HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/2002, PH 5 - AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES counat ' °t. .3, 2002
A '
acEnaa nEpoat
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Director
Prepared By: Gary W.Henderson, Water Division Manager z=,,,i 1,
SUBJECT: AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN WATER AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a negative declaration
of environmental impact and amending the Water Management Element relative to the reliability
reserve,supplying new development and accounting for reclaimed water.
DISCUSSION
Background
On July 12, 2001, the City Council discussed potential changes to the policies contained in the
Water Management Element to the General Plan. The four policies that were discussed in detail are
listed below:
4.1.1 Reliability Reserve
8.1.2 Supplying New Development
8.1.3 Reserve for Intensification and Infill Development
8.1.4 Accounting for Reclaimed Water
Following Council discussion, the Council directed staff to initiate the General Plan amendment
process which required hearings before the Planning Commission. With the exception of the
reliability reserve, the Council was interested in modifying certain aspects of each of the policy
areas listed above. In particular, the City Council requested the Planning Commission's input and
recommendation for potential modifications to the policy concerning reserve of water for
intensification and infill projects.
During Council discussions relative to increases in water impact fees on March 12, 2002, the
Council requested staff to prepare a more detailed evaluation of the benefits and costs associated
with developing a water supply`reliability reserve". On May 14, 2002, staff"presented an analysis
of the issues raised by Council and outlined the potential benefits and costs associated with the
reliability reserve policy. Based on the analysis, the Council directed staff to initiate an amendment
to eliminate the policy for"striving to acquire a 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve".
The Planning Commission has held two separate meetings relative to the policies outlined above on
February 27, 2002 and July 10, 2002. The four policy areas listed above are discussed in the
following sections which reflect the Planning Commission's recommended policy,changes. Exhibit
5- 1
Council Agenda Report—Water Management Element Policy Changes
Page 2
A to Attachment 1 provides a legislative draft of the recommended modifications to the Water
Management Element policies.
4.1.1 Reliability Reserve
The Planning Commission considered the elimination of the policy, which establishes a goal to
obtain an additional 2,000 acre feet of water for a reliability reserve. The analysis of the benefits
provided by a 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve indicated that it would provide an additional 10 to
12 months of water supply at best during an extended drought. With the current estimated cost of
water from potential supply projects, the reserve is estimated to cost $3.1 million per year. Based
on the limited benefits and high costs,the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
consider elimination of Policy 4.1.1 Reliability Reserve from the Water Management Element.
With the proposed elimination of the reliability reserve, references to the reserve in Section 6.0 of
the Water Management Element (WME) would also be deleted. In addition, Table 6 and 7 in the
WME have been updated to reflect population estimates for 2002,(Exhibit A, Attachment 1) and
related figures.
8.1.2 Supplying New Development
Section B requires minor modification to reflect a previous amendment to the WME relative to how
the City accounts for siltation at the reservoirs as well as the recommendation for elimination of the
reliability reserve. Several years ago the City modified Policy 1.0 Safe Annual Yield to account for
siltation losses as they occur and incorporate the estimated annual losses into the adopted safe
annual yield figures. Based on these changes,the changes shown below are necessary:
B. Any safe annual yield from new water supply projects beyond that needed to balance
safe annual yield and present demand will be allocated 64) ene ha*to the mkabik ,
to
development, subject to the requirements in Policy 8.1.3, "Reserve for Intensification
and Infill."
In January of 2002, the City Council eliminated the requirement that new development projects
retrofit existing toilets as a condition of development. Approximately 80% of the toilets within the
City have been retrofit and it was becoming increasingly difficult to locate willing property owners
to allow retrofit of their existing toilets. Based on this information, Council made a determination
that essentially all toilets within the City had been retrofit and eliminated the mandatory retrofit
requirement. Based on these changes, the Planning Commission recommends the revised policy
language shown below, which will still allow developers, on a voluntary basis, to retrofit facilities
to eliminate the need for a water allocation.
C.
1
C
Council Agenda Report—Water Management Element Policy Changes
Page 3
A water allocation shall not be required for projects for which
the developer makes changes„in facilities served by the City, which will reduce long-term
water usage equal to twice the water allocation required for the project:
&L3 Reserve for Intensification and Infill
The existing policy relative to the reserve for intensification and infill projects within the July
1994 city limits is shown below:
"The City will annually update the water available for allocation based on the difference
between the adopted safe annual yield (policy 1.1.2) and the present water demand (policy
3.1.4) as part of the annual Water Resources Status Report. One-half of the water available
for allocation (not to exceed the total required for infill and intensification), as identified in
the Water Resources Status Report, will be reserved to serve intensification and infill
development within existing city limits as of July 1994."
The City Council requested the Planning Commission's recommendation relative to potential
modification of this policy. This policy was discussed in detail at both the February 27, 2002 and
July 10, 2002 meetings. The Planning Commission struggled with the issue due to competing
policies,which are included in the City's General Plan.
Based on the discussions at the two Planning Commission meetings (Attachment 2 and 3 are
minutes from the meetings), it is evident that a number of the Commissioner's are concerned that
new annexation areas could potentially use the available water thus restricting availability for infill
projects. The existing policy recalculates the 50-50 split each year.
The main competing goals in the General Plan involve the goal to encourage infill and
intensification within the 1994 City limits and the goal for increasing housing stock, particularly
low income, within the City. Most of the additional housing will likely be built in the new
annexation areas.
The Planning Commission considered establishing a fixed amount of water to be reserved for infill
and intensification development and not recalculate the figure on an annual basis. Following
numerous discussions on the issue, the Planning Commission recommended that the existing policy
remain unchanged at this time. The Commission requested that staff annually present the Water
Resources Status Report (WRSR) to the Commission for their consideration of water supply
availability. The Commssion also requested that the WRSR include a discussion or table indicating
how much water is needed to meet the infill and intensification projects within the 1994 city limits
which should also reflect changes to land uses that occur over time. By annually reviewing the
water supply situation, the Commission could reconsider the policy recommendation in the future,
if wan-anted.
� -3
Council Agenda Report—Water Management Element Policy Changes
Page 4
8.1.4 Accounting for Reclaimed Water
The policy for accounting for reclaimed water was recommended for modification to add only the
additional amount of water to the City's safe annual yield that will actually be used. While the
Water Reuse Project is estimated to be capable of providing up to 1,200 acre feet per year, the
project will likely only deliver approximately 130 acre feet immediately following completion of
construction. The Planning Commission.recommends the policy be modified as shown below:
Reclaimed water has an estimated potential of 1,200 acre feet per year of water available for
appropriate non potable uses. Phe amount to be added to the City's safe annual yield, and
therefore available for development, will only be the amount projected actually to be used or,
offset (approximately 130 af. initially), increasing to 1,200 acre feet per year as additional
offsetting uses are brought on-line. The amountof reclaimed water used each year will be
reported to Council as part of the annual Water Resources Status Report and will be added
to the safe annual yield identified in Section 1,Table I of this document to determine water
available for new development:
Summary
The recommended policy changes presented in this report have been the subject of several public
hearings before the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. The adoption of the attached
resolution and associated changes to the Water Management Element of the General Plan will
implement the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
CONCURRENCES
1. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the negative declaration. No
comments were received on the negative declaration.
2. The Planning Commission concurs with the recommended policy changes as shown in
Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended policy changes. .
Attachments:
1. Resolution Adopting Water Management Element Policy Changes
2. Initial environmental study
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2002
4. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2002
J 'T
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDING THE
WATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearings on February 27, 2002
and July 10, 2002 and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Water Management
Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2002 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, staff and Planning Commission has recommended a negative declaration of
environmental impact associated with the recommended policy revisions;and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering the draft documents and staff's.analysis,
the Planning Commission's recommendations, and the public testimony, finds that the amended
sections are consistent with the General Plan.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby approves:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the project, and reflect the independent judgment of the City Council The Council determines
that the amendment will have no significant effects on the environment. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Policy 4.1.1 (section numbers refer to the Water Management Element of
the General Plan) of the Water Management Element is hereby amended to eliminate the policy
to acquire a 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve (specific changes shown in Exhibit A to this
resolution).
SECTION 3. Policy 6.1.1 is hereby amended to be consistent with the amendment to
Policy 4.1.1 (Exhibit A).
SECTION 4. The`Background"portion of Section 6 is hereby amended to be consistent
with the amendment to Policy 4.1.1 (Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. Table 6 & 7 in the "Background" portion of Section 6 is hereby amended
to reflect updated population figures for 2002.
SECTION 6. Policy 8.1.2 B. is hereby amended to be consistent with the amendment to
Policy 4.1.1 and previous amendments for accounting for siltation losses(Exhibit A).
J`�5
f�-t-t-cc�me,�-r 1,
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 7. Policy 8,1.2 C. is hereby amended to eliminate the requirement for
retrofitting as a condition of development(Exhibit A).
SECTION 8. Policy 8.1.4 is hereby amended to modify how the City considers
reclaimed water relative to additional safe annual yield (Exhibit A).
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 52002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'0'0�4?
7 ffi G. J r se ty Attorney
i i-
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
A 1 PO GY
r.ra�'arcT.
