Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2004, BUS 1 - NACIMIENTO WATER SUPPLY PROJECT PARTICIPATION council Mme, j acenaa nepoiA �x CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John E.Moss,Utilities Directo SUBJECT: NACIlVIIENTO WATER SUPPLY PROJECT PARTICIPATION CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute and forward a letter to the County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors reflecting the City's non-binding commitment to participate in the Nacimiento Pipeline Project at 3,380 acre feet per year. 2. Direct staff to initiate focused amendments to the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element policies associated with demand projections, siltation, supplemental water requirements, multi-source supplies, and allocation of new supplies, to address policy related to service and reliability and support Council direction to participate in the Nacimiento Water Supply Project. REPORT IN BRIEF On February 10, 2004, Council considered a range of cost and policy issues associated with the City's possible participation in the Nacimiento Water Supply Project (Project). Council then directed staff to return with possible policy amendments to support the City's continued participation in the Project at 3,380 acre feet per year(afy). This report identifies suggested amendments to the Water and Wastewater Management Element (WME) policies associated with demand projections, siltation, supplemental water requirements, multi-source supplies, and allocation of new supplies to further support Council direction to participate in the Project. The recommended policy amendments will not only provide additional policy support for participation in the project, but may also be seen as strengthening our overall water supply planning policy in that they further define/refine our water supply management strategies and objectives with a particular focus on service reliability. Additionally, the recommended amendment to WME Policy 8.0 Allocation of New Supplies is provided to strengthen the tie between our General Plan and water supply availability, thus providing yet another tool to ensure that new supplies do not induce growth beyond that envisioned in the General Plan. Other General Plan policy related matters are also discussed including the City's strong growth management and open space protection programs. A draft letter to the County Board of Supervisors indicating the City's 'intent to continue participation in the Project at 3,380 afy has been prepared for Council's approval and is included as an attachment to this report. Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The County of San Luis Obispo (County) has requested agencies interested in participating in the Nacimiento Pipeline Project (Project) to reaffirm their commitment and participation level so that they can prepare a final project report, cost analysis, and participation agreement for execution by the participating agencies. This reaffirmation is non-binding at this time however should represent the City's true intent within a range of assumed conditions previously considered by Council. Following reaffirmation by all agencies interested in participating in the Project, the County will finalize the participation agreements and provide formal offers to participate in the Project to those agencies. Execution of the participation agreements is anticipated to occur by June 2004 and that action will be binding upon the City. On February 10, 2004 Council considered policy and fiscal issues associated with the City's participation in the Project. The objective of that discussion was to reaffirm the City's participation in the Project and if so, at what level. Council's action was to direct staff to return with recommended policy language to support the City's participation in the Project at 3,380 acre feet per year (afy), and to forward the City's support for a hybrid cost allocation methodology for the Project to the County Board of Supervisors (Board). Council directed staff to consider amendments to our policies relative to siltation, reliability and multi-source water supplies in support of their decision to continue participation in the Project. On February 24, 2004 staff presented the Council's action to support the hybrid cost allocation methodology for the Project to the Board. At that meeting the Board voted to approve the hybrid cost allocation methodology for the Project. This decision by the Board is key to the City's participation. The cost analysis and fiscal parameters considered by the Council focused on the hybrid cost allocation methodology. Additional Council consideration of their decision to participate would have been required had the Board elected to apply a different cost allocation methodology. Staff has reviewed the policies contained in the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the General Plan and has identified those policies that may be considered for amendment to support the City's desire to participate in the Project at 3,380 afy. Additionally, the recommended policy modifications will strengthen our overall policy relative to the service and reliability factors identified by Council. The staff analysis and recommendation is provided in the body of this report. Water and Wastewater Management Element Policies The Water and Wastewater Management Element (WME) of the General Plan contains numerous policies which relate to the City's development of new water supplies and the allocation and overall management of the City's water supplies. Based on Council's general direction from the February 10, 2004 discussion, staff recommends Council consider and direct staff to proceed with policy amendments to WME Policy 3.0 Water Demand Projections, Policy 5.0 Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements, and Policy 7.0 Multi-Source Water Supply. These policies may be viewed as already supporting the City's participation in the I r Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 3 Project, however they can be amended to provide additional support. Additionally, in order to provide some assurance as to the use of any supplies developed in excess of our projected demand, staff is recommending amendment to WME Policy 8.0 Allocation of New Water Supplies. A copy of the current WME is attached for review. The policies identified below are recommended for amendment to provide support for the City's participation in the Project and to strengthen our overall water supply planning and management. Staff is seeldng Council's concurrence with the direction of the recommended policy amendments. With Council concurrence, staff will initiate the General Plan amendment process that will require public review, consideration by the Planning Commission, environmental review and final consideration and adoption by the Council prior to Council's consideration and execution of the final participation agreement for the Project. WME Policy 3.0 Water Demand Projections The current policies contained in this section are primarily directed at identifying a planning water use rate for projecting the long term water demands of the City based on annual average values in acre feet per year, and using that same water use rate to determine our present water demand. Council did not direct staff to amend the policy which sets our planning per capita water use rate. However, one of the potential benefits of the Project previously discussed by Council is the Project's ability to provide a third major supply source to ensure the City is able to meet our peak daily demands with one of our other major supply sources off-line. This is an important concept in providing reliable and adequate water service to the community. In review of the existing policy it became clear that the addition of a policy that would provide guidance for ensuring our capability to meet not only our annual obligations,but our peak daily demands,would provide additional support for participating in the Project and strengthen our current policy relative to a key water service factor, i.e. meeting our peak daily demands. Recommendation - Add Policy 3.1.5 Peak Daily Water Demand—The City shall strive to develop and maintain supplies and facilities appropriate to ensure sufficient supply and system capacity to provide the peak daily water demand of the City. Basis—This policy addition reflects the understanding that use/demand is variable with season and it is necessary for the City to meet the peak daily demands of the community as well as the annual average needs in order to provide reliable service to our customers. WME Policy 5.0 Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs The Current policy relative to siltation that occurs at our supply reservoirs identifies an estimated amount of loss of Safe Annual Yield(SAY) at 10 afy and requires this amount to be subtracted from the adopted safe annual yield figure on a yearly basis. This policy "accounts" for siltation, but offers little in terms of planning for siltation into the future. Recommendation - Amend Policy 5.1.1 to continue to account for siltation by reducing SAY by the estimated loss of 10 afy (current policy), and as Council considers and develops new supply opportunities, Council should consider "planning" for additional water to address siltation losses over a longer term. Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 4 Basis - This policy change would continue to account for siltation, and, include guidelines for planning for siltation over a longer planning horizon as new supply opportunities are considered by the Council. Staff is not recommending an appropriate planning horizon at this time since it is not fully possible to anticipate all of the conditions, yield, etc. associated with future supply projects to be considered by this and future Councils. Those conditions may influence what the Council determines is an appropriate amount or planning horizon for siltation at that time. Relative to the Nacimiento project, staff would recommend that upon initiation of project construction (which is when the project yield is considered.added to the City's supplies)the Council then consider what, if any,amount of the project yield should be dedicated to future siltation losses. WME Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements The current WME Policy 6.1.1 identifies that the City should develop additional supplies to meet the projected General Plan build-out requirements and offset water yield lost due to siltation (projected to 2025). This policy bases its determination of supplemental water supply needs primarily upon the planning per capita use rate multiplied by a General Plan build-out population figure. The policy does not recognize or address other possibly critical supply requirements needed for service and reliability such as siltation beyond 2025, drought conditions, short or long term loss of yield from an existing supply source, requirements associated with meeting peak operating demands, and other unforeseen conditions. The recommended modification to this policy to identify Secondary Supply Requirements,is very important in that it addresses these key service and reliability issues. Recommendation — Amend Policy 6.1.1 to include planning for two levels of supplemental water supply requirements and development of supplemental water supplies as follows: 1. Primary.Supply Requirements - develop supplemental supplies to provide sufficient water for General Plan build-out using the per capita planning use rate identified in Policy 3.1.2 and the projected General Plan Build-out population, 145 x build-out population (current policy), and, 2. Secondary Supply Requirements — develop supplemental supplies to provide additional yield to account for future siltation losses, drought, loss of yield from an existing supply source, operational requirements necessary to meet peak operating demands, and other unforeseen conditions. Basis — The recommended policy identifies supplemental water supply requirements to include Primary Supply Requirements as those required to meet our General Plan obligations, and, Secondary Supply Requirements as those that the City should consider in its service responsibility to address requirements beyond providing for the annual consumptive needs of the community. The recommended amendment places priority for the City's supplemental supply development and recognizes the need to consider development of supplies (Secondary Supplies) beyond those driven by General Plan population needs. The recommended policy does not set an amount to be considered adequate, as staff feels that amount, or adequacy, should be a consideration to be made by Council at the time they consider a supplemental supply project opportunity. This policy recommendation to identify Secondary Supply Requirements differs from previous policy for development of a "reliability reserve" in that it defines the Secondary Supply Requirements in a broad sense and allows for their appropriate use over a broad range of conditions. 1 - 4 I i Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 5 Additionally, it does not place the priority for their development above that needed to meet our General Plan goals and does not quantify the amount required. That amount may be variable and should be determined by Council based on a variety of conditions, either existing or future, and should also be considered in the context of available supply opportunities. Other policies contained under Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements are adequate and appropriate as currently written and are not recommended for amendment. Policy 6.1.2 Supplemental Water Sources -identifies criteria by which the City will evaluate supplemental water sources. This policy supports the City's participation in the Project. The City's participation in the Project has been and/or will be reviewed and considered by Council under the listed parameters of this policy. Policy 6.1.3 Paying for Supplemental Water for New Development - defines or confirms allocation of cost between rate payers and new development. WME Policy 7.0 Multi-Source Water Supply The current policy 7.1.1 identifies the importance and value of developing and maintaining multi- source water supplies to "reduce reliance on any one source of water supply and increase its (City) supply options in future droughts or other water supply emergencies." This policy as written is already supportive of the City's participation in the Project. Council may consider if it is appropriate to strengthen this policy by including in the justification the ability to provide for meeting peak operational demands in the event that one of our other major supply sources is unavailable. Recommendation - Amend Policy 7.1.1 to include language that identifies the ability to provide for peak operating demands, in the event that one of our major supply sources is unavailable, as a goal and benefit of multi-source water supply development. Basis This amendment to this policy places an additional and important parameter to consider when reviewing the adequacy of the City's water supply resources. WME Policy 8.0 Allocation of New Supplies The current policy contained in this section identifies not only the priority by which new supplies are to be allocated, i.e. first to eliminate any deficit between adopted yield and present demand, but also provides policy for determining the amount of water available for new development,when new supplies will be considered available for allocation, pre-1994 City boundary infill and intensification requirements, accounting for reclaimed water and accounting for private water supplies being used in the City. In order to address growth related concerns with the development of water supplies beyond those identified as required to meet General Plan population demands, staff is recommending that Council consider amendments to the policies which prioritize the allocation/use of new supplies, and policy which determines how water available for allocation to development is calculated to ensure that the amount of the City's water supply determined to be available to new development is tied directly to the General Plan land use. Recommendation-Amend Policy 8.1.1 to include priority for allocation of new supplies as: ".._first to eliminate any deficit between the adopted safe annual yield and the present demand as defined in Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 6 policy 3.1.4" (current policy), and, second to eliminate any deficit between adopted safe yield and GP build-out,and third to supply for Secondary Supply Requirements as identified in policy 6.1.1. Basis —This policy amendment expands the priority for which new supplies are to be allocated to include meeting General Plan build-out needs and Secondary Supply Requirements. The first priority—eliminating any deficit between adopted safe annual yield and present demand, has been satisfied and its basis stems from a time when the City's water use had actually exceeded its safe annual yield. We currently have policies in place that would prohibit that from occurring as a result of development. However, a new worst case drought or other loss of supply could redefine our safe annual yield and again make this policy priority applicable. Recommendation-Amend 8.1.2 Supplying New Development-A.—to include policy which would calculate water available for allocation to new development by either-the adopted safe annual yield of the City's supplies minus present demand as identified in policy 3.1.4 (current policy), or the projected demand at build-out as identified in policy 3.1.3 minus present demand (3.1.4), which ever is less. Basis -This policy amendment provides assurance that if/when the City develops water to provide for the Secondary Supply Requirements identified in the proposed amended policy 6.1.1, its use for development, beyond the current GP envisioned build-out, requires that the current GP build-out be evaluated and modified first, based on its own merits and not driven or limited by water supply availability. There will be no more water identified as available for allocation, than what is called for based on General Plan population and land use projections. This assurance is seen by staff as an important policy needed to support the City's participation in the project. GP Growth Management Policies Water supply affects land use planning because water demand typically increases as land use intensifies. In San Luis Obispo, water demand is based on population. As population increases, water demand increases. Therefore, any plans to increase population capacity through land use have to be coordinated with the availability of a water supply. The City's Water Management policies direct that water supplies be available to accommodate the population capacity within the Land Use Element's Urban Reserve. Unintended growth spawned simply by available water is not possible because the City regulates growth through land use policies. To increase water available for development, the City must first amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In San Luis Obispo, lack of water supplies may become a constraint to population growth, but only when they are also a constraint to achieving the City's land use goals. The recommended policy amendments to WME Policy 8.1.2 A. further strengthen this tie. A summary of General Plan Policies related to management of growth within the City is included as Attachment 1 to this report. The listing of General Plan policies is provided to demonstrate that we indeed have .a considerable policy basis available to support well planned and regulated growth within the City. Resource development and managed growth can compatibly coexist. Excessively constrained resource development may actually be counter to well planned and regulated growth management. The effectiveness of our overall General Plan orientation toward growth management (supported by many other policies in addition to those key ones noted in P- �o Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 7 Attachment 1) has been demonstrated by an annual growth rate averaging well below 1% over many years when water has been available for development. Open Space Protection Along with strong policy protection, physical protection of the community exists through previous open space acquisitions and geographic barriers to development. In addition, aggressive open space protection efforts are underway through our Natural Resource Program. These efforts, combined with policies that require open space dedications in exchange for development (or fees that leverage protection in other sensitive areas) are expected to result in substantial added greenbelt protection as we reach City build-out in 2022. For example, the Margarita, Orcutt, and Dalidio annexations will require significant open space dedications. The Airport Area Annexation will result in more open space protection through dedication and a new fee for creating a "hard" southern city boundary. Open space grant money is being pursued constantly (over $6.5 million received since 1996), and work on this southern boundary is underway at the Brughelli Ranch via grant sources. These collective physical strategies add an important and permanent layer of protection against unwanted growth. Letter of Intent to Participate in the Project Included as Attachment 3, is a draft letter of intent for the Mayor's signature. The letter of intent is consistent with Council's direction from February 10, 2004 indicating a desired participation level of 3,380 afy. While this letter of intent is non=binding on the City, it should represent the City's true intent within the range of conditions previously considered by'Council. Future Actions,Decision Points As noted in previous reports to the Council, there are a number of steps ahead of us before a final commitment is made to participate in the Project, including amending the General Plan and related environmental review. The following schedule, previously provided to Council, identifies the key steps remaining prior to execution of the final participation agreement. At the time the Council considers the final participation agreement, staff will review the refined participation levels of all agencies and associated costs to the City. Action Date Council decides intended level of participation in the project and directs staff to begin March 9,2004 processing policy amendment(s). County prepares final cost analysis and presents offer to participate to agencies April 2004 Planning Commission considers policy amendments and environmental review June 2004 documents. Council approves first step of phased rate increases and adopts higher development May 2004 impact fees. Council considers General Plan amendment and environmental review documents. June 2004 Council approves final participation agreement June 2004 I ' I Nacimiento Water Supply Project Participation Page 8 FISCAL IMPACT The potential fiscal impacts of participation in the Project have been previously discussed based on the best information available to staff. Staff will return with further fiscal analysis after all agencies have provided their intended participation levels to the County and the revised project report and cost analysis is prepared by the County and distributed to the participating agencies with the final participation agreements. These revised fiscal impacts will be considered by Council with the (binding) agreements and will,at that time,be an accurate reflection of the City's obligation. