HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/2010, B2 - WATER RELIABILITY RESERVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY POLICIES I
council M
j acEna RePoRt �mN
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Came Mattingly, Utilities Director CA��
Prepared By: Gary W. Henderson, Water Division Manager 6rv4"
SUBJECT: WATER RELIABILITY RESERVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
SUPPLY POLICIES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a report regarding clarification of policies related to the City's water reliability
reserve and secondary supply requirements, as outlined in the City Charter, General Plan and
Municipal Code; and
2. Pursue improved clarification of the policies through modification to the General Plan and
Municipal Code (but not through a Charter amendment), with a specific City Council
recommendation developed in collaboration with the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
The City has numerous policies to assure that it grows and develops consistent with its General
Plan guidelines. Historically the City has not artificially constrained resources as a growth
management tool. Instead, City policy has required the sustainable use of resources in the
implementation of General Plan goals. The City's management of its water supply offers one of
the best examples of sustainable resource use. The community's ongoing efficient water use, as
well as the City's water recycling program, demonstrates the City's strong stewardship of its
water resources.
Policies relative to water supplies and planning were developed over many years, some of which
took place during a time of water scarcity. Some of these policies have been modified as the
City's water supply situation changed and improved. In one case, however, a policy calling for
the creation of a "reliability reserve" was further imbedded in Section 909 of the City's Charter.
Upon more thorough study in 2002, the manner in which the City was intending to implement
that policy was found to potentially create far more cost than benefit. A new approach was
initiated at that time, whereby the City viewed the creation of a reserve by virtue of its per capita
planning figure of 145 gallons per person per day (gpcd), which was, and continues to be, 10 to
15 percent higher than actual City water use. (It should be noted the planning ratio of 145 gpcd
includes both residential and non-residential uses, such as retail, office, industrial and
governmental uses..)
The City's water supply situation has dramatically improved in recent years with the City's
participation in the Nacimiento Project and the addition of the Water Reuse Project to its water
supply portfolio. Because of these significant changes, there is a need to consider revisions to the
Water and Wastewater Management Element (W)A7ME) of the General Plan. Policies associated
Reliability Reserve Page 2
with water resources are found in the WWME, the Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE), the Municipal Code, as well as the City's Charter. Staff has identified ambiguities
among the various documents that require updating to provide clearer policy alignment
The intent of this study session is for Council to give direction to staff about how to clarify the
policies referencing the reliability reserve. The Charter clearly refers to the WWME as the policy
document that guides the sustainable use of water resources. The WWME best expresses policy
intent and other policy documents should be in alignment with it.
Any revisions to the WWME and the COSE will require hearings before the Planning
Commission prior to returning to the Council for its consideration.
Background
Between 1986 and March 1991, the City experienced its most severe drought since the inception
of its water supply records, which date back to 1944..In response to the drought, the City took
actions to reduce the impacts of future droughts and protect the community from other water
supply emergencies through the adoption of various water management policies, one of which
was the development of a water supply reserve concept.
The first reference to this water supply reserve was found in a November 27, 1990 staff report, in
which staff recommended 2,000 acre feet (af) of safe annual yield as a"planning reserve" to help
account for future unexpected conditions. In 1993, as part of the General Plan WWME update,
Council adopted a policy identifying a "reliability reserve" with 2,000 acre feet as the goal. The
original adopted policy is shown below:
In seeking and accounting for new water supplies, the City will strive fora "reliability
reserve" of 2,000 acre feet safe annual yield (about 20 percent of projected future
water demand at full build-out)..
It is important to note that at that time there was a general belief that acquiring a 2,000 of
reliability reserve would protect the City from any future water supply shortages and would
thereby not require the community to implement mandatory conservation measures during future
droughts or other unforeseen situations. At the time, staff was concerned that per capita use
would increase and could approach the high levels (182 gpcd) experienced prior to the drought
that ended in 1991. The adoption of the 145 gpcd figure assumed an ongoing 20 percent water
conservation ethic (below the high use of 182 gped), which the community has embraced. In fact,
the community has sustained water use in the 120 to 130 gpcd range.
In 1996, the Council placed Measure "P" on the ballot relative to the reliability reserve. City
voters approved Measure "P," which added Section 909 ("Use of Reliability Reserve") to the
City Charter. The Charter states:
As identified in the Water Management Element of the General Plan, the City shall
strive to acquire additional water supplies as a "reliability reserve" to protect the City
from future water shortages. Once the City has acquired a portion or all of the
reliability reserve, the additional water supply shall only be used to meet City needs
� a-a
r`
Reiiability Reserve Page 3
during unpredictable changes such as a new worst case drought, loss of one of the
City's water sources, contamination of a source, or failure of a new source to provide
projected yield, and not to allow additional development.
The Charter does not quantify the amount of the reserve to be established. However; once water
is dedicated to the reserve, it cannot be used for any additional development. The City has never
dedicated water to the reserve, although the City's current water management policies, as a
practical matter, do result in additional supply beyond actual use that essentially functions as a
"reserve" if the need arose.
Between July 12, 2001 and September 3, 2002 the Council (as well as the Planning Commission)
discussed amendments to the City's General Plan WWME policies, including the water supply
reliability reserve. Attachment 1, a May 14, 2002 Council agenda report; details historical and
technical issues concerning the creation, intent, and benefits of a 2,000 acre foot reliability
reserve.
The analysis concluded that development of the reliability reserve would be very costly and that
it would likely only extend the City's water supply by an additional year, based on a number of
water demand assumptions. In addition, the analysis revealed that the additional water would
have only been needed during the worst drought period in City historical records: 1986 through
1991. It also identified that the per capita planning figure of 145 gpcd provided a buffer since
actual community water use was approximately 10 to 15 percent lower. Accordingly, on
September 3, 2002, the Council removed the reliability reserve from the WWME.
It is important to note that the continued use of the 145 gpcd planning figure provides a"reserve"
of water in the event of future unforeseen changes. In addition, as the City's population increases,
the reserve will increase proportionally since the planning figure is the basis for determining the
amount of water available to serve new development.