Inseeking «d ..e..«t:« C e ate 1' the Git.. '11 t.:. e.F "reliability-1.'i't. - n
...........b .. ..........b .... ...... water- Sc'cp«pro�T.ao--vi�cr=:.irr-om ' ��To-
of-2;000 aeN ffs-pet si—afe wamm"m )4ald (about 20 per-eea4 of pFejeeted fiAufe watef demand a4 full
build ou}
BACKGROtWD
The vv . vOf 4xeluuvxl:ty a e" f leffg fmgo ate plaming was presented t th Qt.
Ce :t 19-90 At t1.et t:.« the r;t.�. the ;dst F .,t d l,t a
.,.... _ ... .��.,. .... ...... :., ... .,:�� c-o c-cxua--.ram
oemidep�ag building a desaknation plant to meet pfejoeted sheft tom wat@F supply defieks T6,;
r-es@Fve is intended-te maintain 4degliate Qi r watei supplies during URPEsdiviaciv cavoocch
as a new worst ease dr->...el.t less eFon-As A-f4he Git.d. . .:.ter- e eent t' F
OrigiOriginally; Calif ..te.. 7 ted t, de ..t.,: t. . t 1 F d. .d 1
nally; ea:" '�ao sioacva cv-pioiio:o vcxcmrasTia-�acvx v�iprrzrn-maxrtcuaxp
{.�.. 7� r
prig—fliCxx:e supplies Resent- cosir-equ4ing edd't' 1 dAmmi;t- am 1 F
eixAfe« e.,tel rr r r etersc> t:«b L
tien puff se 1+etl... .. ..
FFeM T d the Q t Sam
Joaquin Delta; have sheyva that the impaets en all users as-seei--AtAd v4dh- ;.A.'atef supply pF*ets
ust
The QWs wateF supply seumes may alse be jeop"zed by water- quality and dr-9
ee«ditie« ('e«t.. ..t:en o.. F ..t M t..... t sould r-edurae the availab4e
z�
1
c..«« ., to theCityFbf. .. e..te«ded « ed A 1.... e«t ..eC .. ...1 .a,.ld .dila... C_ SalL__
YY
and Whale Reek mseFveis are based ea WAerirAl data qipes 1943. The maent dFoagM of 1986
1991 is the eea4mlliag period for-saA aaaual 34old ea4eala6eas..if there is a fiAuFo dfeught Hiem
extFeme than this .:
par-i6:i> «.the sa .....1 .J ..id F the 411 likely1. dThemed
Y "
the Cit.. awe.« were- s e.t. es �F t rna t, z 1993, n i t; N 8135) The
J b ccvie�nxac cxx 7, » cvovrmzvsxtv--v-r�7T -rcvvy-ry
3:411 «etguarantee that the Gi y: vAll aa ••Ye e t t, ft dh f t, but '11
5- �
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
TABLE 5
SALINAS RESERVOIR CAPACITY STUDIES
Total Usable Avg Annual Loss
Year Agency Capacity Capacity Usable Capacity
(acre- (acre (acre=feet/year)
feet) feet)
1941 U.S. Army _ 44,800 26,000 -
1947 U.S. Soil Conservation - 2.5,860 23.3
Service
1953 U.S. Soil Conservation
Service and U.S. Forest - 25,590 34.2
Service
1975 U.S. Geological Survey 41,400 23,200 82.4
1990 County of San_Luis Obispo 41,791 24,035 40.1
Usable capacities are shown at the 1,301.0-foot spillway elevation because the usable capacity at the 1,300.7-
foot elevation for the 1947 and 1953 studies could not be accurately determined. Usable capacity at the
1,300.7-foot elevation for the 1941 survey was determined to be 25,800 acre-feet and for the 1975 survey was
23,000 acre-feet.
The estimated loss in storage capacity for Salinas Reservoir between 1990 and 2000 is 400 acre-
feet. The estimated loss at Whale Rock Reservoir between 1,961 and 2000 is 1,560 acre-feet.
Based on these reduced storage capacities, the computer model projects a loss of 250 acre feet of
safe annual yield from the combined operation of the two lakes. With an estimated loss of 40
acre feet per year at each reservoir, the total safe annual yield from the two lakes will be reduced
by 10 acre feet per year. This loss of yield is accounted for in the adopted safe annual yield
figures shown in Table 1.
6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS
6.1 POLICIES
6.1.1 Supplemental Water Requirement
The City shall develop additional water supplies to meet the projected demand at build-out of the .
City's General Plan (Table 6) and to offset water yields lost
due to siltation (Table 7). The supplemental water supply amount shall be based on the adopted
per capita water use figure identified for planning purposes in policy 3.1.2.
6.1.2 Supplemental Water Sources
In deciding appropriate sources of supplemental water-, the City will evaluate impacts on other
users of the water and other environmental impacts, total and unit costs,reliability,water quality,
development time, and quantity available.
11
5 19
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
6.1.3 Paying for Supplemental Water for New Development
The cost for developing new water supplies necessary for new development will be paid by
impact fees set at a rate sufficient to cover the annual debt service cost of the new water supplies
attributable to new development.
BACKGROUND
Based on the Land Use Element adopted by the City Council in August 1994 and a per capita use
rate of 145 gallons per person per day, the projected total amount of water for the City to serve
General Plan build-out is 9,096 acre-feet. Table 7 shows the build-out water requirement,
siltation loss, and the resulting supplemental water requirement necessary to
meet projected City water demand.
TABLE 6
REQUIRED SAFE ANNUAL YIELD
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILD-OUT
Acre-feet
(at 145 gal per Percent
Source of Demand Population perperson) of Total
Existing(2002)Development 44,426 7,216 793%
New Development tf 1;574, 1,$80 20.7%0
TOTAL
_ _ _. 56,000.. 9,096 100.0%
12
5- 9'
f
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management.Element
TABLE 7
NEW WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Component acre-feet
Required Safe Annual Yield 9,096
Safe Annual.Yield as of 2002._ 7,520
Additional Safe Annual Yield Required
(based on per capita water demand"ratios) 1,576
Reliability Reserve
AAAA
Siltation(2002 to 2025) _ 230 _
Total Additional Wafer Supply Requirement 1 806
City policy adopted in 1987 as part of the Water Element states that the costs of developing
supplemental water sources will be borne by those making new connections to the water system.
Policy 6.1.3 continues this policy and is consistent with the Land Use Element(policy 1.13.4:)
7.0 MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
7.1 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 and
increase its supply options in future droughts or other water supply emergencies.
BACKGROUND
Having several sources of water can avoid dependence on one source that would not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. There may be.greater reliability
and flexibility if sources are of different types (such as surface water and ground water) and if
the sources of one type are in different locations (such as reservoirs in different watersheds).
The Water Element of the General Plan, adopted in 1987, identified multiple water projects to
meet projected short and long term water demand. Again in November 1990, the Council
endorsed the multi-source concept.
13
.5-/D
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
8.0 ALLOCATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLIES
8.1 POLICIES
8.1.1 Balancing Safe Yield and Overall Demand
When new water sources are obtained, the additional safe yield shall be allocated first to
eliminate any deficit between the adopted safe annual yield (Section 1..0) and the present demand
as defined in policies 3.1.4 at the time the new source is obtained.
8.1.2 Supplying New Development
A. The City will determine the water available for allocation based solely on the adopted per
capita water use rate (policy 3.1.2) times the current city population. This value is then
subtracted from the adopted safe annual yield value to determine the amount of allocation
available each year. Available allocations will be assigned to development in a way that
supports balanced growth, consistent with the General Plan. Allocations from a new water
supply project shall be considered available at the time project construction is initiated.
B. Any safe annual yield from new water supply projects beyond that needed to balance safe
annual yield and present demand will be allocated (A) one half te the reliability r-eseFve and
_ to development, subject to
the requirements in Policy 8.1.3, "Reserve for Intensification and Infill."
C. Ung! a detenninatien is made by the City Cewneeil dhas essmentially aH toilet and shew"ead
City,be built if the develeper- makes shanges,4n faeilifies seFVed by the
_ mee_
le fig te.-... . MeF usage equal to t.._riee the ;rater nllee dor-eqWmd f F the-« e..t A water,
allocation shall not be required for projects for which the developer makes changes,
facilities served by the City, which will reduce long-term water usage equal to twice the
water allocation required for the project;
8.1.3 Reserve for Intensification and Infill Development
The City will annually update the water available for allocation based on the difference between
the adopted safe annual yield (policy 1.1.2) and the present water demand (policy 3.1.4) as part
of the annual Water Resources Status Report. One-half of the water available for allocation (not
to exceed the total required for infill and intensification), as identified in the Water Resources
Status Report, will be reserved to serve intensification and infill development within existing city
limits as of July 1994.
8.1.4 Accounting for Reclaimed Water
14
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
Reclaimed water.has an estimated potential of 1,200 acre feet per year of water available or
appropriate non-potable uses. The amount to be added to.the City's safe annual, and therefore
available for development; will only be the amount projected actually to be used or offset
(approximately 130 a.£ initially), increasing to 1,200 acme feet per year as additional offsetting
I are brought on-line. The amount of reclaimed water used each year will be reported to
Council as part of the annual Water Resources Status Report,and will be added to the safe annual
Yield identified_ in Section 1, Table 1 of this document to determine water available for new,
I
8.1.5 Private Water Supplies
When developments are supplied by private groundwater wells, the yield of those wells will not
be counted toward the City's safe annual yield. Such yield, however, will result in the demand
for City water supplies being lower than it otherwise would be, which may necessitate
adjustments of the per capita water usage figure used to estimate overall demand.
