HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2016 Item 12 - Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
Meeting Date: 3/15/2016
FROM: Carrie Mattingl y, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director, Water
SUBJECT: FULL ALLOCATION OF THE NACIMIENTO WATER PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Nacimiento Water Project and Authorizing an Amendment No. 3 to the Nacimiento Project
Water Delivery Entitlement Contract Reflecting an Additional Allocation of Water to the City.”
DISCUSSION
Background
Nacimiento Water Project History
In 1959, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District)
entered into an agreement with Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
now Monterey County Water Resources Agency) to secure rights to 17,500 acre-feet of water
per year from the Nacimiento Reservoir. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 377,900 acre-
feet and, in addition to providing water to San Luis Obispo County, serves various purposes,
such as flood protection, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge for the Salinas
Valley.
After many years of negotiations and in collaboration with Paso Robles, Templeton and
Atascadero Mutual Water Company (known collectively as “project participants”), the City
Council adopted a resolution on July 29, 2004, approving an agreement with the District for the
design, construction and operation of facilities required to deliver the water from Nacimiento
Reservoir to participants. Through these initial negotiations, the District agreed to contribute a
portion of its general ad valorem taxes to offset project debt service costs until such time as the
total project entitlement to water was allocated and subscribed to by all of the project
participants.
The project was completed at a cost of approximately $173 million. The City’s share of this
capital cost is currently just under $74 million. The City’s budgeted project costs for 2015 -16
are $6,552,743. This amount includes $4,698,580 debt service and $1,854,163 for operations,
maintenance and capital reserve.
12
Packet Pg. 127
Request for Additional Allocation
In September 2015, the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign a request for additional
allocation of water from the Nacimiento Project (detailed in Attachment A, September 2015 staff
report). This letter was jointly signed by the 1) City of Paso Robles, 2) Templeton Community
Services District, and 3) Atascadero Mutual Water Company. It served as notification to the
District of the project participants’ intent to fully allocate the Nacimiento reserve water
proportionately among those participants.
The request provided a 60-day notice to the only other current participant, County Service Area
(CSA) 10-A (Cayucos), that the other participants were requesting full allocation of the reserve
water. CSA 10-A followed by taking the action to participate in the full allocation.
Even though not required by contract, the 60-day notice was also sent to all entities who
participated in the original 2004 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Santa Margarita Ranch and
Bella Vista Mobile Home Park both opted to purchase a permanent allocation of Nacimiento
water. The cost of a permanent allocation of water is consistent with the like-contracts held by
the existing partners and required by the Nacimiento contract. The cost of a permanent allocation
includes all past debt payments proportionate to the amount of water allocated. Santa Margarita
Ranch paid $1,458,099 for 80 acre-feet per year (afy) and Bella Vista Mobile Home Park paid
$209,867 for 10 afy of permanent allocation. This money is currently being held by the District
until the contract is amended. The current and proposed water allocations are shown in Table 1
below.
Table 1: NWP Proposed Full Allocation
Water Allocation
Participant
Current Delivery
Entitlement
Proposed Share
of Reserve Water
New Participants Total at Full
Allocation
City of San Luis Obispo 3,380 2,102 - 5,482
City of Paso Robles 4,000 2,488 - 6,488
Atascadero Mutual
Water Company
2,000 1,244 - 3,244
Templeton Community
Services District
250 156 - 406
County Services Area 10A
(Cayucos)
25 15 - 40
Bella Vista Mobile Home
Park
0 0 10 10
Santa Margarita Ranch
Mutual Water Company
0 0 80 80
Reserve Water 6,095 0 - 0
Total 15,750 6,005 90 15,750
NOTE: All figures are in acre-feet per year.
12
Packet Pg. 128
Benefits of Full Allocation
With uncertainty of future climatic conditions coupled with aging infrastructure, adding more
Nacimiento water to the City's portfolio will reduce pressure on the use of water supplies in the
relatively small Whale Rock and Salinas reservoirs. It would serve to extend these stored
supplies during future critical water shortage periods.
Full allocation could potentially be of regional benefit in northern San Luis Obispo County.
When Nacimiento water has been fully allocated, the Nacimiento Agreement allows for
temporary water sales that may be sold to any participant or other third party at market pricing
on a temporary basis under certain circumstances.
Fully allocating the reserve water results in the quickest and most economical path forward to
put the entire yearly allocation of Nacimiento Project water to beneficial use. Sales of surplus
water would also provide an opportunity for a revenue stream for the project participants which
would help to offset additional costs.
Amendment No. 3
Amendment No. 3 to the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract (the
“Amendment”) (Attachment D) simply modifies the parametric table to reflect the additional
allocation of reserve water to the participants, including the new participants discussed above.
The Amendment also makes other modifications to make the contract internally consistent.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department and City Attorney’s office were instrumental in the
review of the environmental consultant’s work and ensuring conformity to City processes related
to this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The District was the Lead Agency for the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) and certified a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in 2004. A copy of the FEIR is available for review in the
Council Reading File. The City of San Luis Obispo, as a project participant, was a Responsible
Agency for that environmental document. The FEIR evaluated all potential environmental
effects that could result from construction of the facilities to deliver the entire 17,500 acre-feet of
water from Lake Nacimiento to San Luis Obispo and to other areas in the County. The City of
San Luis Obispo originally requested 3,380 afy from NWP supplies as evaluated in the 2004
EIR.
The NWP FEIR evaluated a wide variety of climatic conditions and historical water levels to
determine potential impacts on water services during both wet and extended dry climatic periods.
As such, the FEIR impact analysis anticipated potential impacts to water resources and
socioeconomic impacts associated with participant water withdrawals during drought conditions.
12
Packet Pg. 129
The 2004 FEIR examined the initial 3,380 afy of water delivery to the City. The proposed
additional 2,102 afy was not studied for availability to accommodate new projects or additional
growth. Because the additional allocation was not included in the FEIR, additional
environmental analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to
evaluate this change.
EIR Addendum
Following the Council’s authorization to pursue full allocation, the City hired Marine Research
Specialists (MRS), the firm who conducted the original Nacimiento FEIR, to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of the proposed full allocation for the City of San Luis Obispo.
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 through 15164 discuss a lead or responsible agency’s
responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in the project’s final
environmental impact report. When none of the conditions listed in section 15162 are triggered,
for example, when the changes do not create new significant environmental effects, a lead or
responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR.
As noted in the Addendum (Attachment C) the circumstances under which the NWP was
undertaken remain essentially unchanged. The NWP was designed to provide participants with
the flexibility to balance their water demand requirements, recognizing that NWP water would
supplement other sources of water than may not always be available in sufficient quantities to
meet local demand.
The additional allocation of Nacimiento water would not be used to serve the City’s build–out
population (Primary Water Supply), but would instead be added to the City’s Secondary Water
Supply to meet short term losses to the City’s water supply due to events such as drought or
maintenance and repair of infrastructure. The addition of 2,102 afy of Secondary Water Supply
to the City’s current water supply accounting can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Water Supply Accounting
Water
Supply
Total Acre
Feet
Primary
Water
Supply
Reliability
Reserve
Secondary
Water
Supply
Current 10,005 7,330 1,174 1,501
Proposed 12,107 7,330 1,174 3,603
Based on their analysis of the proposed project, MRS determined that the proposed changes will
not result in any new impacts or any increase in the severity of impacts addressed in the EIR and
prepared the attached Addendum to the FEIR.
It should be noted that the potential environmental impacts of full development under the City’s
General Plan were evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report for the 2014 Land Use and
Circulation Elements Update (available for review at
12
Packet Pg. 130
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/general-plan). When the City adopted the update and certified that EIR, it acknowledged
that the planned growth would have significant, adverse impacts. These impacts would be:
conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use; increased water usage; unacceptable levels of
service for traffic on most arterial streets; change from rural to urban character; the number of
workers increasing faster than the number of residents; and certain localized impacts due mostly
to street widening or extension projects. Schools would also be further impacted. However, the
EIR and Water Supply Assessment concluded that there was adequate water to serve the
community through buildout.
The additional NWP allocation would be allocated to the City’s secondary water supply and
would not be available to accommodate new projects or additional growth. An increase in City’s
allocation would only serve areas already evaluated and approved for future development
potential consistent with existing specific plan areas and City policies and land use designations
of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 2014. Therefore, the proposal to
increase the NWP allocation would not result in any additional growth impacts over those
identified in the NWP EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
In order to make the project economically feasible for the original participants, the District had
pledged its ad valorem tax collected from properties around Nacimiento Lake. Once full
allocation of the contracted delivery has been reached, the District will no longer be responsible
to provide the ad valorem tax revenue toward the project’s debt service. The City of San Luis
Obispo received an offset from the ad valorem tax revenue in the amount of $430,595 in 2015 -
16. It is expected to be $439,207 in 2016-17.
The impact from the ad valorem tax will be mostly offset by the savings realized by the
Nacimiento project bond refinancing that occurred in August 2015. This refinancing
lowered the debt service to the City by an approximated $350,000 annually for the remainder
of the loan.
The city will also receive a one-time credit of $792,812 from the two new participants in the
project, Santa Margarita Ranch and Bella Vista Mobile Home Park, which have both
purchased permanent allocation in the project. The amount reimburses the City for past and
future debt payments made before these partners came on board. The table below shows that
the net new annual ongoing fiscal impact of adding this new secondary supply is
approximately $75,000-$107,000 per year. The payment of these amounts can be
accommodated in the City’s Water Fund.
12
Packet Pg. 131
SLO Share 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Original Debt
Payment
4,690,340 4,685,131 4,671,263 4,662,313 4,653,852
Tax Revenue
Ceases
439,207 447,991 456,951 466,090 475,412
Debt Refinance (348,353) (353,738) (349,774) (390,266) (388,058)
Total 4,781,194 4,779,384 4,778,440 4,738,137 4,741,206
Difference 90,854 94,253 107,177 75,824 87,354
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose to not pursue additional allocation of Nacimiento Project water. Not
participating in the full allocation of reserve water would require the other Initial Participants to
purchase the City’s proportional remainder of the reserve water at the full price, including back
debt payment and interest, before they could receive any additional allocation. The estimated
cost for this purchase of the 2,102 afy would be $17 million dollars. For this reason, without the
City’s involvement, the remaining entities would not likely not be willing to participate in the
full allocation.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
A copy of the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is available for public review in
the City Clerk’s Office and on line.
12
Packet Pg. 132
Meeting Date: 9/15/2015
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director – Water
Dean Furukawa, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE FULL ALLOCATION OF NACIMIENTO
PROJECT WATER
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to sign the application of intent to acquire additional delivery
entitlement of Nacimiento Project Water.
DISCUSSION
Nacimiento Water Project History
In 1959, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District)
entered into an agreement with Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
now Monterey County Water Resources Agency) to secure rights to 17,500 acre-feet of water
per year from Nacimiento Reservoir. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 377,900 acre-feet
and, in addition to providing water to San Luis Obispo County, serves various purposes, such as
flood protection, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge for the Salinas Valley.
After many years of negotiations and in collaboration with Paso Robles, Templeton and
Atascadero Mutual Water Company (known collectively as “project participants”), the City
Council adopted a resolution on July 29, 2004, approving an agreement with the District for the
design, construction and operation of facilities required to deliver the water from Nacimiento
Reservoir to participants. Through these initial negotiations, the District agreed to contribute a
portion of its general ad valorem taxes to offset project debt service costs until such time as the
total project entitlement to water was allocated and subscribed to by all of the project
participants.
The project was completed at a cost of approximately $173 million. The City’s share of this
capital cost is currently just under $74 million. The City’s budgeted project costs for 2015 -16 are
6,552,743. This amount includes $4,698,580 debt service and $1,854,163 for operations,
maintenance and capital reserve.
Proposal for Full Allocation of the Nacimiento Water Project
Current project participants have subscribed to 11,405 acre-feet of the 17,500 acre-feet available.
6,095 acre-feet remain unallocated or in “reserve.” Reserve water is the water available above
what is currently allocated among the project participants.
17
Packet Pg. 327
12.a
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
It was anticipated once the pipeline project was built, other entities would come forward to
purchase a permanent allocation from the reserve water. Other entities purchasing a permanent
allocation would begin carrying a commensurate proportion of debt service cost and reimburse
that proportion of carrying costs since debt service inception to the original project participants.
Although there have been inquiries, no entity has come forward to-date to purchase a permanent
allocation from the available reserve water. The current participants, off-set by the District’s ad
valorem tax contribution, pay the full cost of all debt service as well as all other costs associated
with the project.
Since no entities have stepped forward to permanently purchase water since deliveries began,
even in these extraordinary drought conditions, the Nacimiento Project Partners have conducted
an analysis which concludes that the full allocation of the reserve water to the current
participants as the best opportunity to manage the project’s assets (infrastructure and water) to
maximum benefit.
Article 29 of the Nacimiento Agreement contract provides a method for the participants to obtain
the additional water. This Article requires a 60-day notice to existing participants of the request
for additional entitlement. Attachment A is the draft letter which all the project partners would
sign requesting full allocation of the reserve water.
Should other entities come forward to purchase reserve water during the 60 -day period stipulated
in the contract, the project partners would support the allocation to come from the 6,095 acre-feet
currently in reserve, with the remainder going proportionately to the project partners.
