Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1989, I-1 - WATER ALLOCATION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT TO BAR ALLOCATIONS DURING MANDATORY CONSERVATION. MWnNG DATE: 4111 N111111il city Of San I111S OBISPO 3-14-89 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM Terry Sanville, Acting Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT:Water Allocation Regulations amendment to bar allocations during mandatory conservation. CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce the attached ordinance amending the Water Allocation Regulations to bar water allocations when the city is implementing mandatory conservation, with reference to the previous environmental impact report for the regulations. BACKGROUND Situation Last summer the council adopted Water Allocation Regulations to help reach a better balance between normal water use levels and the amount of supply which the city can count on during dry spells. Adoption of the regulations followed a long discussion of how much more, if any, the community was willing to let normal water use exceed safe yield, and how quickly it wanted to regain a balance as new supplies were obtained. The adopted regulations set an initial amount of water (232 acre-feet) which could be allocated to development, even if no additional supplies were obtained. Nearly all of that amount has been allocated. The regulations also say that after crediting a certain amount of new supplies to a better balance, one-half of the additional water supply will become available for development (provided that the amount allocated to development in any year cannot exceed two percent of safe yield). Further, the regulations allow a new water source to be counted toward safe yield as soon as the environmental review is complete, the council has approved construction plans, and the utilities director has determined that it could deliver water within one year. Under these criteria, and subject to the water regulations annual growth-rate limit, the five wells approved last fall would result in 152 acre-feet becoming available for allocation beginning July 1. Because runoff and reservoirs are low for this time of year, the council has been discussing mandatory water conservation, as outlined in the previously adopted Water Operational Plan. At its March 3 meeting, the council discussed the perceived unfairness of customers making big cutbacks in water use while water is being allocated to new development. The council directed staff to bring back an ordinance that would suspend water allocations to construction projects while mandatory conservation is in effect. Staff has done so. Evaluation The merits and consequences of the recommended approach, in relation a wide range of other approaches, have been discussed generally over the last two years, and specifically at the March 3 meeting. ���w�H��►Illlpppp city of San Luis OBlspo MIGS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water regulations amendment Page 2 In drafting the actual ordinance language, staff was concerned with defining "mandatory conservation" in a way that would include temporary measures intended to achieve significant reductions from normal water use, but not more permanent features such as general increases in water rates, enforcement of rules to prevent irrigation runoff, or plumbing or landscape design standards. At the March 3 meeting, a councilmember asked for an assessment of the projects which have received their planning approvals but which have not applied for building permits, as well as those which are in some stage of planning review. These are the projects most likely to be delayed by operation of the Water Allocation Regulations, as now in effect or as may be amended. Here is a summary. WATER USE BY PROJECT STATUS - MARCH 8, 1989 Approximate Annual Water Use (acre-feet) Residential Nonresidential Total Planning approvals obtained 8 56 64 but no bldg. permit applic. (a) In planning review process (a) Ji 388 Total (b) 31 71 102 Notes: (a) Planning approval or review includes architectural review, planned-development rezonings, and use permits. Figures do not include single-family lots in tracts where no planning application has been submitted or where no planning application is required prior to building permit application. (b) Does not include proposed annexations, which represent 945 acre-feet of water use (664 residential and 383 nonresidential). This 945 acre-feet is total water use, some of which may be met by on-site supplies. ALTERNATIVES The council may introduce the ordinance as drafted, introduce it with changes, or reject . it. The council can also continue action. If the council does not amend the regulations as proposed, 152 acre-feet will become available for allocation starting July 1. This allotment would almost certainly be taken by development projects. If the council does amend the regulations as proposed, and the council adopts mandatory conservation, there will be no allocations of water to projects applying for building permits while mandatory conservation is in effect. If the council amends the regulations, but does not adopt mandatory conservation, there would be no change in how the regulations are applied. (The 1.52 acre-feet would become available July 1.) _ ��� �Hi�uI�Ilplil Ill city of san tus osispo MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Water regulations amendment Page 2 In drafting the actual ordinance language, staff was concerned with defining "mandatory conservation" in a way that would include temporary measures intended to achieve significant reductions from normal water use, but not more permanent features such as general increases in water rates, enforcement of rules to prevent irrigation runoff, or plumbing or landscape design standards. At the March 3 meeting, a councilmember asked for an assessment of the projects which have received their planning approvals but which have not applied for building permits, as well as those which are in some stage of planning review. These are the projects most likely to be delayed by operation of the Water Allocation Regulations, as now in effect or as may be amended. Here is a summary. WATER USE BY PROJECT STATUS - MARCH 8, 1989 Approximate Annual