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to Policy Amendments Council may direct staff to initiate WME or other General Plan policy amendments not identified above, or direct a revised approach to the recommended policy amendments. Staff is comfortable that the recommended policy amendments will provide the policy support necessary for the City to participate in the Project at Council's desired participation level, and will provide reasonable assurance that participation in the Project will not become a growth inducement beyond that growth identified in and regulated by the City's General Plan. Attachments: 1. General Plan Growth Management Policy Summary 2. Water and Wastewater Management Element 3. Draft Letter of Intent 1 ,q Attachment 1 Attachment 1 General Plan Growth Management Policy Summary The General Plan is largely a growth management plan by definition with policy interlaced throughout the document on how the City should develop. Many policies, such as LU 6.4.1 on Creeks &Wetlands, provide an overlay of limits on the extent and density of development. With that in mind, the following policies are those most directly related to the development capacity of the City. For reference the policy numbering reflects those in the City's General Plan Digest. LU 1.0.1: Growth Management Objectives states why with B) and C) relating directly to services. LU 1.1 Points out the goal for an urban edge. This is important to the argument that the GP policy sets the urban growth, not availability of water. LU 1,2 Provides the concept that the Land Use Element establishes the "ultimate population capacity". LU 1.6.1 Establishes policy for the URL, a policy directed at community growth. LU 1.7: Greenbelt policies reinforce growth limits and create hard urban edge. LU 1.11: Growth Rates & Phasing are our most direct policy on how fast the community will grow. LU 1.11.1 Links growth management to the availability of services. LU 1.11.2 Sets the 1% average growth rate. LU 1.11.3 Deals with phasing, mostly relating to the expansion areas. LU 1.11.4 Establishes monitoring of non-residential growth. LU 1.13.2 Specifically sets annexation as a City growth management tool. LU 1.13.4 Establishes that actual development in the expansion areas only happen when we have the services for them. LU1.13.5 Requires that new development areas contribute to the open space/greenbelt program. LU 1.17 Describes the means the City will use to protect open space and create the greenbelt. LU 2.3 Requires Specific Plans with detailed land use and phasing rules for residential expansion areas. LU 3 Sections under this policy set building intensity for various non-residential uses. LU 6.2.1 Establishes development limits based on hillside planning areas.. H 6.2.1 Requires that housing production be consistent with growth management policies of the Land Use Element. H 6.2.5 Gives priority to residential over non-residential development if City services must be rationed. OS 1.1.3, Provide for the City's Greenbelt. OS 13.1.2 Provide for the City's Greenbelt. OS sections 3,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Manage growth to reduce impacts on community resources. OS 10.1.1 Protect agricultural, scenic, and recreation lands. OS 11.3.1 Protect agricultural, scenic, and recreation lands. OS 12.1.1 Protect agricultural, scenic, and recreation lands. OS 13.1.1 Calls fora well-defined and compact urban form. CO 3.1.3 Encourages limiting growth in the City's population. Attachment 1 CI 5.2 Establishes traffic standards to insure that growth does not exceed acceptable limits. N 1.1.4 Emphasizes site planning to reduce noise impacts. N 1.2.2 Establish acceptable noise environments for growth. N 1.2.6 Establish acceptable noise environments for growth. N 1.2.10 Establish acceptable noise environments for growth. N1.2.11-16 Describe techniques for managing growth and new development to maintain acceptable noise levels. PR 2.2.2 Address the acquisition of new park and recreation facilities to service growth. PR 3.1.3 Address the acquisition of new park and recreation facilities to service growth. PR 4.1.1 Address the acquisition of new park and recreation facilities to service growth. PR 4.1.3 Address the acquisition of new park and recreation facilities to service growth. This listing of General Plan policies is provided to demonstrate that we indeed have a considerable policy basis available to support well planned and regulated growth within the City. The effectiveness of our overall General Plan orientation toward growth management (supported by many other policies in addition to those key ones noted above) has been demonstrated by an annual growth rate averaging well below 1% over many years when water has been available for development. 1 - 1 © Attachment 2 city of san IU1S OBlspo GENERAL PLAN . , WATER & WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT r. September 2002 $2.25 10-02 1 , I I I CT�/ O f sAn 11U s owpo community development aepantment ouu mission statement ouR mission is to seRve all peRsons in a positive ana couRteous manneR ana help ensuRe that San Luis OBISpo continues to BE a healthy, safe, attuactive, ano enjoyasle place to live, woRk, oR visit. we help plan the city's foRm ana chanacteR, suppoRt community values, pReseRve the enviRonment, pRomote the wise use of ResouRces, ana puotect puBUc health ana safety. ouu seuvice philosophy the city of San Luis OBISPO community development aepaRtment staff pRoviaes hich quality seRvice when you need it. we will: ✓ listen to unaeRstana youR needs; ✓ cive clean, accuRate anb pRompt answeRs to youR questions; ✓ explain how you can achieve youR coals unaeR the city's Rules, ✓ help Resolve pRoBlems in an open, oBjective manneR; ✓ maintain htch ethical stanaaRas; ana ✓ woRk to impRove ouR seuvice. The City's General Plan is made up of sections called"elements."Each element focuses on certain topics as required or allowed by State law.According to State law,each element has equal weight in defining City policies. In September 2002,the following elements comprised the City's General Plan. Ttie Adoption or East Major Revision Date Land Use 1994 Housin ' 1994 Circulation 1994 Open Space* 1994 Conservation* 1973 Parks & Recreation 2001 Noise 1996 Safety 2000 Energy Conservation`' 1981 Water &Wastewater Management 1996 'Update in progress. x . 13 City Council Allen Settle, Mayor John Ewan Jan Howell-Marx Christine Mulholland Ken Schwartz Planning Commission Stephen Peterson, Chair Jim Aiken Michael Boswell James Caruso Allan Cooper Alice Loh Orval Osborne Administration Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer Community Development Department John Mandeville, Director Michael Draze, Deputy Director for Long-range Planning Glen Matteson, Associate Planner (Project Planner) Utilities Department John Moss, Director Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager David Hix, Wastewater Division Manager Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator I - 1 � i 5 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water & Wastewater Management Element This element was first adopted February 24, 1987, by City Council Resolution No. 6180A. The following amendments have been adopted: Topic Date Council Resolution Number Wastewater section added October 26, 1987 6351 Revised water section November 15, 1994 8370 Water offset potential for annexations, accounting for reclaimed water, and use of wells July 2, 1996 8560 Clarifying water allocation to develop- ment, required offsets, and use of wells December 13, 1999 9003 Accounting for siltation and correcting May 16, 2000 9044 safe yield information Reliability reserve, offsets, siltation, and September 3, 2002 9363 reclaimed water City of SLO General Plan Water b ,astewater Management Element CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ I WATER SECTION 1. Safe Annual Yield..............................................................................:...........:.......:..........:. 2 2. Water Conservation ............................................................................................................ 5 3. Water Demand Projections ....................:........................................................................... 6 4. [reserved section number] 5. Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs........................................:.........................9 6. Supplemental Water Requirements................................................................................... 10 7. Multi-source Water Supply .............................................................................................. 12 8. Allocation of New Water Supplies ................................................................................... 12 9. Water Allocation and Offsets ............................................................................................ 14 10. Reclaimed Water ............................................................................................................. 15 11. Water Service within the City .......................................................................................... 16 WASTEWATER SECTION 12. Service Area and Population ............................................................................................ 17 13. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal.............................................................. 19 14. Wastewater Revenues and Financing ............................................................................... 20 TABLES NUMBER TITLE Page 1 Safe Annual Yield ................................................................................................ 3 2 Water Use 1980 - 1999........................................................................................... 7 3 Per Capita Water Use............................................................................................. 8 4 Calculation of Present (2002) Water Demand ....................................................... 8 5 Salinas Reservoir Capacity Studies ..................................................................... 10 6 Required Safe Annual Yield for General Plan Build-out.......ffi.....................ffiffi...... 11 7 New Water Supply Requirements ..................................:......:..................:...:....... 11 ^ SLP City of SLO General Plan — Water b. astewater Management Element INTRODUCTION The City's General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. It reflects consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens'preferences, within a framework set by State law. The General Plan contains elements that address various topics. The City decided to adopt an element addressing water resources and wastewater treatment because of the vital role of these resources and the far_reaching impacts of water policies on community growth and character. This element translates the Land Use Element's capacity for development into potential demand for water supply and wastewater treatment. This element outlines how the City plans to provide adequate water and wastewater services for its citizens, consistent with the goals and policies of other General Plan elements. Before adopting or revising any General Plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council must hold public hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also,the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before the hearings are held. Anyone may suggest or apply for amendments to General Plan elements. The City will probably update this element about every five years, or more frequently if necessary. 1 City of SLO General Plan Water d .astewater Management Element WATER SECTION 1.0 SAFE ANNUAL YIELD 1.1 POLICIES 1.1.1 Basis for Planning The City will plan for future development and for water supplies based on the amount of water which can be supplied each year,under critical drought conditions. This amount,called"safe annual yield,"will be formally adopted by the Council. The safe annual yield determination will be revised as significant new information becomes available, and as water sources are gained or lost. The determination will consider a staff analysis,which will recommend an amount based on coordinated use of all water sources. Each change to safe annual yield will be reflected in an amendment of this Plan. 1.1.2 Safe Yield Amount The City's safe annual yield, from the coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs and 500 acre feet of groundwater,is shown in Table 1. The safe annual yield includes reductions due to siltation at the reservoirs, discussed in more detail in Section 5.0. 1.1.3 Groundwater A. The amount of groundwater which the City will rely upon towards safe annual yield is identified in policy 1.1.2. The City will maximize the use of groundwater in conjunction with other available water supplies to maximize the yield and long-term reliability of all water resources and to minimize overall costs for meeting urban water demands. The City shall monitor water levels at the well sites to determine whether reduction or cessation of pumping is appropriate when water levels approach historic low levels. B. The City will not compete with local agricultural use of groundwater outside the urban reserve line or damage wildlife habitat through reduced natural stream flows in obtaining long-term sources of water supply. BACKGROUND Safe annual yield is the amount of water that can reliably be produced by the City's water supply to meet the water demand. It is estimated by simulating the operation of the City's water supply sources over an historical period to determine the maximum level of demand that could be met during the most severe drought for which records are available. The safe annual yield of an individual source of water supply is defined as the quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year,under critical drought conditions. Safe annual yield analyses of water supply sources are based on rainfall, evaporation and stream flow experienced during an 2 � � �4 City of SLO General Plan Water S stewater Management Element historical period. The City of San Luis Obispo uses a period beginning in 1943, which covers drought periods in 1946-51, 1959-61, 1976-77,and 1986-91. The historical period used in the latest computer analysis to determine safe annual yield extends from 1943 through 1991 and includes the most recent drought. Although future conditions are unlikely to occur in the precise sequence and magnitudes as have occurred historically, this technique provides a reliable estimate of the future water supply capability of the existing sources, since the long term historical record is considered a good indicator of future conditions. The safe annual yield gradually declines as silt accumulates in the reservoirs, thereby reducing storage capacity (discussed in more detail on page 10). Prior to 1991,the "controlling drought period" for determining safe annual yield was 1946 to 1951. The critical period for determining safe annual yield from the two reservoirs is now the period from 1986 to 1991. The safe annual yield is reflected in the table below and includes losses associated with siltation. TABLE 1 SAFE ANNUAL YIELD Year Salinas & Whale Groundwater Total Rock Reservoirs 2000 7,040 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,540 acre feet 2001 7,030 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,530 acre feet 2002 7,020 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,520 acre feet 2003 7,010 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,510 acre feet 2004 7,000 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,500 acre feet 2005 6,990 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,490 acre feet 2006 6,980 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,480 acre feet 2007 6,970 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,470 acre feet 2008 6,960 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,460 acre feet 2009 6,950 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,450 acre feet Previous Safe Annual Yield Studies Previous studies of the critical historical drought periods at Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs have indicated the following safe annual yields were available to the City: Water Suvnly Safe Annual Yield Reference Salinas Reservoir 4,800 acre-feet Corps of Engineers, 1977 Whale Rock Reservoir* 2,060 acre-feet Dept Water Resources, 1974 Coordinated Operation 500 acre-feet CH2M-Hill, 1985 Groundwater 500 acre-feet Water Operational Plan, 1993 TOTAL 7,860 acre-feet *City's share of Whale Rock Reservoir safe annual yield. 3 City of SLO General Plan Water& .stewater Management Element Past safe annual yield analyses for the two reservoirs assumed independent operation and historical data to the date of each report. The critical drought period for the previous studies was 1946-51. The studies also assumed a minimum pool at Salinas and Whale Rock of 400 and 500 acre-feet respectively. "Coordinated operation" is a concerted effort to operate the two reservoirs together for maximum yield. Since Salinas Reservoir spills more often than Whale Rock Reservoir, due to its larger drainage area and more favorable runoff characteristics, and has higher evaporation rates,the combined yield from the two reservoirs can be increased by first using Salinas to meet the City's demand and then using Whale Rock as a backup source during periods when Salinas is below minimum pool or unable to meet all of the demand. The 500 acre-feet increase in safe annual yield was a preliminary estimate of the additional yield attributed to coordinated operations of the reservoirs identified in the 1985 report prepared by CH2M-Hill. In 1988, the City contracted with the engineering firm of Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc., to prepare a detailed analysis of the City's water supplies and safe annual yield,based on coordinated operation of the reservoirs. The report "Coordinated Operations Study for Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs" was completed in 1989. The study estimated total safe annual yield for the City from the two reservoirs to be 9,080 acre-feet per year. Since the study period was only to 1988 and the City was in a drought period of unknown length, this amount was never adopted by Council. It should be emphasized that this estimate assumed that the "controlling drought period" was 1946 to 1951 and that Whale Rock Reservoir is used only when Salinas is below minimum pool or can not meet the monthly City demand, and does not consider limitations on the use of Salinas water due to water quality constraints.Following the end of the 1986-1991 drought,staff updated the computer program created by Leedshill-Herkenhoff to estimate the impact of the drought on safe annual yield of the reservoirs. The analysis determined that the recent drought was the critical drought of record for the two reservoirs and resulted in a reduction in the safe annual yield. Groundwater Resources The groundwater basin that underlies the City of San Luis Obispo is relatively small. Therefore, extractions in excess of 500 acre-feet per year during extended drought periods cannot be relied upon. Because the basin is small, it tends to fully recharge following significant rainfall periods. Following periods of above average rainfall, the groundwater basin may be capable of sustaining increased extraction rates to meet City water demands. Since both Salinas Reservoir and the groundwater basin fill up and"spill" following significant rain periods,there is a benefit in drawing from these sources first and leaving Whale Rock Reservoir as a backup supply. The conjunctive use of the groundwater basin and surface water supplies in this manner will provide an effective management strategy that increases the reliability of all the resources to meet current and future water demands. Another benefit of maximizing groundwater use is that it typically requires minimal treatment that reduces costs compared to surface water supplies. Even with treatment for nitrates and PCE, the projected costs associated with that treatment show groundwater to be comparable to other alternative future water supply projects. Past City policy has been not to compete with agriculture for use of groundwater resources. Recognizing the importance of the production of food and fiber as well as open space provided by agricultural land outside the urban reserve line, the City will continue to endorse this policy. 4 t , 2� City of SLO General Plan Water. /astewater Management Element 2.0 WATER CONSERVATION 2.1 POLICIES 2.1.1 Long-term Water Efficiency The City will implement water-efficiency programs which will maintain long-term,per-capita usage at or below the per capita use rate as identified in Policy 3.1.2. 