On March 9, 2004, Council affirmed its intent to participate in the Nacimiento water supply
project and requested 3,380 acre feet per year of water from the project, an amount which was
greater than that required to satisfy General Plan build-out requirements. In support of the City's
commitment to the Nacimiento project, the Council directed staff to clarify certain WWME
policies to support the additional water supplies needed by the City above those already projected
to meet General Plan build-out needs. The policy changes identified two categories for additional
water supply resources: primary and secondary supplies, described as follows:
Supplemental Water Requirement
The City shall develop additional water supplies to provide the Primary Supply
Requirements identified below, and strive to develop additional water supplies to
provide for the Secondary Supply Requirements 'identified below, in concert with the
consideration of available supply opportunities.
1. Primary Supply Requirements — Develop supplemental water supplies to provide
sufficient water for General Plan build-out using the per capita planning use rate
3a 3
Reliability Reserve Page 4
indentified in Policy 3.1.2 multiplied by the projected General Plan build-out
population, and
2. Secondary Supply Requirements — Develop supplemental water supplies to provide
additional yield to account for future siltation losses, drought, loss of yield from an
existing supply source, operational requirements necessary to meet peak operating
demands, and other unforeseen conditions.
Page 4 of Attachment 2 contains discussion on the differences between the original reliability
reserve concept and the secondary supply policy. The major difference relates to the use of water
for future development once it is identified.and added to the reliability reserve.
Impetus for the Change
Staff has recently initiated the process to update the City's General Plan WWME to reflect the
pending completion of the Nacimiento water supply project, as well as other issues that have
changed in recent years. While drafting the update, staff realized that aligning the General Plan
elements, Municipal Code and Charter policies relative to their treatment of reserve or secondary
supply issues would be helpful in proceeding with the update of the WWME.
In planning the WWME update, staff also noted that the Municipal Code had not been amended
to reflect water management policy changes in the General Plan that had occurred over the past
ten years. The Municipal Code sections related to water management should therefore be updated
and/or amended to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Staff will bring the proposed
Municipal Code amendments to Council at a future date following the update of the WWME.
There are also references to the reliability reserve in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Policy 10.1.1 indicates that "Water use planning shall take into account the reliability reserve and
related concepts set forth in Section 909 of the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo and the
Water and Wastewater Element." Any proposed changes to the WWME will be reviewed to
determine if this policy in the COSE needs to be addressed.
Update Options
Staff is requesting general direction relative to the options outlined below. Following Council
direction, staff will initiate the required process through hearings before the Planning
Commission prior to returning to Council for its consideration of the recommended changes.
There are many interrelated policies that could be affected depending on the direction given by
Council for addressing this issue.
Summary of Issues
1. The reliability reserve is currently identified as a goal in the City's Charter, but is no longer
included in the WWME of the General Plan upon which the Charter provision is premised..
2. The WWME currently includes a policy similar to the reliability reserve, which is identified
as secondary supply requirements. Neither policy (Charter or WWME) identifies a specific
amount of water needed.
3. The City has adopted a water planning per capita figure that is 10 to 15 percent higher than
actual water use that provides a water planning buffer for future unforeseen water shortages.
Reliability Reserve. Pages
4. The Municipal Code still references an outdated WWME policy that identified 2,000 acre
feet for the reliability reserve.
5. Staff requests Council's general direction on clarifying the policies contained in the various
documents,prior to initiating revisions to the WWME.
As outlined below, staff believes there are two basic options:
3. Modify the General Plan WWME to incorporate the reliability reserve concept found in
the Charter. This approach is based on the assumption expressed in the Charter provision
that the WWME is the guiding document for expression of the City's water management
policies and should define the reliability reserve concept. If this is Council's direction, staff
will include language referencing the reliability reserve in the draft update of the WWME
that makes explicit the distinction between primary supply requirements, secondary supply
requirements, and the reliability reserve. The draft WWME will then go through the Planning
Commission for review and subsequent referral to the Council. With this option, no changes
would be required to the COSE or the City Charter related to the reliability reserve. The
Municipal Code would be amended to remove the reference to a reliability reserve of 2,000
af, since this specific amount is no longer referenced in any of the other policy documents.
Based on Council actions to-date, we believe that the WWME best expresses the City's
policy intent, and therefore, this is the best option for aligning the four policy documents.
4. Amend the Charter. The Council could direct staff to pursue a Charter amendment to
eliminate or modify Section 909 of the City Charter related to the reliability reserve. This
would require placing an amendment to the Charter on a future ballot. Staff does not believe
that the Charter requires amendment; and that the alignment being sought can be achieved by
updating the WWME where the Charter directs this policy should be defined. Accordingly,
staff does not recommend this resource-intensive, time-consuming option that will
significantly delay the WWME update.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with providing this general direction to staff. Depending on
the option chosen by Council, and the ultimate resolution of the issues, fiscal impacts may be
identified. These will be presented when the WWME update is brought before Council following
the Planning Commission's deliberations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report - May 14, 2002
2. Council Agenda Report—June 29, 2004
�a-5
Attachment 1
council _5_,4 .o z
j aclEn6A Rpm
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I P O
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Gary W. Henderson, Water Division Manager
SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY RESERVE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider the modification or elimination of Policy 4.0 of the Water Management Element
relative to the reliability reserve.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The cost implications associated with the policy to develop a 2,000 acre foot (af) reliability
reserve were recently discussed during Council's adoption of revised water impact fees on March
12 and April 2, 2002. In addition, the per capita use (145 gallons per person per day) figure was
also discussed since the figure directly impacts the amount of water that the City needs to
develop to meet General Plan build-out. These two related issues drive the amount of water that
the City needs to develop, and have potentially significant fiscal and other related impacts.
