war required to
support build-out within the July 1994 city limits andows the amo ntuont f wa ereavailablee for
annexation areas, available through retrofit savings.
ar#e
1.0
..... a�#
..................................
641
raF
..........:...:......:............ ceaed.;.ttirnugt.: r ,F. 1111;
..,
J
b:
i
lnfenst.ica...ion
: �., .i..y......;..�
The adoption of 145 gallons/per person/per day as a water supply planning figure would indicate
water is available for development, eliminating the need for retrofitting. Since the 145
17
G- IZ
gallons/per person/per day assumes that the retrofit component of the water conservation
Program is 100% complete (approximately 43% was completed as of July 1994), new
development will continue to retrofit until the City is completely retrofitted or construction is
initiated for a new water supply project.
WATER ALLOCATION AND OFFSETS
POLICIES
9.1 Exemptions for Offsets
A. When there is no safe 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 the policies in Section
8.
ing all E:
119 of it Fnay vdeee-the
}i ry,'v.J.\' :i%i.v. ::::�,,�;;;�'Y�;::}q.�.'. =��iVAt �Q.LSi(<'LR�•�+yyyy��.��.��5�..�j�♦ :#:.
;.Y. M:OM.W:i+.V'N}::v, V.laraw.vnvn.:n..w}i.v.u.m 4n,`,':vi•:i::::i:�..} 1 ^ �.•1M :�'y�MM^''�;" '�:>
e
:xf a' ^':`�•.'.�i,�',f;:.+J.i ����y v�+��+, /,� (( }}Y):isY...';M.,,....,i:;ni:.}:.iv:L';:ni:i i:.p'.,iY.LH%!:'
� ..]]� �,a}, :n}v4}•.hv.,v.Y.. x}\Yi^}•.M.'ON.\
y.. .M...v..Jnv i.:f'nw:t,: ,:��;�e;:x". :i+�{}'• .n\ y ``'J. .,;.
y+n};r'a;ry3.:..::........... .+..3::i3C'G:i• �JJ..1yy1,, VJt• (�.
{� };+}:,e➢:.;ayro:).,:;.isnt?ic2'T.•.'.o:'::::.::::_ti:.,s:i. .;:..f::.•,:. zt;.n:.:t,;•::i8it9'G::�M:.'X;(..,,,,i&}'h4CG .,y.
�;SE! '�1£f�€'1'f'
: Yy. O ��yl�y:f�y.��{
yy�vi:: 1:xc.W"{`lYGLT"'.y�y ;: :':;;u,
:{'i':;: �i}.
YY:' L}}::�Y}.i.•\`::� }' .,;:};::i\.:: .Xv. .'.�:F• ��� {Ay;Y k�
��*j•( ..%*..moi...:`; ...i
+ }�.�.��ry,,� ��'.;{::}��ii }:14'•:i": �
...x�.-..�.�.'.:' ])a�'I3L: }y�(y, %2: ?' ^^t+}v: :+:atY �, • '�"? _.c'<
f.n:if,1K 'M1Z:(.\.'';ry:.�.}.Ly:'}+ `�+yti`e«�. �GFM:v�.��},'+� �::jY•��`
aV"�.z,��u.'.,,{:�'+u,^.+.,'a�`C�>xtt„.,,w.�iV.r�l.�il`�;,i�,' �, m�ke�; :�,+.�� xi v,�`•W�ti�`j+ty+iYG}y Sey.l:ie,Yrydwi1�at:T+3t�n,1�E►it4�1.t:V:��v�.�,y\K+aV51P'.y4°�'3`{S✓Cu��A\w,"i+tn'+yiit.vtt'a;\,,�+�f...:. �.00r,vn^'� M-
AM
't'':t.vlQ'cs.tlSF'w�^�:•Q-�.�:v
;
>taet
,,.S:iC, YY Ys;.at.?f3,vd; x.•; } �"K\a' n.'' .,'+''.