2.1.2 Short-term Water Shortages Short-term mandatory measures,in addition to the long-term programs,will be implemented when the City's water supplies are projected to last three years or less based on projected water consumption,coordinated use of all city water supply sources, and considering the drought pattern on which safe yield is based(or response to other situations which may interrupt supply). BACKGROUND Water conservation was referenced as a part of the City's water management policy in 1973. In 1985, the City adopted the Annual Water Operational Plan policy that established water conservation as a means of extending water supplies during projected water shortages. Since 1985, many technological and philosophical changes have occurred which are proving water conservation to be both a short term corrective measure for immediate water supply shortages and a long term solution to water supply reliability. A comprehensive evaluation of the potential water savings from current water conservation technologies and programs is included as Appendix V to this Plan. Based on the reliability of the water conservation measures which were evaluated, and the cost effectiveness of the proposed programs,a long term reduction in water demand of approximately twenty percent from the average per capita use recorded in 1986-87 is used for planning for future water conservation programs as well as future water supply needs. Because of the experience during the drought of 1986 to 1991, the City has developed a short term plan to deal with immediate water shortages and has recognized the importance of water efficiency by supporting long term programs. The City will reevaluate and update its water conservation efforts in response to changing water demand, supplies, technology and economic conditions. 5 n City of SLO General Plan Water c `istewater Management Element 3.0 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3.1 POLICIES 3.1.1 Basis of Projections The City will project water requirements, considering long-term conditions and the full range of water uses in the City. 3.1.2 Water Use Rate The City shall use 145 gallons per person per day(this equates to approximately 0.162 acre-foot per person per year)and the number of City residents to plan total projected future water demand. This quantity will be revised if warranted by long-term water use trends, including differences in the relationship between residential and nonresidential usage. (Throughout this Plan, 145 gallons per person per day is used in computations of future water demand.) 3.1.3 Overall Projected Demand Applying 145 gallons per person per day to a projected City resident population of about 56,000 at General Plan build-out results in a projected water demand of 9,096 acre-feet per year (excluding demand from the Cal Poly campus, which has separate entitlements). 3.1.4 Present Water Demand Present water demand shall be calculated by multiplying the water use identified in Policy 3.1.2 by the current city population (as determined by the California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit). BACKGROUND The City must know how much water will be needed to serve residents,businesses,and other users to accommodate the General Plan. This quantity can be projected using different methods. All methods involve assumptions about both future usage rates and the numbers and types of users expected in the future. The quantity expressed in the policy above corresponds closely with both(1) total city-wide usage compared with total resident population and(2)projections of water demand based on usage by various land use categories. There always will be some uncertainty in estimating development capacity (such as the number of dwellings or residents) as well as the usage per customer type (such as acre-feet per dwelling or per resident.) The estimating method must use reasonable assumptions,based on experience,to assure an adequate level of water supply while not overstating demands. Since the early 1970's,usage estimates have ranged from 0.17 to 0.22 acre-foot per resident per year (about 155 to about 195 gallons per person per day). The estimates have varied so widely due to actual differences in consumption over time and to confusion about accounting for Cal Poly usage. (The City treats and delivers much of the water used by Cal Poly,even though Cal Poly has separate entitlements.) Table 2 shows recent water usage compared with City resident population. Table 3 compares the "per capita" and "land use" methods of estimating water needs. 6 t - aa City of SLO General Plan Water& stewater Management Element TABLE 2 WATER USE 1980-1999 Water from Treat- Total City Water Population Total Gallons City Gallons ment Plant and Wells Demand (3) per Person per per Person Year acre-feet(1) acre-feet (2) Day per Day 1980 6,745 6,145 34,252 176 160 1981 1 6,941 6;341 34,759 178 163 1982 6,584 5,984 35,239 167 152 1983 6,800 6,200 35,660 169 155 1984 7,862 7,262 36,407 182 178 1985 8,025 7,425 37,378 193 177 1986 8,367 7,767 38,205 196 181 1987 8,399 7,799 38,282 196 182 1988 8,411 7,811 39,858 188. 175 1989 6 004 5P404 41027 129 118 1990 4 796 41196 41958 102 89 1991 47640 41040 42,178 98 86 1992 5,316 4,716 42,922 110 98 1993 5,572 4,972 43,415 115 102 1994 5,775 5,200 43,919 117 106 1995 1 6,075 5,574 41,295 131 120 1996 6,379 5,742 41,404 138 125 1997 6,868 6,220 41,807 147 133 1998 6,399 5,852 42,201 135 124 1999 6,736 6,172 42,446 142 129 Bold, italicized years(1989 - 1991) indicate mandatory conservation period. (1) Data from City Water Treatment Plant production reports; includes Cal Poly potable water. (2) Cal Poly water use assumed constant for years before 1994, at 600 acre-feet. (3) January 1 population estimates from the California Department of Finance,Population Research Unit,as revised through 1999. 7 City of SLO General Plan Water d estewater Management Element TABLE 3 PER CAPITA WATER USE Method 1: Water treatment plant production and Method 2: Metered use by development type Population and Land Use Element Per capita water use-based on historic demand, Per capita water use-based on historic population,and conservation demand, land use,and conservation Annual demand 1987 year highest use 8,397 acre-feet General Plan build-out(1992 draft) Land use types(with 20%reduction from pre-1987 Less Cal Poly Subtract 600 acre-feet 7,797.acte-feet usage rates) from total,based on average demand Single family residential 3,630 acre-feet Multifamily residential 2,633 Retail cornmercial 422 Office 393 Per capita use Convert to gallons and 182 gauonsiday Services&manufacturing 438 divided by 365. Divide by Dept.of Finance Motelfhotel 608 population estimate(38,282) Hospitals,schools,parks 1,432 Total 9,566 acre-feet Less 20% long-term conservation 145 gallons/day Per capita use Convert to gallons 152 gauonsiday and divide by 365. Divide by estimated 56,000 build-out population(excludes Cal.Poly residents). Based on the analysis of these two approaches and the inclusion of long term water conservation programs, 145 gallons per day per person is used throughout this element for long term water supply planning purposes. TABLE 4 CALCULATION OF PRESENT (2002) WATER DEMAND Gallons per City Gallons per Days in person per day Population Acre Foot a Year Current Demand 1 acre-foot 145 44,426 325,851 gallons 365 7,216 acre feet 4.0 [Contents of Section 4.0 deleted by September 2002 amendment. Numbering of following sections retained to avoid confusion in references among documents.] 8 City of SLO General Plan Water i estewater.Management Element 5.0 SILTATION AT SALINAS AND WHALE ROCK RESERVOIRS 5.1 POLICY 5.1.1 Accounting for Siltation The City shall account for siltation in the adoption of the safe annual yield as identified in Policy 1.1.2. The estimated annual reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs is 10 acre-feet per year. BACKGROUND Siltation at reservoirs is a natural occurrence that can substantially reduce the storage capacity over long periods. The reduction of available storage will reduce the safe annual yield of the reservoirs. Siltation at reservoirs vanes depending on factors such as rainfall intensity and watershed management practices. There have been numerous reports addressing siltation at Salinas Reservoir, but no studies have been done for Whale Rock reservoir. Table 5 lists the studies for Salinas reservoir and the estimated storage capacities. During the recent drought, water at Salinas reservoir fell to record low levels. Recognizing the unique opportunity presented by the low water level, the County contracted with a local engineering consultant to provide an aerial survey of the lake and prepare revised storage capacity information. The latest information reveals that the survey conducted in 1975 may have over estimated the siltation rate at the reservoir. Early studies indicated average annual siltation rates from 23 acre-feet per year to 34 acre-feet per year. The study done by the U.S.Geological Survey in 1975 estimated that the siltation rate was approximately 82 acre-feet per year. The latest information indicates that the siltation rate is on the order of 40 acre-feet per year. Since Whale Rock is used as a backup supply for the City, it may be many years until the lake level drops to the point where an aerial survey of siltation can be economically performed. Since no information is available to indicate what rate of siltation is occurring at the Whale Rock reservoir,it is assumed for planning that the annual average rate of siltation is similar to Salinas reservoir. The reliability reserve discussed in Policy 2.4 can offset the additional long-term loss. The safe annual yield from the two reservoirs will be continually reduced as a result of siltation.The City's computer model can be used to calculate the reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs to date. The model can then be used to calculate estimated annual reductions in the future assuming siltation occurs in an average pattern. Since the storage capacity for Salinas reservoir was last estimated in 1990,the annual loss of 40 acre- feet per year can be applied from that date. However, since Whale Rock reservoir's siltation has never been factored into the total available water storage, the loss of 40 acre-feet per year would apply to the period since the reservoir was constructed in 1961. 9 l � � City of SLO General Plan '` Water d astewater Management Element TABLE 5 SALINAS RESERVOIR CAPACITY STUDIES Total Usable Avg Annual Loss Year Agency Capacity Capacity Usable Capacity (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet/year) 1941 U.S. Army 44,800 26,000 - 1947 U.S. Soil Conservation - 25,860 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 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 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. 10 City of SLO General Plan Water& stewater 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, 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 day perperson) of Total Existing (2002) Development 44,426 7,216 79.3% New Development 11,574 1,880 20.7% TOTAL 56,000 9,096 100.0% 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 Siltation (2002 to 2025) 230 Total Additional Water 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.) 11 ` l � (5r, City of SLO General Plan ` -- Water d \estewater Management Element 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. 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 to development,subject to the requirements in Policy 8.1.3, "Reserve for Intensification and Infill." C. A water allocation shall not be required for projects for which the developer makes changes in facilities served by the City that will reduce long-term water usage equal to twice the water allocation required for the project. 12 �� do City of SLO General Plan — Water& astewater Management Element 8.13 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 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 yield, and therefore available for development, will only be the amount projected actually to be used or offset (approximately 130 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 pan 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 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. 13 t I�q 1'O 1 l City of SLO General Plan Water& stewater Management Element 9.0 WATER ALLOCATION AND OFFSETS 9.1 POLICIES 9.1.1 Exemptions for Offsets A. The City will not allow a project to reduce or eliminate the amount of the required allocation or offset, to the extent that the project is supplied by a private well, with the following exceptions: 1. The City may reduce the amount of the required water allocation, to the extent that the project is supplied by a private well serving non-potable water needs (such as irrigation) which will not significantly affect the yield of City wells. Such a well may be operated by the owner of the property containing the well only for the owner's use. As an exemption,the City may allow a well to supply landscape irrigation on more then one parcel if the irrigation is: a. for the common area of a condominium complex or other developments with similar common areas as approved by the Utilities Director, and the well and irrigation system are under the control of an owner's association; or b. in a single commercial development,and the well and irrigation system are subject to a recorded agreement among parcel owners, which is acceptable to the Utilities Director and the City Attorney, and which establishes responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the common areas served by the well. 2. When an allocation or potential offset is not available,a well maybe allowed to eliminate the required offset for potable water needs only as an interim source until a new City water source is available. Once a new source becomes available, the project will be required to acquire an allocation from the City. Impact fees will be due at the time the development is approved. 3. The City Council approves the well proposal as part of a specific land development project approval,and the proposed well system meets all City standards; and 4. A qualified, independent, hydrological investigation demonstrates that the well(s) reliably can provide sufficient quality and quantity of water for the proposed land development project and will not irnpact the yields from City wells. 9.1.2 Basis for Allocations and Offsets Required allocations and offsets will be based on long-term usage for each type of development. (These use and offset factors will be determined and published by the City, and may be revised, as warranted, by new information.) 14 � ' Q City of SLO General Plan `-- Water. iastewater Management Element BACKGROUND In 1988, the City began to formally account for long-term water usage in new development. The allocations have been based on histories of water usage for various kinds of development. At first, the City decided to allocate some water for new land development projects even though city-wide water usage exceeded safe yield. As the 1986-1991 drought continued,and the projected completion of proposed supplemental supply projects moved farther into the future,the City decided that there should be no new development that would increase water usage. As a result,nearly all construction since 1990 has been: • Replacement buildings, using the same or less water; ■ Additions or remodels which do not substantially affect water usage; and ■ Projects that have retrofitted facilities served by the City, to save (offset) twice the amount of water that would be allocated to the project. Installation of low-flow toilets, showerheads, and faucets have accounted for most of the offset credit. Substantial credits were also earned by installing water-recycling equipment in businesses. Also, a few relatively small projects were able to do little or no retrofitting because they were supplied with groundwater through private wells. Some projects have utilized more than one of these strategies to proceed despite the lack of water allocations. 10.0 RECLAIMED WATER 10.1 POLICIES 10.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality The City will produce high quality reclaimed water, suitable for a wide range of nonpotable uses. 10.1.2 Uses of Reclaimed Water The City will make available reclaimed water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new nonpotable uses. When deemed appropriate by the Utilities Director, new development shall be equipped with dual plumbing to maximize the use of reclaimed water for non-potable uses. 15 � � 3t City of SLO General Plan Water 6. :stewater Management Element BACKGROUND Reclaimed water is highly treated wastewater (sewage) which can be used for most nonpotable purposes. The City's Water Reclamation Facility (formerly known as the Wastewater Treatment Plant)has been upgraded to the point the effluent can be used directly for landscape and agricultural irrigation and other uses such as industrial processes and toilet flushing in certain types of buildings. Most treated effluent,in the past,has been discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.A small amount of effluent has been used at the treatment plant site for landscape irrigation. Reclaimed water will be used for additional landscape irrigation at the Water Reclamation Facility and on City-owned land in the vicinity, and for ponds to benefit wildlife. Use of reclaimed water beyond the treatment plant area will require a distribution system separate from other waterlines.Reclaimed water can be used to supply nonpotable uses in new development and to offset potable uses in existing development.These potential uses require a deliberate method to account for reclaimed water use,consistent with policies concerning total water requirements and other water sources. Long-term funding for the necessary reclaimed water distribution system is expected to come from charges for the use of reclaimed water. Initial expenses may be funded from bonds,low-interest State loans, and developer contributions. 11.0 WATER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY 11.1 POLICY 11.1.1 Water Service within the City A. The City will be the only purveyor of water within the City. B. Appropriate use of privately owned wells may be allowed with the approval of the Utilities Director, consistent with policies 8.1.5 and 9.1.1. BACKGROUND Historically, the City has been the sole water purveyor within the City limits.This allowed the City to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution standards,and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy. In continuing to be the sole water purveyor,the City will maintain control over water quality,distribution and customer service,as well as ensure consistency with the City's General Plan policies and goals. 16 I r 32- City of SLO General Plan Water& istewater Management Element WASTEWATER SECTION GOAL San Luis Obispo's wastewater goal is to provide efficient and environmentally acceptable wastewater disposal service for the community. 12.0 SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION 12.1 POLICIES 12.1.1 Service Area The current wastewater service area is the incorporated area of the City. The City shall provide wastewater service adequate for existing uses and new development pursuant to the Land Use Element for all areas within the city limits. 12.1.2 Areas Within the Urban Reserve Line The urban reserve line (the outer limit to urban development) includes areas which the City may annex in the future. Wastewater service adequate for potential uses allowed by the Land Use Element (including hillside planning provisions) shall be provided for all areas within the urban reserve line. 12.1.3 Service Outside the City Limits To receive City wastewater service, areas must be annexed to the city. The City will not provide wastewater service for areas outside the city limit, except for: A. Customers which have prior agreements. B. Uses which are consistent with the General Plan and which are located on areas of less than one acre, which are surrounded on at least three sides by areas that are already served. 12.1.4 Areas Outside the Urban Reserve Line The City will not provide wastewater service to areas outside the urban reserve line. 12.1.5 Special Districts Special districts should not provide wastewater service within the City's planning area to uses inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 17 c�33 City of SLO General Plan Water&`. tewater Management Element 12.1.6 Service Capacity The City's wastewater collection and treatment systems must be able to support population and related service demands consistent with General Plan objectives. These basic objectives are stated in the Land Use Element (growth management) and in the Housing Element. 12.1.7 Annexation Criteria The City will not annex an area unless it can meet the wastewater treatment needs of the area to be annexed, in addition to the wastewater treatment requirements for all development, consistent with the Land Use Element,within the city including the annexed area. The only exceptions to this policy are: A. Areas which have prior agreements for wastewater service. B. Minor infill parcels within areas which have prior agreements for wastewater service, as provided in policy 12.1.3. 12.2 PROGRAMS 12.2.1 Updates The City will update this element's service area description and population projections as needed and in concert with any amendments to the Land Use Element. Time frame: continuing Responsible parties: Community Development Department;Planning Commission,City Council. Funding: City general fund 12.2.2 Projections of Requirements The City will refine this element's projections of wastewater treatment requirements on the basis of wastewater flows from specific land use categories and the likely development of those categories as provided in the Land Use Element. Time frame: Following adoption of the Land Use Element update. Responsible parties: Community Development Department; Utilities Department; Planning Commission; City Council. Funding: City general fund. 12.2.3 Expanding Capacity The City will expand the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to provide adequate treatment for projected wastewater flows. Time frame: Late 1980's to late 1990's.. Responsible parties: Utilities Department; City Council. Funding: Development and connection charges, wastewater fees, and grants. 18 City of SLO General Plan Water. astewater Management Element 13.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL 13.1 POLICIES 13.1.1 Stormwater Infiltration The City will minimize stormwater infiltration into the sewer system. 13.1.2 System Protection The City will minimize damage to the wastewater collection and treatment systems by preventing discharge of materials that are toxic or which would obstruct flows. 13.1.3 Managing Treatment Demand The City will manage wastewater treatment demand to assure that it can provide a high level of wastewater service. 