The reliability reserve was first proposed in 1990, prior to the end of the most significant drought
period experienced by the City during the historical record from 1944 to present. At the time of
Council adoption of the policy, there was no analysis of the value of the reserve (level of
protection provided) or the long-term fiscal impacts. The recent analysis undertaken to answer
these questions revealed the following key points:
1. The estimated cost for developing additional water supply projects has increased by
almost 3 times, which would result in an annual cost of $3.1 million for the 2,000 of
reliability reserve. (Page 3 of the report)
2. The issues associated with developing one or more water supply projects to provide for
the reserve include environmental impacts as well as fiscal impacts. (Page 3)
3. Since approximately 80% of the reserve would be for existing water customers, it is
estimated that a 21% rate increase (or higher if project costs increase in future)would be
necessary in the future to fund the reserve. (Page 3)
4. The reliability reserve would at best provide 12 months of additional water supply
during drought conditions. To achieve the additional 12 months would also require the
City to use the 2,000 of from the new water supply source each year and "bank" water
(i.e. reduce amount taken from) in Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. (Page 4)
8�01—�0
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 2
5. Other than the 1986-91 drought, there is no other drought period since 1944 that would
have required use of the reliability reserve. (Page 4)
6. The City's adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan and the difference between actual
water use and the water use factor of 145 gpcd provide a level of protection for future
water shortage periods which is roughly equivalent to that provided by the reserve.
(Page 5)
With the significant cost implications, relatively low level of protection and limited number of
times when the reserve would have been necessary, staff recommends that the Council consider
elimination of the policy for developing a 2,000 of reliability reserve. Staff would recommend
maintaining the 145 gpcd planning figure to provide the buffer for water planning purposes. The
actual water use has remained well below the 145 figure and has been accomplished by the water
conservation awareness and water efficient hardware retrofits that the community has
accomplished. This buffer has already been.achieved by our customers and would not require
any rate increases associated with the reliability reserve, which were noted above.
DISCUSSION
On March 12 and April 2 of 2002, the Council discussed and adopted revised water impact fees
based on the improvements identified in the Water System Master Plan and updated costs
associated with new water supply projects. As discussed at these Council meetings, two factors
that have a significant impact on the amount of water that the City needs to develop are the
"reliability reserve" and the adopted`water use" figure of 145 gallons per person per day(gpcd).
This report will discuss these two interrelated issues and potential modifications that Council
may consider. Since these policies are included in the Water Management Element of the
General Plan, any modifications will require public hearings before the Planning Commission
prior to hearings before the City Council for adoption.
Reliability Reserve
Why was the reliability reserve originally established? To address the problems associated
with determining safe annual yield and unexpected conditions affecting the safe annual
yield. The idea of establishing a water supply reserve first came forward during the drought
period which began in 1986 and ended in March of 1991. At the Council's request on April 2,
2002, staff researched information from this earlier time period to determine the reasons and
justification for the 2,000 acre foot reserve figure. The first reference to the reserve was
identified in a November 27, 1990 staff report titled "Water Supply Status and Development".
This report covered numerous water supply projects being pursued at the time in light of the
severe drought that the City was experiencing. One paragraph in the report discusses the reserve
(which was originally referred to as a"planning reserve") and the full text is shown below:
"The City has experienced problems with safe 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 _
- Ba—:�-
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 3
reasons, it is prudent to have a planning reserve of additional water supplies to account
for future unexpected conditions. Staff recommends the City develop an additional 25%
increase, or about 2,000 of of its safe annual yield as a planning reserve. "
As far as staff can determine, there was no technical basis (i.e. it would provide an additional X
years of water supply through the worst drought) for the 2,000 acre foot figure. It should be
noted that this goal was identified prior to the end of the drought. Following the end of the
drought, staff updated the City's safe annual yield computer model to include this new drought
period which resulted in a reduction of the projected safe annual yield that is available through
the coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. The City's current water
availability is based on this revised safe annual yield analysis and also includes estimated
reductions due to siltation at both reservoirs.
Following numerous public hearings, the City Council adopted the City's Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) on November 15, 1994. Policy 2.4 which identified the desire to
develop a reliability reserve is shown below:
"In seeking and accounting for new water supplies, the City.will strive for a "reliability
reserve" of 2,000 acre-feet safe annual yield (about 20 percent of projected future water
demand at full build-out). "
At the time that Policy 2.4 was adopted, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project costs were
estimated to provide additional water supplies in the range of$500 to $600 per acre foot. These
costs are approximately one-third the current cost estimates for additional water from the
Nacimiento Project. The cost for the 2,000 of reliability reserve has increased from $1 million
per year to $3.1 million. .
What issues have changed since the policy for a reserve was originally envisioned by the City
Council? The City has revised (lowered) the safe annual yield estimates for Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs based on the 1986-91 drought period. In addition, the estimated
cost for additional water supply projects has nearly tripled (and may be higher in the
future). The policy for the reserve was made without an analysis of the value of the reserve
(level of protection provided) or the cost impacts (currently projected at $3.1 million per
year for the reserve).
What are the implications associated with developing the reliability reserve? The issues
include environmental considerations, multiple projects being pursued, and fiscal impacts.
The 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve represents approximately 53% of the additional water
supplies currently being pursued to meet the policy and build-out water demands of the City.
The development of additional water supplies, depending on the source, will have some level of
environmental impact associated with the project. With the large amount of additional water
supplies currently being pursued, multiple projects may be necessary to develop the projected
amounts. In addition, as discussed in detail at the March 12, 2002 Council meeting; the
reliability reserve will have significant cost implications to both existing water customers as well
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 4
as new development. Since approximately 80% of the reserve is to serve existing customers, it is
currently estimated that a rate increase of approximately 21% would be necessary to pay for
existing customers portion of the reliability reserve. The other 20% of the costs for the reliability
reserve are included in the revised water impact fees for new development which were adopted
on April 2, 2002 (new fees take affect on July 1, 2002). If the Council chooses to reduce or
eliminate the reliability reserve, the projected 21% water rate increase for existing customers
would be reduced or eliminated. In addition, the water impact fees for new development would
be reduced slightly associated with the elimination of their share(20%)of the reliability reserve.
What level of protection does the 2;000 acre foot reliability reserve provide to the community if it
were obtained? The reserve could provide up to an additional 12 months of water supply
during water shortage period as discussed in more detail below.
The level of protection that the reliability reserve would provide has never been clearly analyzed
or evaluated. Opinions throughout the community relative to what the reserve should provide
would likely range from "it would never require the community to enter mandatory rationing
again" to"it will provide a buffer for a non-rainy day".
In an attempt to answer this question, staff used the computer model that was developed to
analyze the safe annual yield available from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs to run various
scenarios if the 2,000 acre foot (al) supply had been available to the City for the past 56 years.