Water Use (acre-feet) Residential Nonresidential Total Planning approvals obtained 8 56 64 but no bldg. permit applic. (a) In planning review process (a) 2 38 Total (b) 31 71 102 Notes: (a) Planning approval or review includes architectural review, planned-development rezonings, and use permits. Figures do not include single-family lots in tracts where no planning application has been submitted or where no planning application is required prior to building permit application. (b) Does not include proposed annexations, which represent 945 acre-feet of water use (664 residential and 383 nonresidential). This 945 acre-feet is total water use, some of which may be met by on-site supplies. ALTERNATIVES The council may introduce the ordinance as drafted, introduce it with changes, or reject it. The council can also continue action. If the council does not amend the regulations as proposed, 152 acre-feet will become available for allocation starting July 1. This allotment would almost certainly be taken by development projects. If the council does amend the regulations as proposed, and the council adopts mandatory conservation, there will be no allocations of water to projects applying for building permits while mandatory conservation is in effect. If the council amends the regulations, but does not adopt mandatory conservation, there would be no change in how the regulations are applied. (The 152 acre-feet would become available July 1 ) r Ilil� city of San lL. osispo H" COUNCIL AGENDA I EPORT Water regulations amendment Page 3 In either case, projects which have already applied for building permits and received water allocations could proceed through obtaining permits, construction, and occupancy. Also, the types of projects which are exempt from needing water allocations would be exempt from the prohibition on giving out water allocations. The council can consider other changes to the regulations and direct staff to return with necessary ordinances or resolutions. Other potential changes include: A. Transfer any unused "affordable residential" reserve to the general residential category (by resolution) or to other categories (by ordinance amending. the Water Allocation Regulations). Staff would note that in the last few days two apartment-project developers have expressed interest in making their projects affordable as defined in city regulations in order to become eligible for the "affordable residential" reserve. B. Create an allocation (using part of the 152 acre-feet) for projects which (1) have received all planning approvals but which have not applied for building permits, or (2) are in some stage of planning review. (Doing this would give such projects an advantage over those which do not need any planning discretionary approval.) C. As a further refinement of options A and B, the allocation could be for some subgroup(s) of these projects (such as affordable housing, single-family houses, or downtown projects). Any assignment of the 152 acre-feet to specific subgroups of projects would require an ordinance amending the regulations (which could be a change to the attached draft ordinance). RECOMMENDATION To carry out previous council direction, introduce the attached ordinance to (1) amend the Water Allocation Regulations to bar water allocations when the city is implementing mandatory conservation, with any special allotment for categories of projects as deemed appropriate, and (2) determine that the environmental consequences have been adequately evaluated in the previous Environmental Impact Report for the Water Allocation Regulations. Attached: Draft ordinance amending Water Allocation Regulations gm3: war-amnd ORDINANCE.NO. (1989 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE WATER ALLOCATION REGULATIONS BE IT ORDAINED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Council makes the following findings. 1. This city is taking steps to obtain additional water sources, to conserve water, and to manage growth of water demand by means other than the Water Allocation Regulations. However, water supplies may not be sufficient to meet demands from all potential development. 2. The council has adopted a Water and Wastewater Management Element of the general plan, to guide the conservation, use, and development of water supplies, consistent with goals of the general plan. The amendment to these regulations is consistent. with the general plan. 3. The Council has evaluated existing and potential water sources and water demands. ' Further, the council has considered the environmental, economic, and public-service impacts of exceeding available supplies. The Council has considered evidence of current drought conditions, including reservoir levels, and is considering mandatory water-conservation (rationing). The Council has determined that this amendment is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Specifically, this amendment is necessary(1) to assure that increased water use due to additional land development will not jeopardize adequate water service and (2) to fairly impose the burdens of water conservation among various segments of the community. These amended regulations are needed to assure minimum acceptable amounts of water for fire protection, personal consumption and sanitation, the operations of businesses, industries, and public services, and landscape irrigation.. 