BACKGROUND
The City has pursued numerous water supply projects over the years. (These projects are
discussed in Chapter 3 of the Urban Water Management Plan.) This part of the element
addresses allocation of these supplies once the yields from projects are realized. The City has
identified these potential uses for new supplies:
■ Eliminating any deficit between adopted planning figures and safe annual yield;
■ Compensating for reduced yields due to reservoir siltation;
■ Establishing a reliability reserve;
■ Providing for water requirements for future development within the urban reserve area
designated in the General Plan;
• Providing water for habitat management.
Allocation of new supplies can balance the needs of all areas identified while not compounding
the potential water shortage problems for existing City water customers.
The adoption of 145 gallons/per person/per day as a water supply planning figure would indicate
water is available for development, eliminating the need for retrofitting. Because 145
gallons/per person/per day assumes that the retrofit component of the water conservation
program is complete, new development will continue to retrofit until the entire city is essentially
retrofitted as determined by the City Council.
15
Attachment 2
��II�QII�IIIIIIIfINllll����� @IIIIIIIIIIIII
Illllllf city1u�s
oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#15-02
(incorporates former proposal#149-01)
1. Project Title: Water Management Element Amendment
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner; 805-781-7165
e-mail: gmatteso@slocity.org
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo
5. Project.Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo
6. General Plan Designation: not applicable
7. Zoning: not applicable
8. Description of the Project:
The City proposes to change some of its General Plan policies concerning the relationships
between water supply and water use, including the demands from new development. The changes
would:
A. Eliminate the policy calling for a reliability reserve. The reliability reserve was envisioned as
2,000 acre-feet of safe yield, beyond that needed to serve all customers at typical usage rates,
which would be available if one of the City's water sources was lost or reduced due to
unforeseen causes such as accidental contamination, natural disaster, or changing water
rights.
B. Delete the requirement for all new development to complete offsets (retrofitting), but retain
retrofitting as an option for projects wanting to proceed in case no water allocations are
available.
C. Make consistent various statements concerning accounting for siltation and reclaimed water.
A legislative draft of the proposed text changes is attached.
The Planning Commission and the City Council, while considering initiation of the amendment
described above, also discussed revising the method for determining how much water will be
available for new development within the 1994 city limits (often referred to as "infill"), as
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. 5^1.5
�,, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment 2
opposed to water for new development as a whole including post-1994 annexations. Currently,
one-half the amount available for all new development, resulting from an annual re-calculation,
is available for infill. Options that were discussed included retaining an annual re-calculation
procedure but establishing a minimum amount that would be available each year, or setting a
fixed amount that would provide for most expected near-term infill development. Those
discussions were based largely on the belief that the City would not have sufficient water to
allocate to new development.. It now appears that through a combination of conservation, using
more groundwater and reclaimed water, and not needing to establish a reliability reserve (item
A), sufficient water will be available. As a result, staff is recommending no change to the current
policy on water for new infill development. However, this initial study briefly examines policy
issues related to that choice, in case a change is pursued during the hearing process. Any change
proposed is expected to affect only the relative timing of infill or other development, not overall
levels of water service or impacts on other users of water such as agriculture or wildlife.
9. Policy and Resource Setting:
"Safe annual yield" is the amount of water the City's sources are expected to provide yearly, even
during a drought like the driest historical period. Year 2002 safe yield is 7,520 acre-feet,
according to engineering estimates and adopted policy. This amount declines by about 10 acre-
feet each year, on average, due to siltation of the reservoirs that are the main water sources, also
based on engineering estimates and adopted policy.
"Present water demand" is the quantity that all the City's customers would use if a certain average
amount were consumed per resident. By policy, present water demand is 145 gallons per person per
day, or 7,216 acre-feet per year based on the official:January 2002 population estimate of 44,426.
(The average usage per person—abbreviated "gpcd"—reflects all water delivered through the City's
system divided by the number of residents, and therefore accounts for all usage, including business,
schools, and parks. Cal Poly, though served in part by the City's water treatment plant, is accounted
for separately.) Actual water demand has ranged from a high of 182 gpcd in 1987 to 86 gpcd in
1991, when mandatory conservation was in effect due to a drought. The highest post-drought usage
was 133 gpcd,in 1997. For 2001,the rate was 119 gpcd.
Based on 145 gpcd and a build-out population of 56,000, the safe annual yield needed for full
development allowed by the General Plan is projected to be 9,096 acre-feet. Creating a 2000-
acre-foot reliability reserve would increase the ultimate safe annual yield requirement to 11,096
acre-feet.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: City Council approval.
11. Other public agencies Whose approval is required: None.
CITY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5-11P
Attachment 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a potentially significant issue as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
S ignificance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
6-/S
-- Attachment 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5'/b
Attachment 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' isappropriateif there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CRY OF SAN Luis OetsPo 5 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
S_,1-
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supports. nformation Sources sources Po, y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#15-02 Water Management Element Amendment Issues unless Impact
9 � Mitigation
Inco orated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
Availability of water affects the appearance of urban landscaping, farmland,and natural landscape features such as creeks and
wetlands.Often,increased water use for one of these purposes can occur only with a reduction in use for another purpose.The
proposed amendment will not change the amounts of water available for these uses.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the traps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 2 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Under existing policies that would not change,the City will avoid diverting water from agricultural uses. Increased City use of
local groundwater will be offset by making reclaimed water available.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,2 X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 1,2 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
CRY OF SAN Luis OaisPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5_ Ig
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supports,., ,nformation Sources Sources Po, .,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #15-02 emen
(Water Mana t Element Amendment Issues unless Impact
9 � Mitigation
Incorporated
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1,2 X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means.
Under existing City policies that would not change,and in compliance with regulatory agencies' approvals,the City will avoid
diverting water from habitat in quantities that would cause significant impacts.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects,including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
R. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
M. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
6;--/4Y
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, .oformation Sources Sources Pots y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #15-02 Water Management Element Amendment Issues Unless Impact
9 ) Mitigation
Incorporated
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the miect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substanday degrade water quality? X
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5-020
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,,, .nformation Sources Sources Pote.. ..y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#15-02 Water Management Element Amendment Issues unless Impact
9 ) Mitigation
Incorporated
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
If the project is revised to include changing the availability of water for new development in the form of infill and
intensification, as opposed to expansion areas, consistency with General Plan policies favoring infill would need to be
addressed. Likewise, a policy change precluding use of available water for residential expansion areas would raise issues of
consistency with housing production objectives. Consistency would need to be maintained by modifying either the water-
allocation policies or the land-use and housing policies.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing dwellings or people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing?
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 9 INITIAL STIIDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5-41
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir:;, .nformation Sources Sources Pot,. y Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Water Management Element Amendment
Issues Unless Impact
ER #15-02
9 ) Mitigation
Incorpomted
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 2, 3 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
c) The City does not propose changing the policy that long-term usage should be kept below safe yield, including the
limitation on the amount of water available to new development. Elimination of the requirement for new development to
perform water offsets will not have a substantial affect on the level of water service.The water-planning usage rate of 145
gpcd [see "Policy and Resource Setting'] assumed that essentially all older water-using fixtures would be replaced with
water-efficient fixtures. In 2001,the City Council determined that that has occurred.The fact that actual usage has stayed
below 145 gpcd supports the conclusion that most fixtures have been replaced and that their replacement has been
effective in reducing long-term consumption. Having the water-planning usage rate above actual usage also provides a
reliability cushion.
Elimination of the intent to obtain a reliability reserve will not have a practical affect on the level of water service, and
may have a beneficial impact on agriculture, wildlife habitat, or other uses of water that otherwise would be committed to
the reserve. Having reservoirs in two separate watersheds that are outside the City's groundwater basin already reduces
the risk that a disaster would affect the entire supply. A reliability reserve would make the City's overall water supply
more reliable only if it were immune from affects on the City's other sources. Areawide and statewide droughts would
affect all current and potential sources,except seawater desalination and,possibly,reclaimed water.
The proposed changes concerning accounting for siltation and reclaimed water will have a beneficial impact on water
service by making the safe-yield approach more internally consistent.
CRY OF SAN LUIS OetsPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5 -aa
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,. .nformation Sources Sources Pott.. .y Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #15-02 Water Management Element Amendment Issues unless Impact
9 � Mitigation
Inco orated
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
There will be no significant changes to levels of water service.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
5-Z
r
Attachment 2
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
I. Final Environmental Impact Report: Water Reuse Project(City of San Luis Obispo, March 1997),and subsequent
approvals by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control
Board.
2. Water and Wastewater Management Element of the General Plan(City of San Luis Obispo, 1996),and Water
Allocation Regulations(San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.89).
3. 2002 Water Resources Status Report(City of San Luis Obispo,June 2002).
Attachments:
Legislative draft of proposed amendment.
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
No mitigation measures are proposed.
er l502.doc
S cP�
Attachment 2
City of SL)General Plan Water&wastewater Management Element
4.0 RELIABILITY RESERVE ILI
4 n nor
„
in seeking and aeeounting fer- new .,,,lies, the City will st6ve fer- a
ef 2,000 aer-e feet safe annual yield (abeut N pefeent of pFejeeted futufe water- demand at fail
bail-out).