13.1.4 Beneficial Use The City will pursue treatment and disposal methods which,to the maximum extent feasible,provide for further beneficial use of wastewater and allow beneficial uses of land or water receiving the effluent. 13.15 City as Exclusive Provider The City will be the only provider of public wastewater treatment within the City (but on-site pretreatment of wastewater to meet City Standards may be required). 13.1.6 Energy Efficiency Wastewater operations will minimize energy use and will incorporate cost-effective energy recovery or production facilities. 13.2 PROGRAMS 13.2.1 Reducing Infiltration The City will continue to investigate and carry out cost-effective methods for reducing stormwater flows into the wastewater system. Time frame: Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues 19 City of SLO General Plan Water& stewater Management Element 13.2.2 Discharge Standards The City will update and enforce its standards for the quality of wastewater discharged to the system. Time frame: Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues 13.23 Project Evaluation The City will continue to evaluate the potential for the wastewater flows of a proposed project to exceed the capacity of collection and treatment systems. Time frame: Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; Community Development Department; City Council Funding: General fund 13.2.4 State and Federal Water Quality Standards The City will change its treatment and disposal practices in an attempt to meet federal and state water-quality standards. The first step will be adoption of the Wastewater Management Plan and completion of pre-design technical reports that will describe a specific strategy for treatment and disposal. Any additional required environmental review would be integrated with the pre-design work. Then,plans and specifications,and a budget,for the construction project would be prepared. The timing of these steps will be worked out in collaboration with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Time frame: Construction complete in the early 1990's Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues; state or federal grants 14.0 WASTEWATER REVENUES AND FINANCING 14.1 POLICY 14.1.1 Enterprise Activity The City's wastewater system will be operated as an enterprise activity, with costs to be borne by wastewater fees and charges. Costs of operating,maintaining,and replacing the wastewater system will be borne by all customers. Some portion of the costs of making major decisions about the wastewater systems--such as evaluating changes to citywide collection and treatment—may be borne by the whole community. Costs of expanding treatment capacity and extending the collection system to serve new development shall be borne by those making new connections to the system, in proportion to expected wastewater flows. The City will seek any state or federal grants which may be available to fund sewer system improvements. Programs to fund wastewater projects should be consistent with the growth management policies of the General Plan. 20 ` 2 City of SLO General Plan Water c tastewater Management Element 14.2 PROGRAM 14.2.1 Revising Charges The City will periodically revise its schedule of charges for wastewater service.The city will prepare a development fee schedule to fund expansion of collection and treatment facilities. Time frame: Periodic rate evaluation;development fees to be adopted by July 1988 and updated as required. Responsible parties: City staff; City Council. WASTEWATER BACKGROUND Current Wastewater Flows and Treatment The City is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater from about 19,000 residential, commercial, industrial, and public customers every day, in a way that avoids environmental and public health problems. In addition to homes and businesses within the city limits, the City provides wastewater services for Cal Poly and the County airport. The City's existing wastewater collection system partly determines the character of wastewater flows. About 150 miles of sewer pipes, ranging from six to 30 inches in diameter, collect wastewater flows. The oldest pipes date from the 1890's, when pipe materials and trenches were less able to withstand the effects of corrosion and soil settlement. Eight pumping stations move the wastewater from areas where the slope of sewer pipes is not sufficient to allow gravity flow. Sewer lines cross creeks at 95 locations in the City; at some locations, siphons (U-shaped sections of pipe) allow the flows to continue. In some places,newer pipes have been installed parallel to older pipes to handle increased flows. Despite the City's efforts to repair and replace older and deteriorated sewer pipes, some cracked joints between pipe sections, some manhole covers, and improperly connected storm-water drains allow water from rainfall and saturated ground to enter the sewage collection system. This storm- water infiltration significantly increases the amount of wastewater that must be treated during the wet season.Undersized and damaged lines,siphons,and parallel pipes are often the source of wastewater collection problems. Collected flows are treated at the City's plant on Prado Road near Highway 101. The plant removes floating and large, gritty material, reduces the amount of nutrients and bacteria, separates sludge from the waste stream,and discharges the effluent into San Luis Obispo Creek near Los Osos Valley Road. Sludge is separated from the wastewater, dried in open ponds at the treatment plant, and hauled away for use on landscaping or crops.While the treatment plant uses tanks,pumps,and other mechanical equipment,most of the wastewater treatment is actually done by living microorganisms. The man-made features are largely to provide a suitable place for them to grow. 21 I^ 34') City of SLO General Plan Water& . stewater Management Element Wastewater flows are measured in millions of gallons per day --abbreviated "mgd." (One million gallons would fill a tank 60 feet in diameter and 50 feet high.) In 1986, the average flow into the treatment plant during dry weather was 4.4 mgd. During wet weather,the peak flow was 22.4 mgd. Standards for quality of the treated effluent follow from federal and state water-quality laws. The specific requirements for San Luis Obispo were most recently set by the state's Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 1986. The standards are to protect present and potential beneficial uses of the water which receives the effluent,including recreation,agricultural supply,and fish and wildlife habitat. The standards include: • For the creek - maximum allowed changes in acidity/alkalinity, temperature, and oxygen; • For the effluent - maximum allowed quantities of solid particles and dissolved solids, nutrients which deprive the water of oxygen through chemical and biological action,oil and grease, coliform bacteria, and chlorine left from the last treatment step. Effluent quality has violated the standards,so the Regional Water Quality Control Board has ordered . the City to improve the effectiveness of its treatment. The primary problem has been the amount of nitrogen in the form of ammonia. Other nutrients, suspended solids, oil and grease, and coliform bacteria have also exceeded the standards. Projected Wastewater Flows If the City grows to about 53,000 population in the year 2015,as outlined in the Land Use Element, the average dry-weather volume of wastewater is expected to increase by about 32 percent,from 4.4 mgd to 5.8 mgd. Other measures of required treatment capacity,such as flow in the peak month and the amount of nutrients and solids, are expected to increase in about the same proportion. Consulting engineers have concluded that the existing wastewater treatment plant site is big enough for a plant to handle the projected flows,but the treatment plant will have to be changed to treat such flows effectively. The City plans a two-phased expansion of treatment capacity. The first phase would also improve the effectiveness of treatment. Both phases involve changing and enlarging certain facilities at the treatment plant Alternative Treatment and Disposal Methods Many different methods of disposing of treated wastewater(effluent) have been considered. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. In evaluating treatment and disposal methods,the City will consider initial and continuing costs, environmental impacts, reliability, flexibility, and potential for increasing beneficial uses of treated wastewater. Preliminary evaluations have indicated that some of the options listed below are not feasible or cost-effective.The feasibility and desirability of others will not been known until additional evaluations are completed, and even then changing conditions may warrant reconsideration or further study. The City does not want to preclude treatment and disposal options which may tum out to be feasible. However,the City must select an overall strategy for treatment and disposal and begin to carry it out, in order to meet established water-quality standards. Once a strategy is chosen and money is 22 t - 3� City of SLO General Plan Water& astewater Management Element committed to certain physical projects, those funds would not be available to spend on significantly different strategies. Several alternatives to conventional stream disposal, which could be used in various combinations, are briefly described below.With the exception of an ocean outfall,each alternative involves some beneficial use--reclamation--of the treated wastewater,as does direct stream disposal (which helps maintain stream habitat and recharges downstream wells). Reclaiming all the effluent for uses that would otherwise need fresh City water,which is not likely in the time frame of this element,would displace the need for about 5,000 acre-feet of water in 1987, and about 6,600 acre-feet in 2015. Irrigation Effluent could be used to irrigate recreational land (such as a golf course) or agricultural land. Effluent used for pasture irrigation would probably not have to meet standards as high as those for creek disposal.However,to dispose of all projected effluent quantities during all seasons,the City would have to own or permanently control the use of about 2,000 acres of land. Even with availability of such a large area for irrigation, a substantial holding pond would be required for winter storage,when the ground is saturated.The main obstacles to this approach are obtaining the required disposal area, piping the effluent to it, and assuring no long-term harm to soil characteristics or groundwater supplies.Effluent used to irrigate landscaping or recreational land could replace water from other sources, or it could enable expansion of landscaped or recreational areas without drawing on limited supplies of fresh water. Stream Improvement The creek's ability to provide good wildlife habitat can be improved in ways other than removing certain contaminants from the effluent. Effluent, possibly with more nutrients or discoloring substances than now allowed, could be discharged at several points within an enlarged streamside forest. Additional streamside trees and plants(a riparian corridor)would help remove nutrients. They would also shade the water, and could therefore help keep it cooler. Along with using such natural treatment capacity, the City could restore some of the habitat downstream from the treatment plant,which has been harmed by vegetation removal and intensive livestock use.The City's improving the habitat might allow relaxation of some discharge standards,since creation of a riparian corridor would enhance a beneficial use which the Regional Water Quality Control Board is trying to protect. Groundwater Recharge If suitable areas could be found and used by the City, effluent could be deliberately spread to percolate into the ground to recharge aquifers. While stream disposal does this for some downstream areas,disposal at other locations might allow more of the water to be retained where it could be withdrawn efficiently for use by the City. Laguna Lake or Marsh Effluent could be used to maintain a fairly constant level of Laguna Lake year-round. Much of the effluent would still make its way to San Luis Obispo Creek. If the effluent entered the take directly, the required level of treatment would exceed that for direct stream disposal, since the lake is used for water-contact sports. Discharging the effluent into the marsh at the northerly end of the lake, or as pasture or landscape irrigation, would allow some natural filtering and might require a lower level of treatment than direct stream disposal. 23 I 1 r City of SLO General Plan Water&, y lewater Management Element Industrial Reuse Some industries use large quantities of water that need not be of drinking quality. San Luis Obispo does not have significant manufacturing or processing industry,though it does have some businesses,such as laundries,which might be able to use properly treated effluent. Such effluent as a source of water also might enable industries that could not otherwise locate in San Luis Obispo to do so. Aquaculture Sewage is basically heavily fertilized water. If proper growth conditions are provided and harmful substances are controlled, the water-borne nutrients can be converted to useful plants and animals through aquaculture. Water hyacinth(used to produce methane,soil conditioner,or livestock feed) and several varieties of fish have been produced in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Difficulties with this approach include finding and maintaining markets for the products and continuously providing acceptable levels of treatment with widely varying wastewater flows and weather conditions. Domestic Reuse With substantially higher levels of treatment than now used and a suitable distribution system, wastewater could provide for the full range of household uses. However, meeting state and federal standards for quality of drinking water would be very difficult. The costs of adequate treatment and distribution,even for household landscape irrigation,far exceed other alternatives and are expected to be prohibitive for the foreseeable future. Ocean Outfall Coastal communities dispose of their effluent in the ocean. San Luis Obispo could pipe its treated effluent to San Luis Bay. However,the costs of building and maintaining a pipeline to the ocean appear greater than the savings that might be achieved through meeting the somewhat lower effluent standards for ocean disposal. Coastal Commission approval would be required for an ocean outfall. Wastewater Costs and Revenues The City budgets its wastewater activities separately from other City services and has a long-standing policy that wastewater revenues should fully fund wastewater services. Those making new connections to the sewer system pay for some of the cost of developing the existing system. Residential customers and most small businesses are billed at a uniform monthly rate, while some larger businesses pay according to the amount of water they use. In 1986-87,the City sewer system budget was $1.1 million. To fund anticipated treatment-plant and collection-system changes through the 1990's, the City probably will need to substantially increase sewer rates, even with federal grant funding. Also, federal rules may require the City to revise its rate structure, so users are charged according to the average and peak quantities and concentration of contaminants of the wastewater they produce. 24 l 4D Attachment 3 ��t Y 0Jr — - 444 o citysAn IuIS OBISPO 9+ �� � OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4/ g O� 990 Palm Street a San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 a 805/781-7119 March 10, 2004 SFT Honorable Harry Ovitt, Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors County Government Center, Room 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Subject: Nacimiento Water Supply Project Dear Chairman Ovitt: After careful review of the information provided by County and City staff regarding the Nacimiento Water Supply Project, the Council for the City of San Luis Obispo has confirmed our intended continued participation in the Nacimiento Water Supply Project at the previously requested rate of 3,380 acre-feet per year. This intended participation level is based on a number of assumptions including cost, cost allocation methodology, participation by other key agencies, and the continuation of the cooperative atmosphere in which the County has developed this project. County staff should be commended for their outstanding efforts to bring forward a project of this magnitude in a spirit of cooperation and consensus. I'd also like to thank the Board for their leadership in funding much of the analysis and project development to date. The City looks forward to our continued cooperative relationship with the County and other agencies in this important regional water supply project. Sincerely, David F. Romero, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo I -41 i Nacimiento Water Supply Project t Policy Consideration and Discussion CAO Recommendation • Approve letter to County indicating intended participation at 3,380 afy • Direct staff to initiate amendments to Water Management Element Policies to further support Council's direction to participate in the Project February 10, 2004 Council Action • Support participation at 3,380 afy • Request County Board of Supervisors support use of the Hybrid cost allocation methodology (adopted by BOS 2/24/04) • Return to Council March 9, 2004 with policy discussion to further support participation in the Project Policy Analysis • Current policies may be viewed as already supporting participation • Recommendations enhance support for participation in the project, and • Identify policy amendments to strengthen our water planning policy relative to service and reliability • Policies provided to guide resource development and management. 2 C Policy Analysis (continued) • Revised policies must serve both: - current water supply policy needs, and, - water supply policy needs after development of the Nacimiento Water Supply Project Policy Discussion and Amendment Process • Policy amendment process should provide conceptual direction to staff regarding each policy recommendation • Process for amendment will present conceptual direction to Planning Commission and Public • Staff will return with final recommended language following public and Planning Commission review process 3 WME Policies Recommended for Amendment • WME Policy 3.0 — Water Demand Projections • WME Policy 5.0 — Siltation • WME Policy 6.0 Supplemental Water Requirements • WME Policy 7.0 — Multi-Source Water Supplies • WME Policy 8.0 — Allocation of New Supplies WME Policy 3.0 — Water Demand Projections • Add Policy 3.1.5 Peak Daily Water Demand — The City shall strive to develop and maintain supplies and facilities appropriate to ensure sufficient supply and system capacity to provide the peak daily water demand of the City. Basis — adds policy direction to address peak daily demands as well as annual average demands, to our water planning policy guidance 4 WME Policy 5.0 Siltation • Continue current practice of"accounting" for siltation by reducing SAY by 10 afy, and • Add policy statement that supports Council "planning" for siltation over a longer term as additional supply opportunities are considered Basis - does not dictate that Council pursue additional supplies to address siltation, rather identifies future siltation loss as an important consideration when reviewing supply project opportunities /WME Policy 6.0 — Supplemental Supply Requirements • Recommends two levels of supplemental supply requirements - Primary Supply Requirements -supplies to meet GP build-out needs - Secondary Supply Requirements -supplies to provide additional yield for drought, siltation, loss of existing supply source, operational flexibility, and other unforeseen conditions 5 WME Policy 6.0 - Supplemental Supply Requirements Basis — • Secondary supply requirements are recommended to be added to this policy as those requirements the City should consider in its service responsibility beyond the annual consumptive needs of the community. • The priority for their development is set as secondary. • No amount is recommended as that should be considered by Council in the context of available supply opportunities WME Policy 6.0 — Supplemental Supply Requirements Q. How do "Secondary Supply Requirements" differ from the "Reliability Reserve" policy dropped only 2 years ago? A. - Defines requirements in a broad sense - more flexible in potential use - priority for development secondary to meeting GP build-out needs - amount needed not quantified (to be policy decision in light of available supply opportunity) 6 C WME Policy 7.0 — Multi-Source Water Supply • Amend Policy 7.1.1 —to include the ability to provide for peak operating demands in the event one of our major supply sources is unavailable, as a goal and benefit of multi-source supply development Basis — This amendment places an additional and important parameter to be considered when reviewing the adequacy of the water supplies and/or supply opportunities WME Policy 8.0 — Allocation of New Supplies • Recommended amendment intended to further address growth related concerns associated with water supply development • Current policy identifies priority for allocation of new supplies, and, the amount to be made available for allocation • Recommended amendments provide revised priority for allocation of new supplies, and provide an additional method for determining the amount available" for allocation 7 WME Policy 8.0 - Allocation of New Supplies (continued) • Amend Policy 8.1.1 to include priority for allocation of supplies to: - First—eliminate deficit between Safe Annual Yield (SAY) and present demand - Second — eliminate deficit between SAY and build-out - Third —provide for Secondary Supply Requirements as identified in WME Policy 6.1.1 WME Policy 8.0 - Allocation of New Supplies (continued) • Amendment of Policy 8.1 .1 Basis — expands the defined priority for which new supplies are to be allocated to include meeting GP build-out needs and meeting Secondary Supply Requirements. Current policy only identifies eliminating deficit between supply and present demand. 