Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2016 Item 21, CooperCOUNCIL MEETING: (D b / 14-i ZU ( 6 ITEM NO.: To: Price, Lee Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MATTING LY/F LOY D/M ETZ) From: Marx, Jan JUN 13 2016 Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 7:00 PM To: Allan Cooper Cc: Price, Lee Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MATTINGLY/ FLOYD/ METZ) Thank you for your message about this important issue, Allan. I have included our city clerk in this response, so that your email is posted on our city website and becomes part of the public record. If you email through the city website, it will go to the city clerk automatically. Hope you are doing well. Best Jan Jan Marx Mayor CITY OF U SAID. LUIS OBISPO Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E imarx c@slocity.o[g T 805.781.7120 siocity.org From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 2:02 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan Subject: ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MATTINGLY/FLOYD/METZ) ADOPTION OF THE 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MATTINGLY/FLOYD/METZ) Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I support Bob Lucas' contention that this Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan fails to take climate change into consideration. Lili Fuhr with the Heinrich Boll Foundation wrote recently: "We need system change to fight climate change". A number of us still think SLO's leaders have buried their collective heads in the sand regarding climate change. Staff & Council are demonstrating a laissez faire attitude in favor of massive new housing developments based on the assumption, as reflected in this updated Water Management Plan, that our recent history of record high temperatures and drought may continue but will not get any worse. We need to depart now, not later, from this path of "business as usual". We should anticipate a future where uncertainty and extreme weather will become the norm and believe that the long-term historical record (even a record that includes our recent drought) should no longer be considered a good indicator of future conditions. In the absence of worst case scenario water supply projections based on a reliable climate change model (which many of us have previously requested), I am at least asking for a more conservative approach in addressing our water shortage contingencies than is reflected in this report. The major thrust of my critique is of the "Water Shortage Response Stages" though these "stages" have been modified and much improved since they were first made available to the public. The following recommendations involve ratcheting up the constraints that this draft document has placed on future water consumption and future development: 1) You have chosen 117 gallons per capita per day as the maximum allowed per capita water use permitted under Senate Bill X7-7. In light of future extreme drought scenarios, I am recommending that you use Target Method 1 of 98 gallons per capita per day instead. 2) Why would groundwater remain a viable option for future use? Wouldn't elevated nitrate and tetrachloroethylene levels combined with costly treatment and related ground subsidence be sufficient deterrents to using well water? 3) All future developments should pay for the costs of increasing our grey water recycling capacity through increasing water offsets and development impact fees. 4) You've stated that the grey water plant upgrades will enable the City to consider potable reuse. Why use the words "consider" or "explore"? Aren't we committed to this concept? 5) Going forward, staff will be examining the expansion of rebate programs to include other types of offsets and water demand reductions. Why not incorporate some of these additional rebate programs and offsets into this report? Why wait until we're in the Watch Stage before the City begins drafting code changes that would go into effect in subsequent water shortage stages? And by the way, aren't we already in the Watch Stage? 6) Regarding the "Water Shortage Response Stages": You are recommending prohibition of all outdoor irrigation at the Extreme Stage . However, trees sequester carbon and therefore should be preserved even through to the Critical Stage. 7) Finally, you are recommending cessation of all new connections at the Extreme Stage. I am recommending, instead, that cessation of water connections should be tiered (similar to that being used in Pismo Beach) starting at the earlier Severe Stage. We should not be waiting until we only have 2 years left of water before we start initiating the cessation of water connections. Thank you. Regarding Public Hearing Item #2: "Growth Management Study Session" Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners My name is David Brodie and I reside in San Luis Obispo. Your staff report states that "...the City is planning for full build -out by ensuring that development proceeds in a manner that can be supported by available resources, and all appropriate measures to ensure that City goals and objectives for affordable housing, jobs -to -housing balance and air quality are met through the implementation of the General Plan." However, what is critically missing from this staff report is an estimate of the number of jobs generated by the projected growth in non-residential square footage. Our concern is that build -out, based on the number of jobs generated relative to housing, will actually exacerbate the unmet demand for affordable housing and job -to -housing balance, resulting in more commutes. This will further compromise our air quality. If we are truly serious about addressing our unmet demand for affordable housing and jobs/housing imbalance then I ask you to recommend to Council that they not only consider establishing limits for the rate of non-residential development but that Council should also consider the annual growth in jobs and the types of jobs created relative to the annual growth in housing.