4. The city has prepared and the Council has certified an environmental impact report (EIR), including comments and responses, for the Water Allocation Regulations, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and state and city environmental impact procedures and guidelines. The EIR evaluated the consequences of allowing no additional development as a result of the city having no water to allocate for development, as well as less stringent levels of development control. The EIR concluded that all potentially significant adverse impacts of the regulations can be mitigated to acceptable levels. In originally adopting the regulations, the Council determined that they would be justified to protect public health and safety even if all other'types of identified impacts could not.be reduced to acceptable levels. SECTION 2. Environmental determination. \ 1. The council hereby determines that the proposed amendment is within the scope of 1 J the Environmental Impact Report for the Water Allocation Regulations and that no further environmental study is required, pursuant to Section 15162 of the Environmental Guidelines. Ordnance No. (1989 Series) Page 2 SECTION 3. Adootion. The following subsection I is hereby added to Section 17.89.060 of the Municipal Code: "Despite any provision of these regulations to the contrary, after June 30, 1989, there shall be no allocation of water to development while the city has in effect a mandatory water-conservation program For the purposes of this section, a "mandatory water-conservation program means temporary regulations or rate structures intended to achieve substantial reductions from normal water use during supply shortages. The council shall indicate when it adopts conservation measures whether they are to be considered a mandatory-conservation program as intended in this section." SECTION 4. Publication and effective date This ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty days after final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of _ 1989, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ordinance No. (1989 Series) APPROVED: City Attorney Commun' Development Director Lkj Utilities Manager gm3: amend-ord I Respond by: I IYItt I INU AUNUA ,.no I `' C ! AO!. lerk-ong.. P-,5.fi£7IAAD � �' �• yHULr�It/ �o � 7 7 �� -�C-�-�.c-ahs- u�� ✓�=G�, G`�- RECMIY� Il 4VA CITrCLEAK. SANWISOPK°O.CA (J/fA/ •D D �•�1 7 '7 S' 11IRNG Hl7tivur DATE M # -' ECEIVED 655 J o h n s o n A V e CLE on by Lead PersonMA4 14'1San Luis Obispo , CA . 93401 OTYCLEAK SANLUrsr-°Q CA City Council Of San Luis ObispPalm St .San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 ' �a5►tic.TitRfDear Council Members , URf I would like to let you know a few . of my feelings about water issues for the city . It is obvious to me that we are in the midst of a three year drought . As a biologist , teacher , and fellow resident of this city for 13 years , I favor a mandatory water conservation program now in order to avert a major problem later in the summer . Watering residential lawns should be forbidden . Let them die and replant the next rainy season or better yet replant a water conserving groundcover . City .park turfs could live with .alot less water and of course water in the proper hours ., Landscape water wasters should be heavily fined such as the wasteful Irish Hills project that waters Tank Farm Road more than the soil ! Businesses should be given conservation suggestions , rates could go up , and other incentives could be given to them . I don ' t want to see employees laid off, or business decline due to a rationing program . Give them a break. somehow , but make sure they . are making an effort to save . I support a building moratorium as soon as possible as well as a moratorium on new landscape projects until the next rainy" season . It is absurd to overdraft our water resources for growth , profit , or anything else ! Please use the CCC , State Dept . of Water Resources , environmental group volunteers , and any other people resources to monitor , educate , and promote water conservation . 1 will gladly do my part , just give a call ! S i nS i n c' '4r�G Mark Elliott mtltllfvfa AbENUA DATE `S '89 ITEM # MADONNA ROAD PLAZA SHOPPIN CENTER 221. MADONNA ROAD • SAN f_UIS 01,15110 • CALIFORNIA 93,101 TrI-E11140NE 805/544-5710 ; March 14, 1989 *Dorwtes gran by Le"� r, a1c.��. 1 San Luis Obispo City Council RespoWb':---=----^}= 990 Palm 'Streetc01"� San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 fB Clay f- Ll Gertr-W . U� NCS �1 Mayor Dunin and Council Members: Re: Proposal to Mandate Water Usage Reduction by 25%. T r .Fug= Dear Council Members , As I am unable to attend tonight' s deliberations , I would appreciate your consideration of these few remarks . Since June of 1988, Madonna Road Plaza Shopping Center has taken every possible measure to reduce water use, including drastic cuts in landscape irrigation. Since 1988 the cost of Water/Sewer for Madonna Plaza has" increased by 300%. Our Merchants are not separately metered but pay the Water/Sewer charges on a square foot basis , paying the , highest rate for water as a corporate single user and the higher sewer rate for ( 39) individual users (although water consumption is the metered basis for sewer charges) . Madonna Plaza has no possible way to further reduction - even by. - 1 , unless the City has the legal means to dictate shortened hours of operations for our tenants or declare a moritorium on business licences for new stores opening . We believe mandated water reduction would be a mistake for our Merchants and the City of San Luis Obispo, before all sources of water for the City have been considered . Respectfully, MADONNA ROAD PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER Y2- rie E. McConagh� General Manager MEM:mb cc: Chamber of Commerce Stephen Barnard, The Barnard Company R E C El V E a MAR 1419W CITYCLERK SAWLUISO?KPQ.CA k Denotes action by Lead FeMn MEETING AGENDA ORes nd by: DATE MAR 14 t39 ITEM # pTJ�ouncil AO 'Y Attylerk-ong. /n,1NR4 130 Anacapa Circle San Luis Obispo March 13, 1989 To the San Luis Obispo City Council: As the original author of the water conservation brochure that the city continues to distribute to its residents. I would like to make one request of the council when it considers the possibility of water rationing. Since 1977, when the brochure was first distributed, the city has urged residents to conserve. Some residents have done so. Some haven't. If the city is now to ration water, it must do so fairly. That means doing so without breaking the implicit contract of the entire conservation effort. Residents who have cut their consumption should not now be punished for having done so. Residents who have continued to waste should not be rewarded. A mandated percentage cut based on previous consumption would reward the wasters and punish those who have done what you have been asking them to do, who have already reduced their consumption. Because of that, my wife and I strongly urge you, the council, to ration -- if indeed we come to it -- on the basis of fair allotments. Allotments should be based, for example, on