RA CKGROUND
b be water planning
was presented te the G45
Geunsi! in 1990 At that tiEte, the City was in the midst of drought nd
was
eensider-ina desalination plant to fneet prejeeted shoi4 tefm watef supply defieits. This
b building
r-esei-ve is intended to maintain adequate City voater- supplies
1
b
D
Ofib
inally, Galifemia water- law was created to proN,ide eeFtainty in water supply fef indk,idualsb
planning fiatur-e supplies.. Recent deeisions FequiFia.- additional downstfeam releases fef:
FIR I'i R; ��-JlWse affeeting Mena hake and the Saer-amente San
joaquin Delta, aye shewo that the impaets an all users asseeiated with water- supply pFejeets
The City's wateF supply sour-ees may also be jeopardized by water- qual i-, and A Fought
supply te the City fer an extended period. Alse, euffefit safe afinual �4eld estimates fer. Seli�;;s
and Whale Re based en t,;-+ risal data sinee I QA'2 ql'p gpp
1991 is the eent,-elling period for- safe aanua4 I ield ealculatiens. T-f there is a futwe dreu& meFe
extreme than this
__ •• .ter L.., .,.i.i�a.......i
a
s
a f
All
t
7
Attachment 2
City of SIA General Plan Water&,rastewater Management Element
TABLE 5
SALINAS RESERVOIR CAPACITY STUDIES
Total Usable Avg Annual Loss
Year Agency Capacity Capacity Usable Capacity
(acre- (acre- (acre-feet/year)
feet) feet)
1941 U.S. Army 44,800 26,000 -
1947 U.S. Soil Conservation - 25,860 23.3
r1953
Service
U.S. Soil Conservation
Service and U.S. Forest - 25,590 34.2
Service
1975 U.S. Geological Su rve 41,400 23,200 82.4
1990 Count of San Luis Obis o 41,791 24,035 40.1
Usable capacities are shown at the 1,301.0-fo6t spillway elevation because the usable capacity at the 1,300.7-
foot elevation for the 1947 and 1953 studies could not be accurately determined. Usable capacity at the
1,300.7-foot elevation for the 1941 survey was determined to be 25.800 acre-feet and for the 1975 survey was
23,000 acre-feet.
The estimated loss in storage capacity for Salinas Reservoir between 1990 and 2000 is 400 acre-
feet. The estimated loss at Whale Rock Reservoir between 1961 and 2000 is 1,560 acre-feet.
Based on these reduced storage capacities, the computer model projects a loss of 250 acre feet of
safe annual yield from the combined operation of the two lakes. With an estimated loss of 40
acre feet per year at each reservoir, the total safe annual yield from the two lakes will be reduced
by 10 acre feet per year. This loss of yield is accounted for in the adopted safe annual yield
figures shown in Table 1.
6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS
6.1 POLICIES
6.1.1 Supplemental Water Requirement
The City shall develop additional water supplies to meet the projected demand at build-out of the
City's General Plan (Table 6) and te establish the Feliability-resefye-and to offset water yields lost
due to siltation (Table 7). The supplemental water supply amount shall be based on the adopted
per capita water use figure identified for planning purposes in policy 3.1.2.
6.1.2 Supplemental Water Sources
In deciding appropriate sources of supplemental water, the City will evaluate impacts on other
users of the water and other environmental impacts, total and unit costs, reliability, water quality,
development time,and quantity available.
11
5 �o��
Attachment 2
City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element
6.13 Paying for Supplemental Water for New Development
The cost for developing new water supplies necessary for new development will be paid by
impact fees set at a rate sufficient to cover the annual debt service cost of the new water supplies
attributable to new development.
BACKGROUND
Based on the Land Use Element adopted by the City Council in August 1994 and a per capita use
rate of 145 gallons per person per day, the projected total amount of water for the City to serve
General Plan build-out is 9,096 ,acre-feet. Table 7 shows the build-out water requirement,
reliab siltation loss, and the resulting supplemental water requirement necessary to
meet projected City water demand.
TABLE 6
REQUIRED SAFE ANNUAL YIELD
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILD-OUT
Acre-feet
(at 145 gal per Percent
Source of Demand Population da r.person) of Total
Existing(2000) Development 43,027 6,988 76.8%
New Development 12,973 2,107 23.2%
TOTAL 56,000 9,09)x' ' 100.0%
12 /� ^J
/' rK
- Attachment 2
City of SLO General Plan Water& wastewater Management Element
TABLE 7
NEW WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Component acre-feet
Required Safe Annual Yield 9,09A,
Safe Annual Yield as of 200 Z 7,5462o
Additional Safe Annual Yield Required
(based on per capita water demand ratios) 1,w7f6
2 25$30
Siltation (2000to 2025)
Total Additional Water Supply.Requirement 1,800
City policy adopted in 1987 as part of the Water Element states that the costs of developing
supplemental water sources will be borne by those making new connections to the water system.
Policy 6.1.3 continues this policy and is consistent with the Land Use Element (policy 1.13.4.)
7.0 MULTI-SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
7.1 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 and
increase its supply options in future droughts or other water supply emergencies.
BACKGROUND
Having several sources of water can avoid dependence on one source that would not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. There may be greater reliability
and flexibility if sources are of different types (such as surface water and ground water) and if
the sources of one type are in different locations (such as reservoirs in different watersheds).
The Water Element of the General Plan, adopted in 1987, identified multiple water projects to
meet projected short and long term water demand. Again in November 1990, the Council
endorsed the multi-source concept.
13
5-Q?g
Attachment 2
City of SLO General Plan Water& wastewater Management Element
8.0 ALLOCATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLIES
8.1 POLICIES
8.1.1 Balancing Safe Yield and Overall Demand
When new water sources are obtained, the additional safe yield shall be allocated first to
eliminate any deficit between the adopted safe annual yield (Section 1.0) and the present demand
as defined in policies 3.1.4 at the time the new source is obtained.
8.1.2 Supplying New Development
A. The City will determine the water available for allocation based solely on the adopted per
capita water use rate (policy 3.1.2) times the current city population. This value is then
subtracted from the adopted safe annual yield value to determine the amount of allocation
available each year. Available allocations will be assigned to development in a way that
supports balanced growth, consistent with the General Plan. Allocations from a new water
supply project shall be considered available at the time project construction is initiated.
B. Any safe annual yield from new water supply projects beyond that needed to balance safe
annual yield and present demand will be allocated "` . 'F .- the rehab"'"' ' iw and
e�e
to development, subject to
the requirements in Policy 8.1.3, "Reserve for Intensification and Infill"
C. Until a deteffninatien is made by the C-45,Geuneil that essentially all teilet and
e makes ehanges, in fasilities served by the City, whieh will re&ee
leng teEm water- usage equal to twice the ;,vatew alleeation required fer- the pFejeet. A water
allocation shall not be required for projects for which the developer makes changes, in
facilities served by the Ciy,.which will reduce long-term water usage equal to twice the
a
water allocation requu for the project.
8.1.3 Reserve for Intensification and Infill Development
The City will annually update the water available for allocation based on the difference between
the adopted safe annual yield (policy 1.1.2) and the present water demand (policy 3.1.4) as part
of the annual Water Resources Status Report. One-half of the water available for allocation (not
to exceed the total required for infill and intensification), as identified in the Water Resources
Status Report, will be reserved to serve intensification and infill development within existing city
limits as of July 1994.
8.1.4 Accounting for Reclaimed Water
Re6laifaed Watff Will be added te the Qty!6-safe annual yield eensistent-with pelieies Gentained
this deewmeal
14
s-ag
{
Attachment 2
City of SLO General Plan Water& .:'stewaterManagement Element
Reclaimed water has an estimated 'potential of 1,200 acre feet per year of water available for
appropriate non-potable uses. The amount to be added to the City's safe annual, and therefore
available for development, will only be the amount projected actually to be used or offset
(approximately l30 a.f. initially), increasing to 1,200 acre feet per year as additional offsetting
uses are brought on-line. The amount of reclaimed water used.each year will be reported to
Council as part of the annual Water Resources Status Report and will be added to the safe annual v
yield identified in Section 1, Table 1 of this document to determine water available for new
development.
8.1.5 Private Water Supplies
When developments are supplied by private groundwater wells, the yield of those wells will not
be counted toward the City's safe annual yield. Such yield, however, will result in the demand
for City water supplies being lower than it otherwise would be, which may necessitate
adjustments of the per capita water usage figure used to estimate overall demand..
BACKGROUND
The City has pursued numerous water supply projects over the years. (These projects are
discussed in Chapter 3 of the Urban Water Management Plan.) This part of the element
addresses allocation of these supplies once the yields from projects are realized. The City has
identified these potential uses for new supplies:
■ Eliminating any deficit between adopted planning figures and safe annual yield;
■ Compensating for reduced yields due to reservoir siltation;
■ Establishing a reliability reserve;
■ Providing for water requirements for future development within the urban reserve area
designated in the General Plan;
■ Providing water for habitat management.
Allocation of new supplies can balance the needs of all areas identified while not compounding
the potential water shortage problems for existing City water customers.
The adoption of 145 gallons/per person/per day as a water supply planning figure would indicate.
water is available for development, eliminating the need for retrofitting. Because 145
gallons/per person/per day assumes that the retrofit component of the water conservation
program is complete, new development will continue to retrofit until the entire city is essentially
retrofitted as determined by the City Council.