The computer model uses historical data from 1944 to 2000 and various assumptions to estimate
what level of protection the reserve could have provided over this time period.
The analysis revealed that if 2,000 acre foot had been available each year during the recent
drought (1986-91) and assuming the City demand was equal to the current safe annual yield from
the two lakes, the City would have approximately 10 to 12 months of additional water supplies at
the end of the critical drought period. Attachment 1 and 2 graphically show the model
projections of water supplies in the reservoirs with and without the reserve (Scenario 1 is without
use of reserve). This assumes that the 2,000 of would be used every year during the drought
period. Since no one can be sure when the beginning of the next critical drought would occur,
the City would need to utilize the 2,000 of every year (under this scenario) which reduces the
amount that is taken from Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs. This essentially "banks" some
water in the two existing lakes.
Staff also analyzed other Table 1: Reliability Reserve Levels of Protection
scenarios to determine the
level of protection Reserve Used During- Extension of Available Water Supplies
provided if the 2,000 acre Last 3 Years 6-7 months
foot reserve were used Last 2 Years 5-6 months
during the last 3 years of Last Year 4-5 months
the drought, 2 years of the
drought, etc. as shown in
Table 1.
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 5
Would the City have needed to use the reserve other than during the 1986-91 drought? The
short answer is, NO. Staff simulated using the 2,000 of in the computer model only during the
controlling drought period from 1986 through March of 1991. The analysis indicates that at the
end of this drought period, the City would have had approximately 7,500 of in Whale Rock
Reservoir(approximately 10-12 months supply). Since the computer model goes back to 1944,
the results were evaluated to determine whether there was another drought period when there
would have been less than 7,500 of without the use of the 2,000 of. The results indicate that there
would have been one other drought period that approached this amount without.the use of the
reserve. This indicates that the drought period of 1986-91 was a very significant, critical drought
period surpassing any other drought period during the last 56 years as it affects the City's water
supply sources. In summary, the analysis would indicate that the City would not have needed to
use the reliability reserve for any period except the controlling drought in the last 56 years. At
today's estimated cost, this equates to an annual $3.1 million insurance policy that may be
needed infrequently and only buys an additional year's worth of water, at best.
If the reserve is reduced or eliminated, what other measures are available which can provide
protection to the City in future droughts? The City's adopted Water Shortage Contingency
Plan and the difference between the actual water use and the 145 gpcd planning figure.
The adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan was not included in the analysis of the scenarios
discussed above. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan has three action levels that are triggered
when water supplies are projected to last 3 years or less. Implementation and achievement of the
identified water reductions during these events will extend available supplies from 9 to 12
months, depending on the City's water demand in the future.
More importantly, the second safety factor(discussed in more detailin the following sections of
this report) is the difference between the water use factor used for planning purposes of 145 gpcd
versus the actual water use. The goal is to continue to keep the overall community per capita use
rate well below the 145 figure. If the figure over the long-term can be maintained around 125 to
130 gpcd, this would represent a buffer of approximately 10 to 15%.
An additional area for consideration which may provide a certain level of protection would be
working with other agencies in the County to develop "mutual aid" type agreements to share
water resources during emergency' periods. Cooperative use of the City of Morro Bay's
desalination facility(or expanded facility) could be an example of one such alternative.
If the Council decided to eliminate the reliability reserve, would the City Charter need to be
amended? The short answer is, Yes, for consistency purposes but not to adopt the change
in policy. In the November 1996 election, Measure P was placed on the ballot relative to the
reliability reserve. The voters approved the Charter amendment which added Section 909 as
shown below:
"As identified in the Water Management Element of the General Plan, the City shall
strive to acquire additional water supplies as a "reliability reserve" to protect the City
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 6
from future water shortages. Once the City has acquired a portion or all of the reliability
reserve, the additional water supply shall only be used to meet City needs during
unpredictable changes such as a new worst case drought, loss of one of the City's
sources, contamination of a source, or failure of a new source to provide projected yield,
and not to allow additional development. "
The language above notes that the Water Management Element (WME) policy indicates that the
City shall strive to acquire a reliability reserve. This does not mandate that the City develop the
reserve, or how the City develops or achieves the equivalence of the reserve, but the reason the
City Council placed the language on the ballot was to insure that if additional supplies were
developed, it would not be used in the future for additional growth. The concern was that a
future Council, on a 3 to 2 vote, could change the policy. If the Council decides to eliminate the
reliability reserve policy, a Charter amendment should be undertaken to delete Section 909. Staff
does not believe that a Charter amendment is required for the Council to eliminate the reserve
policy in the WME but rather, to ensure consistency between the WME of the General Plan and
the City Charter.
145 gpcd Water Use Figure
The "water use" figure adopted in the WME received significant discussion during the
development of the UWMP. Graph 1 shows the historic per capita water use since 1985. The
drastic reduction in the per capita water use during the drought was achieved through public
education and awareness, monetary penalties and related measures. Following the drought, it
was acknowledged that these extremely low rates could not be maintained over the long-term and
that there is a certain level of water needed to provide a reasonable quality of life for residents,
which includes water for landscaping and gardens. It was also acknowledged that conservation is
likely the least expensive source of additional water when compared to developing new water
supply sources,which it has proven to be.
While per capita use increased following the end of the drought up to 1997, the use appears to
have stabilized over the past several years. A number of factors can impact the per capita use
rate including, timing of yearly rainfall and the amount, population figure estimates from the
State which can fluctuate, and retrofitting that has been an ongoing requirement for new
development since 1989. It should be acknowledged that new development has been required to
retrofit to not. only offset their expected use but at twice the estimated use (i.e. 2 to 1). The
mandatory rerofit requirement was eliminated as of January 1, 2002 based on the fact that the
majority of existing toilets have been retrofit. Using information from 1995 through 2001, staff
estimates that retrofitting existing facilities served by the City saves approximately 550 of per
year. If these retrofits had not been completed, the per capita use rate for 2001 would increase
from the 118 gpcd figure shown above to 129 gpcd. With the elimination of the retrofit
requirement, the overall per capita use figure may tend to increase as new development occurs.