household size, type of residence (such as house with yard vs. apartment), or business requirements. The magic of computers should make it possible for you to set up a fair system. Please don't break faith with those who have been conserving. Thank you for your consideration. Bob Anderson Lea Anderson C RECEIVED 141989 CITVCLERK SARI UISOPFF CA NIP-TING AGENDA Dr,:c3 / -8 ITEM # AI L March 14, 1989 bOWNTOWN 5AN LU15 OB15PO .. -- -- ;tnolss aclon by Lead Person ��SINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION .;,,pc„f'by: d-e6undl Mayor Ron Dunin and City Council Members !P-e'Iy�Aay. City of San Luis Obispo �I�rk-ori3. P. O. Box 8100 L-4, B.Nc-14AP40 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 UJ�W vHu&r,Oci Fear Mayor Dunin and Council Members: b'ne of the main topics at the $IA board of directors meeting this morning was the City's deteriorating supply of water. The board is concerned with staff's recommendations on the water issue, and wishes to express those concerns. After considerable discussion, including input from City staff, the board moved to 'recommend that neither a water Moratorium nor rationing be implemented until all possible sources of water have been explored thoroughly. The board is painfully aware of the dire effects that any severe cutbacks would have on downtown restaurants, some o8 which are struggling now to meet the increased sewer and water charges imposed in 1988. While the cutback proposed by staff could also have a devastating effect on residents, to further curtail business use would most likely result in the demise of some of our restaurants. This translates into the loss of many jobs, both entry level and management, as well as a decline in City 'revenues. The board voted to support the position of the Chamber of dbitltiierce and r666 end that cbithiarcial users be charged with 'Ab' more than a' 16 consler'';a'tiori' level, if and when all other tsr sources Hage been e $atis`tefl. It is the board+s positioh' .that responsibility on the part katbbth commefcia'i and res d�mial user's can see us through this' imminent c isis. Sit!"rely, , RECEIVEL Dodie Williams Administrator MF `, 4 JQ9 CITY CLERK SAN LUISOBSPO.C4 P.O. Box 1402, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541-0286 -AEFfING AGENDA uATE ITEM # arch 13, 1989 -XZ-Pond tri: MAYOR RON DUNIN AND CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL V'C.'o SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ✓:.;..yAtty. ZO HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS: M- A1110A'e� Fac& San Luis Sourdough must protest the proposed water rationing program recommended by City Staff and suggest that this be rejected in favor of the Dalidio Family alternative. Ours is ,a water-intensive business. We produce about 10, 000 pounds of bread each evening. In each mix of 330 pounds, we utilize 120 pounds of water or approximately 3600 pounds of water in just an average night of production. . In doing this, we must comply with health standards which requires additional usage to keep our plant up to our own cleanliness demands . you may know, we are in a new facility which was sorely needed and was -_axed on our past growth and the demand for our product. In anticipating the proposed water reduction to 1987 levels of water usage, we would be forced to curtail our current production by 75%, incur significant layoffs among our staff of 60 and would probably see the failure of our business since we would be unable to support the overhead- of the new facility in face of such a reduction of potential earning power. We understand drought and the need to curtail usage. . .both Dave and I are from farming communities. . .but to force such a drastic curtailment in the face of an adequate alternate plan, such as the Dalidio Offer, is not an acceptable means of facing our dilemma. We respectfully request serious consideration of the use of groundwater which can be made available to the community without the spectre of business failures which could plunge our area into certain hardship. Sincerely, RECEIVE [ C;, ,U. MAR 131 9 CITV CLERK Dave and "Charlie" West, Owners SANLUISOMPO.CA SAN LUIS SOURDOUGH 845B Capitol in Wav • San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93401 • (805)543-6142 M.� ,ING AGENDA TO: Corncilmembers Penny Roo DANE ITEM # Jerry Reis Allen Settle *Denotes action by Lead Person Peg Pinard Respond by: Mayor Ron I?unin ncil RE: Water Rationing measures for City of SLO ral RECEIV' E ® Atty. FROM: Randy Bullock [ f� xExLq,�� MAR 13 W9 Yx. arvCLEnx ly r. r Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: SAN LwSOWP0.CA Due to the fad that I cannot attend the Council meeting of 3/14/89,1 am writing to encourage you not to enact a water rationing measure at this time. While I agree the situation is of a serious or even critical concern..l feel strongly there are other alternatives available at this time. My rationale in this matter Is as follows.. Alternate water sotrces.to meet the annual shortfall of 2000 acre feet, we currently available and could be brought'on line'prior to current resource depletion. Both the ground water(1660* acre feet safe annual yeild)currently available,and the Dalidio reserves would bring the City well beyond any current deficiency. While these supplies may not now be readily avallable, all reasonable calculations indicate their availability prior to the depletion of current sources. This is true even if we receive no new rainfell through 1988. Additionally. we have not yet determined whether we could temporarily eliminate the give stream' requirement with regard to Satins River. With imposed conservation measures in conjunction with an Interim building moritorium, SLO would have substantially more water than the current population requires. This should allow the City time to engineer and effect additional water sources such as Naciemento,State Water Project, or waste water treatment and interjection into the existing wound water basin. Water rationing,if enacted,presents many problems. The legal and moral problems most concern me personally.however equitability of application is also a grave concern. Legally. I fear that a class-action suit might be enacted against the City if you enact a water rationing