Benefits of Full Allocation
With uncertainty of future climatic conditions, regulation and aging infrastructure, adding more
Nacimiento water to the City’s portfolio
will reduce pressure on use of water
supplies in the relatively small Whale
Rock and Salinas reservoirs. It would serve
to extend these stored supplies during
future critical water shortage periods.
Full allocation of the Nacimiento Project
would potentially be of regional benefit in
northern San Luis Obispo County. The
Nacimiento Agreement allows for
temporary water sales of ‘surplus’ water.
This surplus water, created only when the
reserve water has been fully allocated,
may be sold at market pricing on a
temporary basis under certain
circumstances.
17
Packet Pg. 328
12.a
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Fully allocating the reserve water results in the quickest and most economical path forward to
put the entire yearly allocation of Nacimiento Project water to beneficial use. Sales of surplus
water would also provide an opportunity for a revenue stream for the project participants which
would help to off-set additional costs.
Contract provisions allow for the marketing of surplus water by the District. The partners desire
to work cooperatively on pricing and water sales to the benefit of all participants.
CONCURRENCES
The cities of San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles, Atascadero Mutual Water Company and
Templeton Community Services District desire to partner with one another and concurrently
request the full allocation of reserve water to these original project participants.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The District was the Lead Agency in the Nacimiento Project’s final environmental impact report
2003). This EIR contemplated full allocation of the project’s 17,500 acre-feet of water.
A section of this EIR focused on reviewing the environmental impacts of providing the City of
San Luis Obispo with 3,380 acre-feet of water annually. Due to the original intent of including
future partners, the original EIR did not consider the currently proposed additional delivery of
approximately 2,139 acre-feet of water being delivered to San Luis Obispo. This additional
amount is intended to be used to protect the City’s existing water supplies and could be utilized
outside the City for short-term beneficial uses. Uses that were not initially studied during the
project’s initial EIR would require a supplemental study.
A statement of overriding consideration related to significant and unavoidable impacts related to
growth inducement and air quality was adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors (as the District’s Board) when it adopted the EIR. The City, as a Responsible
Agency, also adopted a follow-up resolution including a statement of overriding consideration to
support the District’s findings.
The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted growth management and land use policies that dictate
how and how much the city will grow. An additional layer of water resource protection is found
in the City’s Charter requirement to provide a water reliability reserve. The City’s General Plan
water and wastewater management element contains a formula that details the application of the
primary and secondary water supplies as well as the reliability reserve to the City’s water
resources.
The recommended action in this report does not commit the City to receiving extra allocated
reserve water. The signing of the attached letter would start the notification process to the other
project participants and the District as defined in Article 29 of the contract. If this step is
approved, staff would return to Council after the 60-day notification period with any needed
environmental review, the final water volume to be received along with associated costs, and an
amended Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract for consideration.
17
Packet Pg. 329
12.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
FISCAL IMPACT
In order to make the project economically feasible for the original participants, the District
pledged its ad valorem tax collected from properties around Nacimiento Lake. This amount was
budgeted at $1,077,250.00 in fiscal year 2015-16.
Per contract, at full allocation the District is no longer obligated to provide its ad valorem tax
revenue toward the project’s debt service. The additional costs associated with the loss of the
District’s contribution will be allocated among the project participants following the contract
provisions. For the City of San Luis Obispo this equals approximately $377,000 annually. This
amount is estimated due to the possible purchase of reserve water during the 60-day period
following the signing of the above mentioned letter.
The impact on operating expenses will be partially offset by the savings realized by the
Nacimiento project bond refinancing that occurred in August 2015. This refinancing lowered the
debt service by approximately $92,000 in 2015-16 and $380,000 annually for the remainder of
the loan.
While not a guaranteed revenue source, it is the intent of the project participants to make any
water not needed by participants (surplus water) available for short-term sales. This would result
in revenue proportionate to the amount each participant contributed to the surplus water pool that
could be used to offset the loss of the ad valorem tax contribution and/or other operating
expenses. Since this revenue is not a certainty, no changes to the budget or Financial Plan are
recommended. Any appropriate changes will be proposed at Mid-Year or Financial Plan
Supplement next June.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may choose to not pursue additional allocation of Nacimiento Project water.
Attachments:
a - Application for Additional Delivery Entitlement Sept 15
17
Packet Pg. 330
12.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
September 16, 2015
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District CSA 10A
Attn: Wade Horton, Director of Public Works c/o Wade Horton
Department of Public Works Department of Public Works
County of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
SUBJECT: Application for Acquisition of Additional Delivery Entitlement
In accordance with Article 6(D) and other applicable provisions of the “Nacimiento Project Water
Delivery Entitlement Contract” dated August 17, 2004, as amended, each Initial Participant does hereby
apply for additional delivery entitlement. Specifically, Initial Participants apply to acquire the 6,095
acre-feet per year of Reserve Water and Reserved Capacity.
Attached is the revised Table 1 containing the parametric information (entitlement share, unit
percentage share, etc.) resulting from this action and as called for in accordance with the Second
Amendment to the “Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract” dated August 2007.
Written notice is also hereby given to County Service Area No. 10A of the Initial Participant’s
application for additional Delivery Entitlement of Reserve Water / Reserved Capacity. In accordance
with Article 29 (B), CSA 10(A) has 60 days (i.e. November 23, 2015) to likewise apply for an additional
Delivery Entitlement of Reserve Water / Reserved Capacity.
Sincerely,
CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
James L. App, City Manager Katie Lichtig, City Manager
ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY TEMPLETON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
John Neil, General Manager Jeff Briltz, General Manager
17.a
Packet Pg. 331
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
a
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
p
t
1
5
1
1
1
0
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
12.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NACIMIENTO
WATER PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
THE NACIMIENTO PROJECT WATER DELIVERY ENTITLEMENT
CONTRACT REFLECTING AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OF
WATER TO THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is a municipal corporation and charter
city;
WHEREAS, the City is a participant pursuant to the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery
Entitlement Contract (“NWP contract”);
WHEREAS, the City was a responsible agency under the Nacimiento Water Project
Final Environmental Impact Report (the “NWP FEIR”) which was certified on January 6, 2004;
WHEREAS, under the NWP contract, the City is entitled to receive 3,380 acre feet of
Nacimiento water;
WHEREAS, the City joined other participants in applying for an additional delivery
entitlement in accordance with applicable provisions of the NWP contract;
WHEREAS, the action would proportionally distribute reserve water as an “additional
delivery entitlement share” among participants. In the City’s case, it would receive an additional
delivery entitlement of 2,102 acre feet of water (the “Additional Allocation”);
WHEREAS, the City has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Additional
Allocation and has prepared an Addendum to the NWP FEIR (the “Addendum”) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15164, because some changes or additions are necessary and none of
the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred;
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has caused notice to be duly given of a hearing in this matter
in accordance with law.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
1. That the City Council hereby adopts the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A and
finds that it has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines.
2. That pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines section
15094, the City Clerk shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed with the San
Luis Obispo Clerk Recorder and the State Office of Planning and Research.
12.b
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
F
E
I
R
a
n
d
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
3
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Resolution No. (2016 Series)
Page 2
3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 3 to
the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract reflecting an additional
allocation to the City estimated at 2,102 acre feet per year substantially in true form
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of March, 2016.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lee Price
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Lee Price
Interim City Clerk
12.b
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
F
E
I
R
a
n
d
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
3
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
Addendum
Nacimiento Water Project
Environmental Impact
Report (ED-00-603)
SCH #2001061022
EIR Certified January 6, 2004
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California
93401-2710
Prepared by:
Marine Research Specialists
3140 Telegraph Road, Suite A
Ventura, California
93003
February 2016
mrs
12.c
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
12.c
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Table of Contents
February 2016 i Nacimiento Water Project
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Location and Regional Setting ........................................................................... 2
3.0 Description of the Approved Nacimiento Water Project .............................................. 5
4.0 Description of Proposed Changes to the Project ............................................................ 7
5.0 Evaluation of Environmental Effects .............................................................................. 9
6.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 9
6.1 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 10
6.1.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 10
6.1.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 11
6.1.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils ......................................................................................... 11
6.2.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 11
6.2.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 12
6.2.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 12
6.3 Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation............................................................................... 12
6.3.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 12
6.3.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 13
6.3.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 13
6.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 13
6.4.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 13
6.4.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 14
6.4.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 24
6.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 24
6.5.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 24
6.5.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 24
6.5.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 25
6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 25
6.6.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 25
6.6.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 26
6.6.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 26
6.7 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 26
12.c
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Table of Contents
February 2016 ii Nacimiento Water Project
6.7.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 26
6.7.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 27
6.7.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 27
6.8 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................... 27
6.8.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 27
6.8.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 28
6.8.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 28
6.9 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 28
6.9.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 28
6.9.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 29
6.9.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 29
6.10 Utilities and Public Services ............................................................................................. 29
6.10.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 29
6.10.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 30
6.10.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 30
6.11 Transportation/Circulation ................................................................................................ 30
6.11.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 30
6.11.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 31
6.11.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 31
6.12 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ............................................................................................. 31
6.12.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 32
6.12.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 32
6.12.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 33
6.13 Agricultural Resources...................................................................................................... 33
6.13.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 33
6.13.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 33
6.13.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 34
6.14 Recreational Resources ..................................................................................................... 34
6.14.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 34
6.14.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 35
6.14.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 35
6.15 Socioeconomic Resources ................................................................................................ 35
6.15.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 35
6.15.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 36
12.c
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Table of Contents
February 2016 iii Nacimiento Water Project
6.15.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 36
6.16 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 36
6.16.1 Analysis of the Revised Project .............................................................................. 36
6.16.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the
Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance ...................... 37
6.16.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 37
7.0 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 37
7.1 Interlake Tunnel Project .................................................................................................... 37
7.2 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 38
8.0 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 38
9.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 39
10.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 39
List of Figures
Figure 1 Schematic of Treated Water Option ......................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Schematic of Raw Water Option .............................................................................. 4
Figure 3. NWP Water Allocation ............................................................................................. 7
List of Tables
Table 1 Tentative Nacimiento Water Project Allocations ..................................................... 6
Table 2 Operational GHG Emissions, metric tonnes ........................................................... 23
12.c
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 1 Nacimiento Water Project
1.0 Introduction and Background
The Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted in
2004, contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects
associated with the construction and operation of water delivery pipelines. The purpose of this
Addendum is to provide clarification of the changes to the Project water allocations and to
provide explanation supported by substantial evidence as to why these proposed changes will not
result in any new impacts or any increase in the severity of impacts addressed in the EIR.
California Code of Regulations title 14 ("State CEQA Guidelines"), sections 15162 through
15164 discuss a lead or responsible agency's responsibilities in handling new information
that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides:
(a) When an EIR has been certified... for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for
that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the
light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was certified as complete... shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
In the alternative, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously
approved Final EIR, but none of the changes or additions meet the standards as provided for
a subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162, then the lead agency
12.c
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 2 Nacimiento Water Project
or responsible agency is directed to prepare an Addendum to the Final EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a "brief explanation of the
decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162," and that "explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence." (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15164, subd.
(e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may simply be attached to the
Final EIR (Ibid.; State CEQA Guideline, section 15164, subd. (c)).
2.0 Project Location and Regional Setting
The NWP included two equal water delivery options that were evaluated and compared equally
throughout the EIR: a Treated Water Option and a Raw Water Option. The proposed project
location is shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the two co-equal alternatives that were considered in
EIR. The proposed local water distribution pipelines and facilities are located throughout a wide
area of San Luis Obispo County between Lake Nacimiento and the City of San Luis Obispo. San
Luis Obispo County is bordered by Monterey County to the north, Kern and King Counties to
the east, and Santa Barbara County to the south. Lake Nacimiento is located 16 miles west of the
City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles), near the northern border of San Luis Obispo County.
Elevations in the project area range from sea level, near Cayucos along the coastal plain, to 1,577
feet above mean sea level (msl), north of the Cuesta Grade.
The project area transects three broad physiographic regions: coastal mountains and valleys,
interior mountains and valleys, and a coastal plain. Lake Nacimiento is located in the Santa
Lucia coastal mountain range. The Santa Lucia, Temblor, Caliente, and La Panza ranges form a
part of the Coast Range Mountains which extend across the County in a northwest to southeast
orientation. The highest peaks, many over 3,000 feet msl, are located in the Santa Lucia and
Caliente ranges. Although none of the mountain ranges in the proposed project area are
particularly high, the terrain is quite rugged.
The cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero, and the communities of Templeton and Santa
Margarita, are located in the interior valley within the La Panza Range. Major water courses in
the interior valley north of the Cuesta Grade are the Nacimiento and Salinas rivers and Santa
Margarita Creek. Major streams include Paso Robles, Santa Rita, Graves, Atascadero, San
Marcos Creek and Yerba Buena creeks. South of the Cuesta Grade, major water courses in the
project area include Stenner and San Luis Obispo creeks, Laguna Lake, and the Morro Bay
Estuary. Major drainage basins include the Lake Nacimiento Watershed and the Salinas River.