Maintaining per capita use rates in the 130 gpcd range may be achievable but additional time is
be needed to insure use will remain at these lower levels.
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 7
There have been discussions of lowering the "water use" figure below the 145 level. Adopting a
lower, per capita use figure, based on other policies in the WME, would immediately create
additional water for new development. If the figure were lowered to 140 gpcd,there would be an
additional 250 of available for new development at this time.
As noted earlier, maintaining the current 145 gpcd figure provides a buffer between actual use
and the planning figure of approximately 10-15%. Staff recommends maintaining the planning
per capita use rate at the current 145 gpcd as a buffer until such time as supply project options,
feasibility, and costs are evaluated and reviewed by Council in light of eliminating the reserve
requirement.
Summary
Based on the above discussions and the information presented in the March 12, 2002 Council
report relative to the cost implications associated with developing a reliability reserve and the
level of protection provided by the reserve, Council is being asked to reconsider the policy for
developing the reliability reserve. If the reserve is eliminated, staff would recommend that the
"water use" figure remain at 145 gpcd. The elimination of the reliability reserve will negate the
need for a rate increase for existing customers associated with the reserve. The difference
between the actual use rate and the 145 figure, that has been achieved through increased
conservation, would serve as the buffer. The water that has been conserved by the community
would serve as part of the insurance policy without any additional costs or rate increases.
In addition, the adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be implemented when supplies
are estimated to last 3 years or less which will extend available water supplies. If Council wishes
to revise the policies as noted above, the issues would be referred to the Planning Commission
and the brought back to the City Council for adoption as a revision to the Water Management
Element of the General Plan.
The modification or elimination of the reliability reserve will have a dramatic impact on the
amount of water that the City will need to develop from new sources of supply. Following
Council direction tonight, staff will return with a thorough discussion of the water supply
projects that should be pursued as part of the 2002 Water Resources Status Report on June 11,
2002.
FISCAL IMPACT
Depending on the modifications made to the policies discussed above, there could be long range
cost impacts (increases or reductions) to both water rates and development impact fees. No
impacts are associated with this staff report since no formal action can be taken to modify the
policies without the full General Plan process.
Attachment 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the 145 Water Use Figure and Maintain the 2,000 of Reliability Reserve.
Reducing the water use figure to 140 gpcd, for example, would immediately provide
approximately 250 of for new development based on existing Water Management Element
policies. This-option would utilize part of the buffer already developed through conservation
measures and necessitate development of additional water supplies to provide a reserve. This
additional reserve (speculative) would require future water rate increases. With the
significant annual cost associated with the reliability reserve, the relatively low level of
"insurance" protection, and the projected rate increases for existing residents to fund this
protection level, staff would not recommend this alternative.
2. Do not modify either of the policies. This will require the City to continue to pursue an
additional 2,000 of of water supplies to provide for the reliability reserve. Assuming the
reserve is acquired from the Nacimiento Project at an estimated cost of$1,550 per af, this
will result in an annual cost to the City of$3.1 million. Based on the level of protection
provided by a 2,000 of reliability reserve, staff does not recommend this alternative.
3. Reduce the amount of the reliability reserve. The level of protection provided by a 2,000
of reliability reserve is relatively low. Any reduction in the amount of the reserve will only
reduce the level of protection provide. Staff does not recommend this alternative..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Graph of projected water supplies during drought period without reliability reserve.
2. Graph of projected water supplies during drought period with reliability reserve.
3. Ballot Measure and analysis relative to the reliability reserve(November 1996)
Council Reading File:
1. "Water Supply Status and Development" Council Agenda Report dated November 27,
1990.
2. Minutes from November 27, 1990 City Council meeting.
a �-13
Attachment 2
councils Ne Z9 2�+
Agcnaa Repout °®N� l
CITY O F SAN LUIS OBIS P O
FROM: John E. Mods, Utilities Directo
Prepared by: Dan Gilmore,Utilities Engin
SUBJECT: WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
POLICY AMENDMENTS
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution amending certain policies contained in the Water and Wastewater Management
Element of the General Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
On February 10, 2004, Council considered finance and policy issues relative to the City's
participation in the Nacimiento project, and confirmed the City's allocation request of 3,380 acre-
feet per year(afy).. On March 9, 2004, Council directed staff to begin the process to modify certain
Water and Wastewater Management Element policies to ensure that the City's participation in the
project is clearly guided by the General Plan and is compatible with our most important community
principles including our growth management goals. This report presents recommendations for
amending several of the policies contained in the Water and Wastewater Management Element to
the General Plan (WME). Specific language for the proposed policy modifications was reviewed by
the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 28, 2004. The Planning Commission
unanimously supported the recommended language and corresponding amendments to the WME
policies presented herein.
DISCUSSION:
On February 10, 2004 Council considered policy and fiscal issues associated with the City's
participation in the Nacimiento project. The objective of that discussion was to reaffirm the City's
participation in the project and requested allocation. Council's action at that meeting was to direct
staff to return with recommended policy language relative to the City's participation in the project at
3,380 afy. Council directed staff to propose modifications to our policies relative to siltation,
reliability, and multi-source water supplies in order to ensure that the City's participation in the
project is.clearly guided by the General Plan and is compatible with our most important community
principles, including our growth management goals.
On March 9,2004 the City Council considered recommended policy amendments and directed staff
to initiate the General Plan amendment process to modify certain policies contained in the WME
(a legislative draft of the proposed changes to the WME is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1).
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report—Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 2
The recommended policy modifications are intended to clarify the Council's long range vision
relative to securing an additional reliable water supply for the community. Based on past Council
discussions,this vision includes:
1. Ensuring sufficient supply and system capacity to provide peak daily water demand
in the future.
2. Long term planning for water storage losses due siltation.
3. Providing additional yield for other unforeseen conditions, such as drought or loss of
another water supply source.
The recommended changes to WME contained in this report will support this vision by delineating
the purpose of future water supply development, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, and its
relationship to the community's principles, including growth management goals.