program at this time. The City has set a precident by requiring vertually all previous building projects, both residential and commercial. to provide landscaping to City standards. Them permits have a requirement that 'landscaping be maintained and replaced as necessary." Ratioring water would require property owners to reduce,or eliminate landscape watering, jeopardizing the landscaping. If this occurs, the property owners are in violation of there City permits. Additionally,loss or reduction of landscaping materials may reduce the real value of the property, again with the opportunity for the City to be sued for the loss. Reduction In landscaping would also present a substantial reduction in assethics within the City. Morally, the City of SLO,by requiring specific amounts of landscaping or all projects, has implied their intent to supply the method end means to maintain the landscaping. The City has the morel obilgation to continue to provide adequate water supplies for this purpose. If water rationing is enacted. I can personally see no equitable assessment to determine allotment of water. If you use pest records for each motor utilizing a percentage to reduce the amount of water available to each meterholder, former water 'abusers' will be 'rewarded' by given a higher allotment of water. Citizens who have previously a taken water conservation measures. as far back as 10 years ago, G (2) will be 'pusnsihed' for there efforts at conservation. In addition,how would properties which have one meter, servicing multiple units,be "rationed?" If some of the tenants conserved water, but others did not, how would rationing be equitably applied in this circumstance? Finding an equitable solution would be difficult, logistically, and could cost the City more money than simply activating or purchasing current resources. In conclusion, while I personally could support an interim, short term. building moritorium until new water sources are on line, rationing at this time would be presumptious of the City Council and. I feel, ill advised. This is certainly true given the recent approval of two major downtown projects,both of which require additional water resources. I hope you will consider my comments in the manner of their intent: not as a criticism of the current Council,but as imput and advice of the direction I believe the City needs to remain viable. I would be happy to meet and/or converse by telephone with you at your convenience. OSincerely, Randy Bullock 3 Chuparrosa Drive San Luis Obispo,Co. 93401 544-5022 R,ci� NEWS RELEASE M' TING C Ao -F`- ?�����pq FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE A4" UH:�.11� o , Iq1�,wEy Date: March 13, 1989 � hlE7�/AND Contact: Robin Loomis an Luis Obispo nwLr1t1 Phone: (805)543=1-323 ;S Chamber of Commerce SLO CHAMBER DISPUTES CITY WATER. RATIONING PLAN Economic devastation and sweeping change in the lives of San. Luis Obispo residents would result from the City's implementation of a water rationing plan, according to the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. The rationing' program, the Chamber says, is premature and unnecessary, and fails to adequately consider new groundwater sources for relief in the current situation. I At a news conference held early this morning at the Chamber's downtown j I Bw offices, President Lynn Cooper (Cooper Realty and Cooper Mortgage) said the City Council must consider all water sources and supply possibilities before taking an action as decimating as that created by a 25% mandatory cutback for commercial and residential users. City staff is recommending the 25% cutback to the Council at its meeting Tuesday, March 14. The proposed cutback will have a catastrophic effect on local business Cs well as residents: Other California communities facing water rationing have had to respond by limiting hotel and motel occupancy, reducing the hours of business operation and eliminating jobs. The rationing program will most definitely lead to business failures in San Luis Obispo just as the community enters its peak season in the hotel/motel, restaurant and retail sectors. Mandatory ration ing <at home could mean residents allow their yards to die, minimize showers and laundering, and bathe with a bucket nearby to reuse gray water for plant watering. The effects of rationing are overwhelming, said Cooper, and such a program simply cannot be accepted in the face of new water supplies which could stave off such desperate measures. "The City Council must consider the reality of what a decision to ration will mean to its residents and bxnffl e6d Cooper, "and determine if every possible measure to avoid `KK sMAR 141989 (more) OTYCLERK SANLU1SCVPFM.CA 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo. California 93401 • Administrative Offices(805) 543-1328• Information Services (805) 543.1323 i Water Rationing Opposition- 3/13/89 Cthis destruction has been pursued. The Chamber believes it has not. The time is now for the Council to acknowledge the critical needs of its residents and work more aggressively to eliminate the need for rationing of any type". The Chamber also stressed that if all other water sources are depleted and a rationing plan is necessary at a later date, an across-the-board reduction is overly burdensome to commercial users. . The Chamber advocates that commercial users be expected to conserve no more than 10%, due to their limited ability to conserve at all. Additionally, the City should accommodate exemptions for hardship cases, such as a motel which has already installed all possible water saving devices. These businesses need relief from rationing demands. In making these recommendations, Cooper stressed the Chamber's interest �in an equitable solution to the problem. "We the business community are also the residents of San Luis Obispo, " stated Cooper, "and we recognize water rationing as a responsibility to be shared by all users. However, business failures and an economic downturn in San Luis Obispo is the kind of crisis which will affect the quality of all our lives. We must be diligent in protecting our community". -end- C' MEETP"ri AGENDA DATE-,-.