15
5 - 134)
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 27, 2002, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh,
Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Chairperson Stephen Peterson.
Absent: None.
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Assistant City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, Utilities Director John Moss, Water Division Manager
Gary Henderson, Conservation Coordinator Ron Munds, Associate
Planner Glen Matteson and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no public comments made..
BUSINESS ITEMS:
1. Citywide. GPA 15-02; Discussion of amending the General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element Policies concerning water for development; City
of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, applicant.
Utilities Director John Moss presented a brief summary on the Water Policy Report. He
explained that after a discussion with the City Council on the water policies and water-
planning issues that are contained in the General Plan, it was decided there were
several policies that the Council may consider changing, but suggested getting the
Planning Commission's input on these policies first to help them with their direction
Water Division Manager Gary Henderson explained that the Council has directed them
to bring some 'issues back to the Planning Commission. The three main areas that
would be discussed are 1) supplying new development 2) reserving water for
intensification and Infill and 3) accounting for reclaimed water.
Mr. Henderson explained the first area of discussion involves the policy relative to water
available from supply projects. He noted that the existing policy requires that as new
water supply projects come online, 1/z of'the water would go to the reliability reserve and
siltation, and 'h would be available for new development. The council has modified the
5�3
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 2
policy for siltation and has accounted for siltation as it occurs by reducing the safe
annual yield amounts annually. Therefore, the reference to siltation in the policy should
be deleted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. Henderson noted the section on the second policy under policy 8.1.2 is relative to
the requirement for retrofitting. He recommended a language change in the policy to
address changes due to elimination of the retrofitting requirement. The recommended
policy language is "the water allocation shall not be required for projects which the
developer makes changes in facilities served by the City which will reduce long-term
water usage equal to twice the water allocation required for the project'. He explained
this does not limit the requirement to just retrofitting.
Utilities Director John Moss explained that part of the reason for concern is that the City
does not allocate water until the time the building permit is issued. He explained the
language that is being shown for inclusion in the Water Element is mirrored in their
current allocation regulations, and they would like a continuance or an allowance for this
to be consistent with the regulations.
Commr. Boswell asked if the new language is something they were being asked to
adopt.
Mr. Henderson replied yes.
Chairperson Peterson asked for a motion to concur on this part.
Commr. Cooper moved to concur with this part. Seconded by Commr. Loh.
All Commissioners voted in favor of the revisions to Policy 8.1.2.
Mr. Henderson explained the original policy for Reserve for Infill and Intensification
was originally part of the 1977 Land Use Element and this policy was 'included in the
1994 Urban Water Management Plan. The original policy required reserving enough
water to meet all the needs within the existing city limits. He explained that Council
modified this policy in 1996 to allow 1/2 of the water to be used to serve the new
annexation areas. He commented that the Commission could consider a different
percentage split. He noted that the Commission could recommend other modifications
to the policies that they see fit. He stated that depending on the Commission's
recommendation, Land Use Element Policy 1.13.4 may need to be modified to be
consistent with whatever modifications are made to these policies.
Director Moss explained there is a poster that shows where the proposed infill and
intensification properties are located.
Commr. Cooper asked what the City's position is on the water impact fee.
5-3a
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 3
Director Moss explained that if this were the only water available for developers, it
would serve as an enticement to infill development.
Community Development Director John Mandeville explained that if no water is
available for developing in the expansion areas and to support annexation means
development potential must be within the existing city limits of 1994. He felt they need
to take into consideration that many infill parcels that have been developed have no
current interest in further developing these properties. While these properties go
undeveloped, the demand for housing in the City continues to increase and property
values increase and making affordable housing more problematic.
Director Moss explained the impact fees are due at the time of building permit issuance
and until someone wants to develop their property, no fee is paid and the water rates
are fully commodity based.
Commr. Cooper asked where the City would like their highest density.
Director Mandeville explained the current land use policy for the expansion areas
should include a variety of different zoning, including medium- and high-density zonings.
Commr. Osborne asked for clarification on affordable housing and asked if there is a
special definition of affordable housing.
Director Mandeville explained that the definition is determined by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development definitions, which is based on how a
person's income relates to the median income in the county and the number of people
per household.
Commr. Osborne asked if the reserve for the three categories (residential, affordable
residential, and non-residential) is from a fixed baseline of 1994 onward or a figure that
is reallocated every year.
Director Moss explained that based on current policies, it is reallocated every year as
they calculate what their available water allocation is at that point in time.
Commr. Osborne expressed concern about this policy and suggested they redefine it to
say, "from 1994 onward, this would be what is available to the non-residential", so the
water does not get used up for non-residential purposes.
Commr. Osborne asked what the reliability reserve is at the present time.
Mr. Henderson explained there has been no water added to the reliability reserve, but
when the reclaimed water project is initiated, under the policy, 1/2 of the yield from this
project would go to the reliability reserve.
Commr. Osborne noted that water use is calculated as gallons per day, but felt there is
the consideration of non-residential vs. the residential split. He asked if the figures
shown on the table is the total water used divided by the nighttime population.
J- 33
Planning Commission Minutes- Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 4
Mr. Henderson explained they take the total water use in the City, the total amount from
lakes and ground water, and divide it by the resident population, which takes into
account the other uses. Since there is a high daytime population increase it does not
use the higher number.
Director Mandeville explained if the non-residential uses began to consume significant
amounts of water, it would make the gallons per person per day figure increase.
Commr. Osborne commented that Table 3 is very informative. He asked what the
expected use of City water is in the Airport Specific Plan area.
Director Moss explained that when their analysis was prepared, the adjusted allocation
was downward by 500-acre feet so they were not doubling their request for water.
Community Director Mandeville noted they would have to take about 1/4 off of this
because CSA22 included a significant area outside the boundaries of their specific plan
area.
Commr. Boswell noted that the annexation areas are the higher demand areas for the
water allocations and questioned the potential for this percentage split between infill and
annexation and its potential to create incentives or disincentives for development.
Director Mandeville explained that most development projects have their fixed cost at
the very beginning when subdivision improvements are installed. Pertaining to
infrastructure, they are relying on the complete sale of the project in order to recover
these high initial costs. If a developer must wait a long time to complete selling a
project, they will have to carry the initial infrastructure costs so long that the project is
not economically feasible.
Commr. Boswell asked if there have been any recent infill projects that have been
phased projects.
Mr. Henderson replied the Edna/Islay Tract off of Tank Farm Road was a phased
project.
Commr. Boswell expressed concern that if they push this split in one direction or
another, they create a disincentive in one area or the other.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson explained an assessment was prepared on projects
that were in some stage of approval or development. Other sites had potential for
planning applications that were likely to come along in the next couple of years and
assessment of water demand was one issue addressed.
Director Mandeville stated it would be difficult to estimate with any accuracy where they
would see the greatest amount of demand and will have to go on the growth
management phasing schedule that has been prepared that actually assigns numbers
of units to certain areas in the City.
S •3SG
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 5
Commr. Boswell asked if they could think about the water allocation based on how they
have allocated their potential growth.
Community Director Mandeville explained that it is possible to do; it's just a matter of
translating dwelling units into acre-feet.
Commr. Boswell asked how the reserve for annual recalculation would mesh with the
infill verse annexation split.
Mr. Henderson explained the infill and intensification figure is readjusted each year
based on the population estimates..
Commr. Boswell asked if the whole 10% could be done in an annexation area for
affordable housing.
Mr. Moss explained that the policies come into effect when they are in a scarcity
situation.
Commr. Caruso asked if the 145 gallons per day per person trend has gone upward or
downward since the last drought.
Mr. Henderson explained in the year 2000 it was down to 123, and in 2001 it was down
to 118. He explained the overall water use for this year; the total in City water use was
approximately 5,800.
Commr. Caruso asked how monitoring would help.
Community Director Mandeville explained that monitoring would be the way to preserve
a certain proportion of the supply for certain types of uses.
Director Moss explained there is not a clear-cut empirical method to determining what
the appropriate split. or balance should be. There is a number of competing General
Plan Policies and Major City Goals before the Commission, and they are looking for
input and judgment on what the best balance is as they move forward in developing the
build-out of the City and the infill of the City in allocating their remaining supplies.
Commr. Aiken asked if annexation areas would be required to provide a significant
portion of their water demands when they come into the City, or would they be required
to pay offset fees or something of this nature that is related to the actual development
as development occurs.
Director Moss replied they would not be required to bring their water supply with them
when they annex, but they would be required to pay water development impact fees.
Planner Matteson explained that it was decided when the City first faced a water crisis
in the late 1980's there was a decision made that a specific amount of water would be
available for allocation until the City got a new source of supply.
5-35
Planning Commission Minutes /�ttdChRldnt 3
February 27, 2002
Page 6
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commr. Boswell commented that there are two significant components of uncertainty
with regard to this issue; one is the possibility of developing future water supplies and
the second is the uncertainty over where the growth is actually going to occur. He
suggested there be a policy to have a monitoring program with triggers that once they
get within a certain percentage of their total allotment, they lock in the infill and
affordable housing allocations.
Commr. Cooper commented that he would like to have incentives in place for infill
development before they give away this formula.
Director Mandeville explained the waiver of impact fees and permit-processing fees is
for affordable housing projects and not for market rate infill development.
Commr. Cooper suggested there be more mechanisms in place that would encourage
more infill development. He suggested a maintenance cost for water infrastructure.