8 C WME Policy 8.0 - Allocation of New Supplies (continued) • Amend Policy 8.1 .2 Supplying New Development — A. — to provide two methods for calculating water available for allocation: 1. Safe Annual Yield minus present demand (current method), or, z. projected demand at build-out (WME 3.1.3) minus the present demand, which ever is less. WME Policy 8.0 - Allocation of New Supplies (continued) Basis —provides that no more water, regardless of Safe Annual Yield in excess of General Plan development needs, will be available for allocation than what is called for based on the General Plan land use and population projections 9 WME Policy 8.0 Summary • Recommended amendments to WME Policy 8.0 focus policy direction or regulation on the water available for allocation, rather than trying to overly define and regulate the reserve/secondary supply water. General Plan Growth Management Policies • The General Plan is a Growth Management Document that: requires coordination between available resources and development requires supplies be provided to serve build-out within the LUE urban reserve regulates growth through land use policy regulates both the amount and rate of growth Identifies the development capacity of the City Has successfully regulated growth to < 1% per year in the presence of available water 10 General Plan Growth Management Summary (Attachment 1) • Identifies no less than 46 individual General Plan growth management policies from a number of General Plan Elements that address not only growth amount and rate, but quality. Other Important Protections • Open Space Protection Program - Open space protection program has been very successful! - Open space acquisitions and coupled with local geography provide strong physical barriers to development - Significant permanent boundaries have already been defined for the City through open space acquisitions and easements 11 _1 Letter of Intent to Participate • Draft letter to County Board of Supervisors indicating City's intent to participate in the Project at 3,380 afy is provided for Council approval • At this time, this action is non-binding Future actions • General Plan policy amendment process — return to Council June 2004 • Water Fund review and rate analysis June 2004 • Approve Final Participation Agreement June 2004 (binding commitment) 12 CAO Recommendation • Approve letter to County indicating intended participation at 3,380 afy • Direct staff to initiate amendments to Water Management Element Policies to further support Council's direction to participate in the Project 13 FROM B.PARSONS FAX NO. : 805 466 9457 Mar. 08 2004 02:16PM P1 RECEIVED Barbara Parsons MAR U E 2004 4650 Portola Rd. Atascadero, CA. 93422 SLO CITY CLERK Telephone: (805)466-9457 March 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. (FAX--781-7102) San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Support for Nacimiento Water-City Council Agenda, 3/9/04 Dear Mayor Romero: We encourage your efforts to provide additional water for the City of San Luis Obipso through . the Nachniento Water Project which you are currently discussing with the eventual approval of a participation agreement. The long range future of the City depends on a reliable source of water to meet its goals for additional housing, as well as to protect its residents in cases of unforeseeable droughts or emergencies- Thank you-for your consideration. RED FILE Sincerely, M ING AGENDA DAT rrEM # By sL7fc�Lr?ref � „ J Barbara Parsons and Jeanne Helphenstme � Orcutt Area Specific Plan Property Owners SCO u NC I L TCDD DI R �OTAO 2--FIN DIR by CAO �IRECHIEF cc: All Council Members ATTORNEY r "' DIR Allen K. Settle ,�CLERK/ORIGPOLICE CHF Sohn Ewan ❑ D T EAOS, .�UTIL DIR Ken Schwartzr R DIR ChrisdneMulholland / - -_- Allen Settle- Nacimiento Water Page_1 From: "D. & E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net> To: John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz <kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland<cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <dromero @ slocity.org> Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Nacimiento Water City Council, RECEIVED My Comments on Nacimiento Water Project MAR 0 E 2004 1 do not want the City of San Luis Obispo to be a part of this project. SLQ CIN CLERK I am very concerned about costs, mostly to current residents, and the implications of growth with anew large water supply. Costs:With a large project like this, it will most likely take longer to construct than planned and also cost much more than planned.This project will most likely cost 50% more than planned. This is not something I want to spend my money on. I can think of many better uses for the money. Growth:This new water supply will encourage growth. Very slow growth is what we should have. In fact, lately things have been growing too fast. Let's try to live within our natural resource means.This water project will help propel this community into a large sprawling mega mess. This water project will also reverse trends in local water conservation efforts. Trans-basin water projects will only make for future conflicts over the issue of outsiders taking their water. We are the outsiders! Sincerely, Don Dollar SLO RED FILE MEETING AGENDA C CIL CDD DIR r C`'O !?J�FIN DIR DA ITEM #J1L, re'ACAO CI IRE CHIEF tt TI TORNEY PW DIR CLERK'ORIG 'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS C2rREC DIR Iiry�—�� rdjUTIL DIR DJ HR DIR February 26, 2004 RECEIVED MAK 0 r. 2004 San Luis Obispo City Council SLC CIT`( CLERK 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Meeting March 9, 2004 Dear City Council; I am unable to attend your meeting regarding the water supply policies / "Nacimiento Project" but I wish to voice my concern. I feel the council needs to carefully consider the issue in which I am sure you will. The bottom line though is that San Luis Obispo NEEDS WATER! I understand this is likely to be the last surface water supply opportunity available to this county and therefore I support it. I hate to pay more taxes and certainly cannot afford to but we must have water! $3lLtJ'11yh\ u„ ides ock Way - D DIR O , 93401 ZCOUNCIL �FIN DIR CACAO AFIRE CHIEF fATTORNEY ' 'DPW DIR CLERKIORIG 2 OWCE CHF p DEPT EADS REC DIR 1- � i IL DIR LHR DIR - I R�CE/VLD RED-FILE. MEETING AGENDA SAO DATE ITEM #_�l S ��'ua Attachment 2 city of San Luis OBlspo GENERAL PLAN WATER & WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT September 2002 $2.25 10-02 PIR city Of SA1'1 US OB1Sp0 community development aepaRtment ouu mission statement oun mission is to seRve all peRsons in a positive and couRteous manneR and help ensuRe that San LUIS OBISpO continues to Be a healthy, safe, . attRactive, and enjoyasle place to live, woRk, oR visit. we help plan the city's foRm and chaRacteR, suppoRt community values, pReseRve the enviRonment, pRomote the wise use of ResouRces, and pRotect pudic health and safety. ouR seuvice philosophy the city of San Luis OBISpO community development aepaRtment staff puoviaes high quality seRvice when you nee6 it. we will: ✓ Listen to unaeRstana youR needs; ✓ Give cleaR, accuRate and pRompt answeRs to youR questions; ✓ explain how you can achieve youR Goals unaeR the city's Rules; ✓ help Resolve pRoslems in an open, oBjective manneR; ✓ maintain high ethical stanaaRas; and ✓ WORk to 1mpROve OUR SeRvice. 1 The City's General Plan is made up of sections called"elements."Each element focuses on certain topics as required or allowed by State law.According to State law,each element has equal weight in defining City policies. In September 20021 the following elements comprised the City's General Plan. .Add Eft L4sfMa .c=Revision.Qate � Land Use .1994 Housing* 1994 Circulation 1994 Open Space* _ _ 1994 Conservation* 1973 Parks &'Recreation 2001 Noise 1996. -Safety 2000 Energy Conservation* 1981 Water&Wastewater Management 1996 *Update in progress. City Council Allen Settle, Mayor John Ewan Jan Howell-Marx Christine Mulholland Ken Schwartz Planning Commission Stephen Peterson, Chair Jim Aiken Michael Boswell James Caruso Allan Cooper Alice Loh Orval Osborne Administration Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer Community Development Department John Mandeville, Director Michael Draze, Deputy Director for Long-range Planning Glen Matteson, Associate Planner(Project Planner) Utilities Department John Moss, Director Gary Henderson,Water Division Manager David Hix;Wastewater Division Manager Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water & Wastewater Management Element This element was first adopted February 24, 1987, by City Council Resolution No. 6180A. The following amendments have been adopted: Topic Date Council Resolution Number Wastewater section added October 26, 1987 6351 Revised water section November 15, 1994 8370 Water offset potential for annexations, accounting for reclaimed water, and use of wells July 2, 1996 8560 Clarifying water allocation to develop- ment,required offsets, and use of wells December 13, 1999 9003 Accounting for.siltation and correcting May 16, 2000 9044 safe yield information Reliability reserve, offsets, siltation,and _ September 3,2002 9363 reclaimed water City of SLO-General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1 WATER SECTION 1. Safe Annual Yield..................................,...................................:............................................... 2 2. Water Conservation ......................:..................................................................................... 5 3. Water Demand Projections ........ ........ ........ ....:.. ......... ........: 6 4. [reserved section number] 5. Siltation at Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs..........................................................::.......9 6. Supplemental Water Requirements........................................ .......................................... 10 7. Multi-source Water Supply ....................................:.. .;...:.: :.................. 12 8. Allocation of New Water Supplies ................... ....... ..... ...... 12 9. Water Allocation and Offsets .... .....................: .......:............. ....... . .:.................. 14 10. Reclaimed Water ........: ......... ...................... ......... ........: .:.:.:............. 15 11. Water Service within the City ... ........ ....... ....,.. .... ....;.. 16 WASTEWATER SECTION 12. Service Area and Population ............................................................................................ 17 13. Wastewater Collection,Treatment, and Disposal.......................:::.................................... 19 14. Wastewater Revenues and Financing ............................................................................... 20 TABLES NUMBER TITLE Page 1 Safe Annual Yield ................................................................................................ 3 2 Water Use 1980- 1999........................................................................................... 7 3 Per Capita Water Use............................................................................................. 8 4 Calculation of Present(2002)Water Demand....................................................... 8 5 Salinas Reservoir Capacity Studies ..................................................................... 10 6 Required Safe Annual Yield for General Plan Build-out..................................... 11 7 New Water Supply Requirements ........................................................................ 11 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element INTRODUCTION The City's General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. It reflects consensus and compromise among a wide diversity of citizens'preferences, within a framework set by State law. The General Plan contains elements that address various topics. The City decided to adopt an element addressing water resources and wastewater treatment because of the vital role of these resources and the far-reaching impacts of water policies on community growth and character. This element translates the Land Use Element's capacity for development into potential demand for water supply and wastewater treatment. This element outlines how the City plans to provide adequate water and wastewater services for its citizens, consistent with the goals and policies of other General Plan elements. Before adopting or revising any General Plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council must hold public hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also,the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before the hearings are held. Anyone may suggest or apply for amendments to General Plan elements. The City will probably update this element about every five years,or more frequently if necessary. 1 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element WATER SECTION 1.0 SAFE ANNUAL YIELD 1.1 POLICIES 1.1.1 Basis for Planning The City will plan for future development and for water supplies based on the amount of water which can be supplied each year,under critical drought conditions. This amount,called"safe annual yield,"will be formally adopted by the Council. The safe annual yield determination will be revised as significant new information becomes available, and as water sources are gained or lost. The determination will consider a staff analysis,which will recommend an amount based on coordinated use of all water sources. Each change to safe annual yield will be reflected in an amendment of this Plan. 1.1.2 Safe Yield Amount The City's safe annual yield,from the coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs and 500 acre feet of groundwater,is shown in Table 1. The safe annual yield includes reductions due to siltation at the reservoirs,discussed.in more detail in.Section 5.0. 1.1.3 Groundwater A. The amount of groundwater which the City will rely upon towards safe annual yield is identified in policy 1.1.2. The City will maximize the use of groundwater in conjunction with other available water supplies to maximize the yield and long-term reliability of all water resources and to minimie overall costs for meeting urban water demands. The City shall monitor water levels at the well sites to determine whether reduction or cessation of pumping is appropriate when water levels approach historic low levels. B. The City will not compete with local agricultural use of groundwater outside the urban reserve line or damage wildlife habitat through reduced natural stream flows in obtaining long-term sources of water supply. BACKGROUND Safe annual yield is the amount of water that can reliably be produced by the City's water supply to meet the water demand. It is estimated by simulating the operation of the City's water supply sources over an historical period to determine the maximum level of demand that could be met during the most severe drought for which records are available. The safe annual yield of an individual source of water supply is defined as the quantity of water which can be withdrawn every year,under critical drought conditions. Safe annual yield analyses of water supply sources are based on rainfall, evaporation and stream flow experienced during an 2 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element historical period. The City of San Luis Obispo uses a period beginning in 1943, which covers drought periods in 1946-51, 1959-61, 1976-77,and 1986-91. The historical period used in the latest computer analysis to determine safe annual yield extends from 1943 through 1991 and includes the most recent drought. Although future conditions are unlikely to occur in the precise sequence and magnitudes as have occurred historically, this technique provides a reliable estimate of the future water supply capability of the existing sources,since the long term historical record is considered a good indicator of future conditions. The safe annual yield gradually declines as silt accumulates in the reservoirs, thereby reducing storage capacity (discussed in more detail on page 10). Prior to 1991,the "controlling drought period"for determining safe annual yield was 1946 to 1951. The critical period for determining safe annual yield from the two reservoirs is now the period from 1986 to 1991. The safe annual yield is reflected in the table below and includes losses associated with siltation. TABLE 1 SAFE ANNUAL YIELD Year BAnn &Whale Groundwater Total Rock Reservoirs 2000 7,040 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,540 acre feet 2001 7,030 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,530 acre feet 2002 7,020 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,520 acre feet 2003 7,010 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,510 acre feet 2004 7,000 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,500 acre feet 2005 6,990 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,490 acre feet 2006 6,980 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,480 acre feet 2007 6,970 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,470 acre feet 2008 6,960 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,460 acre feet 2009 6,950 acre feet 500 acre feet 7,450 acre feet Previous Safe Annual Yield Studies Previous studies of the critical historical drought periods at Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs have indicated the following safe annual yields were available to the City: Water Supply Safe Annual Yield Reference Salinas Reservoir 4,800 acre-feet Corps of Engineers, 1977 Whale Rock Reservoir* 2,060 acre-feet Dept Water Resources, 1974 Coordinated Operation 500 acre-feet CH2M-Hill, 1985 Groundwater 500 acre-feet Water Operational Plan, 1993 TOTAL 7,860 acre-feet *City's share of Whale Rock Reservoir safe annual yield. 3 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element Past safe annual yield analyses for the two reservoirs assumed independent operation and historical data to the date of each report. The critical drought period for the previous studies was 1946-51. The studies also assumed a minimum pool at Salinas and Whale Rock of 400 and 500 acre-feet respectively. "Coordinated operation"is a concerted effort to operate the two reservoirs together for maximum yield. Since Salinas Reservoir spills more often than Whale Rock Reservoir, due to its larger drainage area and more favorable runoff characteristics,and has higher evaporation rates,the combined yield from the two reservoirs can be increased by first using Salinas to meet the City's demand and then using Whale Rock as a backup source during periods when Salinas is below minimum pool or unable to meet all of the demand. The 500 acre-feet increase in safe annual yield was a preliminary estimate of the additional yield attributed to coordinated operations of the reservoirs identified in the 1985 report prepared by CH2M-Hill. In 1988, the City contracted with the engineering firm of Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc., to prepare a detailed analysis of the City's water supplies and safe annual yield,based on coordinated operation of the reservoirs. The report"Coordinated Operations Study for Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs" was completed in 1989. The study estimated total safe annual yield for the City from the two reservoirs to be 9,080 acre-feet per year. Since the study period was only to 1988 and the City was in a drought period of unknown length, this amount was never adopted by Council. It should be emphasized that this estimate assumed that the "controlling drought period" was 1946 to 1951 and that Whale Rock Reservoir is used only when Salinas is below minimum pool or can not meet the monthly City demand, and does not consider limitations on the use of Salinas water due to water quality constraints.Following the end of the 1986-1991 drought,staff updated the computer program created by Leedshill-Herkenhoff to estimate the impact of the drought on safe annual yield of the reservoirs. The analysis determined that the recent drought was the critical drought of record for the two reservoirs and resulted in a reduction in the safe annual yield. Groundwater Resources The groundwater basin that underlies the City of San Luis Obispo is relatively small. Therefore, extractions in excess of 500 acre-feet per year during extended drought periods cannot be relied upon. Because the basin is small, it tends to fully recharge following significant rainfall periods. Following periods of above average rainfall, the groundwater basin may be capable of sustaining increased extraction rates to meet City water demands. Since both Salinas Reservoir and the groundwater basin fill up and"spillfollowing significant rain periods,there is a benefit in drawing from these sources first and leaving Whale Rock Reservoir as a backup supply. The conjunctive use of the groundwater basin and surface water supplies in this manner will provide an effective management strategy that increases the reliability of all the resources to meet current and future water demands. Another benefit of maximizing groundwater use is that it typically requires minimal treatment that. reduces costs compared to surface water supplies. Even with treatment for nitrates and PCE, the projected costs associated with that treatment show groundwater to be comparable to other alternative future water supply projects. Past City policy has been not to compete with agriculture for use of groundwater resources. Recognizing the importance of the production of food and fiber as well as open space provided by agricultural land outside the urban reserve line,the City will continue to endorse this policy. 4 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater-Management Element 2.0 WATER CONSERVATION 2.1 POLICIES 2.1.1 Long-term Water Efficiency The City will implement water-efficiency programs which will maintain long-term,per-capita usage at or below the per capita use rate as identified in Policy 3.1.2. 