- ITEM # - JOHN V. KUDEN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 Realtor-Euhangor P.O. eox 3605 (805) 541-6257 ac�crj Lead rets00 March 9, 1989 Fc�pcnd by: f�].20uncil C� pei6rlc-0rig. The Honorable Mayor and Council Members CN�fj./�Et�i4N4 city Council office C�/YI• m varAte 990 Palm �TAri T San Jalis obispo, CA 93401 Honorable Mayor and council Members: In appreciation for the difficult City water problems under oon- sideration, perhaps there might be another approach. instead of exchanging annexation for water (i.e., Dalidio) . you might wish to consider water without annexation, such as the following: Cuesta Investment used to own the property that is presently occupied by Gottschalks and there was a waterwell down by the present embassy Suites site which, as I recall, was quite prolific. In addition, there is water on the Silver City lbMobile Fane property and across the street within City limits, near the Bonetti Higue:a 5t. home. These area might have to be re-drilled to Ding the wells to code. one other thought that canes to mind from PG&E policy: if grater is available on private property, the City could buy it such as PG&E does with privately produced power. These are just some thoughts for your consideration with a very difficult problem. Respectfully. -D John Ruden b RECEIVE ® RECEIVED MAR 1.3 99 MAR 131989 arvCLERK cmcalm SANLUISd6 o.ca SAN LWSO95poCA MEETING AGENDA ITEM # __-- Roy A. Hanff 569 Lawrence Drive •x•Denotes action by Lead Person San Luis Obispo, CA 93hO1 Re nd by: uncll &CAO V.b Atty. Cl CteAamig. March 13, 1989 Com►'6 rlef44ao Vk". rn0c.r4A; Elk, TT To the Honorable Mayor Dunin and the City Council of San Luis Obispo, California Re: Water rationing, building moratorium Annexation and sewer system Dear Mayor Dunin and Counoil Members: When you are going to consider the rationing of water, you also have to consider that a building moratorium is then mandatory, because you are not going to ask the Public to go on rationing their-water and the building industry goes "hol wild" with annexation, new buildings, and houses as it is right now. To the application for annexation, my neighborhood and I have the following to say, and ask you to please grant our request. Thereshould not and cannot be any land annexations anywhere into the city until such time we have our water holding capacity increased so that we could withstand a seven-year severedrought without water rationing. Then and only then, could we proceed with caution to annex more land into the city. Also there should be no annexation uhtil we have enlarged or build a new sewage plant that can handle all new annexations and sewagO. Already we are now over our capacity. Thank you. Ro A. Hanfr -� Copies to: City Attorney Planning Director Copies at Large RECEIVED MAR 1399 OTVCtERK SANLUK�poG 01 i33 j�In, ACW _ SETING AGENDA DATE.j-/q-8'9 ITEM # To: San Luis_ Obispo City Council OFrom: Richard Marren Date: 3/3/89 RE. San Luis Obispo's water Shortage *DenotesactionbyLeadFers ave�been following with much concern your position Respond by; gardrng a building moratorium to help our city sustain the Mpt c rrent\�rought. Since I am heavilq financiallq committed to <,vnny. b ilding a new home, and because of the disastrous perk-oris. c nsequences a building moratorium would have on me and a ai-t3'�,r JV4..,o n mber of others in the community, 1 would like to offer the B'rr�.rruc rR�C. C�'i r, f llowing comparison; it is a comparison of the effects of an 4� F[E imediate building moratorium, builder retrofits of water conservation devices, and an effective water conservation program. In addition to the comparison, I am offering some recommendations that I believe would make a difference in our water situation. One year Building Moratorium, effective immediately Pros: 1 . 1 % 2% savings in grater starting in about nine months to one year, since that is the earliest a home could be occupied that was just starting the permit process. This saving would start well into the next rainy season. No savings'in water consumption during this dry season. i Cons: 1 . Disastrous financial impact, to some members of our community v,,ho are at various stages of land purchase, home design, and permit processing. Loss of income,to various people involved in the buildinq crafts. such as carpenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, drywall installers. etc. Ft F iF i V 3. Loss of wholesale and retail sales for those j 1 MAR 13 M involved in supplying the buildinq trades J cr V CLOM sew LutsoeosPO.c' \ 1 4. Loss of opportunity for Realtors 5. Loss of trade in all areas due to the above reductions in income. *Analysis Per the Telegram Tribune of 2/ 17/89, about 8,200 acre- feet of water were used in the last year. Allocations for residential construction have been issued on a monthly basis as follows: `J Oct '88 - 2.95 ac-ft Nov '88 - 4.08 Dec '88 - 4.86'_ Jan '89 - 1.4. Avg for 4 mo = 3.3 Ac-Ft/11110, or about 40 ac-ft/year i 40 ac-ft / 8,200 ac-ft = 0.005, or about 1112 of 1 % of additional water consumption would result from one year of residential construction. (These figures exclude any major developments) Builder retrofits of water conservation devices Pro_: 1 . Savings of about 1 % - 2% of water in one year, if current growth was continued. Cons: 1 . High cost of retrofitting (Could easily be S-000 - $ 10,000) would be passed on to buyer when home costs are already too high. — )&4f-yrs ,N - �' Savings are minimal, and would do little to y/-0/-r Y6 help current problem. 3. Attempts to focus the solution to the water problem to the builder, when the problem must be solved with full community support. An Effective water Conservation Program Pros: 1. Savings in water consumption by 25 50% (In 1977, Marin County reduced its water consumption by 75% through community backed water conservation efforts) Cons: 1. The cast of raising public awareness and developing community involvement to implement water conservation measures. 2. There is no number 2. Summary The comparison clearly shows there is inconsequential benefit (maximum of 2Z) to our water shortage from a building moratorium or from retrofitting conservation devices at.a severe cost to a number of members of our community. C� On the other hand, tremendous benefit (easily 25 — 50Z) to our water situation can be gained from an effective water conservation program with little adverse impact to anyone. Recommendations: 1 . Abandon discussions of building moratoriums due to inconsequential benefit at tremendous community expense. The current city water management program is sufficiently limiting additional water consumption while allowing the limited amount of growth that is vital to our community. 