On April 28, 2004, staff presented proposed Water Management Element policy amendments to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed specific language for the modification
of the following WME policies:
• WME Policy 3.0 Water Demand Projections
• WME Policy 5.0 Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs
• WME Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements
• WME Policy 7.0 Multi-Source Water Supply
• WME Policy 8.0 Allocation of New Water Supplies
The Planning Commission unanimously supported the recommended language for amending these
WME policies (the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2004 are included as
Attachment 2). The specific recommended policy amendments are as follows:
WME Policy 3.0 Water Demand Projections
The current policies contained in this section are primarily directed at identifying a planning water
use rate for projecting the long term water demands of the City based on annual average values in
acre-feet per year (afy), and using that same water use rats to determine our present water demand.
Council did not direct staff to amend the policy that sets our planning per capita water use rate.
However, one of the potential benefits of the pipeline project previously discussed by Council is its
ability to provide a third major supply source to ensure the City is able to meet our peak daily
demands with one of our other major supply sources off-line. This is an important concept in
providing reliable and adequate water service to the community. In review of the existing policy it
became clear that the addition of a policy that would provide guidance for ensuring our capability to
meet not only our annual obligations, but our peak daily demands, would provide additional support
for participating in the pipeline project and strengthen our current policy'relative to a key water
service factor, i.e. meeting our peak daily demands.
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report—Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 3
Recommendation - Add Policy: .
3.1.5 Peak Daily Water Demand
Vie City shall strive to develop-and maintain supplies and facilities appropriate to ensure
sufficient supply and system capacity to provide the peak daily water demand of the City.
Basis—This policy addition reflects the understanding that use/demand is variable with season and
it is necessary for the City to meet the peak daily demands of the community as well as the annual
average needs in order to provide reliable service to our customers.
WME Policy 5.0 Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs
The current policy relative to siltation that occurs at our supply reservoirs identifies an estimated
amount of loss of Safe Annual Yield(SAY) at 10 afy and requires this amount to be subtracted from
the adopted safe annual yield figure on a yearly basis. This policy "accounts" for siltation, but
offers little in terms of planning for siltation into the future..
Recommendation- Amend Policy:
5.1.1 Accounting for Siltation
The City shall account for siltation in the adoption of the safe annual yield as identified in
Policy 1.1.2. The estimated annual reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale
Rock Reservoirs is 10 acre-feet per year. As Council considers and develops new supply
opportunities,.Council should consider planning for additional water to address siltation losses
over a longer term.
Basis - This policy change would continue to account for siltation, and, include guidelines for
planning for siltation over a longer planning horizon as new supply opportunities are considered by
the Council. A specific planning horizon is not recommended, since it is not fully possible to
anticipate all of the conditions, yield, etc. associated with future supply projects to be considered by
this,and future Councils. Those conditions may influence what the Council determines is an
appropriate amount or planning horizon for siltation at that time. Relative to the Nacimiento
project, this policy would direct that, upon initiation of project construction (which is when the
project yield is considered added to the City's supplies), the Council would determine what, if any,
amount of the project yield should be dedicated to future siltation losses.
WME Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements
The current WME Policy 6.1.1 identifies that the City should develop additional supplies to meet
the projected General Plan build-out requirements and offset water yield lost due to siltation
(projected to 2025). This policy bases its determination of supplemental water supply needs
primarily upon the planning per capita use rate multiplied by a General Plan build-out population
figure. The policy does not recognize or address other possibly critical supply requirements needed
for service and reliability such as siltation beyond 2025, drought conditions, short or long term loss
of yield from an existing supply source, requirements associated with meeting peak operating
,
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report—Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 4
demands, and other unforeseen conditions. The recommended modification to this policy to
identify Secondary Supply Requirements is very important in that it addresses these key.service and
reliability issues.
Recommendation—Amend Policy:
6.1.1 Supplemental Water Requirement
The City shall develop additional water supplies to provide for the Primary Supply
Requirements identified below, and strive to develop additional water supplies to provide for
the Secondary Supply Requirements identified below, in concert with the consideration of
available supply opportunities.
1. Primary Supply Requirements - Develop supplemental water supplies to provide
sufficient water for General Plan build-out using the per capita planning use rate
identified in Policy 3.1.2 multiplied by the projected General Plan build-out population,
and
2. Secondary. Supply Requirements — Develop supplemental water supplies to provide
additional yield to account for future siltation losses, drought, loss of yield from an
existing supply source, operational requirements necessary to meet peak operating
demands, and other unforeseen conditions.
Basis — The recommended policy identifies supplemental water supply requirements to include
Primary Supply Requirements as those required to meet our General Plan obligations, and,
Secondary Supply Requirements as those that the City should consider in its service responsibility
to address requirements beyond providing for the annual consumptive needs of the community. The
recommended amendment places priority for the City's supplemental supply development and
recognizes the need to consider development of supplies (Secondary Supplies) beyond those driven
by General Plan population needs. The recommended policy does not establish an amount to be
considered adequate. That amount, or adequacy,would be a consideration to be made by Council at
the time they consider a supplemental supply project opportunity.
This policy recommendation to identify Secondary Supply Requirements differs from previous
policy for development of a "reliability reserve" in that it defines the Secondary Supply
Requirements in a broad sense and allows for their appropriate use over a broad range of conditions.
Additionally, it does not place the priority for their development above that needed to meet our
General Plan goals and does not quantify the amount required. That amount may be variable and
should be determined by Council based on a variety of conditions, either existing or future, and
should also be considered in the context of available supply opportunities.
WME Policy 7.0 Multi-Source Water Supply
The current policy 7.1.1 identifies the importance and value of developing and maintaining multi-
source water supplies to "reduce reliance on any one source of water supply and increase its (City)
supply options in future droughts or other water supply emergencies." This policy as written is
already supportive of the City's participation in the pipeline project. Council felt it would be
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report—Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 5
appropriate to strengthen this policy by including in the justification, the ability to provide for
meeting peak operational demands in the event that one of our other major supply sources is
unavailable. _
Recommendation-Amend Policy:
7.1.1 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, to
provide for peak operating demands in the event one of the City's major water supply.sources
is unavailable, and to increase its supply options in future droughts or other water supply
emergencies.
Basis — This amendment to this policy places an additional and important parameter to consider
when reviewing the adequacy of the City's water supply resources.