Chairperson Peterson commented that many supplemental water projects that they are
talking about bringing online have a slight likelihood of happening. He felt they are at
the crisis point where hardly any water is left and the City needs to start being extremely
careful about how it is allocated.
Commr. Osborne commented that he would like to keep half of the reserve for infill.
Vice-Chair Loh asked if there are a lot of infill and intensification applications coming in.
Director Mandeville replied currently they don't have very many applications for infill..
Commr. Caruso commented on what infill and intensification might be and felt infill is
closer to the more developed part of the City. He suggested a different definition be
used instead of "inside the 1994 city boundaries", which should be a certain distance
from a landmark such as City Hall. He suggested that instead of splitting the water
supply 50/50, they could come up with language that would offer a limited guarantee for
water for an intensification project.
Commr. Boswell commented that the problem with both percentages for infill annexation
and the land use type is they don't lock anything in.
Commr. Boswell moved to have staff look at a monitoring program with triggers that
would lock in allocations for infill and affordable housing. Seconded by Vice-Chair Loh.
Commr. Osborne asked for an amendment to make 200-acre feet of water available for
allocation be the trigger point and lock in the amounts and the percentages that would
be applied rather than being reallocated every year.
Mr. Moss explained at a full one-percent growth rate, their annual increase in water
usage would be 70-acre feet. C
5 '3x0
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
February 27,2002
Page 7
Director Mandeville explained one basis for the Commission selecting a number might
be two years of 70-acre feet consumption, which would be 140-acre feet less than what
they have to allocate right now. When they reach this point, it will be easier to assess
whether or not the reclaimed water is actually going to be providing another potable
water supply.
Commr. Boswell stated he does not accept the amendment. He suggested that staff
come back with a number based on a best estimate or prediction of the likelihood of
developing additional water sources, as well as the impact of the reclaimed water
project at the rate of current consumption to account for all these factors.
Commr. Cooper commented that it is inappropriate to look into the past and try to
assess what the prorated allocation should be. He felt they should look into the future
and anticipate incentives for infill development.
Commr. Caruso commented he does not support the motion because the percentages
are not going to work.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Loh, and Aiken
NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, and Peterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed 4-3.
Commr. Cooper moved to endorse staff's recommendations with the exception of the
elimination of distinction between infill proiects and annexation areas. Seconded by
Commr. Aiken.
Chairperson Peterson asked to add an amendment suggesting 50% of our water left
that is available for allocation should be for infill, but not on an annual basis.
Director Moss explained that based on their current numbers of 284 total (142 for
annexations and 142 reserved for infill) the recommendation would be to reserve 142
for infill only and whatever happens with the remainder as they go through calculation of
their water available next year would not affect that 142 number.
Commr. Aiken felt if the water supply increases, they should be able to make the
appropriate adjustments.
Chairperson Peterson stated they could reconsider at that time when their reclaimed
water came online with this allocation, but this is currently all they have. He would like
to keep half reserved for infill.
Commr. Aiken commented if they lock the infill in at 142 and it doesn't go up or down,
and if and when new water sources come online and their water supply increases, it
would leave a lot more available for annexation areas than for infill areas.
I � J
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 8
Chairperson Peterson suggested they allocate 50% of the water that they have to infill.
Commr. Aiken suggested they state that it will always be 50% of the available water.
Commr. Cooper stated as the motion maker he would support the amendment.
Director Moss summarized the Commission's feelings that they would like to lock a set
amount now based on their current status of 142, and the infill development would come
off of this 142. Annexations would be subject to whatever is left over. If they add a new
supply project online, they would recalculate that amount to be '/2 of what the new value
is, and lock this amount in for infill. He noted at some point in time they will reach a
position where they have more water than they will need for infill and suggested adding
some wording so that it will not exceed the total amount required to satisfy the infill and
intensification requirements.
Commr. Osborne suggested locking it in as a minimum of 142-acre feet, and this should
be 50% of the available, but not lower than 142-acre feet.
Commr. Aiken as the seconder supports the amendment.
Commr. Caruso commented that this is not being looked at realistically and suggested
establishing a guarantee program. He felt there will be little demand for infill water.
Every year they could guarantee an infill project, and they could guarantee they could
give them water.
Vice-Chair Loh stated she agrees with Commr. Caruso.
Director Moss explained the kind of risk would possible with locking in numbers.
Commr. Boswell expressed he is not going to support the motion. He felt the
annexation is the only way the water would be used to create an incentive, because
with the 50/50 split there is enough water both ways that the development community
wouldn't be feeling the need to develop.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, and Peterson
NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Loh, and Boswell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 4-3.
Accounting for Reclaimed Water
Gary Henderson presented a brief summary on the accounting for reclaimed water. He
explained the Reclaimed Water Project is projected to add about 1,200 acre feet of
additional resources, and the current policies would treat this water like any other non-
potable water supply project. He explained the policies in place currently would indicate
that when this project is initiated, 1/2 of the yield would go to the reserve and the other 1/2
would be available for development. After project construction, approximately 130 acre
5.38
Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 3
February 27, 2002
Page 9 . . .
feet would initially be used. He explained that as they move forward in determining how
much water is available, and as they find more uses and put them online, the 130 figure
would go up until it would reach the total of the 600-acre feet, which is 1/2 of the
project's yield. He stated they would like to come back to the Commission with these
policies for their formal recommendation and adoption and they would be taking these
recommendations forward to Council.
Commr. Aiken asked if there is a target date for achieving the 600-acre feet.
Mr. Henderson replied the best projection is likely to be in the first six years of the
project development.
Commr. Boswell moved to approve staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commr.
Osborne.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Osborne, Caruso, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, and Peterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
Commr. Osborne expressed he would like to see the reserve percentages for the
residential and the non-residential considered. He felt that the non-residential growth is
all they are seeing and felt they are going to use it all up on all non-residential. He
suggested locking in a certain amount for residential versus non-residential.
Commr. Osborne noted a comment that actual development for each category be
reported to Council as part of the Annual Water Resources Staff Report. He expressed
interest in being able to see what has been done in the past several years with respect
to allocation by land use.
Commr. Osborne moved to direct staff to provide the Commission with additional
information on the residential, non-residential and affordable housing with a breakdown
on the last five years. Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Director Mandeville explained they could provide the Commission with a report based
on the information that their database currently provides, but is unsure if they have the
ability to identify affordable housing as a subset of residential development.
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
`-39
I� CC
rI N
:)nc
5-y0
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 109 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 10, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, James
Caruso, Vice Chair Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: Commissioner Jim Aiken.
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Water Division
Manager Gary Henderson, Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville,
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Utilities Director John Moss,
Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCETANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of May 29, 2002, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mary Beth Schroader, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented about the water situation.
She mentioned that the hydrologists view was absent from the housing report on San
Luis Obispo County. She feels adding homes at whatever costs requires additional
water and suggested that particular attention be paid to draining the water sources.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Citywide. GPA and ER 15-02: Request to amend the General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element policies concerning a reliability reserve, and
environmental review, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Water Division Manager Gary Henderson presented the staff report recommending that
the City Council approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and amend the
Water Management Element to eliminate the policy of obtaining a reliability reserve,
while keeping other policies meant to assure adequate water supply even during
droughts.
5-vl
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10,2002
Page 2
Mr. Henderson stated the City has a policy to acquire a reserve, but they have not
achieved or acquired any water to add to this reserve. He mentioned that safe annual
yield is applied to reservoirs and ground water basins, and he presented some
examples of what they are. He explained that the City has had a goal since.the Water
Management Element was adopted in 1994 of striving to achieve an additional 2000
acre feet of additional safe annual yield to protect the City, but no water has been
developed or added to the reserve and development of the reserve has significant cost
implications.
Vice-Chair Osbome asked for a clarification of the 300-acre feet difference on tables 6
& 7 on page 12 versus 13 of the staff report and noted there is a different.figure.
Water Manager Henderson explained the population figure in table 6 has not been
updated to reflect the new population figures, and table 7 has been updated.
Commr. Cooper noted there was an enormous amount of construction activity in the late
1980's, where the construction activity encompassed both commercial and residential
areas.
Water Manager Henderson commented that since the drought they do not allow City
potable water to be used for construction of new development.
Commr. Caruso commented on the 145 gallons per capita per day and wondered why
they focus on these types of details for water planning instead of trying to use half an
acre-foot per household.
Chairwoman Loh noted this was presented to the City Council in the. past and the
Council recommended deleting the 2000-acre feet amount and suggested it come to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Water Manager Henderson agreed and explained that the Council discussed this as
part of the water impact fees and then requested the General Plan Amendment
process, which requires hearings before the Commission.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the fees for single-family dwellings are already up, which
went into effect on July 1St
Water Manager Henderson explained the Council set the fees at the lower rate,
assuming that the reliability reserve policy was eliminated..
Chairwoman Loh asked what the rate was before the raise.
Water Manager Henderson replied 7000.
Chairwoman Loh noted that is almost 1000 more.
Water Manager Henderson replied yes.
6-y;;L
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 3
Chairwoman Loh commented on the 145 gallon per capita, and noted there is a cushion
that would enable them to raise the water fees for new development.
Water Management Henderson responded yes. He explained the higher that number
is, the more water they have to acquire. Those impact fees are based on acquiring new
water resources for new development.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroader, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, asked why this is being stirred up on
Orcutt Road again, and felt that they are trying to congest the area further. She asked
where Sacramento Street is going to lead off.