2. Use the funds generated from the recent water rate increase to hire an advertising firm to raise public awareness of the need to conserve water. This should be a campaign of massive proportions, beginning with the schools, local service clubs, door-hangers, and anything (' ) else that works. 3. Set specific goals, say savings of 30% initially, and develop an "esprit de corps" among community members toward reaching that goal. s. Tell the public how to achieve the goal. For example, maybe 15% of water consumption can be saved simply by flushing only when "necessary." rlaybe 2% can be saved by not running the water while brushing teeth, or maybe 20% can be saved by shorter showers. 5. Prominently show the month to month savings, both in water and in dollars, on the water bill for individual feedback. 6. Embarrass people who are not working toward water conservation with a different colored bill, say pink. Congratulate the conservationists with a gold colored bill. (These types of measures can readily be handled by a computer sort and Some minor printing costs) ( PleS:_e consider this discussion carefully. I firmly believe that our water situation can be handled through proper conservation efforts, negating the need for the negligible benefit of a Building moratorium or the burdon of retrofitting homes with conservation devices. Richard P- Warren R.H. PORTER CO.— + IEETING AGENDA DATE 1111111111114 ITEM # March 10, 1989 Sed6r �` C mR+o San Luis Obispo City Council P.O. Box 8100 ®'13.NiG4un. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-8100 a^*wacr4,& V7. M Fi�E RE: The discussed Building Moratorium & the proposed development of 660 Peach Street. Dear Councilmen, It is now public knowledge that in your pursuit to minimize the effects of the current water shortage, you now consider a building moratorium. In an effort to be fair and equitable it has been suggested that those projects currently in the "plan check pipeline" would still be considered and likely allotted water for completion. While I agree this is just and has been followed in other communities, it may disregard those projects, including mine, which have spent considerable time in our city's "ARC design �- pipeline". It is my experience that the lead of other communities exempting projects in the "plan check pipeline" qenerally stems from their lack of an "ARC design" process. My particular project has been in design development for one year. It has been in our city's "ARC design" pipeline for seven months and as of February 13, 1989, it received Final ARC approval. Clearly there is a substantial investment in time, money and emotion in a project whir_h has proceeded this far and long. I ask you to please consider this dilema. in addition, it is important to note that in this project's specific case, due to three ARC Commissioner's conflicts of interest, the retirement of a fourth and, the city council's careful but time consuming consideration of a replacement, and later, the absence of a commissioner due to illness, had effectively set this project aside without action, due to the lack of Quorum, for a aggregate time period of approximately three months. In other words, it is highly possible that without these delays, which were completely out of our control, this project would have been in the "plan check pipeline" and received a water allotement for some time now and potentially could have been ready for permit. RECEIVED OR 1069 1026 Chorro St., Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 543-5408 crrvcu K sANLuisn +o.Ca R.H. PORTER CO. I have enclosed a,,brief time table of the project's progression for your review, Please consider this project's predicament in light of the investment already made and the delays already encountered which were completely beyond our control. I thank you in advance for your sincere consideration. Sincerely, r i Richard H. Porter RHP/jo 1026 Chorro St., Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 543-5408 R.H. PORTER CO. - Time Table: 660 Peach Street San Luis Obispo March 8, 1988 Steven D. Pults &Assoc. contracted for architecture. April I , 1988 Topograhpic survey completed. April 27, 1988 Informal Meeting& Review of initial site plans and drawings with Mr. Ken Bruce of Planning and Mr. Jerry Kenney of Engineering. Site plans retained by city staff. May 12, 1988 Soils& geological tests& report completed. July 19, 1988 ARC Design PACKAGE SUBMITTED: ARC-88- 120. August 18, 1988 Associate Planner requests additional information prior to scheduling ARC hearing. Hearing set September 19, 1988. September 14, 1988 Director of Community Development files a mitigated negative declaration on project. September 16, 1988 Applicant appeals mitigated negative declaration. September 19, 1988 Initial ARC Hearing. ARC denies applicants appeal of mitigated negative declaration. Project given direction. October 10, 1988 Revised ARC Design Package Submitted. October 17, 1988 Project continued due to a lack of an ARC Quorum. November 7, 1988 Project continued due to a lack of an ARC Quorum. November 21 , 1988 Project not scheduled due to a lack of an ARC Quorum. December S, 1988 Project not scheduled due to a lack of an ARC Quorum. December 19, 1988 ARC grants SCHEMATIC APPROVAL. January 6, 1989 Planning staff APPROVES USE PERMIT appl. A-99-88. January 23, 1989 Revised ARC Design Package Submitted. January 25, 1989 Older damaged home on site DEMOLISHED & CLEARED at request of city. WATER METER RELINQUISHED. January 30, 1989 Project continued due to lack of an ARC Quorum. February 13, 1989 ARC grants FINAL APPROVAL. ,J 1026 Chorro St., Suite 2, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 543-5408 #Denotes action byLead Person DATE MAR 14 ITEM # Ralph & Kathi Battles Respond by; Battles Residential Construction 1380 Diablo Drive G<A'o San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-543-4790 D"07•.rnuA.MAI March 8, 1989 Honorable