,. *.
nY) e`
,'YYY..!',iQ�' ,.aR::»:wmi:asq tiu.:�:;•.•;nry ..A{w,..
m .v.:v,� �\ 11��J�VIiM [,{tit •. `iMFYYxY,`hV:y:'.}.::F n;iw,�, '
.. ° SOtYirY { .rY;';Lp•Y%M.
:^:s: :;,::%•;::::''t%;. x.;,s;;?z:s.Y:�:i:;:.},s:icy..^.f.•.:.:ii:..:i:;r,,.:::,:Y:++}:t.i:.::t i:.;: .,::..Y... 7Pr."`::: `�� �
^!+:1^:y:::.Y•;;.;.:.w ?
.Oil
ft
. .; �,'[(. MJ,�
�y ,u,�L ::}.win.::•iavo;::,.'rage:w:.r.;..tiRQr:? }:al.ti; <<'Yyn+:.SYC..y}ah''S%f%tlits'NC�
,�'aiX.G.GG
..JTb%,.:A}\}. ..).�\�..v\p,:n::3�:i:i.�:Y:::if'In v.}K:.1'j��i�S:::?.�{��+:y:C{Ji.�i��•I. �+ l\i:vi:•
�.Y�'�'� `:::dry:• ..},. a.:<:S:F :h.:n `i.. <:'.�..t'
n
�y.,��y.::iryy��tyy :.:::S+v�£i'... ^,zs},...cz';++zv:,>.:,:ri:f<:kcxoi ta•. o
be,�zirrt�
s..>9.yy,;::+:..,:+,a,}:..:i;.�}�....,n,.:n.i+,•.ascii.:::
�� (^ i:.";.: <i:its:;•� `:�:c
'wa. ..v,::
211.. .: .. .
....a,a ,.:. �:.::.:: .... y7,,..,,..,, ��,••;ee.++ .,:.. .... ':.. '.x,:z::'."; ,;.,>,+a'+c}.io:.'::`iakaro-}:}s. S,.
�nst,:.'�..y.
ry Yn: ;i.;Ov. W.tv +V^�v,:+w:.Qv;:.::;;vavl\.J.<qo: :.y:.t. :���\�4,✓J[ S�VV�F.
' r:\h+y•., AV'i,}...:,An+..,,t..i:.^v�.... , ...:::n.....:.v.p::,.}F:f�.t1e:�.�< EY:' �l
18
G-►3
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;
fi A qualified, 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.
9.2 Basis for Allocations and Offsets
Required allocations and offsets will be based on long-term usage for each
of develome .
(These use and offset factors will be determined and published by the City,and may be revised,
as warranted, by new information.)
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the City began to formally account for long-term water usage in new development.
The allocations have been based on histories of water usage for various ldnds of development.
At first, the City decided to allocate some water for new land development projects even though
city-wide water usage exceeded safe yield. As the 1986-1991 drought continued, and the
projected completion of proposed supplemental supply projects moved farther into the future,
the City decided that there should be no new development that would increase water usage. As
a result, nearly all construction since 1990 has been:
■ Replacement buildings, using the same or less water;
■ Additions or remodels which do not substantially affect water usage; and
• Projects which have retrofitted facilities served by the City, to save (offset) twice the amount
of water which would be allocated to the project. Installation of low-flow toilets,
showerheads, and faucets have accounted for most of the offset credit. Substantial credits
were also earned by installing water recycling equipment in businesses.
Also, a few relatively small projects were able to do little or no retrofitting because they were
supplied with groundwater through private wells. Some projects have utilized more than one
of these strategies to proceed despite the lack of water allocations.
RECLAIMED WATER
POLICIES
19
10.1 Reclaimed Water Quality
The City will produce high quality reclaimed water
uses. suitable for a wide range of nonpotable
10-2 Use Of Reclaimed water
The City will make available reclaimed water to substitute for existing Potable water uses as
allowed by law and to supply new nonpotable uses.
d
10.3 Accounting for Reclaimed Water
letablem,,
1:11:111eitable *atef
d te it Pe le able yi B—F WiH bee
but lea it is ae at the t it P!
&eAifiesr.