There were no further public comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper moved to recommend the City Council approve the negative
declaration of environmental impact and amend the Water Management Element to
eliminate the policy of obtaining areliability reserve, while keeping other policies.meant
to assure adequate water supply even during droughts. Seconded by Vice-Chair
Osborne.
Commr. Boswell expressed his support on the motion. He explained a reason to
support this is because they are using the 145-gallon per capita per day as their
planning guideline that they have a reliability reserve built in.
Chairwoman Loh noted the environmental review period is 20 days and asked when
that begins.
Community Development Director Mandeville responded that it started on the date that
the negative declaration was published, and that the review period is close to ending.
Commr. Caruso reiterated that the negative declaration was signed June 25th
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Osborne, Peterson, Boswell, Caruso, and Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0.
2. Clitywide. GPA and ER 15-02; Request to amend the.General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element concerning accounting for siltation and
reclaimed water; retrofitting for new development, and a water reserve for new infll
developments, and environmental determination; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
S'`/3
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10,2002
Page 4
Utilities Director John Moss presented the staff report recommending that the City
Council: (1) retain the existing language of the General Plan concerning water reserved
for infill and intensification development, and (2) approve a negative declaration of
environmental impact and amend the Water Management Element to make consistent
various statements concerning accounting for siltation and reclaimed water, and to
delete the requirement for all new developments to complete offsets (retrofitting), while
retaining retrofitting as an option for projects wanting to proceed in case no water
allocations are available.
Utility Director Moss explained briefly the Water.Management Element Policy items.
Chairwoman Loh asked what today's count would be on the acre-feet.
Utility Director Moss explained they received revised State Department of Finance
figures relative to the City population, which is different from their annual projections.
These figures showed a decrease in population from what they had projected, which
would serve to increase their available supply, and today's figure is 304 acre-feet.
Mr. Moss expressed that presently the water supply outlook is positive and they are
encouraged looking at what the prospects are over the next five to 10 years at a
minimum. He noted there are no salts or other constituents in desalinated water. Mr.
Moss stated annexation and infill development are unlikely to be in competition for water
resources in the foreseeable future, and therefore their staff recommendation is to retain
the existing policy as is.
Commr. Cooper noted the staff report indicates that the post 1994 annexation projects
are actually bringing back to the City an additional 43 acre feet of water per year, and at
total build-out, they will bring back 287 acre feet.
Utility Director Moss explained the total demand for development in these areas is equal
to 330 acre feet, and the actual demand that has occurred based on development in
these areas and when they annex they have certain potential, but they are only
developing at a certain rate, which is the 42 acre feet.
Commr. Cooper asked why table 4 shows various different acre-foot demands.
Utility Director Moss responded that he believes it is the rate of development that is
occurring in the non-residential properties.
Commr. Cooper noted there was very little development in 2000.
Water Division Manager Gary Henderson explained they have a computer tracking
system for this information and felt there may be lag time between when permits are
issued versus the construction date.
Commr. Cooper commented that he would like to see some trend in terms of
commercial demand for water.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 5
Water Manager Henderson expressed the importance of looking at the average over a
period of time to get an accurate feel for this. He indicated they are going to try to
continue to provide this information and expand on it in the future.
Commr. Cooper expressed a curiosity in the Water Resources Status Report. He asked
if they are going to eliminate ground water use for agriculture and attempt to shift over
to gray water. He noted he was unaware that there was this much agriculture within the
city limits of San Luis Obispo and questioned what the order of magnitude would be.
Water Manager Henderson explained they are looking at two specific properties at
approximately 200 to 400 acre feet, and they are trying to avoid any impacts on the
creeks by exchanging recycled water for groundwater that is currently being used.
Commr. Cooper questioned if the water magnitude is about 200-acre feet.
Utility Director Moss explained the one property south of town is about 200 acre-feet
and that is at the intersection of Higuera Street and the creek. The Dalidio property has
historically used up to about 500-acre feet.
Commr. Cooper asked how someone would find out about the 100 rebates per year for
water conserving washing machine rebate program.
Water Manager Henderson explained they did some advertising and have already
exhausted the first year's funds..
Commr. Cooper asked why commercial/industrial institutional water usage is so small
compared to residential. He suggested they communicate their strategies with pie
charts, showing what the typical water usage is for residential landscaping vs.
commercial landscaping vs. restaurant use.
Commr. Caruso noted that 70 percent of the water usage in the city is the residential
component and understands that 60% of residential water use is outdoors. He stated
that 40% of all water use in this city is for people to water their lawns. He noted that
since 1990, the City has not developed one new acre foot of water, but there has been
an estimated savings of 1,320 acre feet a year in water conservation and retrofitting,
and noted how well the City has done with the water conservation program.
Utility Director Moss commented that is largely the reason for Council's decision relative
to reprioritizing their water projects.
Commr. Caruso suggested instead of noting a difference between the annexation areas
and the infill areas, they should be discussing housing types and making a statement
about density and affordability.
Vice-Chair Osborne suggested determining what the per capita consumption is in a
typical R-1 lot versus a multi-family zone, at some future meeting.
s-ys
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 6
Water Manager Henderson responded there are tables used for specific projects, which
contain water use factors; it is not a per capita use, but rather an acre-foot basis.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if the build-out population figure has been changed.
Director Mandeville responded that the build-out figures have not changed because the
population described as build-out is based upon a 1% average annual growth rate in
population.
Commr. Peterson asked if they had any idea how their 119 gallons per capita per day
compares to other cities.
Water Manager Henderson explained that there are many factors that go into per capita
use rates; areas like Atascadero and Paso Robles have larger lots, which would have
more water use.
Commr. Peterson asked how the water allocated over the past few years has broken
out between infill versus expansion areas.
Utility Director Moss explained that there was more infill water allocation than what-they
would have anticipated.
Commr. Peterson felt this would be an important number to know as they consider
these questions. He felt the expansion areas would use substantially more water then
the infill areas. He explained this could potentially put the City in a position where, once
all the rezoning and attempts at more density are completed, there won't be enough
water to do what they want with infill; potentially creating a situation where they have
used their remaining water to build sprawl on the fringe of the City, and they would not
have enough water for intensification. He asked if they could put this Planning
Commission Policy in.
Utility Director Moss explained they did not see the need for revising the policy at this
time. He stated it would take some additional accounting, which the policy did not
necessarily reflect, an implication that it would grow if their water supplies grew.
Commr. Peterson commented that a shift might be seen in policy where their general
plan presently doesn't favor infill over annexation and tries to balance them.
Commr. Caruso concurred with Commissioner Peterson and noted this potential
problem also, which he felt should be addressed on a broad base.
Commr. Cooper noted that the first part of their recommendation is to retain the existing
language of the General Plan concerning a water reserve for infill intensification
development. He noted that Commissioner Peterson is suggesting that they adhere to
the original recommendation, which is to have a fixed acre-foot allocation for infill.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the Land Use Element contains a growth policy on
residential project priority and felt this addresses the commissioners concerns. She
questioned why the population from the State count is different from the City's count.
L5
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 7
Water Manager Henderson explained the figures that they received are from the State
Finance Department that they get each year.
Director Mandeville explained the value of the Department of Finance figures is they are
tracking statistics of a variety of types much better than any other agency.
Utility Director Moss noted they have to have a way to account for and track their water
usage and plan for future growth; population is a fairly standard method for doing so.
Chairwoman Loh felt the analysis is very good, but felt the desalination project is not
going to help because it will not expand large enough to help them. She asked if the
Council will decide which route to take if the City is short of water.
Utility Director Moss replied yes. He explained the current direction and priorities is
established by Council to try to meet their water needs with a combination of water
recycling, water conservation, and additional ground water. He added that, based on
their current projection, they should be able to do this.
Vice-Chair Osborne noted the allocation of water for new development is not occurring
at the pace previously projected. He stated the Commission has been given information
at other times about the population and they assume that it is 1% per year. They have
noticed that it is much less than 1% per year and felt they haven't really saved anything.
Utility Director Moss explained they were trying to address the fact that over the years, a
perceived feeling of. scarcity of water resources has developed. At the rate of
development, these resources were being used up very quickly. The report was to
show the rate of development and the use of these water resources over the past eight
years has not been at the 1% rate.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroader, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that Cal Poly has grown
and felt it has depleted the water resources and housing resources. She stated that no
new dorms have been constructed since 1978.
There were no further public comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper made a motion. There was discussion on the motion, and then it was
withdrawn.
Utility Director Moss commented that they talked about their optics issue with Lafco and
if this number only slides upwards, they will reach a point where there will be plenty of .
water for infill development and nothing for annexations. This would not be because of
actual use, but because of increased water supplies that would cause the number to
increase.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 8
Commr. Peterson reiterated that maybe it should not slide up indefinitely, but only to a
point. He noted there have not been calculations done on how much water they are
going to need for infill once they do all the serious up zoning. He stated that he prefers
they put in this safeguard for infill.
Director Mandeville explained that there would be another opportunity for the Planning
Commission and the City Council to fix the water allocations for the infill.
Chairwoman Loh mentioned they should find out how much water they would need for
all the infill applications that would be coming in..
Utility Director Moss explained the infill number is between 300 and 400 acre feet that
would be required to complete all the infill under the current zoning.