Several westwardly trending lesser drainages in the Morro Bay and Cayucos areas occur along
the coast. The Salinas River system drains a large basin in the northern interior of San Luis
Obispo County. This river is the largest single watershed in the Central Coast area and flows
northward into Monterey County and eventually discharges into Monterey Bay.
12.c
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 3 Nacimiento Water Project
Figure 1 Schematic of Treated Water Option
Source: San Luis Obispo County, 2003.
12.c
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 4 Nacimiento Water Project
Figure 2 Schematic of Raw Water Option
Source: San Luis Obispo County, 2003.
12.c
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 5 Nacimiento Water Project
3.0 Description of the Approved Nacimiento Water Project
The proposed project was in response to San Luis Obispo County’s need for future water
supplies and to supplement existing groundwater sources. The NWP would potentially supply up
to 16,2001 acre feet per year (afy) of water to augment the existing water supplies in various
communities within San Luis Obispo County.
The main objective of the NWP was to provide a reliable supplemental water source for a variety
of uses within San Luis Obispo County by supplementing the local ground and surface water
supplies with a new surface water source. The objective was also to increase reliability of water
deliveries, to improve water quality and to lessen the extent of future ground water pumping to
existing residents and provide sufficient supplies to support planning objectives in various
communities of San Luis Obispo County. The objective of the project was, therefore, to ensure
better management of water resources throughout the County.
The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a 17,500 afy
entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. Of
this 17,500 afy, 16,200 afy was slated for this project and the remaining 1,300 afy was reserved
for local lakeside use.
Fifteen (15) purveyors submitted their requests for Lake Nacimiento water. Of the 16,200 afy
available for the project, 13,575 afy was being requested; the remaining 2,625 afy was
considered a County-owned contingency capacity. Table 1 shows each purveyor allocation
request and requested peaking factor (percent of extra project capacity requested by the
purveyor) that was evaluated in the EIR. After the Nacimiento Water Project was approved, only
four purveyors decided to join the County and participate in moving forward with the project:
Paso Robles, Templeton, Atascadero and the City of San Luis Obispo.
The NWP included two co-equal water delivery options that were evaluated and compared
throughout the EIR: Treated Water Option and Raw Water Option. Both options include
construction of the water intake at Lake Nacimiento, water storage tanks, pump stations and a
64-mile water transmission pipeline. The differences between the options are that the Raw Water
Option includes construction and operation of three water discharge facilities. Construction and
operation of these water discharge facilities would be the responsibility of the purveyors
benefiting from the water (Paso Robles, Templeton, and Atascadero). The Treated Water Option
also includes construction and operation of a central Water Treatment Plant near Lake
Nacimiento on Camp Roberts’ property.
Numerous potentially significant impacts were identified for the proposed project, most of which
could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant (Class II). Two significant (Class I)
impacts were identified for the proposed project, both the Treated and Raw Water Options, and
are summarized below. Significant (Class I) impacts are associated, in general, with two aspects
of the proposed project: the significant air pollutant emissions in the region that would occur
during construction and growth induced by availability of additional water in the region, which
are summarized as follows:
1 One acre foot equals 325,853 gallons.
12.c
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 6 Nacimiento Water Project
Table 1 Nacimiento Water Project Allocations Evaluated in the EIR
Water Purveyor1
Allocation Peaking Factor Flow Rate
afy % * mgd cfs
San Miguel CSD 610 10 0.60 0.93
Paso Robles City 4,000 30 4.64 7.18
Templeton CSD 250 30 0.29 0.45
Atascadero MWC 3,000 30 3.48 5.38
Santa Margarita Ranch 200 10 0.20 0.30
CSA 23–Santa Margarita 100 30 0.12 0.19
San Luis Obispo City 3,380 10 3.32 5.14
Camp San Luis Obispo 200 10 0.20 0.30
San Luis CUSD–Morro Bay 55 10 0.05 0.08
CSA 10A Cayucos 80 10 0.08 0.12
Lewis Pollard Trust–Cayucos 50 10 0.05 0.08
Morro Rock MWC–Cayucos 30 10 0.03 0.05
CSA 22–Airport Area 890 10 0.87 1.35
Fiero Lane WC–Airport Area 30 10 0.03 0.05
Edna Valley MWC–Airport Area 700 10 0.69 1.06
Subtotal 13,575 15.25 23.59
San Luis Obispo County (Contingency) 2,625 10 2.57 3.98
Pipeline Total 16,200 17.82 27.57
Reserved for Lakeside use 1,300 NA NA NA
Total Allocation 17,500
Note: * Peaking factor is the percent of extra capacity requested by the purveyors to allow short term flows higher than the
average of their yearly allocation. For the purveyors that requested no peaking, 10% has been added to allow for system
downtime.
afy =acre feet per year; mgd=million gallons per day; cfs=cubic feet per second; MWC=Mutual Water Company;
CSD=Community Services District; CSA=County Service Area; WC=Water Company;
NA=Not Applicable
1. Participating purveyors include Paso Robles, Templeton CSD, Atascadero, the City of San Luis Obispo and CSA 10A
Cayucos and are collectively referred to as the Nacimiento Project Partners.
Air Quality
AQ.1 Construction activities would generate air emissions that would impact air quality
in the area. Air pollutant emissions during pipeline and facility construction
would exceed the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s
significance thresholds, even after implementation of all feasible mitigations. This
impact would only last during the construction of the project, with air quality
impacts during project operations being less than significant.
Growth
G.1 Countywide, the growth inducing impacts of accepting supplemental water
supplies from the NWP could be considered significant, adverse and unavoidable.
However, local impacts could vary depending on how project supplies are used by
each project participant.
12.c
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 7 Nacimiento Water Project
Several less-than-significant impacts were also identified for the Raw and Treated Water Options
of the Project. Again, most of these impacts were identical for both options. While these impacts
are considered less than significant, they represent the only differences between the two options
that can be used to evaluate advantages or disadvantages of each option.
4.0 Description of Proposed Changes to the Project
Current Nacimiento Project Partners have subscribed to 11,405 acre-feet of the 17,500 acre-feet
available. 6,095 acre-feet remain unallocated or in “reserve.” Reserve water is the water
available above what is currently allocated among the project participants (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. NWP Water Allocation
The Nacimiento Partners anticipated that once the NWP was built, other entities would come
forward to purchase a permanent allocation from the available reserve water. Since no entities
had requested to permanently purchase water since deliveries began in 2010, even in the
extraordinary drought conditions in effect in 2015, the Nacimiento Project Partners conducted an
analysis which concluded that the full allocation of the 6,095 acre-feet of reserve water to the
current participants as the best opportunity to manage the project’s assets (infrastructure and
water) to maximum benefit.
12.c
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 8 Nacimiento Water Project
Article 29 of the Nacimiento Agreement contract provides a method for the participants to obtain
the additional water. This Article requires a 60-day notice to existing participants of the request
for additional entitlement.
The City of San Luis Obispo would increase their allocation of 3,380 acre-feet by 2,139 acre-
feet, for a total allocation of 5,519 acre-feet, should no other entities come forward to purchase
reserve water during the 60-day period stipulated in the contract. If other entities were to come
forward, the project partners would support the allocation to come from the 6,095 acre-feet in
reserve, with the remainder allocated proportionately to the project partners. This revised
allocation would not require any new construction.
With uncertainty of future climatic conditions, regulation and aging infrastructure, adding more
Nacimiento water to the City’s portfolio will reduce pressure on use of water supplies in the
Whale Rock and Salinas reservoirs. It would serve to extend these stored supplies during future
critical water shortage periods.
Full allocation of the Nacimiento Project would potentially be of regional benefit in northern San
Luis Obispo County. The Nacimiento Agreement allows for temporary water sales of ‘surplus’
water. This surplus water, created only when the reserve water has been fully allocated, may be
sold at market pricing on a temporary basis under certain circumstances. Fully allocating the
reserve water results in the quickest and most economical path forward to put the entire yearly
allocation of Nacimiento Project water to beneficial use.
The County Flood Control District was the Lead Agency in the Nacimiento Project’s final
environmental impact report (2003). This EIR contemplated full allocation of the project’s
17,500 acre-feet of water. As evaluated in the EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo requested an
allocation of 3,380 afy to meet future demand and provide more reliable in City water supplies.
The requested entitlement would meet the projected water needs of the City of San Luis Obispo
through build-out of the General Plan. The requested entitlement also included 2,000 afy of
water that would establish a Reliability Reserve. The Reliability Reserve is water that would help
meet community water demand during a drought cycle, but would not be available to support
growth or land development. On May 14, 2002, the City Council eliminated the policy that
would require the establishment of a Reliability Reserve. However, in order to maintain the
highest degree of flexibility and keep every option open, the City Council decided to maintain
the current allocation request of 3,380 afy of water from the Nacimiento Water Project.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Conservation Program is considered to be very successful
and has been in place since around 1985. The City’s requested entitlement of water from the
NWP took into account the City’s ongoing water conservation efforts.
A section of the 2004 EIR focused on reviewing the environmental impacts of providing the City
of San Luis Obispo with 3,380 acre-feet of water annually. Due to the original intent of including
future partners, the 2004 EIR did not consider the currently proposed additional delivery of
approximately 2,139 acre-feet of water being delivered to San Luis Obispo. This volume is
estimated due to the possible purchase of reserve water during the 60-day period following the
signing of the above mentioned letter. This additional amount is intended to be used to maintain
the City’s existing water supplies and delivery capabilities. The NWP was designed to provide
participants with the flexibility to balance their water demand requirements, recognizing that
NWP water would supplement other sources of water that may not always be available in
12.c
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 9 Nacimiento Water Project
sufficient quantities to meet local demand. As is the case with the current drough t, participants
have seen decreases in the availability of water from other sources, and the proposed increase in
the NWP allocation would be used to offset the loss of water from other sources. Uses that were
not initially studied during the project’s 2004 EIR would require environmental review.
A statement of overriding consideration related to significant and unavoidable impacts related to
growth inducement and air quality was adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors (as the District’s Board) when it adopted the EIR. The City, as a Responsible
Agency, also adopted a follow-up resolution including a statement of overriding consideration to
support the District’s findings.
The City of San Luis Obispo has an adopted General Plan that includes land use and growth
management policies that specify how and how much the City will grow. An additional layer of
water resource protection is found in the City’s Charter requirement to provide a water reliability
reserve. The City’s General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, updated in 2010,
includes policies related to primary, reliability reserve, and secondary water supplies to provide
adequate water resources to the community.
5.0 Evaluation of Environmental Effects
The following environmental analysis provided in Section 6.0 supports a determination that
approval and implementation of the changes to the Nacimiento Water Project identified in
Section 4.0, would not result in any previously-undisclosed significant environmental impacts or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts or additional significant
environmental impacts beyond those previously covered under the Final EIR for the Project.
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the County Board of Supervisor’s
action in approving the Project include the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, CEQA Findings, and additional responses provided for comments submitted after
publication of the Final EIR.
Section 6.0 analyzes eleven areas of environmental concern, and discusses whether the proposed
Project modifications described in Section 4.0 trigger CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 in each
of these areas. For each impact area, a reference to the Final EIR discussion is provided,
followed by an analysis of the revised Project as it relates to each of these sections. Finally, an
analysis is presented to determine whether there are any changed circumstances or new
information relative to the revised Project.
6.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
The City developed the following impact analysis based on the information provided in Sections
1 through 5 above. All impacts in this document have been classified according to the following
criteria:
Class I – Significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance: Significant
impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated. No measures could be taken to avoid or reduce
these adverse effects to insignificant or negligible levels.
12.c
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 10 Nacimiento Water Project
Class II – Significant impacts that can be mitigated to insignificance: These impacts are
potentially similar in significance to those of Class I, but can be reduced or avoided by the
implementation of mitigation measures.
Class III – Adverse but insignificant impacts: Generally, no mitigation measures are required
for this Class of impacts.
Class IV – Beneficial impacts: Effects that are beneficial to the environment.
No Impact. Generally, the proposed changes to the Nacimiento Water Project would not
result in any new impacts due to the proposed changes in water allocations.
The term “significance” is used throughout the 2004 EIR and this Addendum to characterize the
magnitude of the projected impact. For the purpose of this Addendum, a significance impact is a
substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the local proposed project area or the
area adjacent to the proposed project.
In the discussions of each issue area, criteria used to distinguish between significant and
insignificant impacts were provided in the Final EIR. To the extent feasible, distinctions are also
made between local and regional significance and short- versus long-term duration.
As noted previously, the 2004 EIR evaluated two co-equal projects: a Treated Water Option and
Raw Water Option. Since the Raw Water Option was selected and constructed, the evaluation of
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes will be compared to the
raw water project as evaluated in the EIR.
6.1 Hydrology and Water Quality
Analysis of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved NWP Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.1, and Section 11.0 Responses
to Comments.
6.1.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the 2004 NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
WQ.1 Potentially significant impact of degradation of surface water quality and
groundwater quality due to contamination by fuel or other materials related to
construction activities.
Class II
WQ.2 Increased turbidity impacts from construction work within the water bodies. Class III
Operations
WQ.3 Potentially significant impact from reduction of water deliveries during drought
and resulting water shortages to the participants.