2.1.2 Short-term Water Shortages Short--term mandatory measures,in addition to the long-term programs,will be implemented when the City's water supplies are projected to last three years or less based on projected water consumption,coordinated use of all city water supply sources, and considering the drought pattern on which safe yield is based(or response to other situations which may interrupt supply). BACKGROUND Water conservation was referenced as a part of the City's water management policy in 1973. In 1985, the City adopted the Annual Water Operational Plan policy that established water conservation as a means of extending water supplies during projected water shortages. Since 1985, many technological and philosophical changes have occurred which are proving water conservation to be both a short term corrective measure for immediate water supply shortages and a long term solution to water supply reliability. A comprehensive evaluation of the potential water savings from currentwater conservation technologies and programs is included as Appendix V to this Plan. Based on the reliability of the water conservation measures which were evaluated, and the cost effectiveness of the proposed programs,a long term reduction in water demand of approximately twenty percent from the average per capita use recorded in 1986-87 is used for planning for future water conservation programs as well as future water supply needs. Because of the experience during the drought of 1986 to 1991,the City has developed a short term plan to deal with immediate water shortages and has recognized the importance of water efficiency by supporting long term programs. The City will reevaluate and update its water conservation efforts in response to changing water demand, supplies, technology and economic conditions. .5 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 3.0 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3.1 POLICIES 3.1.1 Basis of Projections The City will project water requirements, considering long-term conditions and the full range of water uses in the City. 3.1.2 Water Use Rate The City shall use 145 gallons per person per day(this equates to approximately 0.162 acre-foot per person per year)and the number of City residents to plan total projected future water demand. This quantity will be revised if warranted by long-term water use trends, including differences in the relationship between residential and nonresidential usage. (Throughout this Plan, 145 gallons per person per day is used in computations of future water demand.) 3.1.3 Overall Projected Demand Applying 145 gallons per person per day to a projected City resident population of about 56,000 at General Plan build-out results in a projected water demand of 9,096 acre-feet per year(excluding demand from the Cal Poly campus,which has separate entitlements). 3.1.4 Present Water Demand Present water demand shall be calculated by multiplying the water use identified in Policy 3.1.2 by the current city population (as determined by the California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit). BACKGROUND The City must know how much water will be needed to serve residents,businesses,and other users to accommodate the General Plan.. This quantity can be projected using different methods. All methods involve assumptions about both future usage rates and the numbers and types of users expected in the future. The quantity expressed in the policy above corresponds closely with both(1) total city-wide usage compared with total resident population and(2)projections of water demand based on usage by various land use categories. There always will be some uncertainty in estimating development capacity (such as the number of dwellings or residents) as well as the usage per customer type (such as acre-feet per dwelling or per resident.) The estimating method must use reasonable assumptions,based on experience,to assure an adequate level of water supply while not overstating demands. Since the early 1970's,usage estimates have ranged from 0.17 to 0.22 acre-foot per resident per year (about 155 to about 195 gallons per person per day). The estimates have varied so widely due to actual differences in consumption over time and to confusion about accounting for Cal Poly usage. (The City treats and delivers much of the water used by Cal Poly,even though Cal Poly has separate entitlements.) Table 2 shows recent water usage compared with City resident population. Table 3 compares the "per capita" and "land use" methods of estimating water needs. 6 ! • , . City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element TABLE 2 WATER USE 1980-1999 Water from Treat- Total City Water Population Total Gallons City Gallons trent Plant and Wells Demand (3) per Person per per Person Year acre-feet(1) acre-feet (2) Day per Day 1980 6,745 6,145 34,252 176 160 1981 6,941 6,341 34,759 178 163 1982 6,584 5,984 35,239 167 152 1983 6,800 6,200 35,660 169 155 1984 7,862 7,262 36,407 182 178 1985 8,025 7,425 37,378 193 177 1986 8,367 7,767 38,205 196 181 1987 8,399 7,799 38,282 196 182 1988 8,411 7,811 39,858 188 175 1989 6 004 5 404 41027 129 118 1990 4 796 4196 41,958 102 89 1991 4 640 43,040 4.24 78 98 86 1992 5,316 4,716 42,922 110 98 1993 5,572 4,972 43,415 115 102 1994 5,775 5,200 43,919 117 106 1995 6,075 5,574 41,295 131 120 1996 6,379 5,742 41,404 138 125 1997 6,868 6,220 41,807 147 133 1998 6,399 5,852 42,201 135 124 1999 6,736 1 6,172 1 42,446 1 142 1 129 Bold,italicized years(1989- 1991)indicate mandatory conservation period. (1) Data from City Water Treatment Plant production reports;includes Cal Poly potable water. (2) Cal Poly water use assumed constant for years before 1994, at 600 acre-feet. (3) January 1 population estimates from the California Department of Finance,Population Research Unit,as revised through 1999. 7 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element TABLE 3 PER CAPITA WATER USE Method 1: Water treatment plant production and Method 2: Metered use by development type PoPuMon and Land Use Element Per capita water use-based on historic demand, Per capita water use-based on historic population,and conservation demand,land use,and conservation Annual demand 1987 year lughest use 8,397 acre-fen General Plan build-out(1992 draft) seduction from pre-1987 Land ase types Less Cal Poly subtract boo acre-feet 7,797 acre-feet usage (�;o9G from total,based on average demand Single family residential 3,630 acre-feet Multifamily residential 2,633 Retail commercial 422 Office 393 Per capita use Convert to ganons and 182 pn°mvday Services&manufacturing 438 divided by 365. Divide by Dept.of Finance MOtellhotel 608 population estimate(38.282) Hospitals,schools,parks 1,432 Total 9,566 acre-feet Less 20%long-term conservation 145 gallons/day Per capita use Convert to gallons 152 gallons/day and divide by 365. Divide by estimated 56.000 build-out population(excludes Cal Poly residents). Based on the analysis of these two approaches and the inclusion of long term water conservation programs, 145 gallons per day per person is used throughout this element for long term water supply planning purposes. TABLE 4 CALCULATION OF PRESENT(2002)WATER DEMAND Gallons per City Gallons per Days in person per day Population Acre Foot a Year Current Demand 1 acre-foot 145 44,426 325,851 gallons 365 7,216 acre feet 4.0 [Contents of Section 4.0 deleted by September 2002 amendment. Numbering of following sections retained to avoid confusion in references among documents.] 8 W • . . City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 5.0 SILTATION AT SALINAS AND WHALE ROCK RESERVOIRS 5.1 POLICY 5.1.1 Accounting.for Siltation The City shall account for siltation in the adoption of the safe annual yield as identified in Policy 1.1.2. The estimated annual reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs is 10 acre-feet per year. BACKGROUND Siltation at reservoirs is a natural occurrence that can substantially reduce the storage capacity over long periods. The reduction of available storage will reduce the safe annual yield of the reservoirs. Siltation at reservoirs varies depending on factors such as rainfall intensity and watershed management practices. There have been numerous reports addressing siltation at Salinas Reservoir, but no studies have been done for Whale Rock reservoir. Table 5 lists the studies for Salinas reservoir and the estimated storage capacities. During the recent drought, water at Salinas reservoir fell to record low levels. Recognizing the unique opportunity presented.by the low water level, the County contracted with a local engineering consultant to provide an aerial survey of the lake and prepare revised storage capacity information. The latest information reveals that the survey conducted in 1975 may have over estimated the siltation rate at the reservoir. Early studies indicated average annual siltation rates from 23 acre-feet per year to 34 acre-feet per year. The study done by the U.S.Geological Survey in 1975 estimated that the siltation rate was approximately 82 acre-feet per year. The latest information indicates that the siltation rate is on the order of 40 acre-feet per year. Since Whale Rock is used as a backup supply for the City,it may be many years until the lake level drops to the point where an aerial survey of siltation can be economically performed. Since no information is available to indicate what rate of siltation is occurring at the Whale Rock reservoir,it is assumed for planning that the annual average rate of siltation is similar to Salinas reservoir. The reliability reserve discussed in Policy 2.4 can offset the additional long-term loss. The safe annual yield from the two reservoirs will be continually reduced as a result of siltation.The City's computer model can be used to calculate the reduction in safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs to date. The model can then be used to calculate estimated annual reductions in the future assuming siltation occurs in an average pattern. Since the storage capacity for Salinas reservoir was last estimated in 1990,the annual loss of 40 acre- . feet per year can be applied from that date. However, since Whale Rock reservoir's siltation has never been factored into the total available water storage, the loss of 40 acre-feet per year would apply to the period since the reservoir was constructed in 1961. 9 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-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feetlyear) 1941 U.S. Army 44,800 26,000 - 1947 U.S. Soil Conservation - 25,860 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 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 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. 10 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 day perperson) of Total Existing(2002) Development 44,426 7,216 79.3% New Development 11,574 1,880 20.7% TOTAL 1 56,000 1 9,096 1 100.0% 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 Siltation (2002 to 2025) 230 Total Additional Water Supply Requirement 19806 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.) 11 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 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. 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 to development,subject to the requirements in Policy 8.1.3, "Reserve for Intensification and Infill." C. A water allocation shall not be required for projects for which the developer makes changes in facilities served by the City that will reduce long-term water usage equal to twice the water allocation required for the project. 12 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management.Element 8.13 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 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 yield,and therefore available for development, will only be the amount projected actually to be used or offset (approximately 130 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 yield identified in Section 1,Table 1 of this document to determine water available for new development. 8.15 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,whichmay 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. 13 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 9.0 WATER ALLOCATION AND OFFSETS 9.1 POLICIES 9.1.1 Exemptions for Offsets A. The City will not allow a project to reduce or eliminate the amount of the required allocation or offset,to the extent that the project is supplied by a private well,with the following exceptions: 1. The City may reduce the amount of the required water allocation, to the extent that the project is supplied by a private well serving non-potable water needs (such as irrigation) which will not significantly affect the yield of City wells. Such a well may be operated by the owner of the property containing the well only for the owner's use. As an exemption,the City may allow a well to supply landscape irrigation on more then one parcel if the irrigation is: a. for the common area of a condominium complex or other developments with similar common areas as approved by the Utilities Director, and the well and irrigation system are under the control of an owner's association; or b. in a single commercial development,and the well and irrigation system are subject to a recorded agreement among parcel owners, which is acceptable to the Utilities Director and the City Attorney,and which establishes responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the common areas served by the well. 2. When an allocation or potential offset is not available,a well may be allowed to eliminate the required offset for potable water needs only as an interim source until a new City water source is available. Once a new source becomes available, the project will be required to acquire an allocation from the City. Impact fees will be due at the time the development is approved. 3. The City Council approves the well proposal as part of a specific land development project approval, and the proposed well system meets all City standards; and 4. A qualified, independent, hydrological investigation demonstrates that the well(s) reliably can provide sufficient quality and quantity of water for the proposed land development project and will not impact the yields from City wells. 9.1.2 Basis for Allocations and Offsets Required allocations and offsets will be based on long-term usage for each type of development. (These use and offset factors will be determined and published by the City, and may be revised,as warranted,by new information.) 14 City of SLO General Plan _ _ ._ _.__ __ _ ._ Water&Wastewater Management Element BACKGROUND In 1988, the City began to formally account for long-term water usage in new development. The allocations have been based on.histories of water usage for various kinds of development. At first, the City decided to allocate some water for new land development projects even though city-wide water usage exceeded safe yield. As the 1986-1991 drought continued,and the projected completion of proposed supplemental supply projects moved farther into the future,the City decided that there should be no new development that would increase water usage. As a result,nearly all construction since 1990 has been: ® Replacement buildings,using the same or less water; ■ Additions or remodels which do not substantially affect water usage;and ■ Projects that have retrofitted facilities served by the City,to save (offset) twice the amount of Water that would be allocated to the project. Installation of low-flow toilets,showerheads;and faucets have accounted for most of the offset credit. Substantial credits were also earned by installing water-recycling equipment in businesses. .Also, a few relatively small projects were able to do little or no retrofitting because they were supplied with groundwater through private wells. Some projects have utilized more than one of these strategies to proceed despite the lack of water allocations. 10.0 RECLAIMED WATER 10.1 POLICIES 10.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality The City will produce high quality reclaimed water, suitable for a wide range of nonpotable uses. 10.1.2 Uses of Reclaimed Water The City will make available reclaimed water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new nonpotable uses. When deemed appropriate by the Utilities Director, new development shall be equipped with dual plumbing to maximize the use of reclaimed water for non-potable uses.. 15 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element BACKGROUND Reclaimed water is highly treated wastewater (sewage) which can be used for most nonpotable purposes. The City's Water Reclamation Facility (formerly known as the Wastewater Treatment Plant)has been upgraded to the point the effluent can be used directly for landscape and agricultural irrigation and other uses such as industrial processes and toilet flushing in certain types of buildings. Most treated effluent,in the past,has been discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.A small amount of effluent has been used at the treatment plant site for landscape irrigation. Reclaimed water will be used for additional landscape irrigation at the Water Reclamation Facility and on City-owned land in the vicinity, and for ponds to benefit wildlife.. Use of reclaimed water beyond the treatment plant area will require a distribution system separate from other water lines.Reclaimed water can be used to supply nonpotable uses in new development and to offset potable uses in existing development.These potential uses require a deliberate method to account for reclaimed water use,consistent with policies concerning total water requirements and other water sources. Long-term funding for the necessary reclaimed water distribution.system is expected to come from charges for the use of reclaimed water.Initial expenses may be funded from bonds,low-interest State loans, and developer contributions. 11.0 WATER SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY 11.1 POLICY 11.1.1 Water Service within the City A. The City will be the only purveyor of water within the City. B. Appropriate use of privately owned wells may be allowed with the approval of the Utilities Director,consistent with policies 8.1.5 and 9.1.1. BACKGROUND Historically,the City has been the sole water purveyor within the City limits.This allowed the City to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution standards,and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy.In continuing to be the sole water purveyor,the City will maintain control over water quality,distribution and customer service,as well as ensure consistency with the City's General Plan policies and goals. r 16 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element WASTEWATER SECTION GOAL San Luis Obispo's wastewater goal is to provide efficient and environmentally acceptable wastewater disposal service for the community. 12.0 SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION 12.1 POLICIES 12.1.1 Service Area The current wastewater service area is the incorporated area of the City. The City shall provide wastewater service adequate for existing uses and new development pursuant to the Land Use Element.for all areas within the city limits. 12.1.2 Areas Within the Urban Reserve Line The urban reserve line (the outer limit to urban development) includes areas which the City may annex in the future. Wastewater service adequate for potential uses allowed by the Land Use Element (including hillside planning provisions) shall be provided for all areas within the urban reserve line. 12.13 Service Outside the City Limits To receive City wastewater service, areas must be annexed to the city. The City will not provide wastewater service for areas outside the city limit,except for: A. Customers which have prior agreements. B. Uses which are consistent with the General Plan and which are located on areas of less than one acre, which are surrounded on at least three sides by areas that are already served. 12.1.4 Areas Outside the Urban Reserve Line The City will not provide wastewater service to areas outside the urban reserve line. 12.15 Special Districts Special districts should not provide wastewater service within the City's planning area to uses inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 17 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 12.1.6 Service Capacity The City's wastewater collection and treatment systems must be able to support population and related service demands consistent with General Plan objectives. These basic objectives are stated in the Land Use Element(growth management) and in the Housing Element. 12.1.7 Annexation Criteria The City will not annex an area unless it can meet the wastewater treatment needs of the area to be annexed,in addition to the wastewater treatment requirements for all development,consistent with the Land Use Element,within the city including the annexed area. The only exceptions to this policy are: A. Areas which have prior agreements for wastewater service. B. Minor infill parcels within areas which have prior agreements for wastewater service, as provided in policy 12.1.3. 12.2 PROGRAMS 12.2.1 Updates The City will update this element's service area description and population projections as needed and in concert with any amendments to the Land Use Element. Time frame: continuing Responsible parties: Community Development Department;.Planning Commission,City Council. Funding: City general fund 12.2.2 Projections of Requirements The City will refine this element's projections of wastewater treatment requirements on the basis of wastewater flows from specific land use categories and the likely development of those categories as provided in the Land Use Element. Time frame:Following adoption of the Land Use Element update. Responsible parties: Community Development Department; Utilities Department; Planning Commission; City Council. Funding: City general fund. 12.2.3 Expanding Capacity The City will expand the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to provide adequate treatment for projected wastewater flows. Time frame: Late 1980's to late 1990's. Responsible parties: Utilities Department; City Council. Funding: Development and connection charges, wastewater fees, and grants. . 18 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 13.0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL 13.1 POLICIES 13.1.1 Stormwater Infiltration The City will minimise stormwater infiltration into the sewer system. 13.1.2 System Protection The City will minimize damage to the wastewater collection and treatment systems by preventing discharge of materials that are toxic or which would obstruct flows. 13.13 Managing Treatment Demand The City will manage wastewater treatment demand to assure that it can provide a high level of wastewater service. 13.1.4 Beneficial Use The City will pursue treatment and disposal methods which,to the maximum extent feasible,provide for further beneficial use of wastewater and allow beneficial uses of land or water receiving the effluent. 