Commr. Boswell mentioned in the coming year they are going to make a number of
significant policy decisions regarding this issue. He suggested that they keep what they
have for now with the recognition that this issue would return.
Vice-Chair Osborne stated that he concurs with Commissioner Boswell's comments.
He expressed concern with the relative rates of growth with the commercial annexation
area and the infill. He suggested they stay with the current policy.
Commr. Peterson felt they are never going to be able to estimate the amount of infill
they might have and how much water they might need for it, because as they go
through time, the amount of density that is acceptable and appropriate continues to
increase. He expressed that he does not have a lot of confidence that when they say
this is an issue that they want to address and do something about, that it will not fall
through the cracks. He felt that these issues get postponed to annual reviews of the
General Plan, or to Housing Element discussions, and that 80% of these issues are
forgotten and the issues never resolved.
Utility Director Moss mentioned that they could return to the Commission with their
annual water status report.
Chairwoman Loh stated that they would appreciate this.
Commr. Boswell moved that they adopt the existing staff recommendation and add a
third item that they recommend that.the Planning Commission.receive the Annual Water
Resources Staff Report before it is sent to the City Council as part of their regular
business. Seconded by Chairwoman Loh.
Commr. Cooper entertained an amendment that this staff report specifically address
what the acre-feet per year demand is for infill development.
The motion maker and the seconder accepted the amendment to the motion.
Water Manager Henderson stated this is very difficult, but expressed that they could
make the attempt, but it would just be an estimate.
i
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 9
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Chairwoman Loh, Cooper, and Vice-Chair Osborne.
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Caruso.
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-2.
3. Citywide. Study session of remaining parking and access issues raised at a joint
Planning Commission / City Council study session on 4-30-02 and referred to the
Commission for recommendation on the appropriate advisory body to review these
items; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report
recommending the Planning Commission review the list of Tier 3 access and parking
measures and recommend which body should consider each measure and formulate
recommendations for incorporation into the Access and Parking Management Plan.
She also requested they review the listing of policy and operational issues associated
with the City's access and parking program and concur with the proposed division of
oversight responsibilities. She explained the Commission should look at these seven
items and decide which governing body should take on these responsibilities.
Planner Mandeville proposed a chart of policies and operation issues.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum discussed the Sunday parking issue. He
noted that many feel this is non-controversial because it is Sunday morning, but there
are issues in the downtown that occur, such as services at the Mission. He felt it is
important for people to come on Sunday and not be charged for parking. He
commented that the Planning Commission could handle all of these items, but if specific
issues become .controversial, they might establish sub-committees of their body to
specifically focus on those issues.
Planner Mandeville proposed a second chart. She explained that the Parking
Management Plan is an existing document that has not been seen by the Planning
Commission in the past. She would like to have this document and any updates or
amendments go to the Planning Commission for review, and those recommendations
would be forwarded to the City Council. She presented an explanation on each of the
issues listed.
Community Development Director John Mandeville mentioned that the Commission is
being asked two questions; (1) do they feel they have the resources and the time to
review these issues, and (2) do they feel they are the appropriate body with the
expertise to provide the Council with meaningful recommendations.
Commr. Caruso felt the information on Attachment 1 is too detailed for the Commission
to make decisions on.
Associate Mandeville explained table 2 is directly from the Parking Management Plan.
Attachment 1 is the draft PDAP that has not yet been reviewed and contains many tiers
S��
A ,v 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10,2002
Page 10
of different policies. She noted that Council requested that the Commission look at the
Tier 3 items in the PDAP, and felt that many of the items could fall in the Attachment 2
chart.
Deputy Director Bochum explained these are the remaining elements from the PDAP
exercise that Council could not make a decision on and they will get modified and
incorporated into the Parking Management Plan.
Commr. Peterson noted that the Council wants to know if the Commission can take on
this responsibility or if there should be a new advisory body created. If a new advisory
body is created, it should be addressed as to whether it be an Ad hoc Committee or
permanent committee.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that the Council indicated their preference is that the
Planning Commission assume these responsibilities. He asked if the Commission feels
comfortable with this based on their time commitments, and expressed the importance
of these responsibilities.
Planner Mandeville suggested working on Attachment 2 first.
Commr. Cooper noted that this body has a unique opportunity to integrate many issues
into a discussion vs. launching into detailed, in depth implementation. He mentioned
they might be involved in Attachment 1 activities and expressed concern that many of
the other capable committees that were set up to address these issues may not be in a
position to take on these responsibilities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Peterson moved that they recommend. the Council follow Attachment 2 as
Presented by staff pertaining to which advisory body has the responsibility on each. of
these issues, with the following two exceptions-, # 3 should be broken out in two lines
that states "land use compatibility and new facilities-PC" and "design of a new facilities
- ARC". #4 modified that directional signage on the location of these signs.is PC/ARC..
Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Chairwoman Loh suggested an amendment to the motion to have staff recommending
to the City Council, rather than the City Council under Neighborhood Parking Districts.
The motion maker and the seconder accepted the amendment.
Commr., Boswell supported this motion and mentioned that, as the Planning
Commission, they should have an overall review of TDM programs to ensure that there
aren't already adequate TDM programs in place so they could develop appropriate
mitigations when they review projects.
5-56
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 11
AYES: Commr. Peterson, Cooper, Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, and Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carred 6-0.
Deputy Director Bochum noted if the Commission wants the Parking Management Plan
under their purview, even though the Commission may chose to have someone else
reviewing them, these issues would ultimately come to the Commission for discussion.
Commr. Caruso commented that all of these items fall under the purview of the
Planning Commission in isolation from one another. They are all part of Transportation
Demand Management, which he felt should all come to the Planning Commission as
part of a policy document that recommends that the City do some of these things.
Commr. Caruso moved.that all of these issues be placed into their proper policy setting
in the City and should not stand in isolation of one another. Seconded by Commr..
Boswell.
Commr. Cooper commented that evaluation of outlined parking lots could be used for
shuttle service and felt that is a land use and a transportational logistical analysis that
could very easily be part of the Commission's agenda.
Commr. Peterson asked if it would come to the Commission when it is the whole plan.
Commr. Caruso responded updates and amendments to these plans would be coming
to the Commission.
Deputy Director Bochum mentioned because there are seven items, that seem to be
individual in nature, but they aren't. He stated these are the remaining items and what
Council has mentioned is they would prefer that the Commission to handle these issues
for them, or the Commission could make a recommendation on who they think should
do it.
Commr. Caruso commented that there is no PDAP and noted if they had a PDAP, it
could implement all of these leftovers.
Chairwoman Loh noted that there is Parking Management here in the City.
Planner Mandeville mentioned that the Parking Management Plan is going to be
expanded to the Access and Parking Management Plan.
Commr. Caruso noted that the items on the Tier 3 actions are all implementation.
Deputy Director Bochum offered some comparisons between Attachment 2 and
Attachment 1.
5'�L
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 12
Commr. Boswell asked if the master list of transportation demand of management
activities were part of the new Parking Management Plan.
Deputy Director Bochum replied yes, the City has approved the existing Parking
Management Plan. He explained this plan contains policies regarding establishing
Transportation Demand Management programs for the downtown.
Commr. Boswell asked if the PDAP is a policy document or an implementation
document for the Parking Management Plan.
Deputy Director Bochum explained the intention was to supply the technical information
and to establish a long-term financing and revenue system for the parking elements in
the downtown to identify the locations for the parking garages and parking facilities.
Commr. Boswell noted that this is an enhanced PMP that contained policy measures,
but also contained detailed implementation measures. He felt the appropriate level of
review for the Commission would be to have a broader view of implications.
Director Mandeville noted that the Commission is frequently presented with
implementation programs from the General Plan.
Commr. Peterson suggested a new advisory body be created that.handles these more
technical components of the parking and detail orientated things.
Commr. Boswell suggested they look at these as a comprehensive set of polices to
address whether they are achieving a larger goal of the Transportation Demand
Management.
Deputy Director Bochum asked if they would be willing to entertain these issues as they
come to the Commission in a Master Plan Policy Document. If not, would the
Commission be willing to make a recommendation to the Council on trying to improve
the public input process on this issue.
Commr. Caruso amended his motion to state that numbers 1 through 4 are a Staff and
City Council involved process; 5 & 6 Staff, Planning Commission and City Council;
number 7 would be Staff and City Council. Seconded by Commr. Boswell.
Commr. Cooper supported the motion, and suggested that in the future they discuss
forming a task force.
Commr. Caruso mentioned that he did not want to take the Downtown Association out
of any decision making process that they might already be involved in on any on these
issues.
Vice-Chair Osborne commented that the City would be best served by creation of a new
standing committee.
.5-S�
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Page 13
Commr. Peterson stated that there are a number of implementation issues that would
have large impacts; the only advice being given is from the Downtown Association
Parking Committee. He felt these kinds of questions should go through somebody
besides them, and suggested there be a two-tiered structure.
Chairwoman Loh supported the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Boswell, Cooper, and Chairwoman Loh
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Caruso
ABSENT Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 4-2.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
No agenda forecast was given.
5. Commission:
Chairwoman Loh expressed appreciation for Commissioner Caruso's appearance at the
City Council meeting.
Commr. Cooper commented that the role of a Planning Commissioner was expanded at
this meeting this evening, and felt that something was accomplished.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
5-sa