Class II
WQ.4 Potential impact of prolonged (over one week) shutdown of releases from Lake
Nacimiento during minimum pool conditions, resulting in water shortages at
Water World Resorts and Heritage Ranch.
Class II
WQ.5 Impacts to groundwater from sea water intrusion in Salinas Basin. Class III
WQ.6 Potential degradation of groundwater quality resulting from aquifer discharge
using Lake Nacimiento water containing elevated metals concentrations.
Class II
12.c
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 11 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
WQ.7 Potential nuisances caused by the presence of vegetation in the ponds and/or
eutrophication.
Class II
WQ.8
WQ.9
Impacts from lack of sufficient capacity of the Paso Robles Discharge Area to
take full NWP deliveries;
and
Impacts from lack of sufficient capacity of the City of Paso Robles’ Thunderbird
well field to extract the total combined water right to Salinas River underflow
after adding the NWP water right.
Class II
Class II
Construction impacts WQ.1 and WQ.2 would not change since the revised water allocations
would not require any new construction. Impacts WQ.6 through WQ.9 are not applicable to the
City of San Luis Obispo since the city receives raw water directly from the NWP pipeline and
does not use discharge basins and groundwater recovery.
Impacts WQ.3 through WQ.5 were evaluated in the 2004 EIR based on the San Luis Obispo
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy entitlement from Lake
Nacimiento per agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The proposed increase in
participant allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the
NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation
increases.
6.1.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The circumstances under which the NWP was undertaken remain essentially unchanged. The
NWP was designed to provide participants with the flexibility to balance their water demand
requirements, recognizing that NWP water would supplement other sources of water that may
not always be available in sufficient quantities to meet local demand. As is the case with the
2015 drought, participants have seen decreases in the availability of water from other sources,
and the proposed increase in the NWP allocation would be used to offset the loss of water from
other sources.
6.1.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to water quality as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, potential impacts would be
considered less than significant.
6.2 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Analysis of Geology, Seismicity, and Soils impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of
the approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.2, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.2.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
12.c
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 12 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Operations
GS.1 Ground rupture along the Rinconada fault could damage project facilities. Class II
GS.2 Locating the Rocky Canyon Water Storage Tank and Happy Valley Pump Station
near the Rinconada fault zone may result in poor foundation conditions.
Class II
GS.3 Excavation in rock or soils containing asbestos may cause risk to human health. Class II
Impacts GS.2 and GS.3 are related to the construction of the pipeline and pump station facilities,
and would not be affected by the proposed allocation increases. Likewise, Impact GS.1 evaluated
potential impacts to project facilities that are independent of water allocations.
6.2.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There is no potential for significant changes in geological, seismic or soils resource conditions
within the area of potential effect of the Project since the time of certification of the Final EIR,
because such resources are relatively static. Additionally, no new information regarding
unknown hazards, conditions or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to geological, seismic
or soils resource have been identified.
6.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there
would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.3 Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation
Analysis of Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation impacts and EIR-identified mitigation
measures of the approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.3, and Section 11.0
Responses to Comments.
6.3.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
DE.1 Potentially significant impact of changes to surface water flow patterns during
construction.
Class II
DE.2 Potentially significant impact of damage to construction sites if flood flows occur
while a pipeline is being installed in a streambed.
Class II
DE.3 Potentially significant impacts to surface waters of increased turbidity and
sedimentation, and to groundwater recharge in streams crossed and paralleled due
to clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling activities.
Class II
Operations
12.c
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 13 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
DE.4 Potentially significant impact of erosion and downstream sedimentation from a
pipeline rupture.
Class II
DE.5 Potentially significant impact of scouring occurring in stream channels that expose
buried pipeline or undermine suspended pipe crossing abutments or cable
caissons.
Class II
DE.6 Potentially significant impact of increased or concentrated storm runo ff flowing
onto erodible soils from impervious surfaces.
Class II
DE.7 Potentially significant impact of high river flow or bank erosion resulting in
damage to branch pipelines or discharge piping in the three discharge areas.
Class II
Construction impacts DE.1 through DE.3 would not change since the revised water allocations
would not require any new construction. Impact DE.7 is not applicable to the City of San Luis
Obispo since the City receives raw water directly from the NWP pipeline and does not use
discharge basins and groundwater recovery.
Impacts DE.4 through DE.6 evaluated potential impacts to project facilities that are independent
of water allocations. The proposed increase in participant allocations would not exceed the
17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no
additional impact associated with participant allocation increases.
6.3.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There is no potential for significant changes in Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation conditions
within the area of potential effect of the Project since the time of certification of the Final EIR,
because such resources are relatively static. Additionally, no new information regarding
unknown hazards, conditions or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to Drainage, Erosion
and Sedimentation have been identified.
6.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore,
there would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.4 Air Quality
Analysis of Air Quality impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project
are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.4, and Section 11.0 Responses to Comments.
6.4.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
12.c
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 14 Nacimiento Water Project
AQ.1 Construction activities would generate air emissions that would impact air quality
in the area.
Class I
Operations
AQ.2 Operation of the project facilities would generate air emissions that could impact
air quality in the area.
Class II
AQ.3 Increased emissions of toxic compounds due to the project could result in
increased health risks.
Class III
AQ.4 Project Conformity with the Clean Air Act. Class III
AQ.5 Project Consistency with the County Clean Air Plan. Class III
Construction impact AQ.1 would not change since the revised water allocations would not
require any new construction. Impacts AQ.2 through AQ.4 evaluated potential impacts to project
facilities that are independent of water allocations. The proposed increase in participant
allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR.
Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation increases.
Given recent changes in legislation regarding climate and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
Impact AQ.5 has been reevaluated in the following section to determine if project operations
pose a potentially significant source of GHG emissions.
6.4.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The Final EIR for the NWP was certified prior to the passage of AB 32, the l andmark legislation
addressing global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. As such, potential impact associated
with the NWP have not been evaluated to determine if the project would be considered a
significant source of GHG emissions. The following sections contain background information on
the changes that have taken place regarding GHG legislation and evaluation requirements, as
well as an evaluation of potential project impacts.
International Regulations
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which was signed on March 21, 1994. The Convention was the first
international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the
commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions would be reduced
by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period from 2008 until
2012. However, while the US is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress has not ratified it;
therefore, the US is not bound by the Protocol’s commitments.
Climate Change Technology Program
In lieu of the Kyoto Protocol’s mandatory framework, the US has opted for a voluntary and
incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions. This approach, the Climate Change
Technology Program, is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort, led by the
Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, who are charged with carrying out the President’s
National Climate Change Technology Initiative.
12.c
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 15 Nacimiento Water Project
Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act
In the past, the US EPA has not regulated GHG under the Clean Air Act. However, the US
Supreme Court held that the EPA can, and should, consider regulating motor-vehicle GHG
emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 states and cities, including
California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations sued to force the EPA to
regulate GHG as a pollutant pursuant to the Clean Air Act (US Supreme Court No. 05-1120;
127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)). The Court ruled that GHG fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of a
pollutant and that the EPA’s reason for not regulating GHG was insufficiently grounded.
40 CFR Section 98 specifies mandatory reporting requirements for a number of industries. The
final 40 CFR part 98 applies to certain downstream facilities that emit GHG, and to certain
upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHG. For suppliers, the GHG emissions
reported are the emissions that would result from combustion or use of the products supplied.
The rule also includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring,
recordkeeping and verification requirements. The mandatory reporting requirements generally
apply to facilities that produce more than 25,000 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.
State Regulations and Programs
Executive Order S-3-05
The 2005 California Executive Order S-3-05 established the following GHG emission-reduction
targets for California:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is charged with
coordinating oversight of efforts to meet these targets and formed the Climate Action Team to
carry out the Order. Emission reduction strategies or programs developed by the Climate Action
Team to meet the emission targets are outlined in a March 2006 report (CalEPA 2006). The
Climate Action Team also provided strategies and input to the CARB Scoping Plan.
Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, the legislature declared in AB 1493 (the Pavley regulations) that global warming was a
matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment in the state. It cited several
risks that California faces from climate change, including reduction in the state’s water supply,
increased air pollution due to higher temperatures, harm to agriculture, and increase in wildfires,
damage to the coastline, and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and
insurance prices. Furthermore, the legislature stated that technological solutions for reducing
GHG emissions would stimulate California’s economy and provide jobs. Accordingly, AB 1493
required the CARB to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for
automobiles. The CARB responded by adopting CO2-equivalent fleet average emission
standards. The standards will be phased in from 2009 to 2016, reducing emissions by 22 percent
in the “near term” (2009 to 2012) and 30 percent in the “mid-term” (2013 to 2016), as compared
to 2002 fleets.
12.c
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 16 Nacimiento Water Project
The legislature passed amendments to AB 1493 in September 2009. Implementation of AB 1493
requires a waiver from the EPA, which was granted in June 2009.
Assembly Bill 32
AB 32 codifies California’s GHG emissions target and requires the state to reduce global
warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It further directs the CARB to enforce the statewide
cap that would begin phasing in by 2012. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Key milestones of AB 32 include: June 20,
2007 - Identification of “discrete early action GHG emission-reduction measures.”
January 1, 2008 - Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions levels and approval of a
statewide limit equivalent to that level. Adoption of reporting and verification requirements
concerning GHG emissions.
January 1, 2009 - Adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions.
January 1, 2010 - Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the actions.
January 1, 2011 - Regulatory adoption of GHG emission limits and reduction measures.
January 1, 2012 - GHG emission limits and reduction measures become enforceable.
Since the passage of AB 32, the CARB published Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate
Change in California. This publication indicated that the issue of GHG emissions in CEQA and
General Plans was being deferred for later action, so the publication did not discuss any early
action measures generally related to CEQA or to land use decisions.
California Senate Bill 1368
In 2006, the California legislature passed SB 1368, which requires the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) to develop and adopt a “greenhouse gases emission performance standard”
by March 1, 2007, for private electric utilities under its regulation. The PUC adopted an interim
standard on January 25, 2007, requiring that all new long-term commitments for base load
generation involve power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas
turbine plant. That level is established at 1,100 lbs/MWh of CO2. The California Energy
Commission has also adopted similar rules.
Senate Bill 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions stating, “This bill advances a coordinated policy for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by directing the Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency to
develop CEQA guidelines on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary,
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.” Specifically, SB 97 requires the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency
guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as
required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy
consumption. The Resources Agency would be required to certify and adopt those guidelines by
January 1, 2010. OPR would be required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new
information or criteria established by the CARB pursuant to the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. SB 97 also identifies a limited number of t ypes of projects that would be
exempt under CEQA from analyzing GHG emissions.
12.c
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 17 Nacimiento Water Project
On January 7, 2009, OPR issued its draft CEQA guidelines revisions pursuant to SB 97. On
March 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them
with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments
became effective on March 18, 2010.
Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory and Preliminary Draft CEQA Guidelines
Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Consistent with SB 97, on March 18, 2010, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include
references to GHG emissions. The amendments offer guidance regarding the steps lead agencies
should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents.
According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether GHG may be generated by a
proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second,
the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant.
When assessing whether a project’s effects on climate change are cumulatively considerable,
even though its GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider
the impact of the Project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and
probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the
proposed project are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid,
reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions.
The Amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they
prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. The Preliminary
Amendments maintain CEQA discretion for lead agencies to establish thresholds of significance
based on individual circumstances.
The guidelines developed by OPR provide the lead agency with discretion in determining what
methodology is used in assessing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of a
particular project. This guidance is provided because the methodology for assessing GHG
emissions is expected to evolve over time. The OPR guidance also states that the lead agency can
rely on qualitative or other performance based standards for estimating the significance of GHG
emissions.
On December 11, 2008, the CARB adopted the Scoping Plan as directed by AB 32 (CARB
2008). The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in
California. The numerous measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the Board are being
implemented in phases with Early Action Measures that have already been implemented.
Measures include a cap-and-trade system, car standards, low carbon fuel standards, landfill gas
control methods, energy efficiency, green buildings, renewable electricity standards, and
refrigerant management programs.
The Scoping Plan provides an approach to reduce emissions to achieve the 2020 target and to
initiate the transformations required to achieve the 2050 target. The 2008 Scoping Plan indicated
that a 29 percent reduction below the estimated “business as usual” levels would be necessary to
return to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2011 supplement (Functional Equivalent Document) to the
Scoping Plan emission inventory revisions indicated that a 16 percent reduction below the
estimated “business as usual” levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020. This
revision was due to the slowing economy between 2008 and 2010 and to reduction measures that
were already in place (CARB, 2011). An update of the Scoping Plan has occurred with a release
12.c
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 18 Nacimiento Water Project
of a Draft Discussion Document in October, 2013 and a 2014 Update (see below). Another
update is required in 2018.
CARB underwent an extensive and rigorous process in developing and approving the Scoping
Plan. For a detailed discussion of this process, see Association of Irritated Residents et. al. v.