13.15 City as Exclusive Provider The City will be the only provider of public wastewater treatment within the City (hut on-site pretreatment of wastewater to meet City Standards may be required). 13.1.6 Energy Efficiency Wastewater operations will minimise energy use and will incorporate cost-effective energy recovery . or production facilities. 13.2 PROGRAMS 13.2.1 Reducing Infiltration The City will continue to investigate and carry out cost-effective methods for reducing stormwater flows into the wastewater system. Time framer Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues 19 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 13.2.2 Discharge Standards The City will update and enforce its standards for the quality of wastewater discharged to the system. Time frame: Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues 13.23 Project Evaluation The City will continue to evaluate the potential for the wastewater flows of a proposed project to exceed the capacity of collection and treatment systems. Time frame: Continuing Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; Community Development Department; City Council Funding: General fund 13.2.4 State and Federal Water Quality Standards The City will change its treatment and disposal practices in an attempt to meet federal and state water-quality standards. The first step will be adoption of the.Wastewater Management Plan and completion of pre-design technical reports that will describe a specific strategy for treatment and disposal. Any additional required environmental review would be integrated with the pre-design work. Then,plans and specifications,and a budget,for the construction project would be prepared. The timing of these steps will be worked out in collaboration with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Timeframe: Construction complete in the early 1990's Responsible agencies: Utilities Department; City Council Funding: Wastewater revenues; state or federal grants 14.0 WASTEWATER REVENUES AND FINANCING 14.1 POLICY 14.1.1 Enterprise Activity The City's wastewater system will be operated as an enterprise activity, with costs to be borne by wastewater fees and charges. Costs of operating,maintaining,and replacing the wastewater system will be bome by all customers. Some portion of the costs of making major decisions about the wastewater systems—such as evaluating changes to citywide collection and treatment—may be borne by the whole community. Costs of expanding treatment capacity and extending the collection system to serve new development shall be borne by those making new connections to the system, in proportion to expected wastewater flows. The City will seek any state or federal grants which may be available to fund sewer system improvements. Programs to fund wastewater projects should be consistent with the growth management policies of the General Plan. 20 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element 14.2 PROGRAM 14.2.1 Revising Charges The City will periodically revise its schedule of charges for wastewater service.The city will prepare a development fee schedule to fiord expansion of collection and treatment facilities. Time frame:Periodic rate evaluation;development fees to be adopted by July 1988 and updated as required. Responsible parties: City staff; City Council. WASTEWATER BACKGROUND Current Wastewater Flows and Treatment The City is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater from about 19,000 residential, commercial, industrial, and public customers every day, in a way that avoids environmental and public health problems. In addition to homes and businesses within the city limits,the City provides wastewater services for Cal Poly and the County airport. The City's existing wastewater collection system partly determines the character of wastewater flows. About 150 miles of sewer pipes, ranging from six to 30 inches in diameter, collect wastewater flows. The oldest pipes date from the 1890's, when pipe materials and trenches were less able to withstand the effects of corrosion and soil settlement. Eight pumping stations move the wastewater from areas where the slope of sewer pipes is not sufficient to allow gravity flow. Sewer lines cross creeks at 95 locations in the City;at some locations, siphons(U-shaped sections of pipe) allow the flows to continue. In some places,newer pipes have been installed parallel to older pipes to handle increased flows. Despite the City's efforts to repair and replace older and deteriorated sewer pipes, some cracked joints between pipe sections, some manhole covers, and improperly connected storm-water drains allow water from rainfall and saturated ground to enter the sewage collection system. This storm- water infiltration significantly increases the amount of wastewater that must be treated during the wet season.Undersized and damaged lines,siphons,and parallel pipes are often the source of wastewater collection problems. Collected flows are treated at the City's plant on Prado Road near Highway 101.The plant removes floating and large, gritty material, reduces the amount of nutrients and bacteria, separates sludge from the waste stream,and discharges the effluent into San Luis Obispo Creek near Los Osos Valley Road. Sludge is separated from the wastewater, dried in open ponds at the treatment plant, and hauled away for use on landscaping or crops.While the treatment plant uses tanks,pumps,and other mechanical equipment,most of the wastewater treatment is actually done by living microorganisms. The man-made features are largely to provide a suitable place for them to grow. 21 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element Wastewater flows are measured in millions of gallons per day—abbreviated"mgd." (One million gallons would fill a tank 60 feet in diameter and 50 feet high.) In 1986,the average flow into the treatment plant during dry weather was 4.4 mgd. During wet weather,the peak flow was 22.4 mgd. Standards for quality of the treated.effluent follow from federal and state water-quality laws.The specific requirements for San Luis Obispo were most recently set by the state's Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 1986. The standards are to protect present and potential beneficial uses of the water which receives the effluent,including recreation,agricultural supply,and fish and wildlife habitat. The standards include: • For the creek-maximum allowed changes in acidity/alkalinity, temperature, and oxygen; • For the effluent - maximum allowed quantities of solid particles and dissolved solids, nutrients which deprive the water of oxygen through chemical and biological action,oil and grease, coliform bacteria, and chlorine left from the last treatment step. Effluent quality has violated the standards,so the Regional Water Quality Control Board has ordered the City to improve the effectiveness of its treatment.The primary problem has been the amount of nitrogen in the form of ammonia. Other nutrients, suspended solids, oil and grease, and coliform bacteria have also exceeded the standards. Projected Wastewater Flows If the City grows to about 53,000 population in the year 2015,as outlined in the Land Use Element, the average dry-weather volume of wastewater is expected to increase by about 32 percent,from 4.4 mgd to 5.8 mgd. Other measures of required treatment capacity,such as flow in the peak month and the amount of nutrients and solids, are expected to increase in about the same proportion. Consulting engineers have concluded that the existing wastewater treatment plant site is big enough for a plant to handle the projected flows,but the treatment plant.will have to be changed to treat such flows effectively. The City plans a two-phased expansion of treatment capacity. The first phase would also improve the effectiveness of treatment. Both phases involve changing and enlarging certain facilities at the treatment plant Alternative Treatment and Disposal Methods Many different methods of disposing of treated wastewater(effluent)have been considered. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. In evaluating treatment and disposal methods,the City will consider initial and continuing costs, environmental impacts, reliability, flexibility, and potential for increasing beneficial uses of treated wastewater. Preliminary evaluations have indicated that some of the options listed below are not feasible or cost-effective.The feasibility and desirability of others will not been known until additional evaluations are completed,and even then changing conditions may warrant reconsideration or further study. The City does not want to preclude treatment and disposal options which may turn out to be feasible. However,the City must select an overall strategy for treatment and disposal and begin to cant'it out, in order to meet established water-quality standards. Once a strategy is chosen and money is 22 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Element . committed to certain physical projects,those funds would not be available to spend on significantly different strategies. Several alternatives to conventional stream disposal,which could be used in various combinations, are briefly described below.With the exception of an ocean outfall,each alternative involves some beneficial use—reclamation--of the treated wastewater,as does direct stream disposal(which helps maintain stream habitat and recharges downstream wells). Reclaiming all the effluent for uses that would otherwise need fresh City water,which is not likely in the time frame of this element,would displace the need for about 5,000 acre-feet of water in 1987, and about 6,600 acre-feet in 2015. Irrigation Effluent could be used to irrigate recreational land(such as a golf course) or agricultural land. Effluent used for pasture irrigation would probably not have to meet standards as high as those for creek disposal.However,to dispose of all projected effluent quantities during all seasons,the City would have to own or permanently control the use of about 2,000 acres of land. Even with availability of such a large area for irrigation, a substantial holding pond would be required for winter storage,when the ground is saturated.The main obstacles to this approach are obtaining the required disposal area, piping the effluent to it, and assuring no long-term harm to soil characteristics or groundwater supplies.Effluent used to irrigate landscaping or recreational land could replace water from other sources, or it could enable expansion of landscaped or recreational areas without drawing on limited supplies of fresh water. Stream Improvement The creek's ability to provide good wildlife habitat can be improved in ways other than removing certain contaminants from the effluent. Effluent, possibly with more nutrients or discoloring substances than now allowed, could be discharged at several points within an enlarged streamside forest. Additional streamside trees and plants(a riparian corridor)would help remove nutrients.They would also shade the water, and could therefore help keep it cooler.Along with using such natural treatment capacity, the City could restore some of the habitat downstream from the treatment plant,which has been harmed by vegetation removal and intensive livestock use.The City's improving the habitat might allow relaxation of some discharge standards,since creation of a riparian corridor would enhance a beneficial use which the Regional Water Quality Control Board is trying to protect. Groundwater Recharge If suitable areas could be found and used by the City, effluent could be deliberately spread to percolate into the ground to recharge aquifers. While stream disposal does this for some downstream areas,disposal at other locations might allow more of the water to be retained where it could be withdrawn efficiently for use by the City. Laguna Lake or Marsh Effluent could be used to maintain a fairly constant level of Laguna Lake year-round.Much of the effluent would still make its way to San Luis Obispo Creek. If the effluent entered the lake directly,the required level of treatment would exceed that for direct stream disposal, since the lake is used for water-contact sports. Discharging the effluent into the marsh at the northerly end of the lake,or as pasture or landscape irrigation, would allow some natural filtering and might require a lower level of treatment than direct stream disposal.. 23 City of SLO General Plan Water&Wastewater Management Bement Industrial Reuse Some industries use large quantities of water that need not be of drinking quality. San Luis Obispo does not have significant manufacturing or processing industry,though it does have some businesses,such as laundries,which might be able to use properly treated effluent. Such effluent as a source of water also might enable industries that could not otherwise locate in San Luis Obispo to do so. Aquaculture Sewage is basically heavily fertilized water. If proper growth conditions are provided and harmful substances are controlled, the water-bome nutrients can be converted to useful plants and animals through aquaculture. Water hyacinth(used to produce methane,soil conditioner,or livestock feed) and several varieties of fish have been produced in municipal wastewater treatment plants.Difficulties with this approach include finding and maintaining markets for the products and continuously providing acceptable levels of treatment with widely varying wastewater flows and weather conditions. Domestic Reuse With substantially higher levels of treatment than now used and a suitable distribution system, wastewater could provide for the full range of household uses. However, meeting state and federal standards for quality of drinking water would be very difficult. The costs of adequate treatment and distribution,even for household landscape irrigation,far exceed other alternatives and are expected to be prohibitive for the foreseeable future. Ocean Outfall Coastal communities dispose of their effluent in the ocean. San Luis Obispo could pipe its treated effluent to San Luis Bay.However,the costs of building and maintaining a pipeline to the ocean appear greater than the savings that might be achieved through meeting the somewhat lower effluent standards for ocean disposal.Coastal Commission approval would be required for an ocean outfall. Wastewater Costs and Revenues The City budgets its wastewater activities separately from other City services and has a long-standing policy that wastewater revenues should fully fund wastewater services. Those making new connections to the sewer system pay for,some of the cost of developing the existing system. Residential customers and most small businesses are billed at a uniform monthly rate,while some larger businesses pay according to the amount of water they use. In 1986-87,the City sewer system budget was$1.1 million. To fund anticipated treatment-plant and collection-system changes through the 1990's, the City probably will need to substantially increase sewer rates, even with federal grant funding. Also, federal rules may require the City to revise its rate structure, so users are charged according to the average and peak quantities and concentration of contaminants of the wastewater they produce. 24 a r Y. Alar' � Vii.+ � c:.:•r!k, _ -'^+•c 1 Wa. � t � .. ..>'^�• i +� - '�,` w.. Jam. 't. `1•erl e. .u 1 "Vision: + A clear and distinct picture of an „ i Business People Working ogetherfor a Pros.Jerous Balanced Com., mJun t Zt- y r: Our MvssiOn: r As the voice of business to promote the ��.t '` -ca- economic and,community well-being of' � e San Luis Obispo. •ti„7� Long-Tenn(Objectives: • Keep San Lms Obispo one of the world's " ` greatest places to live and work. - - • Keep existing businesses prosperous T" and selectively attract new ones. _, • r • Attract more hi i gh paying head-of household.jol s. 4 �' • Protect air quality, open space and + sense of community. Develop future communi ty leadership. �' ' . C% • Promote hi -quality education. ' • Help businesses understand and �'"t, • E �'r ;'� ;��} �� ` embrace diversityt r P` • Have San '`,�' `,' ' �; "� •," \ ~\' - Luis Obispo grow in a manner consistent wih protecting community character and quality of life. ` 11 ' 1 1 This document is the second major revision of one originally published in m h ,a period of serious economic recession for our city.At that time, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors wanted to encourage a coherent and consistent approach to economic and community development.Residents'attitudes and the City's General Plan reflecting those attitudes tended to encourage such development only when times were bad,and discourage it when times were good,not taking into account that progress requires a clear vision,long-range planning and continuous commitment.New residents,once they arrived,often opposed change and disproportionately inhibited planning for economic and community vitality. Finally,the Chamber's own economic and community goals were not clearly articulated;these goals and policies needed to be more effectively explained and assembled into one publication. So in 1991,the Chamber brought together a group of visionary leaders as the Economic Vision Task Force and asked them to develop the Chamber's first economic and community development policy.Their formidable task was to take a crystal ball approach and formulate a"clear and distinct pic- ture of an achievable future."How could we know if we were going in the right direction if we didn't know where we 50,000 City of SLO Population & Cal Poly Enrollment wanted to go? The Chamber's mission 40,000 was accomplished. "Our Vision of San Luis 30,000 Obispo's Economic Future,"published first in 1992 and revised in 20,000 1997,was widely distributed and had o 10,000 a major influence on policies of the city, 0 III the county and even 1903-04 1913-14 1923-24 1933,34 1943-04 1953-54 1903-64 1913-74 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 of surrounding cities. Many of the most ® Cal Poly ❑ City of SLO important recommen- dations and principles have been followed and there has been generally good,sustained economic growth during the years since 1992.One might then wonder why the Chamber is bothering to revise this document again. 1 1 Thhe 2003 Economic Vision mask Force quickly faced the reality of just ow much the city,the region,the state and the nation has changed in 11 years.Although the community was prosperous and still considered a great place to live and work,this very prosperity and desirability,combined with national and worldwide influences,had created a new set of serious community problems.For example,employers considered workforce housing and healthcare, not even on the Chamber's radar in 1992,major problems in 2003.The"dot com"implosion in 2000 negatively affected many high tech businesses in San Luis Obispo;and,our excellent and well funded public school district became strapped for money,along with many other California state budgeted organizations.Accordingly,it became evident that the Chamber's work and visioning was indeed,not done,and a revision was yet again necessary to take into consideration the changing circumstances and to revisit the vision established years earlier. This"Vision of San Luis Obispo's Economic Future"represents,then,the culmination of the efforts of the Chamber and the 2003 Economic Vision mask Force;it is our new vision for San Luis Obispo,inspired by today's realities and our vision of what tomorrow may and should bring.It contains the current economic principles and assumptions,followed by a nine point strategy to enhance our local economy and community.As the Vision state- ments that came before it,this document is intended to guide and motivate our community toward the enhancement of quality of life for ourselves, our visitors,and future generations. The 2003 Task Force believes that one key to understanding San Luis Obispo's economy depends upon understanding the unique economic history of our city.The town was founded in 1772 by Spanish missionaries who established a series of settlements along the California coast.They selected the site because of accessible water,good soil,mild weather and available workers.For nearly 150 years,that's about all San Luis Obispo had going for it.The only significant industry was agriculture,with its inherent instability caused by drought,disease and market conditions.The communi- ty was generally poor and struggled to survive.In 1884 the railroad came to town.This ended the city's long isolation from the rest of the state and con- tributed at least some modicum of prosperity. But times were still tough for another 55 years until the beginning of World War lI. " a 1 I 'Tn 1903,a small teachers college was founded,later to become California Polytechnic State College and then California Polytechnic State University.Cal Poly and its impact on the city grew slowly,but by the 1960s it was bringing many of San Luis Obispo's citizens solidly into the middle class. In the 70s Cal Poly developed a national reputation for excellence and began to dominate the city's economy and cultural life,which it still does today. Tourism began slowly during the earliest days of the small settlement. Our strategic location on El Camino Real (now U.S. Highway 101) between the northern and southern portions of the state was an early reason for tourists to stop overnight.The tourism industry didn't really become important until the 1920s when Highway 101 was improved over Cuesta grade and long distance automobile travel became more practical.San Luis Obispo's"halfway"location was virtually its only draw until 1958 when the state began operating Hearst Castle as a tourist attraction.Since then,such factors as the development of Mission Plaza,a revitalized downtown,expanded outdoor activities, the burgeoning wine industry,and the addition of excellent motels, hotels and restaurants have continued to attract tourists. It's only been in the recent era that San Luis Obispo has been per- ceived as a desirable place to live.Previously,the city was mostly thought of as a slow,backward little town. It had a limited cultural life, poor public facilities and parks,and substandard streets.Today,many of the city's attributes (clean air, beautiful vistas,small town character, and a charming downtown) have become rare in other places and are therefore more highly prized.Additionally,modern communications technology and transportation has turned our somewhat isolated location from a negative into a positive feature. San Luis Obispo's modern prosperity is due as much to happenstance and luck as to brilliant planning.But depending on luck to take care of our community in the future is much too risky.There are positive steps that can be taken now that will steer us into a very bright future.That's what this document is all about. }t+ i - v As in 1992, the current Task Force feels that a clear statement of our economic principles and assumptions is critical to an understanding of the Chamber's recommendations. The Task Force has reviewed current Chamber policies and, ajkr much discussion, developed the follounng economic and community development principles for San Luis Obispo: O Economic health and vitality is a critical part,but only a part,of a well- balanced community. Economic,social and environmental factors must all be taken into account in a balanced way when making any important decision about the community's future.Any city which exclusively focuses on one of these components without regard to the others will almost certainly endP` up with a very unlivable community.A vital economy depends upon a healthy environment and a diverse, Economic nurturing social fabric. But,likewise,a healthy economy is essential to maintain and promote these environment and social values. ® Positive economic development must serve the daily,basic needs of the people of the community because it is integral to their quality of life. Specifically,San Luis Obispo business must provide meaningful,well-paid job opportunities,and in addition help serve the financial,recreational, travel,housing,health,educational,and shopping needs of our citizens. © We must recognize the difference between"base level"jobs and "support level"jobs.Base level jobs bring dollars into our area,while support level jobs circulate the dollars already here and keep them here longer.Base level jobs"import"dollars into our economy while support level jobs keep those dollars from being"exported."A balance of both types of jobs is an essential element of prosperity. Base Level Jobs SupportLevelJobs •Agriculture •Most retail,except goods sold to tourists •Tourism,including leisure and business •Most personal and professional services travel,conferences,destination recreation, •Restaurants(meals sold to locals) and cultural arts tourism •City government •State&county government •Home building •Exported professional&business services •Commercial construction •Customer service centers •Recreation and entertainment •Manufacturing •Non-profit •Higher education •Research and development •Regional offices •Regional health care facilities •Regional draw retailing Examples of each type of jobs for the San Luis Obispo study area.