10.4 Git
butie fae eWfn 4-watep-fef
ve the sulfing Fedue an ift )e watef
9 ment ;9jee �meju
the Otffif -f whie 4in
40. 2n
A. ten a
%4des dig flieff-fiWili liii:!Ii ,Ulm age
that ve ti pe e Gi
Pe
�e efte mtie, Simi
ef a pfj
afly equi pe et sh.e!!
affietinh
10.6
Wjeefs
20
shaH be di
on the fespeeave-e���� en the Gity and the developff-based
BACKGROUND
Reclaimed water is highly treated wastewater (sewage) which can be used for most nonpotable
Purposes. The City's Water Reclamation Facility (formerly known as the Wastewater Treatment
Plant) has been upgraded to the point the effluent can be used directly for landscape and
agricultural irrigation and other uses such as industrial processes and toilet flushing in certain
types of buildings.
Most treated effluent, in the past, has been discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. A small
amount of effluent has been used at the treatment plant site for landscape irrigation. Reclaimed
water will be used for additional landscape irrigation at the Water Reclamation Facility and on
City-owned land in the vicinity, and for ponds to benefit wildlife.
Use of reclaimed water beyond the treatment plant area will require a distribution system
separate from other water lines. Reclaimed water can be used to supply nonpotable uses in new
development and to offset potable uses in existing development. These potential uses require
a deliberate method to account for reclaimed water use, consistent with Policies concerning total
water requirements and other water sources.
Long-term funding for the necessary reclaimed water distribution system is expected to come
from charges for the use of reclaimed water. Initial expenses may be funded from bonds, low-
interest State loans, and developer contributions.
WATER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY
POLICY
11.1 Water Service within the City
The City will be the only purveyor of water within the City.
BACKGROUND
Historically, the City has been the sole water purveyor within the City limits. This allowed the
City to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution standards, and to be consistent in
developing and implementing water policy. In continuing to be the sole water purveyor, the
21
PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
1.13.4 Development and Services Actual 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 for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance
with the City's water managementpolicies.
g s Wtnana erne
y��ye:h. 4 +M:T..i�;'- Q{...K$$'.yim,YA• W 'OW. M nh'!CY:f.4+.'l-:yy(., :r.Ar... 'L...v-.w..L
P?�,,.:.�:,�te, reN'o it:credxt>xbarwor<1'd �• .�-
M,YNNNMN•Ai':4:i•� y; �i,.,-:,.,.f.x��,,:;•,.,.;. ,�..�..,.....:�.11«�..,.e&.� ::b.tl�dO.U�,w•l�+l'ftl�i�t� :.�.1,
may be m
i;e mb —se dor alirlex�tlo�t Axa ecLs� Water for development in an annexed area L
ade available by any one or any combination of the following:
A. City water supply, including reclaimed water;
B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will
be no net increase in long-term water usage;
C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of
an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated
that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal
groundwater supply.
LUEAMND.wTR
GM 418-96
6 -17
Attachment B
i��1��81��11l��1I 0�►'{{{{�����IIIIIIII IIIA
cityO S�►1'1 l�l1S oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Water Policy Changes (ER 45-96)
2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary Henderson; 805 781-7237
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: same as lead agency
6. General Plan Designation: not applicable
7. Zoning: not applicable
8. Description of the Project:
In March 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Council initiated amendments to several
adopted policies concerning relationships between water sources and
development. These policies are contained in the General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element and Land Use Element, and in the Urban Water
Management Plan. If the City approves the policy changes, it would also amend
the Water Allocation Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 17.89) and the Water
Use Offsets administrative guidelines, which implement the policies. Following is
a summary of the proposed changes. This environmental assessment assumes
that the proposed changes will be adopted as a package. That is a "worst case"
assumption, so adoption of lesser changes would be adequately covered by this
study.
Offset Ratio Since 1990, almost every development project that would increase
water use has been required to offset twice its expected use of potable City
water. These offsets have been achieved mostly by replacing ("retrofitting")
plumbing fixtures with more efficient ones. Some offset credits were earned by
installing gray-water reuse facilities and by substituting private wells for City-
supplied water for outdoor uses.