WME Policy 8.0 Allocation of New Supplies
The current policy contained in this section identifies not only the priority by which new supplies
are to be allocated, i.e. first to eliminate any deficit between adopted yield and present demand, but
also provides policy for determining the amount of water available for new development, when new.
supplies will be considered available for allocation, pre-1994 City boundary infill and
intensification requirements,. accounting for reclaimed water and accounting for private water
supplies being used in the City.
In order to address growth related concerns with the development of water supplies beyond those
identified as required to meet General Plan population demands, this policy will prioritize the
allocation/use of new supplies, and will determine how water available for allocation to
development is calculated to ensure that the amount of the City's water supply determined to be
available to new development is tied directly to the General Plan land use.
Recommendation-Amend Policy:
8.1.1 Balancing Safe Annual 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 1.0) and the present
demand as defined in Policy 3.1.4, second to eliminate any deficit between adopted safe yield
and General Plan build-out, and third to supply for Secondary Supply Requirements as
identified in policy 6.1.1. ,
Basis —This policy amendment expands the priority for which new supplies are to be allocated to
include meeting General Plan build-out needs and Secondary Supply Requirements. The first
priority — eliminating any deficit between adopted safe annual yield and present demand, has been
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report—Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 6
satisfied and its basis stems from a time when the City's water use had actually exceeded its safe
annual yield. We currently have policies in place that would prohibit that from occurring as a result
of development. However, a new worst case drought or other loss of supply could'redefine our safe
annual yield and again make this policy priority applicable.
Recommendation-Amend Policy:
8.1.2 Supplying New Development
The City will determine the water available for allocation to new development by either; the
adopted safe annual yield of the City's water supplies minus present demand as identified in
Policy 3.1.4, or the projected demand at build-out as identified in Policy 3.1.3 minus present
demand as identified in Policy 3.1.4; whichever is less. 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.
Basis- This policy amendment provides assurance that if/when the City develops water to provide
for the Secondary Supply Requirements identified in the proposed amended policy 6.1.1, its use for
development, beyond the current General Plan envisioned build-out, requires that the current
General Plan build-out be evaluated and modified first, based on its own merits and not driven or
limited by water supply availability. There .will be no more water identified as available for
allocation than what is called for based on General Plan population and land use projections. This.
assurance is seen by staff as an important policy needed to support the City's participation in the .
pipeline project.
Summary
The policies contained within the Water and Wastewater Management Element to the General Plan
have received thorough discussion over the years and have been modified based on new information
or issues. The City needs -to continue to review the policies to insure that they provide the
framework necessary to ensure adequate water resources for the City. The proposed changes will
provide the City additional policy support for participation in the project and strengthen our overall
water supply management and planning. The Planning Commission concurred with these
recommended policy amendments being valuable,with or without the Nacimiento project.
Amendment Consistency with the General Plan
The general plan is an intemally consistent document, meaning that the policies and programs are
not mutually exclusive of one another. Internal consistency includes consistency between the text
and diagrams within the plan,consistency between the policies and programs in each element, and
consistency between the different elements. The proposed policy changes are consistent with the
rest of the General Plan. They will not result in any conflicts with other policies in the WME or
other elements of the General Plan.
r
Attachment 2
Council Agenda Report=Water.and Wastewater Management Element Policy Modifications
Page 7
Environmental Determination
Staff has prepared an Initial Study,of Environmental Impacts for the proposed WME amendments
and is recommending a Negative Declaration. The initial study was approved by the Community
Development Director on April 12, 2004. The Community.Development.Director has determined
that the proposed amendments will not have growth inducing impacts, because the City allocates
water to new development based on the projected water demand of the City's build-out population,
which is listed in Table 2 of the Land Use Element. Water is not allocated to new development
based solely on the availability of supply. The proposed policies that encourage the development of
new water supplies cannot be seen as encouraging growth unless they are used as a basis or
justification for amending the City's projected build-out population. No such change is anticipated
at this time.
CONCURRENCE:
At their regular meeting of April 28, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously supported the
recommended modifications and amendments to these Water and Wastewater Management
Element policies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the recommended policy modifications.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives to Policy Modifications. Council may direct staff to initiate WME or other General
Plan policy amendments not identified above, or direct a revised approach to the recommended
policy amendments. Staff is comfortable that the recommended policy amendments will provide
the policy support necessary for the City to participate in the Project at Council's desired
participation level, and will provide reasonable assurance that participation in the Project will not
become a growth inducement beyond that growth identified in the City's General Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 —Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Attachment 2—Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 2004
GACouncil Agenda Reports\2004 Council Agenda Peports\nacimientoWaei WME Policies CAR
is
From: Tent' Mohan [mailto:catsdad@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Fri 1/1/2010 3:38 PM
To: Council, SloCity; letters@thetribunenews.com
Subject: Measure P Revision
In 1996 the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo voted overwhelmingly to
include Measure P in the City Charter. The intent of Measure P in the eyes
of the voter's was to secure additional water supplies to protect the citizens
from a catastrophic event that might endanger the water sources that supply
the city.
Measure P expressly stated that these new water sources should not be used
to allow additional development, there by using tax dollars to enrich
developers and political cronies.
On Tuesday, January 5, 2010 the outgoing city administrator and the city
council will attempt to once again side step the voters' wishes by revising
the Water and Wastewater Management Element in the General Plan to
reflect their vision for the city and disregard voters' intent in their passage of
Measure P.
The only legal way changes to the intent of Measure P can be made is by
placing a revision on the ballot. But don't count on this council to take the
chance of allowing the voters a voice while they will surely get no
opposition if they keep this matter under their control in city hall.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara
San Luis Obispo, CA93401
805.547.9733
�'17�2D CatyY �119/L
F-'COUNCIL Cir-CDD DIR
RED FILE d� O-GAQell"64- CTFIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA I Lq�RNEY 3-FIRE.ICHIEF
R
IWORIG G-POLICE CE CHF
DATES/,s/to ITEM # 32 aCLER
t G DEPT HEADS
C'1'REC DIR
�I— L7"UTIL DIR
M-KR DIR I
New rio9� ��a.LrL.
e`* 6162 RECEIVED
i Cie
JAN 5 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
4
I
Subject: Agenda Item: Water Reliability Reserve RED FILE
From: rschmidt@rain.org MEETING AGENDA
Date: Tue, January 5, 2010 1:40 pm DATE.[, L ITEM C�
To: dromero@slocity.org
jamarx@slocity.org
acarter@slocity.org
asettle@slocity.org
jashbaugh@slocity.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Water Element revision to eliminate water reliability reserve.