State Air Resources Board et. al., Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District,
Division Three (206 Cal. App. 4th 1487; 143 Cal Rptr. 3d 65; 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 718; 42
ELR 20127, June 19, 2012, p. 5 – hereafter “AIR.”). Among other things, CARB considered
several alternatives to achieve the mandated maximum technologically feasible and cost -
effective reductions in GHGs and submitted its analyses and recommendations for peer review
and public comment on many occasions (AIR p. 5). In affirming CARB’s adoption of the
Scoping Plan, the Court of Appeal of California concluded as follows:
“The Governor and the Legislature have set ambitious goals for reducing the level of greenhouse
gas emissions in California and to do so by means that are feasible and most cost-effective. The
challenges inherent in meeting these goals can hardly be overstated. [C]ARB has been assigned
the responsibility of designing and overseeing the implementation of measures to achieve these
challenging goals. The scoping plan is but an initial step in this effort, to be followed by the
adoption of regulations, the first of which are already in effect, and plan updates no less than
every five years. As the plan itself indicates, there is still much to be learned that is pertinent to
minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. It is hardly surprising that the scoping plan leaves some
questions unanswered and that opinions differ as to [the] many complex issues inherent in the
task. After reviewing the record before us, we are satisfied that the Board has approached its
difficult task in conformity with the directive from the Legislature, and that the measures that it
has recommended reflect the exercise of sound judgment based upon substantial evidence.
Further research and experience likely would suggest modifications to the blueprint drawn in the
scoping plan, but the plan’s adoption in 2009 was in no respect arbitrary or capricious.” (AIR, p.
13.)
Executive Order S-03-05 sets a goal that California emit 80 percent less GHGs in 2050 than it
emitted in 1990. CARB's Scoping Plan, including the October, 2013 Discussion Draft, provides
additional direction and insight as to how it anticipates California would achieve the 2050
reduction goal in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05:
"Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent would require California to develop new
technologies that dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a landscape of
new ideas, clean energy, and green technology. The measures and approaches in this plan are
designed to accelerate this necessary transition, promote the rapid development of a cleaner, low
carbon economy, create vibrant livable communities, and improve the ways we travel and move
goods throughout the state" (CARB 2008).
"[T]he measures needed to meet the 2050 goal are too far in the future to define in detail . . ."
(Ibid.) The CEC and CARB also have published an alternative fuels plan that identifies
challenging but plausible ways to meet 2050 transportation goals. The majority of the measures
identified by the CEC/CARB (renewable power requirements, the low carbon fuel standard, and
vehicle emissions standards) relate to technology improvements beyond both the control of the
Applicant and the scope of the proposed Project. But, these technological improvements would
reduce the demand for crude oil through a reduction in demand for gasoline and diesel fuels.
12.c
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 19 Nacimiento Water Project
Scoping Plan 2011 Re-Approved Document
In August 2011, the initial Scoping Plan was re-approved by the ARB, and includes the Final
Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. In the 2011 re-approved
Scoping Plan, ARB updated the projected business as usual (BAU) emissions based on current
economic forecasts (i.e., as influenced by the economic downturn) and GHG-reduction measures
already in place. The BAU projection for 2020 GHG emissions in California was originally, in
the 2008 Scoping Plan, estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e. ARB subsequently derived an updated
estimate of emissions in a 2013 Draft Discussion Document by considering the influence of the
recent recession and reduction measures that are already in place. The revision estimates the year
2020 emissions at 507 MMTCO2e (as the BAU estimate).
The 2011 Re-Approved Scoping Plan concluded that achieving the 1990 levels by 2020 meant
cutting approximately 16 percent, compared to the original 2008 Scoping Plan that estimated a
29 percent reduction (CARB 2011). The 2011 Scoping Plan sets forth the expected GHG
emission reductions from a variety of measures, including the Pavley I automobile standards and
the Renewables Portfolio Standard, neither of which were assumed in the 2008 Scoping Plan.
Scoping Plan 2014 First Update
CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014 with recommendations for
a mid-term target (between 2020 and 2050) and sector-specific actions. The First Update
addresses issues such as a revision to the GWP for gasses (to a 20 year instead of the 100 year
timeframe), the establishment of a mid-term 2030 goal (of between 33-40 percent reduction over
1990 levels), and the development of post-2020 emissions caps related to Cap-and-Trade to
reflect the establishment of a 2030 midterm target. This first revision also provides an update on
climate science and a report on progress toward the 2020 target, including achievements of the
2008 and 2011 Scoping Plans, an update on the inventory of GHG emissions, and an update of
the economy and its potential affect on future emissions’ forecasting. It also addresses post-2020
goals, including Executive Order S-3-05.
California Air Resource Board Cap-and-Trade Regulation
The California Air Resource Board has implemented a cap-and-trade type program, as per the
AB-32 directed Scoping Plan, applicable to specific industries that emit more than 25,000
MTCO2e annually. The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade program as one of the
strategies California would employ to reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change. Under
cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors would be established by
the Cap-and-Trade program, and facilities subject to the cap would be able to trade permits
(allowances) to emit GHGs. The program started on January 1, 2012, with an enforceable
compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG emissions for GHG emissions from
stationary sources. The petroleum and natural gas systems sector is covered starting in 2013 for
stationary and related combustion, process vents and flare emissions if the total emissions from
these sources exceed 25,000 MTCO2e per year. Suppliers of Natural Gas and transportation
fuels are covered beginning in 2015 for combustion emissions from the total volume of natural
gas delivered to a non‐covered entity or for transportation fuels.
CARB’s rationale for adopting Cap-and-Trade was prominently noted by the Court of Appeals’
opinion upholding the ARB Scoping Plan as follows:
The final scoping plan explains the Board's rationale for recommending a cap-and-trade program
in combination with the so-called "complementary measures" by citing the rationale outlined by
12.c
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 20 Nacimiento Water Project
the market Advisory committee and quoting from the report of the economic and technology
advancement advisory committee, in part, as follows: " A declining cap can send the right price
signals to shape the behavior of consumers when purchasing products and services. It would
also shape business decisions on what products to manufacture and how to manufacture them.
Establishing a price for carbon and other GHG emissions can efficiently tilt decision-making
toward cleaner alternatives. This cap and trade approach (complemented by technology-forcing
performance standards) avoids the danger of having government or other centralized decision -
makers choose specific technologies, thereby limiting the flexibility to allow other options to
emerge on a level playing field. Complementary policies would be needed to spur innovation,
overcome traditional market barriers ... and address distributional impacts from possible higher
prices for goods and services in a carbon-constrained world. "(AIR 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1499.)
Cap-and-Trade is designed to reduce the emissions from a substantial percentage of GHG
sources (approximately 80 percent of GHG emissions would come under the program) within
California through a market trading system. The system would reduce GHG emissions by
reducing the available GHG “allowances” over time up until the year 2020. The program
beyond the year 2020 has not been designed yet, but the program is intended to extend beyond
that timeframe.
Facilities are required to obtain an “allowance”, either through purchasing on auction or through
freely allocated “industry assistance” allowances from CARB, for each MTCO2e of GHG they
emit.
CARB issues the “industry assistance” allocations for free for a number of industries. These are
based, in part, on a pre-defined “benchmark” of GHG emissions per unit of production. For the
thermally enhanced oil recovery (TEOR) production sector, allowances are provided as a
function of the amount of crude oil produced, thereby establishing, in effect, a level of efficiency
in regards to GHG emissions for that sector. Other sectors are also allocated allowances based
on their own respective activities.
If an operation within the TEOR sector operates less efficiently than the specified “benchmark”,
thereby receiving an insufficient number of “free” allowances to cover their emissions,
implementation of efficiency improvements or the purchase of additional allowances from the
CARB auction would be required. Some availability of “offsets” is also included in the program,
which can be obtained from specific, allowable offset programs, such as GHG reduction projects
related to forestry, livestock and ozone depleting chemicals. Offsets outside of these three
options are not allowed at this time.
The first group of sectors began trading in allowances in 2012. That group includes the oil and
gas sector as well as most stationary sources. A second group is planned to begin the program in
2015, which would include the transportation fuels sector. CARB auctioned about 23 million
allowances in November 2012 to be used for the 2013 year.
For subsequent periods after the initial 2013 period, allowances are planned to be distributed
freely through the “industry assistance” program or auctioned off. Industry assistance
allowances would decrease each year as per a “cap adjustment factor”. The cap adjustment
factor would be approximately two to three percent annually through 2020. The total allowances
allowed to be allocated each year (either freely allocated or auctioned) are limited by the defined
12.c
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 21 Nacimiento Water Project
allowance budget, which decreases each year through 2020 and is currently set at approximately
159 million MTCO2e for the year 2014.
An operator is required to participate in the Cap-and-Trade program if its facility emits more
than 25,000 MTCO2e annually. Annual reporting of GHG emissions is required under the
CARB Mandatory Reporting Rule.
As only a limited number of allowances are issued, based on the original emissions estimates
prepared by the CARB, and these allowances are reduced each year by a given percentage to
achieve the year 2020 goals, any operator who commences operations after the Cap-and-Trade
program is in effect would be required to obtain allowances from the given limited pool. Any
increase in GHG emissions at a facility would therefore be allowed through a reduction in GHG
emissions at some other location with the net GHG emissions statewide not increasing. This
mechanism would serve to ensure that the goals of AB 32 are achieved; that emissions statewide
are reduced, even if local GHG emissions increase; and that, ultimately, emissions of GHG and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations are stabilized, thereby reducing impacts. This produces, in
effect, mitigation for this cumulative impact.
Note that GHG emissions produce no immediate, local health effects (such as criteria pollutants
or ozone), and therefore GHG emissions reduced in another County, for example, could be used
to offset the GHG emissions occurring at a project site.
The evolution of the Cap-and-Trade program past 2020 may render certain industries with higher
GHG emissions economically infeasible. Many oil and gas projects may no longer exist by 2050
as the remaining unextracted resources may no longer be economically recoverable due to the
cost of obtaining allowances. In addition, the goals of the State programs are to move the
demand-side away from fossil fuels. As per the Scoping Plan, “Reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions by 80 percent [by 2050] will require California to develop new technologies that
dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a landscape of new ideas, clean
energy, and green technology. The measures and approaches in this plan are designed to
accelerate this necessary transition, promote the rapid development of a cleaner, low carbon
economy…”
SB 375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
SB 375 supports the State's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable
communities.
Under the Sustainable Communities Act, ARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions
reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, ARB established these targets for 2020 and
2035 for each region covered by one of the State's metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).
ARB will periodically review and update the targets, as needed.
Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) as a part of
its regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation
strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction
targets. The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local
governments and developers to implement the SCS or the APS. Developers can get relief from
certain environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act
12.c
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 22 Nacimiento Water Project
(CEQA) if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or
APS) that meets the targets (see Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2,
21159.28.).
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) released their Draft Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) in December 2014. The plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled per
capita from 30.2 in 2005 to 28.2 in 2035, an 8.5 percent reduction. The RTP would also reduce
per capita CO2 emissions by 10.9 percent, exceeding the region’s target of 8 percent. The plan
was adoption in April 2015.
California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol
The California Climate Action Registry is a program of the Climate Action Reserve and serves
as a voluntary GHG registry. The California Climate Action Registry was formed in 2001 when
a group of chief executive officers, who were investing in energy efficiency projects that reduced
their organizations’ GHG emissions, asked the State to create a place to accurately report their
emissions history. The California Climate Action Registry publishes a General Reporting
Protocol, which provides the principles, approach, methodology, and procedures to estimate such
emissions.
California Air Resource Board Proposed Mandatory Reporting Regulation
The Air Resources Board approved a mandatory reporting regulation in December 2007, which
became effective January 2009 (which appears at sections 95100-95133 of Title 17, California
Code of Regulations), which requires the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for specific
industries emitting more than 10,000 - 25,000 MTCO2e depending on the process source type.
Status of California GHG Reduction Efforts
The State is required to monitor the effectiveness of the state programs on an annual basis.
According to the State report card for 2013, the Pavley Standard achieved a 2.2 million MTCO2e
(MMT) of reductions in 2011 (the last year of available data in the 2013 report) with a goal of
29.9 MMT by 2020; the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program achieved a 0.7 MMT reduction in
2011 with a goal of 15 MMT by 2020; and the Renewable Portfolio Standard program for power
generation achieved a reduction of 3.5 MMT in 2011 with a goal of 19.3 MMT. The Cap-and-
Trade program was started in 2013 and has reported few problems, but specific reductions have
not been quantified yet. Its goal is a reduction of 18 MMT by 2020. Total reductions in all state
programs total 9.1 MMT in 2011 (6.3 percent of the goal), with a goal of 146 MMT reductions
by 2020.
Local Regulations and Programs
County Climate Action Plan
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan on July 17, 2012, and summarizes strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Community strategies for climate change adaptation and reduction of
GHG emissions are divided into six chapters: Buildings, Renewable Energy, Transportation &
Land Use, Water, Solid Waste, and Parks & Open Space. Strategies that will help reduce GHG
emissions associated with City Government Operations were also included in a separate chapter.
County Climate Action Plan
The County adopted a Climate Action Plan (EnergyWise Plan) on November 22, 2011, as a
blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, a Green Building Ordinance to
12.c
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 23 Nacimiento Water Project
improve energy efficiency in new and existing development effective January 1, 2013. The CAP
focuses on local actions to reduce GHG emissions through energy efficiencies, including:
retrofitting existing buildings; reversing rural sprawl; and increasing use of non-fossil fuels such
as solar and wind energy (SLOC 2011).