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. V C
The City proposes to require that the water offset instead be equal to the
expected use. This change has been described as going from a "two-to-one
offset" to a "one-to-one offset." The offset requirement will be in effect until the
City obtains a major additional source of water, or until substantially all fixtures in
the City have been retrofitted, whichever occurs first. (The dates for these
events cannot be predicted with certainty, but both are expected to be around
the year 2000, with additional supply probably happening first). The one-to-one
offset requirement is expected to apply to projects for which planning
applications are received after the effective date of the change.
Infill Reserve The General Plan updates adopted in 1994 reinforced a
longstanding policy that providing City services to newly annexed areas should
not reduce service levels or increase costs for service users in areas which
already were part of the City. One specific result was that at most 33 acre-feet
of water service potential through retrofitting became available for projects in
areas annexed after 1994. It was estimated that the rest of the retrofit potential
would be needed to serve allowed development within the 1994 city limits.
Development within the city limits is referred to as "infill" (building on vacant
parcels) and "intensification" (adding to developed sites or replacing existing
development with more intense development). For simplicity, this study refers to
all such development as "infill."
The City proposes that one-half of the retrofit potential remaining in 1994 be
reserved for development within the 1994 city limits, so 301 acre-feet would be -
available for post-1994 annexation projects. The same amount is estimated to be
available for infill projects.
The reduction in offset potential available to projects within the 1994 city limits
would not be consistent with a Land Use Element policy which says annexation
projects should not reduce service levels for development projects on sites that
already were part of the City. To maintain consistency within the General Plan,
this policy would be amended to provide an exception for retrofit potential for
annexations.
Reclaimed Water "Reclaimed water" is wastewater which has been treated
sufficiently that it can be used for nearly all purposes except drinking, bathing,
and dish washing. The City has upgraded its wastewater treatment plant, now
called the Water Reclamation Facility, to produce reclaimed water. The City has
proposed diverting from creek discharge about 1,200 acre-feet for non-potable
uses, mainly landscape irrigation. Some reclaimed water may be used for
nonpotable uses in new development, reducing the amount of potable supply
needed. Some may be substituted for potable water in existing development,
making the potable water available for other uses. Under current policies,
reclaimed water is not to be counted as a new supply (toward "safe yield," the
amount of supply the City can count on during a prolonged drought). However,
under the adopted policy, use of reclaimed water would reduce the expected
average use per person, on which the City bases overall water supply needs.
2 G_��
The City proposes to count reclaimed water as a new water supply, as soon as
the City initiates the project that would make the reclaimed water available to
users. As a new supply, reclaimed water would be subject to adopted policies .
(which are not proposed to be changed), including those concerning reserves for
reliability and siltation. One likely result is that the whole 1,200 acre-feet would
not be available for allocation to new development.
Private Wells The City does not regulate the development or use of private
wells. However, it does regulate the extent to which private well water can be
counted toward required water allocations or offsets for new development
projects. The City proposes only to refine and clarify existing policies concerning
the use of private wells. The areas of clarification are:
(1) A private well may be used to reduce the required allocation or offset for
nonpotable needs, such as irrigation;
(2) A private well may substitute for City supply for a single parcel, but only
as a temporary source when allocations of City supply or potential offsets
are not available, and when the private well will not reduce the yield of
City wells.
(3) A well on one parcel may be used to supply landscape irrigation on other
parcels, but only where the irrigation system is covered by reciprocal
agreements or unified management, as in a shopping center.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The regulatory setting and development
situation are discussed generally under item #8 above, and more specifically in
the impact topic areas below.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): none
3 G_ Lb
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
X Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and x
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
4 to -21
Signature: Date: �9
J,&_/Z a�r4-
J h Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. .
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault.
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC A process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are-encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
5 G 2 z-
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Any additional development enabled or made more feasible by the proposed water policy changes would need to be
consistent with General Plan policies concerning type, intensity, location, and timing, so there would be no direct conflicts
with the City's growth management or land use policies.