Mayor Dunin & City Council Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Gentlemen: We are small-scale builders, averaging two projects within the city limits each of the past four years. We build on in-filling lots and derive the majority of our family income from the sale of these homes. Our limited resources requires us to postpone raw land acquisition until our most recent sale has closed escrow. We therefore have encountered delays in submit- ting plans this past year to secure our water allocation for two houses. We are in a similar position to those families that have acquired lots for construction of their new homes, except that in our case this is our livelihood. We have been in attendance at recent City Council meetings and recognize the water shortage situation as presented by Community Development Staff. But from our personal perspective, a formal or technical moratorium (such as no water allocations for 1989-1990) would result in financial crisis. Therefore, we are asking your thoughtful consideration to alternatives short of an effective moratorium on new construction. Two strong possibilities are: 1. Conservation retrofit plan such as utilized by Morro Bay; 2. Limited but accessible allocation of water for new construction, such as a percentage of last year's allocation. We are not concerned with the overall debate of growth, slow growth or no growth; we are merely trying to survive the coming fiscal year. We hope these sugges- tions are taken in good faith and are considered in your resolution of our water shortage problem. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Ralph & Kathi Battles RECEIVEC MA? 10 CU89 CIT v CLEC SAN,, CA 6eIwesaction byLead Pers�- ,,MEETING AGENDA Respond by: DATE "`""'° .� ITEM # U�rouncjl Ll CAO 540 Serrano Drive �yAny. San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 �rk-oiq. March 6 , 1989 S-;01. m r/c rA' i &T T. Dear Mayor Dunin : The purpose of this letter is ask the City Council when establishing regulations for water use to make provisions that will allow vegetable gardeners enough water to continue to grow vegetables and fruit , even on a reduced scale. If water is allocated on a per person basis with penalties for going over the allocation , it will be impossible from a financial standpoint to grow a vegetable garden . Water allocation will need to be on the basis of prior use , with a certain percent reduction . This is the method I assume will be adopted for nurseries , car washes , laundries and other commercial firms . Regulations could be adopted for vegetable growers that require conservation measures , such as use of drip systems , soaker hoses or similar water saving devises . Special regulations for vegetable growers would not include use of water for landscape plantings . C jSpecial regulations for growers of vegetables could be limited to those who had grown vegetable gardens in the past , in order to prevent residents from starting gardens to get extra water . It has been my observation that there are . only a few residents that grow veqetable gardens . To adopt special water allocation rules that will permit vegetable growing to continue , even on a limited scale , would not use much water . There are some important reasons , it seems to me , that water use regulations that make possible continuation of vegetable gardening should be adopted . The main one is that most gardners are retired and supplement their income with food from their garden . It also can be mentioned that gardening is a wholesome , healthy endeavor that is of great benefit to citizens of the community . Thank you for your consideration . S�-erely , � r� L/, u obert H . Sterling /J 1 RECEIVED Mtn? 10119 CiTr CLERK SAN LUISf-8&5po CA ME116ING AGENDA, Dni'�9-1-/S 19 ITEM # CITIZENSPLANNING ALLIANCE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 15247 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 I < uenoias a�ead Person MEMO I Respond by: i 4$5uncil March. 15, 1989 t-�O Aq. (iv.Creirk-0rig. B.I'/E7 it jo To: Mayor and City Council City of San Luis, Obispo p!r. �• From: Melanie BillO President Citizens ' Planning Alliance Re: MANDATORY CONSERVATION AND ALLOCATION PROGRAM We would like to offer the following suggestions on the agenda items of March 14 : C 1 . City hold "town hall" meetings to inform the public and build a consensus in the community for mandatory conservation. Staff of Planning, Finance and Utilities Departments should handle these meetings to explain: what the real situation is what the City's options are what the City's goals are how everyone can cooperate and achieve needed goals . 2 . Tie up the loose ends of the Leedhill contract in terms of scope and timing (page 3 - 2, paragraph 4 ) . Pleased to see this study and hope the impacts of added downstream users will be thoroughly studied. 3 . Support mandatory conservation. We may possibly face 2 to 3 years of adverse rainfall. Therefore, we hope that the Council will provide strong enforcement and more significant penalties in the order. of 3 to 5 times, not simply doubling a bill. (According to the County Conservation Officer, until fines are in the range of 5x, only then do people comply. ) C RECEIVED MAR 15 1989 CITYCLERK SAN U7K:)INFPO.CA Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 15, 1989 Page Two 4 . Clarify your graphs as to whether all of the well water figures are included prior to proven ability to provide those amounts. If these amounts are in fact included, then the charts of "what you have and will have" to resolve the water problem are very deceptive and overly optimistic. 5 . We support the Staff recommendation, Alternative #3, "Amend their regulations as proposed and adopt .mandatory conservation. There will be no allocations of water to projects applying for building permits while mandatory conservation is in effect. " (Page 5 - 2) C6 . Single family dwellings are not factored into the allocation. plans. There could be a fairly substantial number of these out there which could really complicate the perception of the moratorium as well as your water availability. Thank you for your consideration and we are pleased that you continued your meeting an extra day to allow for greater public information and input. C