County General Plan, Conservation, and Open Space Element
The County Board of Supervisors in 2010 adopted a comprehensive Conservation and Open
Space Element with a focus on reducing GHG emissions, increasing energy efficiency, and using
local renewable energy. The County's EnergyWise Plan (adopted in 2011) included an inventory
of GHG. The EnergyWise Plan is required by the Conservation and Open Space Element of the
General Plan. The Inventory found that the unincorporated San Luis Obispo community emitted
917,710 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2006.
SLOCAPCD
The SLOCAPCD adopted GHG thresholds on March 28, 2012 and updated their CEQA
Handbook in April, 2012, to incorporate the new thresholds (SLOCAPCD 2012).
Significance Thresholds
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment
that emit GHG emissions and would require an SLOCAPCD permit to operate. This threshold is
applied to emissions within San Luis Obispo County.
For construction, the GHG emissions from construction are amortized over the life of the project
(50 years for residential projects and 25 years for commercial and industrial projects) and added
to the operation GHG emissions.
Impact Analysis
Impact # Impact Description Phase Impact
Classification
AQ.6
Operational activities associated with the Proposed Project
could generate GHG emissions that exceed SLOCAPCD
thresholds.
Operations Class III
The NWP does not directly utilize fossil fuels or emit greenhouse gases. However, the project
requires electrical power generated offsite to power the pipeline pump stations and end receiver
water treatment plants. Table 2 shows the GHG emissions associated with the NWP Project.
As shown in Table 2, project-related GHG emissions at full capacity would be less than the
SLOAPCD significance threshold of 10,000 metric tonnes per year. Therefore, potential project
impacts would be considered adverse but insignificant (Class III).
Table 2 Operational GHG Emissions, metric tonnes
Source CO2 CH4 N2O MTCO2E
Pump Station 2,275 0.1 0.0 2,284
Water Treatment 5,056 0.2 0.0 5,077
Total Emissions 7,332 0.3 0.1 7,361
12.c
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 24 Nacimiento Water Project
SLOAPCD Threshold
10,000
Note: MTCO2E-metric tons CO2 equivalent.
6.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions as evaluated in the NWP EIR and the GHG
analysis above. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with the proposed water
allocation increase.
6.5 Noise
Analysis of Noise impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.5, and Section 11.0 Responses to Comments.
6.5.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
N.1 Construction noise would temporarily increase ambient daytime noise levels along
the pipeline route and near the pump station and WTP sites.
Class II
Operations
N.2 Operations noise from pumps would increase long-term ambient noise levels. Class III
N.3 Periodic testing and emergency use of generators would increase short -term
ambient noise levels near the pump stations.
Class II
Construction impact N.1 would not change since the revised water allocations would not require
any new construction.
Impacts N.3 and N.3 were evaluated potential impacts to project facilities that are independent of
water allocations. The proposed increase in participant allocations would not exceed the 17,500
afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no additional
impact associated with participant allocation increases.
6.5.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There is no potential for significant changes in noise conditions within the area of potential effect
of the NWP since the time of certification of the Final EIR, because such resources are relatively
static. Additionally no new information regarding unknown conditions or resources has become
available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial
importance relative to noise have been identified.
12.c
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 25 Nacimiento Water Project
6.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to noise impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact
associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of
the approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.6, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.6.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
HM.1 During construction of the proposed pipeline on the Camp Roberts property,
unexploded military ordnance could be encountered, which could expose
construction workers to explosion hazards.
Class III
HM.2 Earth-moving operations during construction could uncover contaminated soils
and other hazardous materials, including naturally occurring asbestos, creating
health risks to construction workers and public.
Class II
HM.3 During construction, hazardous utilities could be damaged by construction
equipment. This could expose construction workers and public to hazardous
materials transported by the damaged pipelines.
Class II
HM.4 Releases of hazardous or flammable materials during construction could pose
risks of fire or contamination.
Class III
HM.5 Contaminated materials in the soil could enter into the pipeline expose water users
to contamination and pose health risks.
Class III
Operations
HM.6 During operation of the WTP, the employees and public could be exposed to the
hazardous chemicals transported to, used, and stored at the plant.
Class II
HM.7 Accidental release of large quantities of treated water into a fresh water body
could be harmful to the organisms in the water body.
Class III
Construction impacts HM.1 through HM.5 would not change since the revised water allocations
would not require any new construction. Impact HM.6 is not applicable to the City of San Luis
Obispo since the City receives raw water directly from the NWP pipeline and the water treatment
plant that was evaluated in the NWP EIR was never constructed. Chemicals are used to treat raw
water deliveries, which would slightly increase with the proposed allocation increase of NWP
water, as well as differences in pH levels of the water from Lake Nacimiento. However, since the
water from the increased NWP allocation would be used to displace other sources of water,
overall chemicals to treat raw water use within the City would not change appreciably with
potential impacts considered less than significant (Class III).
12.c
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 26 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact HM.7 evaluated potential impacts of treated water spills that are independent of water
allocations, but are instead related to the demand for treated water delivery to customers. There
would be no project-related changes to the City’s water distribution network that would change
the probability or magnitude of a treated water spill. Therefore, there would be no additional
impact associated with participant allocation increases.
6.6.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to hazards or hazardous materials impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore,
there would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in the use of hazardous materials or potential impacts to public safety as evaluated in the NWP
EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.7 Biological Resources
Analysis of Biological Resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.7, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.7.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
BR.1 Potentially significant impacts to terrestrial biological resources from heavy
construction machinery and various construction activities.
Class II
BR.2 Impacts to riparian, water, and wetlands habitats and their biological resources
from construction activities.
Class II
BR.3 Impacts to wildlife from noise due to the project construction and operation
phases.
Class II
BR.4 Impacts to wildlife in drainages due to erosion, sedimentation and dewatering. Class II
BR.5 Impacts to plants from dust emission due to the project construction phase. Class II
BR.9 Impacts to riparian habitat due to construction of the water discharge areas in the
vicinity of Salinas River.
Class II
Operations
BR.6 Impacts to aquatic life from treated water spills in case the treated water pipeline
ruptures during operational phase of the project.
Class III
BR.7 Impacts to fish in Lake Nacimiento due to pumping through the water intake
during operational phase of the project.
Class III
BR.8 Impacts to fisheries during operational phase of the proposed project. Class III
Class II
12.c
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 27 Nacimiento Water Project
Construction impacts BR.1 through BR.5 and BR.9 would not change since the revised water
allocations would not require any new construction. Impact BR.6 evaluated potential impacts of
treated water spills that are independent of water allocations, but are instead related to the
demand for treated water delivery to customers. There would be no project-related changes to the
City’s water distribution network that would change the probability or magnitude of a treated
water spill. Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation
increases. Impacts BR.7 and BR.8 were evaluated in the EIR based on the San Luis Obispo
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy entitlement from Lake
Nacimiento per agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The proposed increase in
participant allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluat ed in the
NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation
increases.
6.7.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to biological resource impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would
be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to biological resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR, which mainly focused on
potential impacts to biological resources during project construction. Therefore, there would be
no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.8 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Analysis of Cultural and Paleontological Resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation
measures of the approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.8, and Section 11.0
Responses to Comments.
6.8.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
CR.1 Soil moving construction activities (e.g., trenching, excavating) could impact
significant and important paleontology resources.
Class II
CR.2 Soil moving construction activities (e.g., trenching, excavating) could impact
significant and important geology resources.
Class III
CR.3 Soil moving construction activities (e.g., trenching, excavating) could impact
significant and important geomorphology resources.
Class II
12.c
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 28 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
CR.4 Soil moving construction activities (e.g., trenching, excavating) could impact
significant and important prehistoric cultural resources.
Class II
CR.5 Soil moving construction activities (e.g., trenching, excavating) could impact
significant and important historical cultural resources.
Class III
CR.6 Construction of the proposed project adjacent to or in the vicinity of
archaeological or historical sites may result in the looting, vandalism or
destruction of cultural resources by construction employees or persons visiting the
construction site.
Class II
Operations
None Class II
All of the potential impacts to Cultural and Paleontological Resources that were evaluated in the
NWP Final EIR involved construction activities and the potential disturbance of sensitive
resources. Construction impacts CR.1 through CR.6 would not change since the revised water
allocations would not require any new construction. Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
6.8.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to cultural or paleontological resource impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR.
Therefore, there would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to cultural or paleontological resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR, which mainly
focused on potential impacts to cultural or paleontological resources during project construction.
Therefore, there would be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.9 Land Use
Analysis of Land Use impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project
are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.9, and Section 11.0 Responses to Comments.
6.9.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The NWP Final EIR found that there would be no significant impacts to land use resulting from
the proposed project as the proposed project is compatible with the underlying land use
designations outlined in San Luis Obispo County’s General Plan, and with those of affected
Federal, State, and local government entities.
12.c
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 29 Nacimiento Water Project
6.9.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to land use impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no
impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.9.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to land use as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Please see Section 8.0 for a discussio n of
potential project-related growth inducement impacts.
6.10 Utilities and Public Services
Analysis of Utilities and Public Services impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.10, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.10.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
UP.1 Impacts to Water Services during construction. Class III
UP.4 Impacts to Fire Protection and Emergency Response Services. Class II
UP.5 Impacts to Law Enforcement. Class III
UP.6 Impacts to Waste Disposal Services. Class III
UP.8 Impacts to roads and road maintenance. Class III
Operations
UP.2 Impacts to Water Services during operation. Class IV
Construction and Operations
UP.3 Impacts to Energy Resources. Class III
UP.7 Impacts to school facilities. Class III
Construction impacts UP.1, UP.4, UP.5, UP.6 and UP.8 would not change since the revised
water allocations would not require any new construction. Operational Impact UP.2 was
considered a beneficial impact for water services since it provided project participants with more
flexibility and capacity to provide service to their customers. As is the case with the 2015
drought, participants have seen decreases in the availability of water from other sources, and the
proposed increase in the NWP allocation can be used to offset the loss of water from those other
sources, which is considered a beneficial impact of the project.
Impact UP.3 noted the less than significant impact associated with fossil fuel use during project
construction, and electricity use during normal project operations associated with the pump
stations and water treatment at full capacity. The impact analysis was evaluated in the EIR based
12.c
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 30 Nacimiento Water Project
on the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy
entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The
proposed increase in participant allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was
evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with
participant allocation increases.
Impact UP.7 identified a less than significant adverse impact associated with growth and
potential increases in school enrollment. The proposed water allotment increase would only
support growth consistent with the City’s approved General Plan. Therefore, the potential impact
to schools would remain adverse but less than significant.
6.10.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The NWP Final EIR evaluated a wide variety of climatic conditions and historical water levels to
determine potential impacts on water services during both wet and extended dry climatic periods.
As such, the Final EIR impact analysis anticipated potential impacts to water resources and
socioeconomic impacts associated with participant water withdrawals during drought conditions.
In response to mandatory water use reductions, the City’s 2015(Water Year 2015 covers October
2014 through September 2015) per capita water use was 97.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
Based on WWME policies, the City uses the ten-year gpcd average to project water required to
serve build-out population. The ten-year average water use is 114.4 gpcd. Therefore, the current
drought does not pose a situation that was not anticipated in the EIR analysis and does not
change the relative significance of potential impacts that were identified in the Final EIR.
6.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to public services and utilities as evaluated in the NWP EIR. The NWP was designed
to provide participants with the flexibility to balance their water demand requirements,
recognizing that NWP water would supplement other sources of water that may not always be
available in sufficient quantities to meet local demand. As is the case with the 2015 current
drought, participants have seen decreases in the availability of water from other sources, and the
proposed increase in the NWP allocation would be used to offset the loss of water from other
sources. Please see Section 8.0 for a discussion of potential project-related growth inducement
impacts.
6.11 Transportation/Circulation
Analysis of Transportation/Circulation impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.11, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.11.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
12.c
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 31 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
T.1 Construction associated with the project would temporarily add to local road
traffic.
Class II
T.2 Pipeline construction would require partial road closures and reduce the number
of travel lanes during peak traffic periods for roadways with an LOS of D or
worse, resulting in a disruption of traffic flow and/or traffic congestion.
Class II
T.3 Partial street closures would temporarily restrict access to and from private
property and adjacent land uses.
Class II
T.4 Construction activities could interfere with emergency response by ambulance,
fire, paramedic, and police vehicles.
Class II
T.5 Pedestrian circulation would be affected by project activities if pedestrians are
unable to pass through a construction zone.
Class III
T.6 Construction activities could result in physical damage to road surfaces. Class II
Operations
T.7 Operation of WTP, pump stations and pipeline would add truck traffic on local
roads.
Class III
T.8 A pipeline failure could disrupt traffic during repairs. Class II
Construction impacts T.1 through T.6 would not change since the revised water allocations
would not require any new construction. Impact T.7 is not applicable to the proposed project
since the County selected the Raw Water Option and never constructed the water treatment plant
at Camp Roberts. Impact T.8 is a baseline condition within the City of San Luis Obispo since the
existing water distribution would be utilized and no new construction has been proposed as part
of the increased allocation.
6.11.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to transportation impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would be no
impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.11.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to transportation and circulation as evaluated in the NWP EIR, which mainly focused
on potential impacts during project construction. Therefore, there would be no impact associated
with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.12 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Analysis of Aesthetics/Visual Resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.12, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
12.c
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 32 Nacimiento Water Project
6.12.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Operations
VR.1 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of water intake structures at Nacimiento
Dam.
Class II
VR.2 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of WTP, WTP storage tanks, and the
pump station
Class III
VR.3 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of Salinas River suspended pipe
crossing.
Class III
VR.4 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of surge tank in the vicinity of
Templeton treated water pipeline turnout site.
Class II
VR.5 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of Rocky Canyon Road storage tank and
Happy Valley pump station.
Class II
VR.6 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of Cuesta Tunnel Storage Tank Class III
VR.7 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of turnouts and air release valves. Class III
VR.8 Visual impacts due to change in the Lake Nacimiento water levels resulting from
the release of additional water.
Class III
VR.9 Visual impacts due to long-term presence of river discharge facilities. Class III
Construction impacts VR.1 through VR.7 and VR.9 would not change since the revised water
allocations would not require any new construction. Impact VR.2 is not applicable to the
proposed project since the County selected the Raw Water Option and never constructed the
water treatment plant at Camp Roberts and the existing pump stations would not change as a
result of the project.
The impact analysis was evaluated in the EIR based on the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per
agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The proposed increase in participant
allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR.
Therefore, the NWP Final EIR adequately evaluated the visual impact of low lake levels and
there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation increases.
6.12.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The circumstances under which the NWP was undertaken remain essentially unchanged. The
NWP was designed to provide participants with the flexibility to balance their water demand
requirements, recognizing that NWP water would supplement other sources of water that may
not always be available in sufficient quantities to meet local demand. As is the case with the
current 2015 drought, participants have seen decreases in the availability of water from other
sources, and the proposed increase in the NWP allocation would be used to offset the loss of
water from other sources. Even under the current drought conditions, the Lake Nacimiento lake
level of approximately 719 feet (as of 12/3/15) remains above the minimum and dead pool levels
of 688 and 670 feet, respectively. The County’s 17,500 afy entitlement represents less than 10
12.c
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 33 Nacimiento Water Project
percent of the overall annual release volume of 200,000 afy and has only a minor impact on lake
level variations.
6.12.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to visual resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, potential impacts would
be considered less than significant.
6.13 Agricultural Resources
Analysis of Agricultural Resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.13, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.13.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
AG.1 Water pipeline construction within the roads ROW has the potential to adversely
impact access to and maintenance of agricultural operations.
Class II
AG.2 Water pipeline construction (including fence removal and trenching) along
property boundaries has the potential to impact ranching and livestock operations.
Class II
AG.3 Water pipeline construction and placement of staging areas on agricultural lands
have the potential to permanently impact soils on grazing and croplands due to
improper soil replacement and/or reseeding efforts.
Class II
AG.4 Water pipeline construction activities have the potential to adversely impact
agricultural lands through the spread of noxious weeds or wind-borne dust.
Class II
Operations
None Class II
All of the potential impacts to agricultural resources that were evaluated in the NWP Final EIR
involved construction activities and the potential disturbance of sensitive resources. Construction
impacts AG.1 through AG.4 would not change since the revised water allocations would not
require any new construction. Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
6.13.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to agricultural resource impacts as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, there would
be no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
12.c
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 34 Nacimiento Water Project
6.13.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to agricultural resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR, which mainly focused on
potential impacts to agricultural resources during project construction. Therefore, there would be
no impact associated with the proposed water allocation increase.
6.14 Recreational Resources
Analysis of recreational resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.14, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.14.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
REC.3 Open trench construction along the following reaches would result in short-term
impacts to bicyclists: Rocky Canyon Road to Santa Margarita, Santa Margarita to
the Cuesta Tunnel, Cuesta Tunnel to San Luis Obispo WTP, San Luis Obispo
WTP to Highway 227/Santa Fe Road, and Highway 227.
Class II
REC.4 Partial loss of access to recreational opportunities at Laguna Lake Park due to
water pipeline installation activities along Reach No. 10 (Sta. 2520+00-2935+00)
near Dalidio Drive in San Luis Obispo.
Class II
REC.5 Portions of the adopted Salinas River Trail System may need to be re -routed due
to the construction of water discharge facilities.
Class II
Operations
REC.1 The partial relocation of a log boom 500 feet from the intake location would
prohibit all recreational activity on approximately 2 additional acres of lake
surface area.
Class III
REC.2 Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to
recreational resources at Lake Nacimiento, as compared to historic conditions, due
to the additional lowering of water levels to elevations below 748 feet during
periods of drought.
Class III
Construction impacts REC.3 through REC.5 would not change since the revised water
allocations would not require any new construction. Impact REC.1 would remain the same since
the proposed allocation increases would not alter the location of the log boom near the dam.
The impact analysis was evaluated in the EIR based on the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per
agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The proposed increase in participant
allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR.
Therefore, the NWP Final EIR adequatel y evaluated the visual impact of low lake levels and
there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation increases.
12.c
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 35 Nacimiento Water Project
6.14.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The circumstances under which the NWP was undertaken remain essentially unchanged. The
NWP was designed to provide participants with the flexibility to balance their water demand
requirements, recognizing that NWP water would supplement other sources of water that may
not always be available in sufficient quantities to meet local demand. As is the case with the
2015 drought, participants have seen decreases in the availability of water from other sources,
and the proposed increase in the NWP allocation would be used to offset the loss of water from
those other sources. Even under the current drought conditions, the Lake Nacimiento lake level
of approximately 719 feet (as of 12/3/15) remains above the minimum and dead pool levels of
688 and 670 feet, respectively. The County’s 17,500 afy entitlement represents less than 5
percent of the overall storage capacity of 377,900 afy and has only a minor impact on lake level
variations.
6.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to recreational resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, potential impacts
would be considered less than significant.
6.15 Socioeconomic Resources
Analysis of Socioeconomic Resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.15, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.15.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
SE.1 Water pipeline construction activities located within the road ROWs near business
centers (Paso Robles, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Obispo) have the potential to
cause adverse impacts to industries located within and adjacent to project areas by
impeding standard business practices. The majority of businesses that would be
affected for the short-term are those located within or adjacent to construction
areas on North River Road, El Camino Real in Santa Margarita, at the intersection
of Dalidio Drive and Madonna Road, along Dalidio Drive, Prado Road extension,
and Highway 227. These businesses may experience short-term impedance to
business caused by road closures in front of businesses, some difficulties
accessing store fronts, and nuisance to patrons from construction activities. This
impedance to business would average one to two days during construction (based
on construction of 50 to 100 feet of pipeline per day).
Class III
12.c
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 36 Nacimiento Water Project
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Operations
SE.2 Implementation of the proposed project would result in insignificant adverse
impacts to businesses that rely on tourism/recreational activities at Lake
Nacimiento, as compared to historic conditions, due to the additional lowering of
water levels to elevations below 748 feet.
Class III
SE.3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in insignificant adverse
impacts to property values surrounding Lake Nacimiento resulting from changes
in lake levels.
Class III
Construction impact SE.1 would not change since the revised water allocations would not require
any new construction.
Impacts SE.2 and SE.3 were evaluated in the EIR based on the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District 17,500 afy entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per
agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. The proposed increase in participant
allocations would not exceed the 17,500 afy entitlement that was evaluated in the NWP EIR.
Therefore, there would be no additional impact associated with participant allocation increases.
6.15.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The circumstances under which the NWP was undertaken remain essentially unchanged.
6.15.3 Conclusion
The proposed increase in the City’s water allocation would not result in any appreciable increase
in impacts to socioeconomic resources as evaluated in the NWP EIR. Therefore, potential
impacts would be considered less than significant.
6.16 Environmental Justice
Analysis of Environmental Justice impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the Final EIR, Section 5.16, and Section 11.0 Responses to
Comments.
6.16.1 Analysis of the Revised Project
The following impacts were identified in the NWP EIR:
Impact Impact Description Residual Impact
Construction
EJ.1 Construction and operational impacts would adversely impact disadvantaged
segments of the population in San Luis Obispo County.
Class III
Construction impact EJ.1 would not change since the revised water allocations would not require
any new construction.
12.c
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 37 Nacimiento Water Project
6.16.2 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project
is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The circumstances associated with Impact EJ.1 or any other potential environmental justice
impacts have not changed.
6.16.3 Conclusion
The proposed changes in water allocations would not have any adverse impact on environmental
justice issues. The increase allocation would enable the City to maintain water service at an
overall cost that would be lower than other new sources of water that are currently available or
possible in the future. Minimizing potential increases in water costs would be beneficial to
disadvantaged populations where basic utilities represent a significant percentage of their
disposable income.
7.0 Cumulative Impacts
There is one current cumulative project that would directly affect potential impacts associated
with the City’s proposed NWP allocation increase. The Interlake Tunnel Project and associated
impacts/benefits are described in the following sections.
7.1 Interlake Tunnel Project
The Interlake Tunnel Project has been proposed by Monterey County to create a tunnel between
Lake Nacimiento and Lake San Antonio. Lake Nacimiento and Lake San Antonio are manmade
reservoirs within the Salinas River Basin that provide a number of vital functions to the area.
These functions consist of flood control, water supply and recreation. Rain water and runoff
from the surrounding watershed is typically stored during winter months and then released in a
controlled fashion during the dry summer months. The water supply is used for ground water
recharge in the Salinas Valley via releases from both lakes which combine in the upper Salinas
River. Water from Lake Nacimiento is used for distribution via the San Luis Obispo County
NWP Nacimiento Pipeline project. Flood control is achieved by retaining water and limiting
flow in the Nacimiento and San Antonio rivers during winter storm events. The watershed
feeding Lake Nacimiento is more productive, filling it in nearly three times faster than Lake San
Antonio. At times water releases are made from Lake Nacimiento during the winter months
because the lake is at capacity while Lake San Antonio has excess storage available. The goal of
the Nacimiento–San Antonio Interlake Tunnel Project is to provide a pathway would be to
redirect water that would be effectively washed out to sea and use it to fill the excess capacity
typically available in Lake San Antonio.
The Interlake Tunnel Project would consist of intake and exit structures connected by a 10,000
foot long tunnel or piping. The intake structures may have grating or other mechanism to
restrict fish passage from one lake to the next. The tunnel, approximately 10 feet in diameter,
would be small enough to easily maintain and accessed by standing workmen yet large enough to
handle the expected high flow rates during storm events. Numerous smaller diameter pipes may
be substituted based on efficiency or cost effectiveness in order to support power generation. An
in-tunnel turbine or set of turbines may be developed in order to maximize the generation of
hydro-electric power from the passing water. Since the maximum elevation of Lake San
Antonio is 20 feet lower than that of Lake Nacimiento power generation turbines would be
12.c
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 38 Nacimiento Water Project
optimized for flow between the lakes. Additional turbines may be defined or developed to
capture power generation from the exit into Nacimiento or San Antonio rivers.
7.2 Cumulative Effects
As proposed, the Interlake Tunnel Project would allow Lakes San Antonio and Nacimiento to
capture and store up to an average additional 60,000 acre feet per year. In addition, the Interlake
Tunnel Project would have the potential to improve flood control capabilities for the two lake
system, allow for greater aquifer recharge, augment supplies to the Salinas River Diversion
Facility (SRDF), reduce lower Salinas River salt water intrusion, enhance aquatic environments
in both lakes and along the Salinas River and provide surface water for future projects.
There would not be any adverse cumulative impacts associated with the City’s proposed NWP
allocation increase. While the Interlake Tunnel Project has the potential to increase water storage
up to 60,000 afy in Lake San Antonio, it is unclear if the diversion from Lake Nacimiento would
result in any changes in water allocations within the County’s 17,500 afy entitlement.
8.0 Growth Inducement
The City of San Luis Obispo provides water service to residents, businesses, and institutions
within city limits. The City’s Municipal Code prohibits the provision of water service to anyone
outside the city limits, with a few exceptions. These exceptions include the County Airport, since
it is seen as an essential service benefiting the city. Another exception is a small number of
residents and cattle troughs along the Highway 101 corridor just north of town. The City’s
requirement to serve water to these properties is in accordance with agreements that date back to
the early 1900’s. There is also an exception for temporary interim water service to the Fiero Lane
Annexation area although that water use was contemplated under the General Plan. Other
exceptions exist where individual properties were provided with service prior to adoption of the
ordinance.
The City originally requested 3,380 afy from NWP supplies as evaluated in the 2004 EIR. This
amount was based on the City’s adopted General Plan at the time the EIR was prepared. It
included 880 afy for new development over the next 30 years, 500 afy to compensate for
projected yield reductions at Santa Margarita Lake (Salinas Reservoir) and Whale Rock
Reservoir due to siltation over that time. (The EIR reflected the City vote to eliminate the
“reliability reserve” from its calculation of future water demand, thus reducing the city’s
requirement for additional supplies to serve its buildout population of 56,000. The City has since
included a reliability reserve in the latest Water and Wastewater Management Element Update in
2010, San Luis Obispo obtains water from Santa Margarita Lake and Whale Rock Reservoir,
which have a coordinated yield of 6,940 afy, from the NWP, which has a contract limit of 3,380
afy, 185 afy from recycled water, and a deficit of 500 afy to address siltation. The combined safe
yield/available water for the city from these sources is 10,005 afy. Of the 10,005 afy available in
the City’s water supply portfolio, 7,330 afy is the City’s primary2 water supply, 1,174 afy is
2 Primary water supply is the amount needed to meet the General Plan build-out of the City. The quantity of water
needed for the City’s primary water supply needs is calculated using a ten -year average of actual per-capita water
use and the City’s build-out population.
12.c
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 39 Nacimiento Water Project
allocated to the reliability reserve3, and 1,501 afy is considered as a secondary water source. The
increased NWP allocation would be allocated to the City’s secondary4 water supply.
Potential Impacts
The City of San Luis Obispo’s projected population in 2035 is 56,686 based on one percent
annual growth. The projected population number does not include current or potential residents
of the Cal Poly campus which is within the urban reserve line but outside the city limits , while
water planning includes the urban reserve population of 57,200.
The potential environmental impacts of full development under the City’s General Plan were
evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report for the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update (available for review at http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan). When the City adopted the
update and certified the EIR, it acknowledged that the planned growth would have significant,
adverse impacts. These impacts would be: conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use;
increased water usage; unacceptable levels of service for traffic on most arterial streets; change
from rural to urban character; the number of workers increasing faster than the number of
residents; and certain localized impacts due mostly to street widening or extension projects.
Schools would also be further impacted.
As noted in Section 3.0, potential growth-related impacts were considered a significant adverse
impact that cannot be mitigated to insignificance. The additional NWP allocation would be
allocated to the City’s secondary water supply and would not be available to accommodate new
projects or additional growth. An increase in City’s allocation would only serve areas already
evaluated and approved for future development potential consistent with existing specific plan
areas and City policies and land use designations of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element
adopted in 2014. Therefore, the proposal to increase the NWP allocation would not result in any
additional growth impacts over those identified in the NWP EIR.
9.0 Conclusion
This document identified all Project changes, changed circumstances, and new information and
memorializes in detail the City's reasoned conclusion that the revised Allocation Project as
described in Section 4.0 does not create the conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent
or Supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15162 and 15163.
10.0 References
AEP 2007. Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) on How
to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents.
Comment Draft. White Paper. March.
AIHA 2014, Emergency Response Planning Guideline.
3 Reliability reserve provides a buffer for future unforeseen or unpredictable long -term impacts to the City’s
available water resources such as loss of yield from an existing water supply source and impacts due to climate
change.
4 Secondary water supply is the amount needed to meet peak water demand periods or short-term loss of City water
supply sources. The City’s secondary water supply is identified as any water supply resources above those needed to
meet the primary water supply and reliability reserve.
12.c
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
EIR Addendum
February 2016 40 Nacimiento Water Project
API 2004, Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil And Gas
Industry.
CalEPA 2006, California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team, Executive
Summary. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California
Legislature; March; Sacramento, CA.
CARB 2006, California Air Resources Board AB 32 Text, September 27, 2006.
CARB 2007, California Air Resources Board. Climate Change: Information Regarding ARB's
Climate Change Program Pursuant to 2006 Assembly Bill 32. Available from
www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.
CARB 2008. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
CARB 2011, California Air Resources Board, Attachment D: Final Supplement to the AB 32
Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document, August 19, 2011.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/fed.htm.
CARB 2012, Regulation For The Mandatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm.
CARB 2014, First Update to the Scoping Plan", May 2014.
CARB 2014, GHG Inventory, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm.
CSA 2014, California State Assembly, Sea-Level Rise: a Slow-Moving Emergency.
IPCC 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (. Climate change 2007: The physical
science basis, summary for policy makers. Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report;
February. Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.
IPCC 2014, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Climate change 2014: Synthesis
Report). Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/.
NOAA, 2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013, website for
global climate data, Earth System Research Lab.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth.
SLOC 2011, EnergyWise Plan, November 2011, http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/CAP-
LUCE/final/SLOCoCAP_Board_Approved-Complete+Doc.pdf.
SLOCAPCD 2012, CEQA Handbook, April 2012.
SLOCAPCD 2012, GHG Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, March 28, 2012.
12.c
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
C
E
Q
A
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
2
0
0
4
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
I
R
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
THIRD AMENDMENT (FULL ALLOCATION)
TO NACIMIENTO PROJECT
WATER DELIVERY ENTITLEMENT CONTRACT
This Third Amendment (Full Allocation) to the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery
Entitlement Contract (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between the San Luis Obispo
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a Flood Control and Water Conservation
District duly established and existing under the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District Act, Act 7205 of the Uncodified Acts of the California Water Code
(the “District”), and the City of San Luis Obispo (the “Participant”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the Participant has contracted with the District pursuant to that certain
Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract, effective August 17, 2004, and as
subsequently amended by the Memorandum of Understanding dated May 24, 2005 (First
Amendment to Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract) and as subsequently
amended by the Second Amendment to Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract
dated August 28, 2007 (collectively, the “Contract”) for an annual Delivery Entitlement to
Nacimiento Project Water; and
WHEREAS, the Contract is a Like-Contract that is substantially identical to the
Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contracts between the District and the Other
Participants; and
WHEREAS, Article 29, subdivision (A) of the Contract contains a list of priorities for
the District’s use of its Reserve Water, giving fourth priority to “adding to and supplementing the
Delivery Entitlements for the Participant and/or the Other Delivery Entitlements for the Other
Participants who are Initial Participants as provided for by Article 6(D)” and giving fifth priority
to providing a water supply to “additional and New Participants [as defined in Article 29,
subdivision (C) of the Contract] who were not Initial Participants;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 6, subdivision (D) and Article 29, subdivision (B) of the
Contract, the Participant has the right to acquire additional Delivery Entitlement from the District
by entering into an amendment to the Contract with the District subject to certain requirements,
including, without limitation, the requirement that the Participant pays the District a Purchase of
Reserve Water Delivery Entitlement and Reserved Capacity Fee which shall be applied as a
credit to the obligations of the Participant and the Other Participants based on their respective
Unit Percentage Share; and
WHEREAS, the Participant and the Other Participants (i.e. All Participants) have elected
to exercise their rights under Article 6, subdivision (D) and Article 29, subdivision (B) of the
12.d
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
0
1
6
.
0
2
.
2
4
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
L
O
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
3
v
e
r
0
0
4
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Third Amendment to Nacimiento Project Page 2
Water Delivery Entitlement Contract
Contract and each purchase a portion of the currently unsubscribed Reserve Water (6,095 acre-
feet) in accordance with their Delivery Entitlement Shares minus the combined entitlement of
two New Participants, namely SMR Mutual Water Company (80 acre feet per year) and Bella
Vista MHP, LLC (10 acre feet per year), such that the Total Delivery Entitlement Obligation
shall equal 15,750 acre feet per year and the total amount of Reserve Water shall equal 0.0 acre
feet per year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 17, subdivision (B)(5) of the Contract, when there is no
longer any Reserve Water, the District will no longer have any obligation to apply any portion of
the ad valorem taxes allocated to the Nacimiento Water Fund of the District to the Reserved
Capacity Construction Cost Component; and
WHEREAS, given that the Participant and the Other Participants are simultaneously
purchasing a share of Reserve Water equal to their Delivery Entitlement Shares, the Participant’s
and each Other Participant’s Reserved Capacity Fee is equal to the credit to which they are
entitled under Article 29, subdivision (B) of the Contract; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Amendment is to increase the Participant’s Delivery
Entitlement consistent with Article 29, subdivision (B) of the Contract and all other contractual
requirements, including, without limitation, those set forth in Article 32 of the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the
Participant and the District as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in Article 1 of the Contract.
For purposes of this Amendment, “Other Participants” shall exclude SMR Mutual
Water Company and Bella Vista MHP, LLC. The Nacimiento Project Water Delivery
Entitlement Contracts with SMR Mutual Water Company and Bella Vista MHP, LLC provide
that they are not entitled to any credit against their respective financial obligations as a result of
this Amendment and the Like-Amendments.
“Like-Amendment” shall mean an Amendment (Full Allocation) to Nacimiento
Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract that is substantially identical to this Amendment,
except for Participant information, dates, Unit Participations, Participant’s Unit Percentage Share
and Delivery Entitlement Share.
Section 3. Notice. Participant acknowledges that it received the notice required by
Article 29, subdivision (B) of the Contract in connection with each Other Participant’s
acquisition of its proportionate share of Reserve Water.
12.d
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
0
1
6
.
0
2
.
2
4
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
L
O
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
3
v
e
r
0
0
4
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Third Amendment to Nacimiento Project Page 3
Water Delivery Entitlement Contract
Section 4. Amendment to Article 16, Subdivision (C)(5). The second sentence of
Article 16, subdivision (C)((5) of the Contract is hereby amended and restated in its entirety and
shall hereafter be and read as follows:
There is apportioned to the Participant 34 and 806/1000 percent (34.806%) of the
District’s said remaining costs, including the Required Additional Project Costs and Master
Water Contract Costs.
Section 5. Amendment to Table 1. Table 1 (Parametric Information for the Water
Delivery Entitlement Contract of the Nacimiento Project) is hereby replaced with the revised
Table 1 (Parametric Information for the Water Delivery Entitlement Contract for the Nacimiento
Project) attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Said revised
Table 1 reflects the Participant’s increased Delivery Entitlement and the Participant’s revised
cost share obligations upon the Effective Date of this Amendment.
Section 6. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Amendment shall be the date
upon which the Participant and all Other Participants have executed and delivered this
Amendment and the Like-Amendments to the District, and the District has executed this
Amendment and each Like-Amendment.
Section 7. Severability. Any provision of this Amendment that is prohibited,
unenforceable or not authorized in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to
the extent of such prohibition, unenforceability or nonauthorization without invalidating the
remaining provisions hereof affecting the validity, enforceability or legality of such provision in
any other jurisdiction.
Section 8. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be interpreted, governed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and
performed in such State.
Section 9. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts,
each of which shall be regarded as an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same
document.
12.d
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
0
1
6
.
0
2
.
2
4
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
L
O
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
3
v
e
r
0
0
4
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Third Amendment to Nacimiento Project Page 4
Water Delivery Entitlement Contract
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each executed this Amendment on the dates
set forth below:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By __________________________________
Authorized Representative
Date _________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
By ________________________________
Date _______________________________
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
By __________________________________
Date _________________________________
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By __________________________________
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
Date _________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL EFFECT:
RITA L. NEAL
District Counsel
By
Deputy District Counsel
Date
ATTEST:
DISTRICT CLERK
By __________________________________
Deputy District Clerk
Date _________________________________
12.d
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
0
1
6
.
0
2
.
2
4
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
L
O
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
3
v
e
r
0
0
4
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Third Amendment to Nacimiento Project Page 5
Water Delivery Entitlement Contract
EXHIBIT A - TABLE 1
Parametric Information for the Water Delivery Entitlement Contract of the Nacimiento Project
Date Table 1 is effective:March 15, 2016Name of Participant:
(from Contract front page)
City of San Luis Obispo
Initial or Other Participant
(Article 1 definition)
Initial Participant
Contract Amemendment Number3
Delivery Entitlement
acre-feet each Water Year [Article 6(A)]
5482
Delivery Entitlement Share
(Article 1 definition)
34.806%
Nacimiento Project Water
acre-feet each Water Year (Article 1 definition)
15750
Total Delivery Entitlement Obligation
acre-feet each Water Year (Article 1 definition)
15750
Reserve Water
acre-feet each Water Year (Article 1 definition)
0
Maximum instantaneous rate of flow
cubic feet per second [Article 6(B)]
8.20
Maximum monthly delivery volume of water
acre-feet [Article 6(B)]
498.40
Participant's Unit Percentage Share of
Capital Reserve Costs and Operation and
Maintenance Costs
[Article 16(C)(1)]
Participant's Unit Percentage Share of All
Other Construction Costs
[Article 16(C)(3)(c)]
Project Segment
Systemwide Operating Cost34.806%N/A
Unit No. A34.806%34.806%
Unit No. A134.806%34.806%
Unit No. B59.188%46.997%
Unit No. C34.806%34.806%
Unit No. C134.806%34.806%
Unit No. D59.188%46.997%
Unit No. E61.902%48.354%
Unit No. F97.684%66.245%
Unit No. F159.188%46.997%
Unit No. F297.684%66.245%
Unit No. G97.684%66.245%
Unit No. G199.096%66.951%
Unit No. G299.096%66.951%
Unit No. H99.096%66.951%
Unit No. H199.096%66.951%
Unit No. T2N/AN/A
Unit No. T4N/AN/A
Unit No. T6N/AN/A
Unit No. T1199.096%99.096%
N/A means Not Applicable
12.d
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
-
2
0
1
6
.
0
2
.
2
4
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
L
O
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
3
v
e
r
0
0
4
(
1
2
8
1
:
N
a
c
i
m
i
e
n
t
o
F
u
l
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
Page intentionally left
blank.