Concern has been expressed that the proposed infill-reserve policy change would encourage sprawl, or at least indirectly
weaken a preference for infill development, by making available to annexation projects water service that otherwise would
be available to more centrally located projects. Infill development is often seen as having less impact than development
at the edges of the city. A counter assertion has been made that full development within the 1994 city limits is very
unlikely to occur within the time frame in which the policy changes would have an effect, and that deterring annexation
projects around San Luis Obispo will simply cause them to be developed, and their impacts to occur, in other nearby area!
Further discussion of these issues would be largely speculative, given the uncertainty of:
The estimates of retrofit potential;
The time frames for completion of development and water supply projects;
The actual impacts of certain types of development located within the 1994 city limits, as opposed to outside the city
limits but within the City's rather tightly drawn boundary to ultimate development (the urban reserve line).
Impacts on service levels and costs are discussed below under item 12.g, water supplies.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
6
6_23
.6sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
Reducing the retrofit ratio and making more retrofit potential available for annexations will reduce one obstacle to
development,especially in annexation areas. The proposed changes may make annexation projects more feasible, or may
allow them to happen sooner than if they had to wait for supplemental City water supplies. Supplemental supplies to
enable General Plan build-out are being pursued, but they are not assured and are at least several years away. Retrofitting
can be done sooner. Annexation proposals which could experience more rapid development as a result include the
Margarita and Airport areas, the Goldenrod residential subdivision east of Highway 227, the "T-K" shopping center on
South Higuera Street at Tank Farm Road, the Froom Ranch project on Los Osos Valley Road west of Pacific Beach School,
the Prefumo Canyon Homes project,'and the Dalidio annexation. Residential projects would increase City resident
population, while commercial and industrial projects would increase the number of workers and, indirectly, residents
throughout the San Luis Obispo area.
The relationship between retrofit potential and development timing is somewhat speculative. Several major projects
have completed or nearly completed required retrofitting —some several years ago-- but have not used the available
credit (such as the Marigold shopping center, the Laurelwood residential subdivision, and retail expansion at Central
.oast Plaza). Most of the annexation projects listed above have not received all required discretionary approvals, nor
are these approvals assured. Additional review time for the major proposals is likely to extend their construction
starting dates closer to when supplemental City water supplies will be available.
Over the last five years, the pace of residential development has been roughly half that allowed by the General Plan.
Overall, the water policy changes are not expected to result in substantial growth occurring sooner than anticipated in
the adopted General Plan.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
1) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
8
�i-2S
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting X
or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD
Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
9
G -2G
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the prbposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other govemmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
The policy changes would have no impact on existing or proposed water sources. However, public concerns have been
expressed about their effect on service levels.
The changes would not significantly impact service levels for existing customers. Through a one-to-one offset, new
development projects still will cause no net increase in water demand, until an adequate supplemental supply is available
(when the demand can be met). However, a two-to-one offset would produce net savings, providing a slightly larger
margin of safety in meeting demands during a prolonged drought than would be available with the proposed policies. For
comparison,the long term, net saving in annual water use achieved through development offsets from 1989 through 199E
is estimated to be 188 acre-feet, while actual usage in 1995 was about 5,574 acre-feet, 1995 usage at long-term planninL
rates would have been about 7,100 acre-feet, and safe yield is 7,735 acre-feet.
12
issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The change concerning water for infill would shift some potential for water service (through retrofitting)from potential
development sites inside the 1994 city limits to potential development sites outside the 1994 city limits. Specific
sites gaining and losing under the proposed approach cannot be identified, because retrofit potential will continue to
be available "first-come, first-serve."
There will be no substantial impact on costs for new water service, since the City's impact fees are the same for infill
and annexation projects, and include credits for projects which retrofit.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
�) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
13
G 3c�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
14
G 3/
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ® (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
There is no relevant earlier analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of S.L.O. General Plan, in particular the Land Use Element, Open Space Element, and Housing Element (all
1 ,1994).
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM None required.
POL961ES.WTR GM 418-96
15
G 3Z