(Our study area included the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding areas,including Cal Poly Cues4 CMC and the airport area). This chart would be slightly different for each community studied.For example,government of all types is usually considered a provider of sup- port level jobs.However,we have included state government as a base level industry for San Luis Obispo because state government"imports" many more dollars into our area(in salaries and other expenditures) than is"exported"in the form of state taxes. Why is this differentiation of base level jobs to support level jobs so important?Because numerous studies have shown that it takes just one "base level"job to support two"support level"jobs.These three jobs then support a total of six people in the community(including those who don't work,children,the elderly,etc.). So each"base level"job supports six people in the community.Support level jobs depend on the quantity and quality of base level jobs for their existence. 0 Retention and expansion of existing business is the most logical,doable and cost effective form of economic development.Existing businesses don't need to be lured here,they don't need to uproot and move to another city,and they already have roots in the community. But they do need to be nurtured and protected if they are to stay.With new businesses,our com- munity is in a heated competition with other cities,states,and even nations.Tens of thousands of communities are chasing only a few hundred businesses who move each year. However,we must pursue and welcome new businesses to supplement and replace existing ones who move or go out of business. Employment by Sector 0 Economic diversity is an essential San Luis Obispo County part of any healthy economic system. 36.9% Jobs need to be available for the 5.4% community's workforce. Our city is 6.8%----� home to a variety of workers of all 2.1% 3.3% skill and education levels and all need a decent job.Balance and 17.9% 6.7% economic diversity is needed between 1.2% 42% 20.0% various industries and between the public and private sectors. El Services ®Agriculture ❑Const/Mining NWholesale ❑Retail 0Information ❑Finance/Ins/RE ❑Government ®Manufacturing 0 The city should accommodate some ■ItansRltilities growth and higher density in selected areas as a means to minimize urban sprawl and avoid the depletion of our open space.Planned properly,a higher density city,one with a compact urban form,can actually be a more desirable place to live than a lower density city.Higher density can reduce commute time,use resources more efficiently,make it easier to provide City services,and be more pedestrian oriented.Higher density can contribute towards a strong"sense of place." 5 ® The airport area should be annexed and carefully planned to avoid a "City of South San Luis Obispo"which is out of our control,provides no revenue to the City,and does not develop to city standards. If the planning for the development of the airport area is high quality and environmentally conscious,desirable businesses will locate there and generate numerous benefits for the city and its residents. 0 The City's General Plan represents a commitment to provide future resources and services to business.The City should support businesses proposing projects consistent with the General Plan. Business should be able to relon the General Plan to determine what projects they will engage in. Improved public transportation citywide,regionally,and in connection with statewide service, is essential. Cooperation with both the county and other cities and districts is necessary in order to develop a more regional approach to economic and land use planning. "You've got to be careful if you don'tknow where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra Pro-actively protect and enhance San Luis Obispos unique quality of life The foundatimi of all of San Luis Obispo's modern economic prosperity is our unique quality of We—clean air and water, beautiful natural setting, mild weather,abundant and accessible open space,excellent schools, and diverse cultural and recreational opportunities, along with personal safety and a true sense of community Although most of these qualities are not imminently threatened, the time for passively taking them for granted has passed We must now pro-actively work to pmserve and enhance these qualities to protect ourfuture economy and way of life. Q Work to inform the public and elected officials about the benefits of Compact Urban Form and appropriate density. Q Support protection of,and appropriate public access to,San Luis Obispo's signature landscapes,including the greenbelt surrounding the city,the"Seven Sisters,"and key creeks and riparian habitats. Q Promote the use of reclaimed water and water conservation. 0 Promote business involvement in resource conservation. ® Promote the use of clean fuel vehicles and support facilities. ® Support in-fill and oppose development that is likely to induce urban sprawl. ® Support developments that are pedestrian,bicycle and transit friendly. ® Help develop creative mass transit alternatives for commuters. Q Continue to oppose off-shore oil development,and other development or activities that sigtuficantly harm the regional environment. ® Continue to promote the need for additional cultural arts facilities and programs. ® Promote ways to keep the citizenry connected and willing to get involved. Q Promote activities that enhance San Luis Obispo's life style and sense of community. i Q Support maintaining and enhancing the unique flavor of Downtown SLO. Q Explore creative financing solutions for greenbelt acquisitions. Encourage cooperative relations between the City and County,especially concerning land use on the margins of the city. i 1� Nire and protest exisqng baqt�nees andjobs One of San Luis Obispo's great resources is our strong and diverse base of existing businesses. Ojtoz existing businesses are takenfor granted and not included as part of an economic plan, even though expansion of already established businesses is the most cost effective and realistic form of economic development An existingjob base will anther and die if it is not protected and nurtured Enable reasonable expansion of existing businesses through appropriate zoning and annexation. (Many businesses will be forced to move out if they cannot find room to expand). 0 Provide adequate infrastructure and resources,including water,waste treatment,roads and public transit. ® Keep fees and utility rates competitive with other communities. Support a helpful,cooperative"can-do"attitude at City Hall. ® Encourage the City to work with existing businesses to help them with their expansion plans. ® Eliminate unnecessary,overlapping and contradictory regulations. ® Further streamline and expedite the development approval process with the realization that unnecessary delay ultimately costs city consumers huge amounts of money. ® Support the Economic Development Manager's position and encourage the city to allocate the resources necessary for the program to succeed. ® Continue to work at the state level to develop a business friendly environment in California. n _C 3 r T .. Use our economic development `secret Weapons"— Cal Poly and Cuesta California Polytechnic State University and Cuesta College serve as economic engines and provide San Luis Obispo with an economic development advantage that most communities do not have.Many high tech businesses prefer locations near technical universities like Cal Poly Cuesta is uniquely able and willing to provide training for workers.As state fund s grow more slowly it will be to everyone's advantage to work together toward mutual goats. G Continue to build closer working relationships with the City,Cal Poly and Cuesta College. Work together to develop a high-tech research park that harnesses the techno- logical innovations developed at both institutions. ® Partner with Cal Poly and Cuesta to develop a business incubator so that small start-up businesses may develop new ideas into products. Support the development of a continuing education/conference center to help the University and the community college maintain ties to industry. ® Join forces to create new programs to better train skilled employees. 4 Attract a select group of environmentally conscious future oriented companies San Luis Obispo needs new companies to provide additional"base level'jobs for the future. But because of the six-to-one ratio,only a limited number are needed. We can afford to be very selective to make sure the companies meet our community needs. When we find a good fz�we will need to bejlexible and proactive to attract it to move here. 0 Develop the airport area into a high-quality,attractive,future-oriented business center. Work to attract future-oriented businesses to San Luis Obispo which would have natural ties to Cal Poly and Cuesta in such areas as biotechnology, communications,computer technology,entertainment,food,industrial technol- ogy,regional office headquarters,micro-electronics,new materials research and robotics.Join with Cal Poly and Cuesta on their recruiting efforts. ® Make certain adequate resources and infrastructure are available when needed. 0 Recognize shifts of the post-industrial age by supporting zoning,regulations and land use patterns that are compatible with industries of the future. ,a' b _ o Create true "destination tourism" Although San Luis Obispo has historically had a successful tourism industry it has depended mostly on the stop-aver tourists we have been able to attract because of our location. 7burism growth in the future will depend upon developing"destination tourism"where tourists make San Luis Obispo their primary destination and hub for their activities "Destination tourists"spend more money per capita and stay longer than stop-aver tourists We must encourage both the public and private sectors to make the city more tourist friendly through better signage, lighting,and more attractive facilities. O Encourage development of destination full-service resorts (both in the city and in select areas of the county)with complete recreational facilities for golf,tennis,equestrian activities,swimming,fishing and eco-tourism. O Protect the area's air quality,scenic beauty and character,recognizing that these environmental attributes are also primary tourist attractions. ® Develop additional meeting and conference space in the city and/or at Cal Poly or Cuesta to tap into the medium size conference and continuing education markets. O Continue City support of the Community Performing Arts Center.Work with the Performing Arts Center to promote arts oriented tourism,new arts events and other special events and support the development of other performing arts venues. ® Develop and implement a more aggressive tourism marketing program to more successfully compete for tomorrow's desirable tourists. ® Promote new and emerging types of tourism including rail tours,sea cruises, bicycle touring,adventure tours,elder hostels and affinity groups such as hiking clubs and food and wine societies. O Encourage the promotion of the wine industry as a key attraction for tourists. 71 { uLt�11 �_r - R- - / Keep San Luis Obispo the retail and services hub of the county San Luis Obispo has traditionally been the retail and services hub of the county However, that role is diminishing as other cities in the county develop their own retail and services base,now feasible because of their additional populations. This shi,f t,if allowed to continue, will have an adverse impact on City income because an unusually large percentage of City income comesfrom om sales tax revenue. Thus, both jobs and City services depend on maintaining our retail and services hub status. Q Protect and enhance the downtown area as a multi use restaurant,entertain- ment,shopping area and civic and professional center. 0 Work to implement the Downtown Concept Plan. ® Work to enable existing surface parking in the downtown area to be put to better and higher uses,e.g.plazas,retail centers,etc.,and replace the surface parking lost with consolidated parking structures. Q Maintain a proactive parking program which develops new parking facilities in the downtown area. ® Keep major County offices and courts downtown. Q Continue targeting and attracting major destination retailers that have large regional drawing power. Q Encourage regional retail expansion in the Dalidio and Madonna Road areas to include retailing types new to San Luis Obispo. ® Develop transit or trolley links to tie the major retail areas of the city. ® Allow enough room for office expansion in and around the downtown area. Q Encourage innovative,synergistic uses for non-ground floor spaces downtown. ® Secure adequate zoning for regional offices. ® Keep San Luis Obispo the medical center for the region. Q Actively work to improve the viability of"Autopark Way"to ensure San Luis Obispo remains a viable automobile retail center into the next century. a1 J dMprove the infrastructure ®,f our community and fairly ¢lisftibute the costs for these improvements For San Luis Obispo to remain viable for the future,major iq frastructure improvements are needed. City officials,when implementing the City policy which calls for new development and new businesses to`Pay their own way,"should consider all of the community benefits that are derived from businesses developing,grmving and locating here. 0 Work to ensure that development fees and levies imposed on new and expanding businesses are fair and broad based. Encourage the City to recognize that most major developments will require some degree of City participation or collaboration The Downtown Center could be used as a model for this future flexibility. ® Implement the circulation improvements outlined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo in conjunction with the annexation of the airport area. Continue to advocate for new sources of water for the city.Support the Nacimiento Water Project along with other feasible sources of new water. ® Support the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and work to expand passenger air service. ® Work to institute direct air service to additional major cities. Ir Q. 9 15 Mn - Promote and enhance agriculture near San Luis Obispo Even though little agriculture remains urithin the city limits,agriculture remains an important base level industry for our region and an important part of the fabric of our community as it's been since the very earliest days.Agriculture contributes to our rural community character and image,and enhances tourism and quality of life.Attention must befocused on agriculture tfit is to remain viable in thefuture. Q Enhance and promote agriculture as a viable industry,not merely as an open space or folklore museum. Q Recognize the tourism value of agriculture and its role in the rural identity of the Central Coast. O Support the continuation of the Williamson Act and other legislation that helps agriculture continue. Q Oppose laws and regulations which unnecessarily or unfairly burden agriculture businesses. Q Identify and promote compatible uses of agricultural lands (such as bed and breakfast inns,recreation,and clustered housing)that can help agriculture remain viable,and support legislation that makes compatible mixed use allowable. 774 i r zc Provide adequate workforce housing The San Luis Obispo area has become one of the least affordable housing markets in the state and the nation.Since 2001, Chamber members have identified the lack of affordable workforce housing as the number one business issue. The Chamber has long recognized that a livable, balanced community depends on widely diverse types of workers and each has to have some- where to live.For the social and economic health of the community it is important for the Chamber to take a leadership,proactive role in addressing housing needs.Specific,significant steps must be taken to address our city's housing challenges. Q Support diversity in size and type of housing production along with density and smaller lot sizes in all parts of the city. Q Advocate changes in policy such as zoning and parking requirements so that the production of innovative,high density projects is more likely to occur. Q Keep focused on the goal of producing more actual housing units by encour- aging creative and progressive housing development through incentives. Q Combat NIMBYism by educating the community on the nexus between available,affordable workforce housing and social and economic vitality. © Help the community understand the perils,including traffic congestion and pollution,of not taking a proactive stance for more affordable workforce housing production. "The only way to predict the future is to invent it." Alan Kay _ _ all . 11 Sorin ILS Mspo is at a c2l8kal dedskya,wht R n previous editions of this document(1992 and 1997)we concluded that San Luis Obispo was at a critical decision point.We're positive that's equally true now.Do these critical times just happen coincidentally when we're revising our document?Probably not.Critical decisions that affect our community's future in profound ways are being made almost every day of every year.There is no safe time for community leaders to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor.The change that's constantly occurring in our political,economic,and social climate forces us to respond—almost anything is possible except staying the same. This document is intended more as a compass than a roadmap,a guide to be used flexibly as circumstances change.We may know the right direction to go,but we can't see quite far enough ahead to tell exactly which road to take.Working together,the leaders of San Luis Obispo, totally committed to our community,will make the right decisions. "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but having new eyes." Marcel Proust ws 9 a3 i r4 �� L •� l^O O 7 This report was prepared by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commence Economic Pision lbskForce Lee Ferrero, Private Industry Council Chamber of Commerce Chairperson of the Boar 4 2003 Pierre Rademaker, Pierre Rademaker Design Chairperson, Chamber of Commerce Ewwmw Usian Task Force Kara Blakeslee,American Land Conservancy Jeff Buckingham,Call America Carlyn Christianson,Coastal Anesthesiology Bob Griffin,Sterling Hotels Eric Justesen, RRM Design Group Andrew Merriam,Cannon Associates Par Ridder,The Tribune Rob Rossi, Rossi Enterprises Committee sttf" David Garth,Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Patricia Wilmore,Chamber of Commerce Director of Governmental Affairs The Chamber gratefully acknowledges the generous contribution of Pierre Rademaker Design for the design and production of this publication. Photogmphy 0204,David Garth ('Printed on recycled paper try Ventura Printing. OM San Luis Obispo Chamber orCownwe • r'. w r.Y Yif• •J� ,� ''�777/�-- . '��' t r r ��.��a/��:' •n. .IY'- ��'+y'' -I• .err I' �,�: >� 9/� S• ,/ � I �r + f4t fi +r ~ 1I[F�`� y[ �'• ♦ \ fir. i• ` 'Y :•� xr aA �,y � • Nva t i��• :i�..� r..y. t+�, ��:, i�*y i � `� ! ��� ���� a^� -�'Y'u.R '`a �s � � 'M[ •'71'•� , -A �..,i y l ,T 1. r L,• � .� 1. .s i x a Y � �. ` int It It: 41�! x:4iq4 moi:\14 � , M \ '1 ��, � '1 a+ _• �� }. n t-'•.a ,,•�.�\ _\�' X1','1 � ♦L` � / ,\+ ���'i ,��y�! Alr ('�\ t•" /" ���/�•. -(� —, IVSD •Y� tt, r .��IE 1',,M , \ _ , � i 1 , i oe ..ilii\• t r` !, \ it �! 'ii' r Y 4 ,/' � �• �. '` , i ` 1' a visa + �' .r.t . r- `4 �y � . "it '�fir' ,` `'•_�- • � �7 J � � � �F11C' ��yG�(Ir ,ft' Tri •• _. l�rf 3 1• 4 >ttI11.IIP(I�IIS�hi l•�I llll��trn� (•III11111t'Ill ?•\/ �( :� +. Yjl h�/ .yy�.. ` /i♦,v� �r�l• Iib Illi ,AU:rllI nnnsloch;uubeltori-tilunh.unbcl'C lochambccol;