Dear Council Members,
To modify the Water and Wastewater Element to eliminate the water
reliability reserve is unethical, immoral, and probably illegal
(litigable at the very least) .
The water reliability reserve was created by the People of the City of
San Luis Obispo. It is thus not in your prerogative or staff's
prerogative to continue to ignore it, let alone eliminate it. When the
people voted to create the reserve, they were told it would be 2, 000
acre feet, and that it would be in perpetuity -- i.e. , there would be
2, 000 acre feet of unallocated but available water.
Why? Because we'd just endured a prolonged multi-year drought with
severe and onerous mandatory rationing. The reserve was sold to the
people by some of you who were politically active at that time as an
inviolable buffer against future droughts.
When the city signed up for Nacimiento water, it bought 2, 000 acre feet
more than it needed for envisioned growth on the pretext that water
would become the reserve.
Now this scheme to ignore the. Will of the People, Enshrined in the
Charter, and thereby to create a huge cesspool of water for development
beyond anything envisioned in our General Plan.
This is subversion of good government, due process, and fiduciary
responsibility. It is, in short, unethical.
I urge you not only to vote no on this staff-concocted scheme, but to
take those staff responsible for it to the woodshed.
Sincerely,
LoPy GrnA�L
Richard Schmidt COUNCIL Er=)DIR
e0i'46-f- O'FIN DIR
MM7Y49et�-FIRE CHIEF
L�CLERK/ORIG Q`f'OL CE CHF
RECEIVED ❑ DEPT HEADS SEC DIR
C�1'OTIL;DIFI
JAN 10I0 Ti2l�dL� ErHR DIR
7IM6:5'
SLO CITY CLERK Cou"'c`
Cina nrGrz
i
i
i
From: Brett Cross [mailto:brettcross@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc janmarx@stanfordalumni.org; Richard Schmidt; Andrew Carter; John Ashbaugh; Romero,
Dave; brettcross@hotmail.com
Subject Item B-2 WATER RELIABILITY RESERVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATE R
This has to be one of the most shameful and shameless staff reports I seen in
awhile. There is a lack of honesty and a complete lapse in ethics regarding
the"back door" approach proposed by staff to eliminate the"reliability
reserve" contained in the City's Charter which was approved by City voters
in 1996.
It's pretty apparent that despite all the "language" in the policy changes and
additions- which by the way are written so vague and ambiguous that they
are impossible to actually explain, the outcome will be that all of the 3380
acre feet of water that the City will receive from the Nacimiento pipeline all
will be available for new development. Let me remind you that only about
1200 acre ft. were needed to meet General Plan build-out, so that additional
2000 acre feet will become available to new development beyond what is
considered in the General Plan. It's as simple as that and I doubt that is any
revelation to any of you.
The public for whatever reason, whether it was ensure that additional water
supplies beyond what would be needed for General Plan buildout would be
used to create a reliability reserve or to limit potential growth from the
acquisition of additional water supplies nonetheless approved Measure P in
1906. The whole staff report is an attempt to "end run" around the voters
wishes- and it's not right.
There is also a significant issue regarding CEQA and the growth inducing
impacts. or lack thereof, from obtaining 3200 acre feet of new water. Some
how there are not any growth inducing impacts because why?. I think from
reading the staff report it appears that there will be some policy amendments
that won't allow it?. "Staff is comfortable that the recommended policy
amendments will provide the policy support necessary for the City to
participate in the Project at Council's desired participation level, and will
provide reasonable assurance that participation in the Project will not
become a growth inducement beyond that growth identified in the City's
General Plan ." That's laughable, you realize that. It's probably violates
CEQA requirements as well. And I really doubt that the follow analysis is
congLen � requirements.
tC E I VEJAN 5 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
"Staff has prepared an Initial Study'of Environmental Impacts for the
proposed WME amendments
and is recommending a Negative Declaration . The initial study was
approved by the Communit y
Development Director on April 12, 2004 . The Community Development
Director has determine d
that the proposed amendments will not have growth inducing impacts,
because the City allocate s
water to new development based on the projected water demand of the
City's build-out population ,
which is listed in Table 2 of the Land Use Element . Water is not allocated
to new developmen t
based solely on the availability of supply . The proposed policies that
encourage the development o f
new water supplies cannot be seen as encouraging growth unless they are
used as a basis or
justification for amending the City's projected build-out population . No
such change is anticipated
at this time ."
The staff report also indicates that it is too costly to develop a "reliability
reserve". (I should remind Council that the City was a nanosecond away
from approving a $20+ million dollar desalination plant during the
drought.) The figure used in the staff report is $1550 per acre foot. There
are a couple of issues. One, who is paying the current cost associated with
the Nacimiento pipeline up until the water is allocated?. Ok, that's a
rhetorical question. Current rate payers are paying. So if Nacimiento was
too expensive for a reliability reserve why wasn't it too expensive for current
residents to saddle up until such time as there were some users of the
water?. What if there are no users identified in the future?. Why should
water rate customers pay for a project that appears to be destined for future
development that exceeds the General Plan build-out figures?. Staffs
argument is ridiculous, it doesn't hold water- pun intended. So current rate
payers are going to be paying for water too costly for an indeterminate
amount of time. That's basically it, right?. It must be because there are no
growth inducing impacts but the the costs are still too high to create a
"reliability reserve". I think I got that right.
The staff report also indicates that even if 2000 acre ft. of Nacimiento water
were set aside as a "reliability reserve" it wouldn't provide that much of an
insurance-- well except during a drought. Duh!. The other argument that is
scattered throughout the report is that there is already a built in reliability
reserve in the actual verses factored water use. Now that "paper" reserve is
somehow much more reliable. An actual reserve not so much. That is just
an intellectually dishonest argument.
It's time for a little honesty from the staff and from you the Council
Members. If you don't believe a "reliability reserve" is a good idea put the
issue back on the ballot and let the community decide. It's that simple.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross