Agenda packet — Arroyo Grande City Council, June 27, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 574 of 699 ends

2021 Water Supply Alternatives Update
I
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Update

Page 575 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 576 of 699 ends

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager / Public Works Director BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
DATE: November 23, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Receive and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction to staff regarding pursuit of recommendations presented in the study update.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The consultant cost of the study completed by Michael K. Nunley and Associates, Inc. (MKN) was $15,067. There was approximately 30 hours of staff time spent on the report preparation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction on pursuing any or all of the two short-term and three long-term recommendations presented in the study update.

BACKGROUND:

At the June 8, 2021 City Council meeting, Council discussed the Central Coast Blue (CCB) regional recycled water sustainability project and provided direction to staff to, among other items, conduct an analysis of the City’s potential water supply alternatives.

On September 14, 2021, staff presented a summary of the preliminary alternatives that the City’s consultant, MKN, would be evaluating as part of an updated water supply alternatives report. Eight preliminary alternatives were discussed that included State Water, Oceano Community Service District water, Interagency Connections, a Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept, CCB, Nacimiento Project water, Water Conservation, and Stormwater Capture. Council received the information and directed staff to move forward with further analysis on water supply alternatives.

Page 577 of 699 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 2 ends

The update water supply alternatives report is now complete and is provided in Attachment 1. The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update (Attachment 1) provides a summary of previous studies performed to date, a preliminary list of current available water options, and an updated list of the most promising options.

In August 2004, a Water Supply Alternatives Report prepared by the Wallace Group, was presented to the City Council. The objective was to identify short, intermediate, and long term supply alternatives that meet the City’s needs for water quantity, reliability and quality. There were seventeen (17) supply alternatives presented at that time. Table 2-2 in the attached 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Update shows a final action or conclusion status for the 2004 water supply alternatives for ten projects that were determined to be the most feasible or had potential feasibility due to location and other factors. Updated Final Actions or Conclusions are also provided.

Page 100 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 3 ends

Page 101 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 4 ends

Since 2004, three alternatives from those listed in Table 2-2 above have been performed to date/completed:
- Pismo Formation Wells - Well Numbers 9 and 10 have been completed for an additional 160 AFY. Well 11 has been completed but not yet permitted. When permitted, this well will supply an additional 40 AFY.
- Conservation – This program is in progress and results in a saving of 400-500 AFY. The City has also spent $2 million on retrofits and rebates since 2004. - Additional Storm Water Basins – The Poplar Basin was expanded for capture. The Soto Sports Complex basins currently capture water for groundwater recharge and use this non-potable water to irrigate the entire sports complex.

In addition, MKN completed an updated analysis of the following four alternatives from the 2004 report that may be postponed and/or dismissed from further consideration for the reasons described below:
- State Water - Water Purchase or Lease from SLO County – As stated in section

3.1.4. Infrastructure, of the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, “Based on discussions with County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Staff, the capacity of Polonio Pass Water Treatment Facility and Coastal Branch is fully subscribed by existing State Water subcontractors. The capacity of the Lopez Project is also fully subscribed by South County Zone 3 water purveyors.” Continued engagement with the County is suggested and currently ongoing.
- Additional Groundwater Entitlement – 1,323 AFY is currently entitled to the City, however, recent modeling indicates significantly less availability. Continued annual monitoring and adaptive management using the Santa Maria Basin ground water model will help provide sustainable yield information and basis for pursuing this alterative if justified.
- Purchase Private Well Water – Private wells in the upper Arroyo Grande Valley have not been identified nor pursued as a supplemental water source to date. This would require legal negotiations for water rights/amounts, utility easements, well data (gallons per minute and potential yields), wells installation, equipment, and storage costs for a potentially small amount of supplemental AFY. Distribution of private well water is also significant issue that is unresolved. Multiple private wells located on private property would require individual and separate negotiations and agreements. This does not appear to be a feasible alternative due to complexity and relatively low AFY amounts.

A well system located within Strother Park that would irrigate the entire Strother Park with untreated/non-potable water, was evaluated Hydrologic Engineer and designed and adopted as part of the Water Master Plan. Future larger scale development (i.e. housing tract) is intended to fund the Strother Park well project through water offset fees required as part of the project entitlement/conditions of approval.

Page 102 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 5 ends

- Increased Lopez Entitlement – A study evaluated raising the spillway to increase dam/reservoir storage. However, San Luis Obispo County Water Conservation and Flood Control District determined, based on estimated project costs and environmental review and permitting, this alternative is not feasible at this time.

Four other studies that were commissioned by the City in the past were also summarized in the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update. City staff, consultants, and project partner evaluations conducted in 2006, 2009, and 2016 are listed below. The studied facilities were not considered viable. The current analysis done by MKN and City staff agree that these water supply alternatives remain inviable. The following list summarizes those alternatives:
- 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination joint project: Coastal Commission and Coastal Act permit processing has proven to be highly challenging. The timeframe for processing is estimated in the 10 to 15-year range. The 2006 capital cost estimate was $17 million or $2,675 per acre foot. These costs can easily double if calculated for 2021.
- 2006 Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension – This study presented two options, a 17.5-mile pipeline extension down Orcutt Road and a 18.07-mile pipeline extension from Plains Oilfield to Arroyo Grande Creek (the recommended option) with an estimated 2006 cost $12 million for the pipe alignment and $6 million in annual operating costs. An agency exchange of Nacimiento water for State Water was also considered but found to not be feasible at this time due to lack of available partners (no holders of both State Water and Nacimiento Water). - 2009 Final Recycled Water Study: This study estimated the cost of a recycled water project using 2008 estimates at $14 million and provided further evaluation, aquifer recharge analysis and public outreach. Section 3.4.4. Feasibility, of 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, elaborates further on this study. - 2016 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study: In partnership with the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, a more in-depth analysis was conducted of the recycled water project. It was found that a South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District recycled water project would be exceedingly expensive at $4,400 for phase 1 and $3,000 per AF for phase 2. Property acquisition costs were not calculated since a site(s) had not been proposed. CCB was seen as a preferred regional alternative with lower costs.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update, after reviewing all the previous alternatives and final action or conclusions, focused on a list of available water options along with feasibility and/or next step recommendations. The following is a list of summarized alternatives:

Page 103 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 6 ends

1. State Water Project – The purchase or lease of State Water from the County does not appear feasible at this time due to lack of availability. Ongoing engagement with the County and potential subcontractors is being pursued.

2. Oceano Community Services District – Negotiation of a short water supply agreement is recommended;

3. Interagency Connections – Begin discussions for planning, design, and construction, with Golden State Water (GSW) for emergency interconnection.

Begin initial negotiations with GSW and Nipomo Community Services District for purchase of excess Nipomo supplemental water;

4. Nacimiento Water Project – This alternative is not feasible at this time, due to lack of availability;

5. Central Coast Blue – Continue to participate and engage in CCB;

6. Recycled Water Plant – This alternative is not recommended due to the difficulty in reducing groundwater pumping in exchange for recycled water and the use of recycled water for agricultural production;

7. Water Conservation – The City’s conservation programs have proven to be very successful. Ongoing administration and management is planned;

8. Stormwater Capture – Stormwater capture is not a significant supply of water.

However, as development occurs, basins are modified and low impact development standards are implemented, which could be a source of ground water recharge and irrigation supply.

The 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update was completed to investigate, analyze, and make conclusions for each of the alternatives listed above. Of the eight alternatives, two (2) short term and three (3) long term alternatives were determined to be the most feasible from a water quantity, reliability, quality, and cost perspective. Of these, staff recommends pursuing two (2) short term and one (1) long term alternatives.

The recommended short term alternatives are:

1. Partner with Oceano Community Services District on a short-term water supply agreement: A temporary agreement would be required between OCSD and the City. Purchasing OCSD water as a permanent supply could be affected by OCSD and City regulations. OCSD has an ordinance preventing long-term sale of their State Water entitlement but has been able to enter into short-term agreements in the past. The City of Arroyo Grande passed a ballot measure in 2016 to allow the City to purchase State Water on an emergency basis but a previous ballot measure prevents permanent purchase of State Water. Purchasing State Water under nonemergency conditions would require a new ballot measure to be passed. - OCSD has not typically taken its full 750 AFY of State Water; - Approximate cost of 1,758 per AF;
- OCSD has stored (San Luis Reservoir) unused State Water that can be extracted upon its request;

Page 104 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 7 ends

- Potential future ability for Lopez Project participants, like the City, to obtain excess OCSD water and store it in the Lopez Reservoir, which then could be available for extraction when needed;
- No new infrastructure needed;

2. Pursue an emergency connection with Golden State Water Company:
- The City’s water service area is located within 300 feet of GSW water infrastructure.
- Both the City and GSW are CalWARN members, which promotes mutual aid during water emergencies, and could help the development of an emergency interconnection;
- A water supply interconnection could benefit the City, GSW and NCSD to allow transfer of water from Lopez Project contractors through the City’s water system; - Further negotiations, analysis of cost infrastructure and maintenance and operation are required.

The recommended long term alternative is:

3. Continue participation in Central Coast Blue. The City anticipates purchasing 25% of the water produced by the CCB project. At its November 16, 2021 meeting, the Pismo Beach City Council unanimously approved increasing its share of the Project from 20% to 39%, leaving no portion of the Project unsubscribed. The Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach are preparing agreements to address cost sharing and operations of the Project. In light of the City’s pursuit of the CCB Project, staff recommends prioritizing it as the main source of additional permanent water supply at this time.

Each of these alternatives, if pursued, will require additional and more detailed evaluation of design/infrastructure, permit requirements, cost analysis, and a framework for agreements/negotiations with agencies and/or private property owners. However, it is recommended by staff that each of the three alternatives listed above are evaluated further and pursued to the preliminary negotiation and agreement stage, because they have been determined as viable and feasible in having potential to provide additional water supply for the future of Arroyo Grande.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Consider, receive, and file the 2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update and provide direction to staff to pursue the following short-term and long-term water supply alternatives to the preliminary negotiation and agreement stage:
a. Continue participation in CCB at the 25% entitlement level; b. Partner with OCSD on a short-term water supply agreement; and

Page 105 of 182 ends

City Council
2021 Water Supply Alternatives Study Update
November 23, 2021

Page 8 ends

c. Pursue an emergency connection with Golden State Water Company.

2. Provide direction to further evaluate one or more of the recommended short-term and long-term alternatives;

3. Provide additional direction to perform analysis on another water supply alternative(s);

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

This report provides the City Council and the public with a study that may be used as a tool for future water supply policy decisions.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachment:

1. Water Supply Alternatives Study Update dated November 12, 2021

Page 106 of 182 ends

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

WATER SUPPLY

ALTERNATIVES STUDY UPDATE
November 12, 2021
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St.

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
PREPARED BY:

MKN
530B Paulding Circle
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805 . 904 . 6530
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 107 of 182 ends

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

WATER SUPPLY

ALTERNATIVES STUDY UPDATE
November 12, 2021
Report Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of:
____________________________________
Michael K. Nunley, PE C61801

Page 108 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | i Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Water Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Supplemental Water............................................................................................................................... 1-3

2.1 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study .............................................................. 2-1

2.2 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3 2006 Supplemental Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension............................................. 2-7

2.4 2009 Final Recycled Water Study ........................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study............................................................................................... 2-8

3.1 State Water............................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1. Background............................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.4. Infrastructure............................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.5. Cost........................................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.6. Feasibility.................................................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2 Oceano CSD ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.4. Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.5. Cost......................................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Interagency Connections........................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.3.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................. 3-4

3.3.3. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.4. Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.5. Cost......................................................................................................................................................... 3-4

Page 109 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | ii

3.4 Nacimiento Water Project...................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.4.2. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4.3. Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.4. Feasibility................................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.5 Central Coast Blue .................................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.5.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.5.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................. 3-6

3.5.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-6

3.5.4. Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.5.5. Cost......................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.5.6. Additional Considerations...................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6 Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept.............................................................................................. 3-7

3.6.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.6.2. Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.6.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints ........................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6.4. Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.6.5. Cost......................................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.6.6. Feasibility................................................................................................................................................ 3-8

3.7 Water Conservation................................................................................................................................ 3-9

3.8 Stormwater Capture............................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.8.1. Background............................................................................................................................................. 3-9

3.8.2 Water Quality and Reliability.................................................................................................................. 3-9

3.8.3 Infrastructure and Regulatory Constraints............................................................................................. 3-9

3.8.4 Cost....................................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.8.5 Feasibility.............................................................................................................................................. 3-10

4.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 4-2 List of Tables
Table 1-1 – Historical Water Delivery and Production by Category (AFY)…………………………………….….………….1-2 Table 1-2 – Water Delivery Projections from 2015 UWMP…………………………………………………………….………….1-2 Table 1-3 – Future Water Production Projections ………….…………………………………………………………….………….1-3

Page 110 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | iii Table 2-1 – 2004 Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………..…………….…………..2-2 Table 2-2 – Update to 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study…………………………………………………..…….………..2-6 Table 3-1 – First Year Operation and Maintenance Costs for 280 AFY Recycled Water Treatment Facility….3-8

Page 111 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction
Michael K. Nunley and Associates, Inc. (MKN) was retained by the City of Arroyo Grande (City) to update the City’s 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study Report. In 2004 the City performed an analysis of potential additional water sources to supplement the City’s existing groundwater and Lopez Reservoir supplies and to meet the projected future needs of the City. This report categorized water supply alternatives as “short term”, “intermediate term”, and “long term” with the objective of identifying one or more for implementation in each category. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of previous studies performed to date, provide a preliminary list of current available water options, and provide an updated list of the most promising options.

1.2 Water Supply
The City has developed a water supply that utilizes groundwater from two separate formations and water from the Lopez Project. Wells 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 extract water from the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin.

As part of the Groundwater Management Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano Community Services District (Oceano CSD), the City is entitled to groundwater extractions of 1,323 acre-feet per year (AFY). 160 AFY of groundwater is also available from Pismo Formation Wells 9 and

10. The City has a contract entitlement of 2,290 AFY from the Lopez Project.

A maximum combined total of 3,773 AFY of water is available from the City’s wells and the Lopez Project. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) noted only 3,584 AFY would be available during the third year of a multiple dry year event. This includes 2,061 AFY of water from the Lopez Project and 1,523 AFY of groundwater. However, current groundwater modeling results indicate significantly less water may be available from the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin than the current entitlement.

1.3 Water Demand
The City provided annual reports for the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to provide historical water billing information. Table 1-1 summarizes water delivery by use category compared with total production. For purposes of this study, the difference between production and delivery is considered to be non-revenue water (NRW).

Page 112 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-2 Table 1-1 Historical Water Delivery and Production by Category (AFY) Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Water Delivered
Single-family Residential 1,259.1 1,380.8 1,409.0 1,369.9 1,500.4 Multi-family Residential 219.1 251.0 213.5 280.1 246.4
Commercial/Institutional 200.7 355.7 277.6 321.8 246.4
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 145.8 104.5 234.8 103.6 245.2
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Urban Retail Delivered 1,824.7 2,092 2,134.9 2,075.5 2,238.5 Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
Other Public Water Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Total Water Production 1948.1 2193.7 2212.5 2138.0 2318.5 Non-Revenue Water (NRW) 123.4 101.7 120.5 62.5 80.0
NRW as Percentage of Delivery 6.8% 4.9% 5.6% 3.0% 3.6%
The City’s 2015 UWMP summarized current water deliveries and predicted future water deliveries as follows:

Table 1-2 - Water Delivery Projections from 2015 UWMP (AFY) Category 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Single-family Residential 1,517 1,957 2,013 2,083 2,113 Multi-family Residential 190 245 252 261 264
Commercial/Institutional 178 230 236 245 248
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 169 217 224 231 235
Institutional/ Governmental 53 69 71 73 74
Total Urban Retail 2,106 2,718 2,796 2,893 2,934
Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
Other Public Water Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Revenue Water 133 150 154 159 161
Total Water Use 2,239 2,867 2,949 3,052 3,096
As shown, the UWMP predicted 2020 water deliveries of 2,718 AFY and total production of 2,867 AFY including NRW. An annual increase of 42.9 AFY in production per year was projected through 2035. The City recorded 2020 production of 2,318.5 AFY, which is approximately 24% lower than predicted (2,867 AFY). This

Page 113 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 1-3 difference indicates implementation of the City’s water conservation program has had a significant impact on water demand.

For this study, future water usage was projected based on historical demand in units of gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Approximately 99% of the City population is within the City’s water service area, with very few customers outside City limits. Therefore, City population is a close approximation of service area population.

California Department of Finance estimated a 2020 population of 17,617 for the City of Arroyo Grande.

Dividing 2020 water use of 2,318 AFY by 2020 population resulted in 117 gpcd usage. The 2015 UWMP calculated average three-year water usage (2013-2015) of 138 gpcd and projected this per capita usage through General Plan buildout (population of 20,000). Applying future water demand of approximately 127 AFY, or the average of 138 and 117 gpcd, to a future 20,000 service area population yielded a conservative future demand of 2,540 AFY.

1.4 Supplemental Water
The City anticipates having sufficient water available through buildout based on the average year and multiple dry year scenarios presented in the 2015 UWMP. However, securing an additional 250 AFY (approximately 10% of projected future demand) would allow the City to reduce groundwater usage and further protect the groundwater basin. The following table predicts water delivery to meet future demand of 2,540 AFY assuming the City has acquired an additional 250 AFY of supplemental water. For future production estimations it is assumed Lopez Project deliveries are reduced during a multiple dry year scenario as discussed in Section 1.2, whereas full City entitlement is 2,290 AFY.

This water supply portfolio would allow the City to reduce groundwater pumping to approximately 15% of their combined 1,323 AFY Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater entitlement and 160 AFY Pismo Formation production capacity in a multiple year drought scenario.

Table 1-3 – Future Water Production Projections During Multiple Dry Year Scenario Source Supply
(AFY)
Lopez Project 2,061
Supplemental Water 250
Groundwater 229
Total Production 2,540

Page 114 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-1

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
The City of Arroyo Grande has partnered with surrounding water agencies such as the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD), City of Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach, and Oceano CSD to prepare multiple water supply studies to assess the feasibility of potential water supply projects. This section provides a synopsis of previous water supply studies conducted by the City and partnering agencies.

2.1 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study The 2004 City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply Alternatives Study prepared by the Wallace Group analyzed seventeen water supply alternatives the City could implement to increase water supply and meet future demands. The study identified nine short term alternatives that could be implemented within a five-year period with low complexity and cost, three intermediate alternatives that could be implemented over a ten-year period with moderate complexity and cost, and three long term alternatives that could be implemented within a ten to fifteen-year time frame with high complexity and cost. For each alternative, the study considered infrastructure needs, water quality and supply reliability, and cost. The objective of the report was to provide a preliminary analysis of each alternative, identify the most viable options, and advise City Council to conduct further studies of the supply alternatives that were identified as the most feasible and cost effective. The following table summarizes findings from that study.

Page 115 of 182 ends

County
Environmental
Health Services
Department permit
required
-- • Implementation schedule
would be approximately two
years
• Basin is low yield and lower
quality
Purchase Water – Santa
Barbara County
• Potential to purchase 400 AFY from a Santa
Barbara County Water Contractor
• Pipeline capacity from contractors north of
the City is limited
• Pipeline is sized to supply flow from State
Water contractors south of City
• Deliveries can be as low as 30%
of the entitlement but “drought
insurance water” can be
purchased for up to 100% of
contract amount.
• State Water is offline one month
per year
• Water quality is adequate for
intended use
Existing infrastructure could
be used to deliver State Water
to Lopez Water Treatment
Plant (WTP). County staff
stated Lopez pipeline capacity
is sufficient but must be
confirmed.

State Water
entitlement holder,
Santa Barbara
County, DWR, and
Central Coast Water
Authority (CCWA)
must approve.

Contract would likely
include paying sunk
costs of State Water
to entitlement
holder.
$1400/AF + Buyin costs
• Several years to implement this
option
• Would require voter approval
per Measure A
Purchase water – SLO
County
• 20,170 AF available from SLO County
• No excess pipeline capacity according to
County staff
• 140 AFY may be available from Pismo Ranch
development
• County had begun discussions with CCWA.
• Deliveries can be as low as 30%
of the entitlement but “drought
insurance water” can be
purchased for up to 100% of
contract amount.
• State Water is offline one month
per year
• Water quality is adequate for
intended use
Requires engineering
evaluation to determine
hydraulic capacity of existing
system
State Water
entitlement holder
and County must
approve.
-- • Several years to implement this
option
• Would require voter approval
per Measure A

Page 116 of 182 ends

Agreement between
City and State Water
entitlement holder
• May violate State law if
provided to new developments
• Can be utilized until long-term
source is secured
• Several years to implement this
option
• Would require voter approval
per Measure A
Reclaimed Price Canyon
Oil Field Water
• Water produced during oil extraction must be
returned to the reservoir unless it can be
treated and disposed
• Anticipated flows of 730 AFY for 10 years
• Potential exchange for Lopez Water released
to sustain habitat and fisheries. Extracted and
treated water would be released to Arroyo
Grande Creek. Exchanged raw water would
be treated at Lopez WTP for use by City.
• Only viable for ~ 10 years
• Water quality is adequate for
intended use
• Treatment plant at oilfield
• Pump Station
• Electrical equipment
• Pipeline
• Capacity of the Lopez pipeline
and WTP would need to be
investigated
• EIR
• Impact to Habitat
Conservation Plan
• Agreements with
Landowners for
pipeline easements
• Agreement with
Plains (owner)
• Permits with
resource agencies
and County
departments
$850/AF • Could compromise steelhead
fingerprinting of Arroyo Grande
Creek for spawning purposes
• SLO County would own the
pipeline after 7,300 AF had
been delivered
Water Conservation • Water Conservation Program is anticipated to save 10% of usage
• Phase 1 100 AFY savings
• Phase 2 will involve irrigation retrofits
N/A None -- Decreases City
revenue
--

Page 117 of 182 ends

Table 2-1 Summary of Findings from Water Supply Alternatives Study for City of Arroyo Grande (Wallace Group, 2004) 2004 Alternative Background Water Quality/Reliability Required Infrastructure Required Agreements 2004 Cost Additional Considerations
Intermediate Alternatives
Additional Stormwater
Basins
(Irrigation)
• Modify stormwater basins to serve as storage
basins for irrigation use
• Rancho Grande Park, AG Cemetery, Caltrans
ROW potential users with approximately 75
AFY
• Low reliability, low quality
• Irrigation water is not typically
required after large storm events
• New basins may be required
to preserve storage capacity
or infiltration capacity in
existing basins
• Improvements to existing
basins would include cleaning,
lining, pumps, electrical
equipment, and pipelines.
-- -- Protected wildlife may
complicate modification of
existing basins
Increased Lopez
Entitlement
Amount of surplus water is currently limited
until the Habitat Conservation plan (HCP) is
completed
Surplus water not considered a
reliable supply
• Additional treatment capacity
at the Lopez WTP
• Additional conveyance may
be needed in the Lopez
pipeline
• SLO County approval
• HCP Adoption
$350/AF +
infrastructure
improvements
Nacimiento Project Currently 6,120 AFY of unallocated raw water supplied to SLO County
• High reliability
• Requires local treatment
• Scheduled shut-downs every 2-3
years
Either:
• Additional City of SLO
treatment and pipeline
connecting downstream of
Lopez WTP; or
• Increase Nacimiento pipeline
capacity south of San Luis
Obispo to SLO Airport and
extend pipeline to Lopez WTP
• Treated water
scenario would
require wheeling
agreement with City
of SLO
• Agreement with
County
• Approval by
Nacimiento
participants
• Between $1,800
and $3,300 / AFY
• Other parties
could share in
project cost
Cost would be less if the City
participates during project
inception
Long-Term Alternatives
Desalination • Potential joint venture between South County Agencies to construct a Regional Facility
• Grover Beach and other agencies have
expressed interest in participation
• Adequate for intended use
• High reliability
Seawater extraction,
treatment, pumping, storage,
and pipeline facilities would
be required
Significant
environmental
issues associated
with new ocean
outfall if required
$3,000 to
$4,000/AFY (2001
reference)
Recycled SSLOCSD
Water (Secondary-23)
• Secondary SSLOCSD water could be used for
landscape irrigation on restricted areas
• Approximately 2,250 AFY of recycled water
available
• Adequate for intended use
• High reliability
• Pumping facilities
• Transmission pipeline
Agreement with

SSLOCSD
$1.4 million or
$3,800/AF
Secondary recycled water
market is very small with
combined cemetery and
freeway landscaping use of 45
AFY
Recycled SSLOCSD
Water (Tertiary)
• Highly treated effluent can be used for
landscape irrigation of unrestricted areas such
as golf courses and public parks
• Estimated use of 595 AFY
• Adequate for intended use
• High reliability
• Pumping facilities
• Transmission pipeline
• Significant plant upgrades
Agreement with

SSLOCSD
$16.3 million or
$3,100/AF

Page 118 of 182 ends

SSLOCSD
$25.6 - $29.1
million or $4,900 -
$5,200/AF
Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated
Nacimiento/State
Water Exchange
• Alternative considered but not further
evaluated
• City would contract with County to receive
Nacimiento Water
• Nacimiento Water would be exchanged for
State Water by a current State Water
entitlement holder who has the ability to
receive Nacimiento Water
Adequate for intended use • Existing infrastructure could be utilized to convey water
• Additional treatment and
conveyance capacity may be
needed for Lopez WTP and
pipeline
• Agreement with SLO
County for
Nacimiento Water
• Agreement with
State Water
entitlement holder
-- --
Conoco-Phillips Refinery
Well Water
• Alternative considered but not further
evaluated
• New wells would be required on ConocoPhillips Refinery property Very low reliability Wells and conveyance
infrastructure
Agreement with
Conoco-Phillips
Refinery
-- Existing wells have experienced
drawdown and two have lost
production. Representatives of
the refinery have concluded
they are not in a position to sell
water or allow additional wells
to be drilled on their property.

Page 119 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-6 The following table summarizes work completed after the 2004 Alternative Study for the alternatives determined to be the most feasible.

Table 2-2 - Update to 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study 2004 Alternative Final Action or Conclusion
Private Well for Cemetery
Irrigation
This alternative was determined infeasible because groundwater does not exist under the property.

Pismo Formation Wells
The construction of a well at the Deer Trail site (Well No. 10) is completed.

Wells No. 9 and 10 require treatment and can provide a combined 160 AFY. Well No. 11 and treatment system were completed for an additional 40 AFY but is not yet permitted. The development of irrigation wells to serve the Park was not pursued.

Water Purchase or Lease from
SLO County
The City understands various agencies have had discussions with SLO County about acquiring additional water from the State Water Project, but no decision has been determined. An updated analysis is provided in this study.

Water Purchase or Lease from
Santa Barbra County
No update. This alternative has not been further evaluated since the 2004 Study.

Additional Groundwater
Entitlement
While 1,323 AFY of groundwater is entitled to the City under the Groundwater Management Agreement, recent groundwater modeling indicates significantly less water may be available.

Purchase Private Well Water
Wells in the upper Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-Basin may be available but projects have not been pursued. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan is underway for the Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-basin. A well pump was designed for the irrigation of Strother Park, but not yet constructed. It is anticipated to provide 8 - 9 AFY. It is assumed a future developer will fund the project.

Reclaimed Price Canyon Oil
Field Water
Currently the treatment facility discharges Price Canyon Oil Field Water to Pismo Creek. It was determined to be too expensive to extend the pipeline to Arroyo Grande Creek for exchange with Lopez Water.

Conservation
The City documents progress on the conservation program monthly and reports to the City Council. Currently, the City is saving 400 - 500 AFY due to conservation and has spent $2.0M on retrofits and rebate programs.

Additional Stormwater Basins
This alternative has been implemented. Poplar Basin was expanded to handle runoff from the Applebee’s and Rite Aid development on Grand Avenue. The Elm Street Sport Complex uses storm water as irrigation water when available. The City’s low impact development standards have added underground retention to new developments.

Increased Lopez Entitlement
A study conducted by Stetson Engineers evaluated raising spillway to increase storage and determined that raising the dam would be subject to Bureau of Dam Safety requirements. Each foot of height would add approximately 1000 AF of storage.

2.2 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination
The 2006 Water Supply Study: Desalination prepared by the Wallace Group for the City, Oceano CSD, and City of Grover Beach further analyzed the construction of a desalination facility as recommended in the 2004

Page 120 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-7 Water Supply Alternatives Study. The report assumed the desalination project would be a joint project among the three agencies to meet future demands. The study made the following assumptions:
• Facility will be located at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant (SSLOCSD WWTP).
• Source water will be extracted from new beach wells near the SSLOCSD WWTP. • Brine will be disposed using the existing ocean outfall. • The facility will use reverse osmosis (RO) as the desalination method.

The study determined that treated water from the facility should match existing water quality standards, be distributed to each agency’s storage tanks, and all costs would be divided among the agencies. The report outlined the permitting process for relevant regulatory agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Coastal Commission, discussed applicable policies of the Coastal Act, and concluded multiple permits and an Environmental Impact Report were required. The estimated capital cost of the facility was approximately $17 million, and the 20-year life cycle cost analysis determined the cost per acre foot of desalinated water would be $2,675/AF1. The timeline for the project from the completion of a feasibility study through construction was estimated to be 86 months (7+ years).

2.3 2006 Supplemental Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension The Nacimiento Water Supply Project (or “Nacimiento Pipeline Project”) was intended to deliver raw water from Nacimiento Reservoir to agencies in San Luis Obispo County, ultimately extending from the Reservoir to the City of San Luis Obispo and terminating at the City Water Treatment Plant. The 2006 Supplemental Water Supply Study: Nacimiento Pipeline Extension prepared by the Wallace Group for City of Grover Beach, Oceano CSD, and the City evaluated the viability of the Nacimiento Pipeline Project to supply approximately 2,300 AFY of potable water to meet future demands, as reported in the 2004 Water Supply Study. The study presented two alignments of the extension, identified and discussed the design and regulatory requirements of the project, and provided a 20-year life cycle cost analysis including capital and O&M costs for the project. The report compared two pipeline alignments: Orcutt Road to Lopez Reservoir (Alignment A, 17.5 miles long) for treatment at Lopez WTP; and Plains Oilfield to Arroyo Grande Creek (Alignment B, PXP 18.07 miles long) for exchange of Arroyo Grande Creek and Lopez Project water. The study concluded that the Plains Oilfield pipeline was the most cost-effective method but was uncertain of the time frame for availability of the pipeline. The Orcutt Road alignment had a significantly higher cost but considerably reduced the construction schedule. The project required improvements to the Lopez WTP for treatment of raw water such as the installation of chemical pretreatment, new membrane filtration system, and disinfection to meet state and federal water quality standards. The existing Lopez Project pipeline also would require pumping improvements to increase capacity and maintain adequate delivery rates and pressure to all users. Agencies would be required to sign the Nacimiento Project Water Delivery Entitlement Contract, which defines the operation and maintenance, delivery entitlement, and regulatory requirements for each agency. The estimated capital cost of the Orcutt Road alignment was $30,100,000 with estimated annual O&M cost of $5,960,000 and 20-year life cycle cost of $3,827/AF. The estimated capital cost of the Plains Pipeline alignment was $11,860,000 with an estimated $5,800,000 annual O&M cost and 20-year life cycle cost of approximately $3,010/AF. The cost for this alignment was lower since a water discharge pipeline constructed by Plains Exploration (PXP) would be reused for part of the project. The report concluded the project would require a minimum of 5 years to complete planning, permitting, design, and construction if the Orcutt Road alignment was selected. However, if the recommended Plains Pipeline alignment was selected, the timeline could increase by 10 years since the pipeline would be necessary for oil water production during that period. The report concluded that more information was required regarding the timeline for the Plains Pipeline due to the high uncertainty before a feasibility study is conducted.
1 Estimated capital and 20-year life cycle costs in 2006 dollars

Page 121 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-8

2.4 2009 Final Recycled Water Study
The 2009 Water Recycling Update Report prepared by the Wallace Group for the SSLOCSD reevaluated previous recycled water studies and proposed alternative projects for the District in response to the 2004 Water Supply Alternatives Study. The SSLOCSD provides wastewater services to the City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, and community of Oceano and operates a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 5,600 AFY. The report provided a detailed overview of each agency’s water supply systems, wastewater characteristics of the District, recycled water regulations, and described the potential for a recycled water market. The report evaluated the viability of recycled water use within the District through multiple proposed projects and evaluated the cost, water quality impacts, public perception, constructability, and construction impact for each project. The recycled water projects considered were landscape irrigation for the Elm Street Park/Soto Sports Complex, groundwater recharge and stream augmentation at the Arroyo Grande Creek, direct agricultural irrigation of food crops, and toilet flushing. All the proposed projects would require upgrades to the existing SSLOCSD WWTP. Turf irrigation, direct food crop irrigation, and indirect potable reuse projects required adding coagulation and sedimentation ahead of filtration and disinfection or adding a direct filtration process with disinfection. The report determined that a full-scale direct agricultural irrigation project, possibly in combination with an indirect potable reuse project, was the most cost effective and viable recycled water project with an estimated cost of $1,200 to $1,400 per AF. The SSLOCSD WWTP would require process improvements including microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light. These improvements would have an estimated construction cost of $14.3 million2. The report concluded with five near-term recommendations for the recycled water projects: conduct additional feasibility studies regarding aquifer recharge, begin to request Title XVI funding for recycled water projects, develop a conceptual design for the recycling facility, develop a public outreach plan, and coordinate with Regional and State Boards to secure project funding.

2.5 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
The 2016 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for the SSLOCSD and the City to identified, evaluated, and analyzed two potential locations for an advanced treatment plant (ATP). The report describes the current and projected water system and water use characteristics, identifies permitting requirements, potential project funding, and illustrates an implementation plan for the two potential locations. The project plan, regardless of the alternative site locations, consist of a two-phase implementation plan. Phase 1 is to construct the ATP to treat flows from Pismo Beach WWTP and Phase 2 will expand treatment to include flows from the SSLOCSD WWTP. Alternative 1 included construction of the ATP onsite at the existing WWTP to provide water for groundwater recharge and or agricultural irrigation. Alternative 2 included construction of an offsite ATP to treat secondary effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and the District’s WWTP to provide water for groundwater and or recharge agricultural irrigation. The report recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to further evaluate the location and discussed advantages and disadvantages for both options. Key benefits of the onsite ATP (Alternative 1) compared to an off-site ATP (Alternative 2) were less infrastructure for conveyance, no additional property was needed for the onsite location, and O&M costs were lower. Alternative 1 was estimated to cost $3,900 per AF for Phase 1 and $2,800 per AF for Phase 2. The main disadvantage of this alternative was increased regulatory restrictions and permits needed to upgrade the existing facility. The report stated the key advantage of the offsite location (Alternative 2) was less regulatory restrictions, but the capital and O&M costs were higher than the onsite option. Alternative 2 was estimated to cost $4,400 per AF for Phase 1 and $3,000 per AF for Phase 2. The report also compared cost between using recycled water for groundwater recharge only and for a hybrid approach that included groundwater recharge and agricultural irrigation with both project location options. The groundwater recharge-only projects would have a lower capital cost and higher O&M costs but provide higher water quality to the basin long term. The hybrid projects would result in higher capital cost, but lower O&M costs once a framework for participating agencies to contribute to project costs was developed.

The report provided near term and long-term project components that all stakeholders need to address and 2 Costs in 2008 dollars

Page 122 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 2-9 further evaluate before a project option can selected and outlines permitting steps needed to begin the next evaluation process.

Page 123 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-1

EVALUATION OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES

3.1 State Water

3.1.1. Background
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOCFCWCD) and Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) are State Water Project contractors. San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County subcontractors receive flow through the Coastal Branch Aqueduct and distribution facilities operated by Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA). Water delivered in both counties is treated at the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant. The distribution system of the Lopez Project is used to deliver State Water to County Service Area 12 subcontractors (including Avila Beach CSD, Pismo Beach, San Miguelito Mutual Water Company, and Oceano CSD).

3.1.2. Water Quality and Reliability
State Water is treated for the Coastal Branch service areas by CCWA and delivered for potable use but annual availability for new supply is subject to drought conditions since it is an imported surface water supply. For example, in March 2021, California Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced “Table A” deliveries would be reduced to 5% of requested supplies3. SLOCFCWCD has an agreement with DWR for up to 25,000- acre feet per year (AFY) of “Table A” allocation but can currently only deliver 4,830 AFY of water through Coastal Branch facilities4. Undelivered “Table A” water is used by SLOCFCWCD to meet local needs in years when statewide “Table A” water supply allocation is less than what is requested by Contractors. For example, “Table A” allocation of 5% results in 1,250 AFY of new “Table A” water being available to San Luis Obispo County, which the SLOCFCWCD can then use in combination with its stored carryover water (“Table A” from previous years) to deliver up to 100% of the water supply amounts requested by their subcontractors.

3.1.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
A City ballot measure passed in 1990 required voter approval to receive State Water. However, during the last major drought the City passed a 2016 ballot measure to allow purchase of State Water on an emergency basis only. Purchasing State Water on an emergency basis during drought conditions would be legal, but permanent supply would require a new ballot measure to be passed.

For the City to obtain State Water, an existing subcontractor must develop an agreement with the City to transfer State Water since CCWA facilities are fully subscribed. Some additional capacity may be available in the treatment and distribution facilities but all CCWA members and San Luis Obispo County subcontractors must approve use of this additional capacity by Arroyo Grande unless existing entitlement is transferred.

The City would need to find a willing State Water subcontractor to purchase their Table A allocation. San Luis Obispo County Public Works staff stated they did not know of any interested subcontractors at this time. Many existing subcontractors are interested in procuring more State Water. OCSD has expressed an interest in a short-term transfer of State Water to the City which is discussed separately in this study (see Section 3.2).

Only State Water subcontractors downstream of Arroyo Grande on the Lopez Project could contract with the City without requiring the City to procure capacity in either the Coastal Branch or the Lopez Project. 3 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/March-21/SWP-Allocation-Update-March-23 4 “Table A” allocation refers to an agency’s contracted amount of State Water. It can be adjusted by the Department of Water Resources each year based on overall availability of water, considering drought and other impacts to the state surface water supplies.

Page 124 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-2

3.1.4. Infrastructure
State Water can be conveyed to the Lopez Project for delivery to the City of Arroyo Grande. Based on discussions with County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Staff, the capacity of Polonio Pass Water Treatment Facility and Coastal Branch is fully subscribed by existing State Water subcontractors. The capacity of Lopez Project is also fully subscribed by South County Zone 3 water purveyors. The 2020 Draft Urban Water Management Plan for SLOCFCWCD Zone 3 (2020, WSC) states an additional 300 AFY capacity may be available in the Coastal Branch and Lopez Projects when comparing existing agreements for Lopez and State Water to the hydraulic capacity of the pipelines.

3.1.5. Cost
Assuming no treatment or distribution improvements are required to deliver State Water to Arroyo Grande, permanent acquisition of water from a State Water subcontractor will require buy-in costs to reimburse the subcontractor for past debt service. Historically, this has been a limitation for agencies in acquiring State Water if they were not early subcontractors. The total cost for State Water could vary widely depending on the specific opportunity. City staff will continue to work with subcontractors and the County to identify any willing sellers.

3.1.6. Feasibility
This alternative is not recommended for consideration as a long-term water supply for the following reasons:
• Fully subscribed pipeline and treatment capacity in the Lopez and CCWA facilities. • Requirement for approval by CCWA and San Luis Obispo County subcontractors. • Impact of drought on long term reliability.
• Requirement for City to pass a new ballot measure for long-term water supply.

However, the City should continue to engage with the County in case plans are developed to acquire more State Water, acquire additional pipeline or treatment capacity from CCWA, or new partnerships arise to facilitate State Water exchange through the Zone 3 system.

3.2 Oceano CSD

3.2.1. Background
OCSD water sources include State Water, Lopez Water, and groundwater. Lopez and State Water are delivered through the Zone 3 system. In 2009, the City and OCSD entered a five-year agreement for 100 AFY of either Lopez Water or groundwater to be delivered to the City as a temporary water supply. Cost was assigned to be 105% of current Lopez Water costs with a credit of $275/AFY for any groundwater used.

From discussions with OCSD, up to 300 AFY of OCSD’s water may be available to the City on a short-term basis. The actual amount would depend on availability of water supplies to meet OCSD’s demand on a yearto-year basis.

3.2.2. Water Quality and Reliability
OCSD would need to assess availability of water each year before committing to deliveries to the City since all of OCSD’s water supplies could be affected by drought conditions. State Water is treated and delivered for potable use but is subject to drought conditions since it is supplied by imported surface water. For example, in March 2021, California DWR announced “Table A” deliveries would be reduced to 5% of requested supplies5. SLOCFCWD has an agreement with DWR for 25,000-acre feet per year (AFY) of Table A allocation, but can currently only deliver 4,830 AFY of water through CCWA facilities. Undelivered “Table A” water is used 5 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/March-21/SWP-Allocation-Update-March-23

Page 125 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-3 by SLOCFCWCD to meet local needs in years when statewide “Table A” water supply allocation is less than what is requested by Contractors. For example, “Table A” allocation of 5% results in 1,250 AFY of new “Table A” water being available to San Luis Obispo County, which the SLOCFCWCD can then use in combination with its stored carryover water (“Table A” from previous years) to deliver up to 100% of the water supply amounts requested by the Subcontractors including OCSD.

OCSD has typically not taken its full 750 AFY of Table A State Water entitlement due to the high variable cost for State Water, but has stored unused water in San Luis Reservoir, a State Water Project facility. This stored water can be extracted when requested by OCSD, increasing reliability of this supply.

In the future, Lopez Project participants will have the ability to use State Water to offset their usage of Lopez Water, then store their unused Lopez Water in Lopez Reservoir. Pending agreements are being finalized among Lopez Project and State Water contractors. If the City can obtain excess OCSD water and store it in Lopez Reservoir, it would be available for extraction in later years improving long-term reliability.

3.2.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
A temporary agreement would be required between OCSD and the City but the arrangement would be legal for both agencies. Purchasing OCSD water as a permanent supply could be affected by OCSD and City regulations.

OCSD has an ordinance preventing long-term sale of their State Water entitlement but has been able to enter into short-term agreements in the past. The City of Arroyo Grande passed a ballot measure in 2016 to allow the City to purchase State Water on an emergency basis but a previous ballot measure prevents permanent purchase of State Water. Purchasing State Water under non-emergency conditions would require a new ballot measure to be passed. If OCSD acquired State Water in excess of current “Table A” amounts, OCSD may be able to legally sell this water to Arroyo Grande on a long-term basis.

3.2.4. Infrastructure
No additional infrastructure would be required as long as OCSD does not exceed their allotted capacity of CCWA or Lopez facilities to provide water to Arroyo Grande.

3.2.5. Cost
The previous agreement between OCSD and the City established a cost equivalent to 105% of Lopez Water price. OCSD’s current price for Lopez Water is $1674 per AF, which results in a purchase price of approximately $1758 per AF under the original agreement. Cost would be negotiated prior to finalizing any agreement.

3.3 Interagency Connections

3.3.1. Background
The City’s water service area is located within 300 feet of Golden State Water-Cypress Ridge’s (GSWCR’s) service area near the intersection of Cathedral Lane and Cornerstone Lane. Both agencies are members of the California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) which promotes mutual aid during emergencies. The City could initially rely on their joint CalWARN membership with GSWCR to provide emergency water supply.

Developing an emergency connection could be the first step in long-term purchase of water by the City. Nipomo CSD (NCSD) receives supplemental water under a Wholesale Agreement with the City of Santa Maria and is completing design of interconnections to deliver water to GSWCR, Golden State Water’s other Nipomo service area, and Woodlands Mutual Water Company. The City of Santa Maria sells a “municipal mix” of State Water and groundwater to NCSD.

This connection could also benefit GSWCR and NCSD by allowing transfer of water from Lopez Project contractors via Arroyo Grande’s water distribution system if needed.

Page 126 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-4

3.3.2. Water Quality and Reliability
A connection between the City and GSWCR could improve reliability for both agencies. Construction of an interconnection and development of a mutual aid agreement could, at a minimum, allow transfer of water during emergency conditions. All water conveyed to the City would be potable water.

GSWCCR utilizes groundwater and intends to receive supplemental water from NCSD as described above.

Reliability of groundwater and supplemental water could be impacted by drought, as discussed in the other sections where State Water is considered. However, this can be mitigated by Santa Maria procuring other available State Water, storing water in San Luis Reservoir for extraction during dry years, or supplementing with groundwater.

3.3.3. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints
GSWCR and the City of Arroyo Grande are both signatory to CalWARN as described above, so they can provide emergency relief to each other. This could facilitate short-term emergency water transfers between the two systems if they are connected. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreement between GSWCR and the City would develop guidelines for design, construction, and funding a new connection.

Long-term opportunity to purchase supplemental water from NCSD and wheel it through the GSWCR system could be explored in the future. NCSD has constructed facilities that connect and convey water from the City of Santa Maria to NCSD’s water system. NCSD’s water system connects to and will be conveying water to Woodlands Mutual Water Company and GSWCR. NCSD entered into a Wholesale Agreement with the City of Santa Maria to purchase a minimum of 2,500 AFY beginning in the 2025-26 fiscal year, with a maximum allowable delivery of 6,200 AFY. Additional infrastructure will be needed to reach the maximum allowable delivery amount. The District is importing a minimum of 1,000 AFY in the 2021-22 fiscal year and the years leading up to the 2025-26 fiscal year. An easement agreement with SBCFCWCD limits delivery to 3,000 AFY at this time. This quantity includes allocations for Nipomo Mesa purveyors including GSWCR, Woodlands Mutual Water Company, and another Nipomo GSWC service area. If the City of Arroyo Grande and NCSD pursue a permanent sale of water, NCSD may need to revise the easement agreement to purchase additional water beyond the 3,000 AFY limit. It is our understanding NCSD and County of San Luis Obispo staff are negotiating with SBCFCWCD to revise this limit.

Other exchanges among the City, Lopez Project contractors, GSWCR, and NCSD could be explored but are outside the scope of this study.

3.3.4. Infrastructure
Hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevations in the City’s Main City Pressure Zone and the primary GSWCR zone appear to be similar (approximately 312 ft mean sea level (MSL)). An engineering study will be needed to confirm the amount of water that could be conveyed among the three systems and to size interconnection piping and metering facilities. A typical interconnection includes a buried vault with meter, valves, bypass piping, instrumentation, flow control capability, and power. Additional improvements within the City or GSWCR system may be needed depending on the design flow for the interconnection.

If long-term purchase of water is pursued in the future, additional improvements will be needed within the NCSD water system and may be needed within the GSWCR water system.

3.3.5. Cost
Hydraulic analysis of both systems and agreement on design criteria would be required before cost can be determined, but cost components are summarized below:
• Capital cost of interconnection facility (including planning, design, and construction). • Operation and maintenance of interconnection facility.

Page 127 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-5 If long-term purchase of NCSD supplemental water is pursued, the following cost components may be required:
• Capital cost of GSWCR and NCSD improvements (including planning, design, and construction). • Operation and maintenance costs to wheel water through the GSWCR and NCSD systems. • Purchase cost for supplemental water from NCSD.

3.4 Nacimiento Water Project

3.4.1. Background
The Nacimiento Water Project can deliver 15,750 AFY of raw water through facilities including the reservoir intake, pumping stations, tanks, and pipelines. Existing participants include San Luis Obispo County Service Area 10A (Cayucos), Bella Vista Mobile Home Park (Cayucos), Santa Margarita Ranch Mutual Water Company, City of Paso Robles, Templeton CSD, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, and City of San Luis Obispo. As discussed in previous studies, the Nacimiento Water Supply Project was not extended south past the City of San Luis Obispo.

3.4.2. Institutional and Regulatory Constraints
The project is fully subscribed by existing participants and capacity must be acquired from current participants without adding pipelines or pumping facilities to deliver more water. However, participants are not using their full allocations. County staff have noted the participants are working to develop a surplus water sales program that would support transfers of Nacimiento Water Project water to non-participants within the central coast region.

To transfer Nacimiento Water, a new pipeline would be required connecting the City of San Luis Obispo to Lopez Reservoir for treatment at Lopez Water Treatment Plant. Another approach could be construction of a new pipeline from the City of San Luis Obispo to the Avila area currently served by the Lopez Project.

Alternatively, if no new pipeline was constructed the City would need to be able to exchange Nacimiento Water for State Water through existing Zone 3 partners. However, there are no Zone 3 partners who are also customers of the Nacimiento Water Project.

3.4.3. Infrastructure
An exchange of State Water for Nacimiento Water would not require new pipelines or connections, in theory.

However, there are no partners in both projects who could facilitate this transfer other than SLOCFCWCD who may have the potential to facilitate transfers or exchanges.

3.4.4. Feasibility
This alternative should not be explored further at this time since there are no appropriate partners engaged in both the Nacimiento Water Project and State Water Project, and no Nacimiento Water is currently available.

San Luis Obispo County staff has noted SLOCFCWCD has the capability to purchase additional Nacimiento water from Monterey County Water Resources Agency beyond the current Nacimiento Water Project contracted amount. The City should continue to engage with the County in case plans are developed to extend the Nacimiento Water Project to south San Luis Obispo County or new partnerships arise to facilitate water exchange through the Zone 3 system.

3.5 Central Coast Blue

3.5.1. Background
The Preliminary Engineering Report for Central Coast Blue (CCB PER, WSC/Carollo, 2021) provided background information for this Study. The Central Coast Blue Project is intended to protect the Northern Cities

Page 128 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-6 Management Area of the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin against groundwater contamination from seawater intrusion and augment groundwater supply. The project involves the construction of an advanced water purification facility (AWPF) that will treat effluent from the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (PBWWTP) and the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (SSLOCSD WWTP) to Title 22 standards for indirect potable reuse for groundwater injection into the SMGB. Participants of the project include the Cities of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach which are members of the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA).

The project would be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 will include the construction of the AWPF, five injection wells and associated monitoring wells, pipelines, and the conveyance system. Only effluent from the PBWWTP would be treated in this phase. Phase 2 will increase the AWPF capacity to process effluent from SSLOCSD WWTP and incorporate two additional injection wells. The project will increase water supply reliability of the NCMA by injecting 900 AFY during Phase 1 and a total of 3,500 AFY when Phase 2 is completed.

3.5.2. Water Quality and Reliability
The SMGB provides groundwater for the NCMA agencies. Water supply reliability is limited by drought conditions, seawater intrusion, and overall groundwater level reductions in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. Since 2009 the NCMA agencies have reduced groundwater pumping in efforts to prevent seawater intrusion. The Central Coast Blue Project will increase groundwater supply and reliability for the NCMA and improve the overall water quality by injecting highly purified recycled water that complies with Title 22 standards and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements for minerals and drinking water maximum contaminant levels into the SMGB.

The Central Coast blue project would inject up to 900 AFY of purified water in Phase 1 and 4,390 AFY in Phase II. A groundwater model has been developed to determine how much water could be extracted at these two phases of project implementation without negatively impacting the groundwater basin. Results of the modeling analysis indicate the agencies will be able to extract as much water as they are injecting, and possibly more, without causing seawater intrusion.

The City of Arroyo Grande has agreed to participate to a 25% level in the Phase I project, which is noted as 225 - 250 AFY of expected benefit for the City in the September 14, 2021, Staff Report to City Council.

3.5.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
Operating and management agreements are being developed among the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach for completion of permitting, design, construction, and management of Central Coast Blue. Permitting and regulatory constraints have been identified by the project stakeholders and are being addressed as part of the implementation strategy.

3.5.4. Infrastructure
The Central Coast Blue Project will require the construction of the AWPF which will utilize ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and UV disinfection with advanced oxidation processes for water treatment and the development of injection and monitoring wells. The project will also require additions to the PBWWTP and the SSLOCSD WWTP infrastructure such as additional treatment facilities, a conveyance system, and multiple pump stations.

Existing extraction wells would be utilized to deliver water to the City.

3.5.5. Cost
A cost analysis was prepared for the project that assumed a 1% interest rate over a 30-year payback period.

The total cost for Phase 1 after injection is $2,400/ AF and $1,800/ AF for Phase 2. Total cost includes capital cost, annualized capital cost, and annualized O&M cost. The PER notes the Phase 1 cost “before injection” is $3,400 AFY, since 900 AFY would be injected but the PER states this will result in a yield of 1,700 AFY of groundwater that can be extracted without increasing potential seawater intrusion.

Page 129 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-7

3.5.6. Additional Considerations
The City could improve reliability by exchanging Central Coast Blue allocation for State Water and/or Lopez Water. As discussed in Section 3.2, in the future, Lopez Project participants will have the ability to use State Water to offset their usage of Lopez Water, then store their unused Lopez Water in Lopez Reservoir. This could allow the City to store unused water they have exchanged for their Central Coast Blue allocation.

Exchanging Central Coast Blue allocation for State Water and/or Lopez Water could also provide higher water quality. Both surface water supplies have lower mineral content and hardness than groundwater.

3.6 Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept

3.6.1. Background
In a June 24, 2021, letter to City Council, Hartman Engineering identified an option for a “scalping plant”, defined in the letter as “decentralized treatment plant(s) which can provide recycled water to the City of Arroyo Grande without the added infrastructure of developing large scale water treatment facilities and the associated new pipe networks.” The letter recommended locating the scalping plant near Arroyo Grande High School and surrounding agricultural fields where raw wastewater could be extracted from a SSLOCSD sewer trunk main and treated for irrigation use. This water would be exchanged for groundwater in order to allow the City to extract unused groundwater. The project could be phased to produce up to 400 AFY according to the letter.

3.6.2. Water Quality and Reliability
The development of a scalping plant would provide a reliable water supply for irrigation. The letter states that this project could reduce groundwater pumping by agricultural businesses and naturally reduce seawater intrusion potential by providing recycled water as an alternative.

Mineral content could be a challenge for agricultural users, depending on the crops in production. High total dissolved solids and chlorides can present a challenge as noted in previous recycled water studies. This concern could be alleviated by blending with groundwater. However, this would reduce the beneficial groundwater extraction offset.

There may also be concern from potential consumers about use of treated wastewater for food crops. Users would also be required to obtain permitting for recycled water use and meet Title 22 requirements for placement of irrigation systems and for prevention of cross-connection with potable water supplies.

3.6.3. Institutional or Legal Constraints
The letter claims the permitting process for decentralized treatment plants have a streamlined regulatory pathway with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). One of the key benefits identified in the letter is that scalping plant designs have the ability to be scalable to meet current and future demands without excessive permitting limitations.

Since the plant would discharge waste to the existing SSLOCSD trunk mains, no Waste Discharge Requirement Orders would be necessary. However, a Title 22 Engineering Report will be necessary to receive RWQCB approvals for recycled water treatment and delivery. The project would also require California Environmental Quality Act review and any other permits for treatment, pipelines, pump stations, and storage facility construction.

In order to provide a quantifiable water supply benefit to the City, contracts with agricultural users would be necessary. Users would need to agree to reduce groundwater pumping by a 1:1 ratio to delivered recycled water. The City would need to have the right to extract this exchanged water from their wells.

Page 130 of 182 ends

City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-8

3.6.4. Infrastructure
The letter notes that the key advantage of a scalping plant is its limited infrastructure requirements. The scalping plant would not require the development of a large-scale water treatment facility. As envisioned by the letter’s author, the scalping plant would consist of a packaged membrane bioreactor system with disinfection and pumping and would utilize the existing network of irrigation pipe to distribute recycled water.

The letter assumes existing pipe is nearby and available for connecting to the plant.

3.6.5. Cost
Cost cannot be accurately estimated at this time due to the range of variables, but cost components are summarized below:
• Capital cost of scalping plant (including planning, design, and construction) • Operation and maintenance of scalping plant.

In a similar project developed for a community in Madera County, a 0.25 MGD (280 AFY) recycled water treatment facility was constructed for $6.5M construction cost. Assuming 30-year financing at 1.5% (recent State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Loan Fund terms), this would result in annual debt service of $270,000 or $970/AF. The following table summarizes operation and maintenance costs projected for the first year of operation.

Table 3-1 Example Estimated First-Year O&M Costs for 280 AFY Recycled Water Treatment Facility Category Cost
Labor and Materials $420,000
Utilities (Power, Water, and
Communication) $160,000
Outside Services (Sludge
Disposal, Laboratory Testing,
and Engineering)
$80,000
Regulatory Permits and Fees $33,000
Administration $74,000
Total $767,000 ($2740/AF)
Total estimated cost, including only construction and operation/maintenance, for the recycled water plant in Madera County is $3,710/AF for this 280 AFY facility. It is likely the cost per AF for a 400 AFY facility would be lower due to economy of scale and the ability to discharge solids back to the collection system instead of requiring offsite disposal. First year of operation tends to be higher until a treatment system reaches a steady state of performance and less operator time is required. However, this cost does not include land acquisition, resource agency permits, design, financing, recycled water distribution pipelines, or other costs beyond those identified above. This cost opinion is considered adequate as a conceptual, planning-level cost until preliminary design is performed.

3.6.6. Feasibility
While the project is feasible, developing planning-level costs would require preliminary design. No costs were presented in the letter addressed to Council.

The City would need to identify interested customers before proceeding with this alternative. Discussions with potential irrigation users would be required to determine if they are likely to reduce groundwater pumping in _____________________________________________________________________________________

Page 131 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-9 exchange for recycled water. This has proven to be a challenge in similar projects since agricultural businesses are often concerned about committing to reducing their water usage and sometimes have concerns regarding safety and quality of recycled water, particularly mineral quality.

3.7 Water Conservation
As discussed in Section 1.3 of this Study, the City recorded 2020 deliveries that were 24% or approximately 550 AFY lower than predicted. This is due to the City’s conservation efforts, including the tiered rate structure, restrictions to irrigation during drought conditions, rebate programs such as “cash for grass”, and retrofits of low flow fixtures. Further reduction through water conservation would require more stringent restrictions and penalties for using excess water. It is difficult to predict how the City could further reduce water consumption beyond the current level of success.

3.8 Stormwater Capture

3.8.1. Background
The San Luis Obispo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP, 2020, County of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department) identified and prioritized stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects in the County, including the City of Arroyo Grande. The SWRP provides the basis for this discussion.

The City is located within the Arroyo Grande/Pismo Creeks Watershed Group for stormwater planning efforts.

It is one of nine Watershed Groups identified in San Luis Obispo County. The Arroyo Grande Creek watershed has a total drainage area of 103 square miles (mi2) of which 68 mi2 is above Lopez Dam.

The SWRP identified the following projects within the Watershed Group:
• Stormwater Infiltration Basins
• Pismo Preserve Roads Improvement Project
• Oceano Drainage Improvement Project
• South Halcyon Green/Complete Street
• Corbett Creek Floodplain and Stream Restoration Project Of these projects, only the infiltration basins were identified as having a water supply benefit. No cost was identified but a benefit of 26 AFY was estimated across the Watershed Group, which includes the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, community of Oceano, and other unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County.

3.8.2 Water Quality and Reliability
Surface flow from Arroyo Grande Creek would be the primary water supply under this alternative. Arroyo Grande Creek supply is subject to drought conditions and is strongly dependent on releases at Lopez Dam.

The SWRP notes water quality is “generally good but for high concentrations of nitrate and orthophosphate, and marginal temperatures in the lowermost reaches.” Orthophosphate loading to groundwater would likely be reduced through adsorption during percolation but nitrate could have an impact to groundwater if this alternative is implemented.

3.8.3 Infrastructure and Regulatory Constraints
Arroyo Grande Creek flow is regulated by releases from Lopez Dam. Operations have been altered since the mid-1980s to improve flow conditions in the stream in order to enhance habitat. The SWRP notes these conditions are “likely providing a disproportionate amount of the suitable steelhead rearing habitat in the County, and thus are potentially high priority areas for protection and habitat enhancement.” Therefore, any attempts to retain flows to or along Arroyo Grande Creek could affect endangered species habitat and would require environmental review.

Page 132 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 3-10 Permitting for new pipelines, open channels, infiltration basins, or modifications to existing basins would be required. Project-specific review would be necessary to identify permitting and regulatory requirements.

3.8.4 Cost
Total cost and cost per AFY cannot be determined at this time, but capital cost of new basins, open channels, and piping (including planning, design, and construction) and cost of operation and maintenance should be considered.

3.8.5 Feasibility
Water supply benefit appears to be very low, considering the entire Watershed Group would only realize an estimated 26 AFY of additional water supply. However, these projects could be pursued as new development occurs or as existing basins are improved or upgraded in the future.

Page 133 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 4-1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions
The City has adequate water supply under normal and three-year drought conditions per the 2015 UWMP.

However, acquiring an additional 250 AFY could allow the City to meet future demands while reducing reliance on native groundwater.

This Study analyzed the following water supply alternatives to meet future water demand under drought conditions and to provide redundancy:
• State Water Project
• OCSD Supply
• Interagency Connections
• Nacimiento Water Project
• Central Coast Blue
• Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept
• Water Conservation
• Stormwater Capture
The most feasible water supply alternatives appear to be the following:
• Short-Term:
o Partnering with Oceano Community Services District on a short-term water supply agreement. o Pursuing an emergency connection with GSWCR.
• Long Term:
o Participation in Central Coast Blue.
o Negotiation with OCSD for long-term water purchase.
o Negotiation with GSWCR and NCSD for supplemental water after an emergency connection is pursued with GSWCR.

State Water Project and Nacimiento Water Project participation do not appear to be feasible at this time. City staff will continue to engage with County staff to identify potential opportunities to partner and acquire water from either supply if it becomes available.

The Scalping Plant Concept requires negotiation with potential agricultural users prior to beginning planning and design work. Customers willing to reduce groundwater pumping in exchange for recycled water are critical to success.

The City’s water conservation program has been very successful. It is difficult to determine how much additional enforcement effort, rebates, or incentive programming would be required to further reduce customer demand.

Stormwater capture does not appear to provide a significant supply of water to the City based on the San Luis Obispo County Stormwater Resource Plan. However, it could be pursued as new development continues and as existing stormwater basins are modified and low impact development standards are implemented.

Page 134 of 182 ends

_____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arroyo Grande – Water Supply Alternatives Study Page | 4-2

4.2 Recommendations
The following next steps are recommended to continue developing the City’s water supply portfolio:
• Continue to engage in Central Coast Blue. Pursue potential delivery of State Water or Lopez Water in exchange for Central Coast Blue allocation.
• Begin development of a Memorandum of Understanding with GSWCR for planning, design, and construction of an emergency interconnection.
• Begin initial discussions with GSWCR and NCSD for purchase of excess Nipomo supplemental water. • Negotiate with OCSD on a temporary water supply agreement. • Engage with OCSD to explore long-term water purchase. • Approach potential agricultural customers to discuss exchange of recycled water for reduced groundwater pumping. This will determine if the Recycled Water “Scalping Plant” Concept is viable. • Continue to regularly engage with County staff in case surplus Nacimiento or State Water is available and could be transferred to the City.

Page 135 of 182 ends

Draft Water
Shortage
Contingency Plan
MAY 2023 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 614 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 615 of 699 ends

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
MAY 2023
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc

Page 616 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 617 of 699 ends

Table of Contents
City of Arroyo Grande i
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Water Shortage Contingency Plan................................................................................... 4

1.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis...................................................................................... 5

1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment............................................................... 6

1.2.1 Key Data Inputs and Evaluation Criteria..................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Annual Assessment Procedures ................................................................................ 8

1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels ................................................................................ 9

1.4 Shortage Response Actions ............................................................................................12

1.4.1 Demand Reduction ...................................................................................................12

1.4.2 Supply Augmentation................................................................................................17

1.4.3 Operational Changes ................................................................................................18

1.4.4 Additional Mandatory Restrictions.............................................................................18

1.4.5 Emergency Response Plan.......................................................................................19

1.4.6 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan ..........................................................20

1.4.7 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness..................................................................20

1.5 Communication Protocols ................................................................................................23

1.6 Compliance and Enforcement..........................................................................................24

1.7 Legal Authorities..............................................................................................................25

1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP..................................................................................25

1.9 Monitoring and Reporting.................................................................................................26

1.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures......................................................................................26

1.11 Special Water Feature Distinction..................................................................................27

1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability ......................................................................27

1.13 Resources and References ...........................................................................................28 Attachment 1: Municipal Code Chapter 13.07 ...........................................................................29 Attachment 2: 2019 San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan .........30 Attachment 3: Adoption Resolution ...........................................................................................31

Page 618 of 699 ends

List of Tables
City of Arroyo Grande ii Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Key Data Inputs for the Annual Assessment. ............................................................ 8 Table 1-2. DWR 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels.................................................10 Table 1-3. Water Shortage Contingency – Mandatory Prohibitions ...........................................18 Table 1-4. Estimated Savings by Shortage Level......................................................................21 Table 1-5. DWR 8-3 Demand Reduction Actions ......................................................................22 Table 1-6. Water Shortage Contingency – Penalties and Charges............................................24

Page 619 of 699 ends

Acroynms & Abbreviations
City of Arroyo Grande iii Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

ACROYNMS & ABBREVIATIONS
2020 UWMP

GUIDEBOOK
Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook
AF Acre Foot
AWIA America’s Water Infrastructure Act
AWWA American Water Works Association
CALWARN California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network CITY City of Arroyo Grande
CWC California Water Code
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ERP Emergency Response Plan
LRRP Low Reservoir Response Plan
NCMA Northern Cities Management Area
NIMS National Incident Management System
RRA Risk and Resilience Assessment
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SMGB Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSAB Water Shortage Appeals Board
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan

Page 620 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 621 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 4
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

1.0 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is a detailed plan for how the City of Arroyo Grande (City) intends to predict and respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time or reduction in demand is otherwise needed.

This WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City, staff, and the public by identifying anticipated shortages and response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. The WSCP is a detailed proposal for how the City intends to act in the case of an actual water shortage condition. This WSCP is not intended to provide absolute direction but rather to provide options to manage water shortages. Official water shortage declarations by the City may include any combination of components described in this WSCP.

Water shortages can be triggered by a hydrologic limitation in supply (i.e., a prolonged period of below normal precipitation), limitations or failure of supply and treatment infrastructure, compliance with State mandates for water use efficiency, or a combination of conditions.

Hydrologic or drought limitations tend to develop and abate more slowly, whereas infrastructure failure tends to happen quickly and relatively unpredictably. Water supplies may be interrupted or reduced significantly in several ways, such as during a drought that limits supplies, an earthquake that damages water delivery or storage facilities, a regional power outage, or a toxic spill that affects water quality.

This WSCP describes the following:

Water Supply Reliability Analysis: Summarizes the City’s water supply analysis and reliability and identifies the key issues that may trigger a shortage condition.

Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures: Describes the key data inputs, evaluation criteria, and methodology for assessing the system’s reliability for the coming year and the steps to formally declare any water shortage levels and response actions.

Six Standard Shortage Levels: Establishes water shortage levels to clearly identify and prepare for shortages.

Shortage Response Actions: Describes the response actions that may be implemented or considered for each level to reduce gaps between supply and demand as well as minimize social and economic impacts to the community.

Communication Protocols: Describes communication protocols under each level to ensure customers, the public, and local government agencies are informed of shortage conditions and requirements.

Compliance and Enforcement: Defines compliance and enforcement actions available to administer demand reductions.

Page 622 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 5
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Legal Authority: Lists the legal documents that grant the City the authority to declare a water shortage and implement and enforce response actions.

Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation: Describes the anticipated financial impact of implementing water shortage levels and identifies mitigation strategies to offset financial burdens.

Monitoring and Reporting: Summarizes the monitoring and reporting techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of shortage response actions and overall WSCP implementation. Results are used to determine if shortage response actions should be adjusted.

WSCP Refinement Procedures: Describes the factors that may trigger updates to the WSCP and outlines how to complete an update.

Special Water Features Distinctions: Defines considerations and definitions for water use for decorative features versus pools and spas.

Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability: Describes the WSCP adoption process, submittal, and availability after each revision.

This WSCP was prepared in conjunction with the City’s 2022 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Water Systems Consulting Inc. 2023) and is a standalone document that can be modified as needed. This document is compliant with the California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632 and incorporated guidance from the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook 2020 (Department of Water Resources 2020) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices (M60) Drought Preparedness and Response (American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2019).

1.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis
This section is consistent with CWC Section 10632(a)(1) and describes the key findings of the water supply reliability analysis conducted pursuant to CWC Section 10635, which is presented in Chapter 7 of the City’s 2022 UWMP. As part of the 2022 UWMP, water suppliers must perform long-term (2025-2045) water service reliability assessment to evaluate reliability under normal, single dry year, and five-year consecutive dry year periods and a short-term (2021- 2025) Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) to evaluate reliability under a five-year consecutive dry year period. Water supply reliability reflects the City’s ability to meet the water needs of its customers with water supplies under varying conditions. The analysis considers plausible hydrological and regulatory variability, infrastructure capacity, climate conditions, and other factors that affect the City’s water supply and demand. The City expects to meet demands under all water year scenarios while continuing to promote conservation.

The DRA analyzes historical data to allow the City to view patterns and more reliably determine if there could be any water shortages within a given time frame. The DRA looks at historical consumption data by customer class, populated from billing records, and historical supply data by source from production reports. Next, future demand and supply estimates for the planning period are analyzed to determine if there are any gaps between supply and demand. As

Page 623 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 6
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
mentioned above, the City does not anticipate a supply shortage. The City is committed to promoting conservation to increase its resiliency and subsequent reliability.

1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
As established by CWC Section 10632.1, urban water suppliers must conduct an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment) and submit an Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report to DWR beginning by July 1, 2022, and every year after. The City prepared and submitted its first Annual Water Shortage Report as required. The Annual Assessment is an evaluation of the short-term outlook for supplies and demands to determine whether the potential for a supply shortage exists and whether there is a need to trigger a WSCP shortage level and response actions to maintain supply reliability. The annual report should report the anticipated shortage level, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions that will be implemented to mitigate the shortage identified in the Annual Assessment.

1.2.1 Key Data Inputs and Evaluation Criteria
City staff monitor the current shortage situation, the amount of available water supply, and other inputs shown below on a monthly basis. The respective water shortage condition dictates the degree at which shortage response actions are implemented at any time in the City. Some of the potential reasons to change stages are listed as follows:
• Advancement to subsequent stage
o Emergency condition, such as failure of pumping equipment, etc., that requires a percentage of water consumption reduction greater than that of the current stage. o Regulatory action that requires a percentage reduction or compliance with a water consumption standard.
o Failure to maintain target water consumption reduction goal of a given stage. • Withdrawal to previous stage
o Emergency condition has been decreased in severity or resolved, so that the previous target goal may be utilized.
o Regulatory action or standard has been resolved or modified. o Water consumption reductions have been above that necessary to meet target goals of the current stage.

The City is responsible for supplying water for the health and safety needs of the community. If the City projects a potential supply shortage in the future, actions will be taken to encourage conservation, alternative supply management may be evaluated or implemented, or the City Council may declare a water supply shortage condition.

Key data inputs and their sources for the Annual Assessments are summarized in Table 1-1 and described in detail in Section 1.2.2. Evaluation criteria that can be used to determine and declare severity of supply shortages may include any, or combinations, of the following:

Page 624 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 7
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
• Historic rainfall: reflects changes to supply due to reduced supply availability or changes to water usage patterns influenced by weather
• Groundwater Conditions- reflects status of groundwater conditions, which may include groundwater levels and quality
• Surface Water Conditions- reflects status of Lopez Lake storage conditions and related stages of the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP)
• Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints: reflects limited production and distribution capacity due to a variety of factors potentially including, but not limited to, man-made or natural catastrophic events
• Customer demands: reflects current year and one projected single dry year conditions for comparison to available supplies
• State mandates: reflects State orders and mandatory compliance with water use efficiency standards
• Other locally applicable evaluation criteria as necessary A shortage emergency may be declared when it is demonstrated that conditions threaten the ability to provide water for public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Furthermore, compliance with State mandates for water use efficiency can be declared during drought or in preparation for future droughts, such as in response to the Governor’s drought declarations in the 2012-2016 drought with a subsequent Executive Order B-37-16 and related legislation for Making Conservation a California Way of Life. The City’s current ordinances and related municipal code are described further in Sections 1.4 and 1.7.

Short-term and long-term supply shortages may be caused by constrained production capacity or natural or man-made catastrophic emergencies and include, but are not limited to, the following events: power outages, winter storms, wildfires, earthquakes, structural failures, contamination, and bomb threats. These types of emergencies may limit the City’s immediate ability to provide adequate water service to meet the requirements for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. Impacts of such emergencies vary in duration; thus, consumption reduction measures and prohibitions may differ for short-term and long-term shortages.

Page 625 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 8
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Table 1-1. Key Data Inputs for the Annual Assessment.

Key Data Input Source
Rainfall
Monthly rainfall data. Rainfall sources for the City include weather stations at the SLO County Public Works Volunteer Precipitation Gauge Station (Arroyo Grande Creek #736) and Arroyo Grande Corp Yard Station #177.1.

Groundwater conditions Production data, water levels, input from the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) groundwater monitoring program
and annual reports
Surface water conditions Delivery data, storage levels, input from Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Monthly Operations Reports.

Infrastructure capabilities and
plausible constraints
Production data, input from the City’s Public Works Department staff.

Customer demands
Customer billing data, Water equivalency table, 2022 UWMP projections, input from the City’s Public Works Department staff.

State mandates
Executive Orders from the Governor, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) orders and policies, input from the City’s Water Division staff.

1.2.2 Annual Assessment Procedures
City staff will perform the Annual Assessment each year and submit it to DWR by the deadline of July 1st, or on a more frequent basis if necessary. Steps to conduct the Annual Assessment are as follows:

1. City Staff gather the key inputs, compile historical data, and analyze potential supply and demand gaps.

2. Staff provide insight on demand trends, water supply conditions, and production capacity.

3. Based on water supply and water demand information, the City Council may order, by resolution, that the appropriate water shortage stage be implemented or terminated in accordance with the applicable provisions of this WSCP and the relevant provisions of the City’s municipal code, the Government Code, and the CWC. Findings and recommendations are presented to the City Council.

4. The City Council will declare the level of shortage required at the implementation or termination of each level and the declaration shall remain in effect until the City Council declares otherwise.

Page 626 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 9
Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

5. When a resolution of the City Council has been issued to change the water stage, the public will be notified through publication of the resolution in the local newspaper, on the City’s website, and in billing statements.

6. The City will develop and/or implement appropriate communication protocols and applicable response actions.

7. The Annual Assessment started in 2022 with the first Annual Assessment Report submitted to DWR by July 1, 2022.

1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
This section summarizes how the City’s water shortage levels from Municipal Code 13.07 are consistent with CWC Section 10632(a)(2). Shortage levels indicate the gap between supply and demand compared to normal year conditions. Table 1-2 shows the City’s shortage stages and their representative shortages. As shown in Table 1-2, the water shortage stages include consideration of water shortages up to a Shortage Level 2, which includes a greater than 50% shortage range as required by the CWC. Each stage includes supply conditions and percent of normal water supply, which may vary based on the nature of water supply emergency. The percent of normal supply ranges, percent demand reduction target ranges, and shortage criteria shown in Table 1-2 are not currently incorporated in the Municipal Code but may be if approved or amended by City Council. Due to the dynamic nature of supply and demand conditions, the City intends to evaluate these shortage criteria and utilize adaptive management of supplies and shortage response actions to appropriately address a given shortage condition. The implementation of a shortage level is dependent on the cause, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. Therefore, Table 1-2 provides potential ranges and criteria as guidelines to determine a shortage and appropriate responses, but ultimately a combination of shortage criteria could trigger use of a combination of water shortage response actions to address a shortage as discussed in Section 1.4.

Page 627 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 10 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Table 1-2. DWR 8-1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Shortage
Level
Potential
Percent of
Normal Supply
Shortage
Range
Percent
Demand
Reduction
Target
Range
Shortage Criteria
1 0-30% 0-15%
- Total water supply at or below 2,500 AFY
considering adaptive management of
groundwater levels, stored Lopez water, and/or
supplemental supplies available; and/or
- Lopez Reservoir <15,000 AF in storage; and/or
- 3 of the previous 4 quarters of sentry well level
readings below the deep well index trigger level
of 7.5 feet; and/or
- Mandatory SWRCB water use reduction
1B 31-35% 16-35%
- Total water supply at or below 2,300 AFY
considering adaptive management of
groundwater levels, stored Lopez water, and/or
supplemental supplies available; and/or
- Lopez Reservoir <10,000 AF in storage; and/or
- 6 quarterly continuous events of sentry well
level readings below the deep well index trigger
level of 7.5 feet; and/or
- Mandatory SWRCB water use reduction
2 >36% >36%, 50%
& >50%
- Total water supply at or below 2,000 AFY
considering adaptive management of
groundwater levels, stored Lopez water, and/or
supplemental supplies available; and/or
- Lopez Reservoir <5,000 AF in storage; and/or
- SMGB seawater intrusion; and/or
- Catastrophic or emergency supply interruption
New to the CWC, water suppliers must now adopt water shortage levels that equivalently address six standard water shortage levels. DWR standardized six shortage levels to provide a consistent regional and statewide approach to measure water supply shortage conditions. The six shortage levels correspond to 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-percent, and greater than 50 percent shortage compared to the normal reliability conditions. However, a water supplier may use its own shortage levels if a crosswalk is included relating its existing shortage levels to the six standard levels. A crosswalk between the City’s water shortage stages and the six standard levels is shown in Figure 1-1.

Page 628 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 11 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Figure 1-1: WSCP Crosswalk to DWR’s Six Standard Shortage Levels

Page 629 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 12 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

1.4 Shortage Response Actions
This section is in accordance with CWC Section 10632(a)(4) and 10632.5(a) and describes the response actions that may be implemented or considered for each shortage level with emphasis to minimize social and economic impacts to the community. The City expects to mitigate supply shortages through a variety of response actions including demand reduction actions, supply augmentation, operational changes, and mandatory prohibitions.

This WSCP identifies various actions to be considered by the City during water shortage conditions. In the event of a water shortage, the City will evaluate the cause of the shortage to help inform which response actions should be implemented. Depending on the nature of the water shortage, the City can elect to implement a combination of response actions to mitigate the shortage and reduce gaps between supply and demand. It should be noted that all actions listed for Level 1 apply to Level 1B and Level 2. Likewise, Level 1B actions apply to Level 2. If necessary, the City may enact additional actions that are not listed in this WSCP. The following sections discuss the potential response actions for each of the City’s water shortage levels.

1.4.1 Demand Reduction
In the event of a water shortage, the City may implement voluntary and mandatory compliance measures to induce water conservation. The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.07 includes prohibitions on various wasteful water uses and potential restricted use of City water during a declared water supply shortage (Attachment 1). The City’s methods include supplementing its water conservation program during WSCP implementation with progressively reduced water use allocations for various customer types as higher stages of the WSCP are implemented. In addition to the Municipal Code Chapter 13.07 provisions summarized below, the City may choose to utilize different shortage criteria (see Table 1-2) or measures that are listed in Table 1-5, or other measures deemed appropriate, at various shortage levels. The City's first priority in the implementation of these regulations and restrictions will be the preservation of water to satisfy domestic consumptive needs, for adequate fire protection, and to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the customers of the City.

Municipal Code Chapter 13.07.030- 13.07.080
Implementation of stages of action
A. Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency and Historical Use Water Restrictions

1. After holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City Council may, by resolution, declare a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency based upon a determination that Triggering Conditions exist or there have been impacts to the City’s water supply, and/or it has been determined that it is imminent that the City’s water supply has or will become so limited that an emergency water shortage condition exists as far as the available water supply being less than projected demand necessitating the institution of reductions in water usage based upon Historical Use, as further set forth in subsection 2, below.

Page 630 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 13 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Triggering Conditions may include, but not be limited to; a determination that the water level at the Lopez Reservoir is at or below 15,000 acre feet; there have been six (6) quarterly continuous events of sentry well level readings below the deep well index trigger level of 7.5 feet; and/or the imposition of mandatory reductions in water use by the City by the State Water Resources Control Board.

2. Upon adoption of a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency resolution, all residential customers will be assigned a baseline amount of water, based upon the amount of water used during the same billing period of the previous year prior to the adoption of the resolution. All residential customers shall reduce water usage by a percentage amount set forth in the resolution, which percentages may be modified or amended by the City Council as deemed necessary and appropriate. The percentage of required conservation shall increase depending on the billing Tier of the residential customer’s water use as provided in the City’s tiered water rate structure. The resolution shall include provisions for the imposition of mandatory financial penalties if the amount of water in each Tier is exceeded, which penalties may also be modified or amended by the City Council as deemed necessary and appropriate based upon a determination of the severity of the Water Shortage Emergency.

The following shall be used as a general framework for the resolution establishing the baseline units for billing Tiers and penalties, subject to such revisions deemed necessary in order to achieve the desired water savings:

Residential customers in Tier 1 shall be required to reduce consumption by the lowest percentage. Residential customers in Tier 2 shall be required to reduce consumption by a larger percentage than those in Tier 1. Residential Customers in Tier 3 shall be required to reduce consumption by an even larger percentage than those in Tier 1 and Tier 2. For example, Tier 1 customers may initially be required to conserve 10%, Tier 2 customers 20% and Tier 3 30%. As the emergency worsens, the City Council, may by resolution, increase the percentage reduction deemed necessary in order to achieve the projected amount of water savings established as necessary.

B. Stage 1B Water Shortage Emergency—Implementation of Additional Restrictions based upon the existence of Triggering Conditions

1. After holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City Council may, by resolution, find and determine that failure to adopt and impose additional restrictions on water use and deny new or additional water service connections for projects that do not participate in a water demand offset program, would place the community in a condition that is dangerous to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens due to the severe impact on the City’s water supply, if it is determined that any specified Triggering Conditions exist.

Page 631 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 14 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Based upon such a determination, the City Council may declare a Stage 1B Water Shortage Emergency that will provide that when Triggering Conditions exist additional restrictions on water use, including but not limited to denial of new or additional water service connections for projects that do not participate in a water demand offset program, will be imposed in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community.

The resolution may provide that the certification by the City Manager and Public Works Director that the Triggering Conditions set forth in subsection 2 below exist, which shall result in the immediate imposition of additional regulations and restrictions on the use of water in order to provide for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare, as set forth in the resolution.

2. If any one of the following water supply Triggering Conditions are determined to exist, the additional water use restrictions contained in subsection 4 below shall immediately be imposed.
a. The interruption of local water deliveries, the water delivery system or additional mandated reductions in water use by the State Water Resources Control Board. b. The water level at the Lopez Reservoir is at or below 10,000 acre feet. c. There have been six quarterly continuous events of sentry well level readings in the Santa Maria Ground Water Basin below the deep well index trigger level of

7.5 feet, or indications of sea water intrusion are detected.

3. In the event that any of the foregoing Triggering Conditions are determined to exist, the Public Works Director and City Manager shall Certify to its existence, immediately notify the City Council of such determination, post the Certification of the existence of the condition on the City website, and make additional notifications to alert the public that the additional Stage 1B restrictions are being implemented.

4. The following additional regulations and restrictions shall apply in addition to the restriction imposed in the Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency:
a. Irrigation of City-owned non-sports field turf areas shall be reduced to 25% of the water used for such irrigation in a year as specified in the adopting resolution. b. The required residential customer water reductions established in Stage 1 pursuant to Section A 2, above, shall be increased by five (5) percent for each of the three water rate tiers.
c. There shall be no new or additional water connections for any project that does not have all required planning project approvals and entitlements at the time of the Certification that a Triggering Condition exists. Smaller projects of less than four residential units or less than 5,000 sq. feet of commercial space shall be exempt from this restriction. Notwithstanding this restriction, development projects may continue to be processed.
d. The City Council may provide that the restriction contained in subsection c. above, will not apply to any project that participates in the City’s approved water

Page 632 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 15 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
demand offset program by providing water savings that offset their project’s water demand by a ratio of 1:1.5.

5. The foregoing Stage 1B additional regulations and restrictions contained in this Section shall no longer apply upon Certification by the Public Works Director and the City Manager that the water level at the Lopez Reservoir is at or above 15,000 acre feet and increasing, and none of the other Triggering Conditions exist, or upon a determination by the City Council that these additional water use regulations and restrictions are no longer necessary to protect the City’s water supply.

C. Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency and Household Allocation Water Restrictions.

1. After holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City Council may declare, by resolution, a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency based upon a determination that Triggering Conditions exist or that the projected City’s water supply condition is or will become equal to or less than amounts that have been determined necessary to meet basic minimum household health and safety requirements, and restrictions and limits through the implementation of water allocations are necessary for continued water use that is reliable and sustainable by providing a minimum supply for the most essential purposes for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection during the emergency situation, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Triggering Conditions may include, but not be limited to: a determination that the water level at the Lopez Reservoir is at or below 5,000 acre feet; and/or seawater intrusion is occurring in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin; and/or there has been a catastrophic or emergency interruption in the City’s water supply.

2. Upon adoption of a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency, restrictions and limits shall be imposed through the implementation of Household Allocations of water units for residential customers. All residential customers will be allocated units of water deemed necessary for an average household size (1 unit of water is equal to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons). Any residential customer using over the assigned baseline unit amount may be subject to citation and shall be subject to the imposition of mandatory financial penalties, which shall be set forth in the resolution adopted by the City Council and be based upon the severity of the Water Shortage Emergency. Each household shall be allowed 12 units of water per two month billing period (which is equivalent to 150 gallons per household per day). Households with over 5 people will be allowed 20 units of water per two-month billing period (250 gallons per day). Households with over 7 people will be allowed 28 units of water per two-month billing period (350 gallons per day). The allocations contained herein may be adjusted by the City Council by resolution.

Page 633 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 16 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Commercial Properties and Customers with Irrigation Meters During a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency commercial water customers shall not be subject to mandatory penalties for use except for those with irrigation meters as provided below.

Any customer with an irrigation meter account shall reduce water use by such percentages specified in the resolution declaring the Water Shortage Emergency, which percentage reductions may be increased by the City Council by resolution upon a determination that additional reductions are necessary. The resolution shall also establish mandatory financial penalties for failing to meet required water use reductions.

During a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency commercial water customers shall not use potable water for irrigation of outdoor landscaping. All irrigation meters shall be shut off and billing will be suspended.

Additional Requirements and Restrictions during Stage 1, Stage 1B or Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency
Upon adoption of a resolution declaring a Stage 1, Stage 1B or Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency the following shall apply:

1. Commercial, industrial or irrigation meter customers shall immediately follow any directive issued or declared by the City’s Water Department to conduct water use audits, prepare water conservation plans and immediately repair any identified water system leaks, including leaks attributable to faulty pipes or fixtures. Commercial customers shall not violate any other water use restrictions intended to preclude excessive water usage, as adopted by the City.

2. Residential customers shall not violate any water use/allocation or other water rationing regulation implemented by resolution of the City Council, including such regulations intended to preclude excessive water usage and specifying maximum water usage limitations, as otherwise provided by this Chapter.

Adjustments in Water Consumption Reduction Amounts, and Other Exceptions A. During a declared Water Shortage Emergency the Director, upon application made in writing by a customer on a form promulgated by the water department and accompanied by supporting documentation, shall be authorized to modify the percentage of water consumption reduction that is required by the customer, upon the customer’s production of substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of unusual circumstances, including but not limited to the household having been vacant during a portion of the comparison year billing period, resulting in the baseline water amount assigned to the household being lower than what would normally have been experienced.

B. The percentage of reduction in water consumption may also be adjusted if the existence of one or more of the following circumstances are shown and that are particular to that customer and which are not generally shared by other water department customers:

1. Failure to approve the requested exception would cause a condition having an adverse effect on the health, sanitation, fire protection, or safety of the customer.

Page 634 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 17 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

2. Alternative restrictions to which the customer is willing to adhere are available that would achieve the same level of demand reduction as the restriction for which an exception is being sought and such alternative restrictions are enforceable by the water department.

3. Circumstances concerning the customer’s property have changed since the implementation of the subject restriction warranting a change in the customer’s water usage allocation or required percentage of reduction in consumption.

C. In order to qualify for an exception, a customer may be required at the Director’s determination, to first complete a self-water audit pursuant to standards and procedures promulgated by the water department. This audit shall be made part of the customer’s exception application and water conservation measures indicated by the audit may be incorporated as conditions of approval to an exception in addition to any other conditions of approval imposed by the Director in connection with the Director’s approval of the customer’s exception application.

Water Shortage Appeals Board (WSAB)
A. Upon adoption of a resolution declaring a Water Shortage Emergency, the Utility Billing Adjustment Committee shall be empowered to act as the Water Shortage Appeal Board (WSAB). Thereafter, the Water Shortage Appeal Board will remain available to convene for as long as the Water Shortage Emergency remains in effect.

B. Any customer who considers an action taken by the Director or an enforcement official under the provisions of this Chapter, including action on adjustments to water consumption reduction amounts, and on exception application, or the assessment of administrative penalties which have been erroneously taken or issued, may appeal that action or penalty to the Water Shortage Appeals Board in the following manner:

1. The appeal shall be made in writing, shall state the nature of the appeal specifying the action or penalty that is being appealed and the basis upon which the action or penalty is alleged to be in error. Penalty appeals shall include a copy of the bill or any applicable notice of violation;

2. An appeal, to be effective, must be received by the Director not later than ten business days following the date of the notice of violation or the date that the Director took the action which is the subject of the appeal;

3. The Director shall schedule the appeal for consideration by the WSAB. The WSAB shall hear the appeal within ninety days of the date of the appeal and issue its decision within thirty days of the date of the hearing;

4. In ruling on appeals, the WSAB shall strictly apply the provisions of this Chapter, and shall not impose or grant terms and conditions not authorized by this Chapter.

5. Decisions of the WSAB shall be subject to appeal to the City Council in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 1.12 of this Code, including the requirement that decisions be first taken up with the City Manager.

1.4.2 Supply Augmentation
The City is pursuing Central Coast Blue as a local and drought-resistant supplemental supply, as discussed in Section 6 of the City’s 2022 UWMP. Given the City’s sufficient planned supply

Page 635 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 18 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
with Central Coast Blue, the City has no immediate plan to augment supply with any additional, long-term sources in response to shortages.

1.4.3 Operational Changes
During shortage conditions, operations may be affected by demand reduction responses.

Operational changes to address a short-term water shortage may be implemented based on the severity of the reduction goal. The City will maximize its supply by implementing operational strategies and demand reduction measures. As part of the Annual Assessment process, the City will consider their operational procedures at the time of a shortage to identify changes that can be implemented to address water shortage on a short-term basis, include but not limited to:
- Expeditious leak repair
- Decrease Line Flushing
- Reduce System Water Loss

1.4.4 Additional Mandatory Restrictions
In addition to the mandatory conservation and rationing measures imposed in Stages 1 through 2, the following water waste prohibitions are in effect at all times and will remain in effect during any declared water shortage emergency.

Table 1-3. Water Shortage Contingency - Mandatory Prohibitions Prohibitions Mandatory Prohibition Stage
All use of water which results in excessive gutter runoff. None, Stage 1, 1B & 2 Use of water for cleaning driveways, patios, parking lots, sidewalks, streets, or other such uses except as necessary to protect public health or safety.

None, Stage 1, 1B & 2
Outdoor water use for washing vehicles shall be attended and have hand-controlled watering devices. None, Stage 1, 1B & 2 Outdoor irrigation between the hours of 10 AM and 4 PM. None, Stage 1, 1B & 2 Limited days for outdoor irrigation None, Stage 1, 1B & 2 Use of potable water for compaction or dust control purposes in construction activities. None, Stage 1, 1B & 2
Hotel, motel or other commercial lodging establishment shall offer their patrons the option to forego the daily laundering of towels, sheets and linens.

None, Stage 1, 1B & 2

Page 636 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 19 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Prohibitions Mandatory Prohibition Stage
Emptying and refilling of swimming pools and commercial spas is prohibited except to prevent structural damage and/or to protect public health or safety.

None, Stage 1, 1B & 2
Restaurants or other commercial food service establishments shall not serve water except upon the request of a patron. None, Stage 1, 1B & 2

1.4.5 Emergency Response Plan
In the event of a sudden and catastrophic loss of water supply, the City has written an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to guide the City’s employees during disasters such as earthquakes, floods, wild land fires, dam failures, and terrorism. In addition to the emergency response guidelines established for City personnel, the Plan includes a Memorandum of Understanding between cities within San Luis Obispo County to offer assistance as available to neighboring cities during time of disaster.

The ERP contains detailed action items to the following list of events that might result in a drastic loss in supply.

1. Structural Damage from an Explosive Device

2. Power Outage

3. Natural Event (Flood)

4. Natural Event (Winter Storm)

5. Natural Event (Hurricane/Tropical Storm)

6. Natural Event (Earthquake)
The City is a member of the California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) to support and promote statewide emergency preparedness, disaster response, and mutual assistance processes for public and private water and wastewater utilities. The CalWARN Program provides its member utilities with:
• A standard omnibus mutual assistance agreement and process for sharing emergency resources among Signatories statewide.
• The resources to respond and recover more quickly from a disaster. • A mutual assistance program consistent with other statewide mutual aid programs and the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
• A forum for developing and maintaining emergency contacts and relationships. • New ideas from lessons learned in disasters.

In the event of a power outage, the City’s response strategy is to first determine if the reason for the outage is local to the plant or regional, then estimate the time to return power. This will provide the City with the significance of the situation and will help assess the need to secure additional fuel for generators. The treatment process would be operated to minimize the effects of the power loss. The problem should be remedied as quickly as possible, however, if the supply cannot be returned and an eventual loss of supply occurs, customers shall be notified of how to proceed.

Page 637 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 20 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
The first response in the event of an earthquake is to perform a system audit to determine the extent of damage to utilities, piping, and processes. This audit will allow the City to concentrate staff and resources on issues that need to be addressed immediately. Additional staff will be required for sampling, analysis, equipment repair, manual equipment and process operation, and communication. A report of the damage will be issued to the Incident Commander followed by a list of supplies that are necessary for repairs.

In the event of an emergency that interrupts use of a surface water source, the City will be able to provide an average flow of 300 gallons per capita per day from the City well water.

In 2021, the City completed a Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) and Emergency Response Plan (ERP) in accordance with America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018.

The purpose of the RRA and ERP is to meet the AWIA compliance requirements and plan for long-term resilience of the City’s infrastructure. The RRA assesses the City’s water system to identify critical assets and processes that may be vulnerable to human and natural hazards, and to identify measures that can be taken to reduce risk and enhance resilience from service disruption for the benefit of customers. The RRA identifies and characterizes both infrastructurespecific and system-wide vulnerabilities and threats and quantifies the consequences of disruption. The RRA also identifies various options (and constraints) in addressing and mitigating risk. The RRA, in conjunction with the ERP, charts a course for water system resilience. The RRA also provided various recommendations to increase reliability of the City’s system. Since critical pieces of infrastructure and specific vulnerabilities are detailed in the RRA and ERP, the contents of the document are confidential and for use by the City’s staff only.

However, the City can confirm that these plans meet the requirements set forth by AWIA and evaluate seismic risks and mitigation actions to the City’s infrastructure.

In the event of a water shortage emergency resulting from equipment failure, power outage, or other catastrophe the City may implement its water shortage levels, as described above, with either voluntary or mandatory reductions depending on the severity of the shortage. For severe disasters, mandatory water use reductions are specified.

1.4.6 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Disasters, such as earthquakes, can and will occur without notice. The RRA and ERP analyze all critical City facilities for a seismic event and address mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the 2019 San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Attachment 2) contains necessary Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan procedures.

1.4.7 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
The City’s primary mechanism of measuring water use and, subsequently, water use reduction, is through the use of water meters. Therefore, to measure actual reductions in water use in the course of carrying out a water supply shortage contingency plan, the City may perform water meter readings for individual connections.

Potable water production figures are recorded daily at the City Corporation Yard. The daily data is compiled into monthly reports and annual reports sent to the SWRCB and San Luis Obispo

Page 638 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 21 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
County. The City also maintains copies of all reports prepared. These reports can be used to compare monthly and annual water consumption to determine the efficiency of implemented water conservation measures. If the City determines that the desired level of water conservation is not being reached, additional conservation measures can be implemented with the direction of City Council.

Although it is difficult to estimate the volume of savings for each action, the City expects to meet required reductions through a combination of response actions in conjunction with outreach and communication efforts to the extent necessary to mitigate any impacts from a water shortage.

Estimates of the effectiveness for actions have been included in Table 1-4 and Table 1-5. It is assumed that a given required shortage to be addressed can be met by quantifiable measures and the remainder of shortage can be addressed by unquantifiable measures, operations changes and additional mandatory restrictions.

Table 1-4. Estimated Savings by Shortage Level
Level
SUPPLY

CONDITION/SHORTAGE,
%
Supply/
Demand
Target1,
AF
Required
Savings1,
AF
Estimated
Savings from
Quantifiable
Actions2, AF
Estimated
Savings from
Unquantifiable
Actions, AF
1 0%-10% Reduction 2,319 232 76 156
1B 11%-35% Reduction 1,507 812 812 0
2 36%->50% Reduction 1,136 1,183 1,183 0

1. For required savings estimation purposes, it is assumed the supply and demand in 2020 (2,319 AF) would need to be reduced by 35% in Level 1B and 51% in Level 2. Required savings may be met through a combination of quantifiable and unquantifiable actions. The City will only implement measures to the extent necessary to mitigate a water shortage, although estimates may indicate a greater savings is obtainable. It is anticipated that required savings will be met through quantifiable shortage response actions and through other unquantifiable actions, including outreach efforts.

2. Quantifiable savings are estimated based on various published sources and are provided as a guide.

The degree of implementation of actions can vary in each stage and can result in a wide range of savings. For a list of all the City’s specific shortage response actions and their maximum potential savings, refer to Table 1-5.

Page 639 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 22 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Table 1-5. DWR 8-3 Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage
Level
Demand
Reduction
Actions
How much is
this going to
reduce the
shortage gap?
Additional Explanation or
Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
1 Landscape -
Restrict or prohibit
runoff from
landscape
irrigation
20 AF All use of water which results
in excessive gutter runoff. Yes
1 Other - Prohibit
use of potable
water for washing
hard surfaces

0.04 AF
Use of water for cleaning
driveways, patios, parking
lots, sidewalks, streets, or
other such uses except as
necessary to protect public
health or safety.

Yes
1 Other - Require
automatic shut of
hoses

0.04 AF
Outdoor water use for
washing vehicles shall be
attended and have handcontrolled watering devices.

Yes
1 Landscape - Limit
landscape
irrigation to
specific times
26 AF Outdoor irrigation between the
hours of 10 AM and 4 PM. Yes
1 Landscape - Limit
landscape
irrigation to
specific days
26 AF Limited days for outdoor
irrigation Yes
1 Other - Prohibit
use of potable
water for
construction and
dust control
1 AF
Use of potable water for
compaction or dust control
purposes in construction
activities.

Yes

Page 640 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 23 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Shortage
Level
Demand
Reduction
Actions
How much is
this going to
reduce the
shortage gap?
Additional Explanation or
Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
1 CII - Lodging
establishment
must offer opt out
of linen service
1 AF
Hotel, motel or other
commercial lodging
establishment shall offer their
patrons the option to forego
the daily laundering of towels,
sheets and linens.

Yes
1 Pools - Allow filling
of swimming pools
only when an
appropriate cover
is in place.

2.4 AF
Emptying and refilling of
swimming pools and
commercial spas is prohibited
except to prevent structural
damage and/or to protect
public health or safety.

Yes
1 CII - Lodging
establishment
must offer opt out
of linen service

0.18 AF
Restaurants or other
commercial food service
establishments shall not serve
water except upon the request
of a patron.

Yes
1B Other 812 AF Water allocations by customer
class and usage tier.

Yes
2 Other 1,183 AF Water allocations by customer
class and usage tier.

Yes

1.5 Communication Protocols
This section is in accordance with CWC Section 10632(a)(5) and describes the communication protocols and procedures to inform customers, the public, and state and local officials of any current or predicted water shortages. When a shortage level is enacted or changed, a notice is sent to all water customers and the City’s website (https://www.thinkh2onow.com/) is updated.

Based on the severity of the shortage condition, the City website contains various brochures and links to ways water customers can conserve water indoors and outdoors. When the City moves to severely restricted water supply, notices are provided containing the mandatory water restrictions to all visitor serving facilities.

Page 641 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 24 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

1.6 Compliance and Enforcement
Any violation of the conservation regulations and restrictions on water use may result in termination of water service until the violation is corrected, and until all appropriate fees and penalties are paid in full. Table 1-6 lists the specifics of the penalties and in what stages they may occur in addition to the water conservation requirements contained in City Municipal Code Section 13.05 as described below.

Violation of any provision of City Municipal Code Section 13.05 may result in termination of water service until such violation is corrected, and until penalties are paid in full and will be subject to the following administrative procedure:

1. Written notice to the alleged offender, including the furnishing of informational material and advice where appropriate;

2. Recovery of all city staff costs, including overhead, or any second or greater offense within any one-year period;

3. Additional civil administrative penalties for any third or greater offense within any oneyear period;

4. The right to appeal first to the utility billing adjustment committee and then to the city council.

In addition to, and completely separate from, the civil enforcement provisions of the ordinance codified in the City’s Municipal Code, any person who knowingly and willfully violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a criminal misdemeanor as provided in the general penalty provisions of this code. All previous attempts by the City to obtain compliance by the defendant may be introduced as evidence of the offender's knowledge and willfulness.

Table 1-6. Water Shortage Contingency - Penalties and Charges Penalty/Charge1 Stage When Penalty
Takes Effect
Imposition of increasingly significant penalties so as to create a meaningful incentive to reduce water use. None, 1, 1B & 2 Criminal misdemeanor for any person who knowingly and willfully violates the provisions in the City’s Municipal code, and may result in the installation of a flow restriction device or disconnection of the customer’s property from the City’s water service system at the customer’s cost.

None, 1, 1B & 2

Page 642 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 25 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Penalty/Charge1 Stage When Penalty
Takes Effect
In addition to any penalties, misdemeanor criminal prosecution and the installation of a water flow restrictor, during a Water Shortage Emergency the Director may disconnect a customer’s water service for willful violations of mandatory restrictions and regulations in the City’s Municipal Code.

None, 1, 1B & 2
A person or entity that as a result of violations of Municipal Code Chapter 13.07 has a flow restrictor installed or water service disconnected is responsible for payment of charges for installing and/or removing the flow-restricting device and for disconnecting and/or reconnecting service in accordance with the City’s fee schedule then in effect. The charge for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device must be paid before the device is removed. Nonpayment will be subject to the same remedies as nonpayment of basic water rates.
1, 1B & 2
1The foregoing penalties may also be modified or amended by the City Council as deemed necessary and appropriate based upon a determination of the severity of the Water Shortage Emergency.

1.7 Legal Authorities
The City’s Ordinance 669 was adopted on February 24, 2015. The City adopted Resolution 4659 on May 26, 2015 and Resolution 4766 on November 22, 2016 in order to further implement Ordinance 669. The City adopted a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency through Resolution 5119 on October 12, 2021. Therefore, Ordinance 669, Resolution 4659, Resolution 4766, and Resolution 5119 effectively comprise the City’s Water Conservation and Emergency Water Shortage Restrictions and Regulations. A copy of the City’s existing Municipal Code Chapter 13.07, representing the codified ordinances and resolutions is provided in Attachment

1. Under State law, the City is authorized after declaration of a water shortage emergency to restrict the water uses and to prohibit the waste or use of the City’s water during such periods for any purpose other than domestic use, sanitation, fire protection or such other uses as may be determined by the City Council.

The City shall coordinate with San Luis Obispo County, within which it provides water supply services, for the possible proclamation of a local emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code.

1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP
The majority of the operating costs for most water agencies are fixed rather than a function of the amount of water sold. As a result, when significant conservation programs are undertaken, it

Page 643 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 26 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
is frequently necessary to raise water rates because the revenue generated is based on lower total consumption while the revenue required is basically fixed. In order to counteract the financial impact of conservation, the City may institute an increase in the rate structure so that lower projected water consumption would generate a new rate based on the revenue needed by the City’s Water Enterprise fund.

1.9 Monitoring and Reporting
This section is in accordance with CWC Section 10632(a)(9) and describes the reporting requirements and monitoring procedures to implement the WSCP and track and evaluate the response actions effectives.

As described in Section 1.2, the City intends to track its supplies and project demands on an annual basis, and if supply conditions described in Table 1-2 are projected, the City will enact a water shortage stage. Monitoring demands is essential to ensure the WSCP response actions are adequately meeting reductions and decreasing the supply/demand gap. This will help to analyze the effectiveness of the WSCP or identify the need to activate additional response actions.

The water savings from implementation of the WSCP will be determined based on monthly production reports which will be compared to the supply from prior months, the same period of the prior year, and/ or the allocation. At first, the cumulative consumption for the various sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.) will be evaluated for reaching the target demand reduction level. Then, if needed, individual accounts will be monitored. Weather and other possible influences may be accounted for in the evaluation.

1.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures
This section is consistent with CWC Section 10632 (a)(10). The WSCP is best prepared and implemented as an adaptive management plan. The City will use results obtained from monitoring and reporting procedures (described in Section 1.9) to evaluate any needs for revisions. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City Council, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability.

To maintain a useful and efficient standard of practice in water shortage conditions, the requirements, criteria, and response actions need to be continually evaluated and improved upon to ensure that its shortage risk tolerance is adequate, and the shortage response actions are effective and up to date based on lessons learned from implementing the WSCP. Potential changes to the WSCP that could warrant an update include, but are not limited to, any changes to shortage level triggers, changes to the shortage level structure, and/or changes to the response actions. Any prospective changes to the WSCP would need to be presented at a public hearing, staff would obtain any comments and the City Council would adopt the updated WSCP. The steps to formally amend the WSCP are discussed in Section 1.12.

Page 644 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 27 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Potential refinements will be documented and integrated in the next WSCP update. If new response actions are identified by staff or public, these could be advertised as voluntary actions until these are formally adopted as mandatory.

1.11 Special Water Feature Distinction
The CWC Section 10623 (b) now requires that suppliers analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code. Non-pool or non-spa water features may use or be able to use recycled water, whereas pools and spas must use potable water for health and safety considerations so limitations to pools and spas may require different considerations compared to non-pool or nonspa water features. As described previously for Stages 1, 1B and 2, emptying and refilling of swimming pools and commercial spas is prohibited except to prevent structural damage and/or to protect public health or safety.

1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability
This section was completed pursuant to CWC Section 10632(a)(c).

This WSCP was presented for adoption to the City Council at the Month XX, 202X City Council meeting. Notifications were sent to all necessary Cities, Counties, and Cities 60 days prior to the Month XX, 202X public board meeting. To comply with the notice to the public, the City published notices in the local newspaper two weeks in advance with 5 days between publications. Copies of the 60-day notices and public hearing newspaper notices are provided in the City’s 2022 UWMP Appendix B. The WSCP was also made available in advance of the public hearing.

The WSCP was formally adopted on Month XX, 202X by the City Council through Resolution XX-XX, included as Attachment 3. The WSCP was made available to all staff, customers, and any affected cities, counties, or other members of the public at the City and online within 30 days of the adoption date.

Page 645 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 28 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan

1.13 Resources and References
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2019. "Manual of Water Supply Practices, Drought Preparedness and Response."
Department of Water Resources. 2020. "Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2020." Water Systems Consulting Inc. 2023. "City of Arroyo Grande 2022 UWMP."

Page 646 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 647 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 29 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Attachment 1: Municipal Code Chapter

13.07

Page 648 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 649 of 699 ends

!"# $$$%&'$$$ ()*+,-./0,+1234567
689:;<=;>5
?!5
!@6=A;:B=C;>D! 5!5EF6=G6BCH H"! H4!I
4!>5>"F!4!H "!
J6

4D!4EF6 =G6BC;<<=G6BC6B=BK=G6BC6BLB;?!4>H !5
"HDHM>4"J@N!OD>!4;> 55!4HP!5Q4
D34567
688L;<G;>5
?!5
!@6:A;:B=RS3456 7
68CB;<=;>5
?!5T>I:8;:B=R6

Page 650 of 699 ends

Page 651 of 699 ends

Page 652 of 699 ends

Page 653 of 699 ends

Page 654 of 699 ends

Page 655 of 699 ends

Page 656 of 699 ends

Page 657 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 29 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Attachment 2: 2019 San Luis Obispo
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Available at https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/FormsDocuments/Plans-and-Elements/Elements/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.aspx

Page 658 of 699 ends

This page is intentionally blank for double-sided printing.

Page 659 of 699 ends

City of Arroyo Grande 30 Draft Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Attachment 3: Adoption Resolution
To be included in Final WSCP

Page 660 of 699 ends

Item 10.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions Directing the Levy of the Annual Assessments for the Parkside Village and Grace Lane Assessment Districts and the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, Within Tract 1769, for FY 2023-24 DATE: June 27, 2023
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adoption of the associated Resolutions will direct the levy and collection of assessment fees for maintenance and landscaping for the Parkside Village and Grace Lane Assessment Districts and the Arroyo Grande Landscaping District No. 1 within Tract 1769. No changes to the assessment amounts are proposed nor are any new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements proposed for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

By adopting the Resolutions, $56,298 will be collected for FY 2023-24 for the three assessment districts to provide landscaping and other specified maintenance. The assessments are placed on the affected property owner’s property tax bill each year.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Conduct a public hearing for the levy and collection of assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District, Grace Lane Assessment District, and Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 within Tract 1769; 2) Adopt a Resolution directing the levy of the annual assessment for the Parkside Village Assessment District pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et. seq.) for FY 2023-24; 3) Adopt a Resolution directing the levy of an annual assessment for the Grace Lane Assessment District pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et. seq.) for FY 2023-24; and 4) Adopt a Resolution directing the levy of the annual assessment for the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 within Tract 1769, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et. seq.) for FY 2023-24.

Page 661 of 699 ends

Item 10.b.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions Directing the Levy of the Annual Assessments for the Parkside Village and Grace Lane Assessment Districts and the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, Within Tract 1769, for FY 2023-24
June 27, 2023

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND:

At the June 13, 2023 City Council meeting, Council approved the Engineer’s Reports and adopted Resolution Nos. 5291, 5292, and 5293 declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District, Grace Lane Assessment District, and the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 within Tract No. 1769, and setting a public hearing for June 27, 2023, at 6:00 P.M.  For the Parkside Village Assessment District, the proposed annual assessments are $446 or $734 per parcel for a total of $43,966 annually.  For the Grace Lane Assessment District, the proposed annual assessments are $460 for lots 1 through 15 and $608 for lots 16 through 19 ($8,740 + $592) for an annual total of $9,332.
 For the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, within Tract 1769, the total proposed annual assessment is $100 per parcel for an annual total of $3,000.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq., (California Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972) (Act), establishes one of the processes by which local governmental agencies form assessment districts for the purpose of financing the costs and expenses of landscaping and lighting public areas. The final process includes a public hearing, which affords all interested parties the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may adopt Resolutions (Attachments 1, 2, and 3) confirming the assessments, which constitute the levy of the assessments for FY 2023-24. Upon fulfillment of these requirements, the City must submit the Resolutions to the County of San Luis Obispo for inclusion of the assessments on the FY 2023-24 property tax roll. The fees collected for each assessment district fund items such as monthly landscape maintenance, annual fire suppression/fuel reduction, savings for anticipated drainage structure maintenance /improvements, and general landscaping cleanup projects, as needed. Section 4 of each associated Engineer’s Report provides a description of improvements (Attachment 4).

Residents in the Parkside Village Assessment District have requested the replacement of the existing playground equipment and other improvements in the park area of that district. Staff agrees that the condition of the playground equipment necessitates replacement which will be evaluated for the next Fiscal Year 2024-25. It is anticipated that type of project will be categorized as maintenance and upkeep to existing improvements versus a “substantial change” or expanded improvement. A “substantial change” requires a more in-depth analysis regarding the cost of the project, on-going

Page 662 of 699 ends

Item 10.b.

Page 3 ends

maintenance, replacement costs in the future that could result in the need to increase assessment fees. Staff will begin coordination meetings with residents intended to obtain consensus for the general project request, user needs, and conceptual design points.

This potential playground equipment replacement project is not anticipated to increase assessment fees and costs are expected to be well within the district’s total budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt Resolutions approving the levy to collect the annual assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District, Grace Lane Assessment District and Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 within Tract 1769 for FY 2023-24; or

2. Modify and adopt the Resolutions; or

3. Provide staff other direction.

ADVANTAGES:

Adoption of the Resolutions will be in compliance with the Act and allow the City to move forward with the process to collect assessments and perform the work identified in the Engineer’s Report for each assessment district.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages for the proposed actions have been identified for this fiscal year.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Not a project. Adopting a resolution to levy and collect annual assessments is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378. The actions merely constitutes an administrative activity of the City. Alternatively, the adoption of resolutions to levy and collect annual assessments is exempt from CEQA on that basis that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).) The levy and collection of assessment fees applies to maintenance of existing improvements and does not result in new construction or physical change in the environment.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Page 663 of 699 ends

Item 10.b.

Page 4 ends

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution – Parkside Village

2. Proposed Resolution – Grace Lane

3. Proposed Resolution – Arroyo Grande District 1, Tract 1769

4. June 13, 2023 Staff Report and Attachments

Page 664 of 699 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DIRECTING THE LEVY OF THE

ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE PARKSIDE

VILLAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 (STREETS
AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTIONS 22500 ET. SEQ.) FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2005, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3888 ordering the formation of the Parkside Village Assessment District under Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code 22500-22679 (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), which allows local governmental agencies to form assessment districts for the purpose of financing the costs and expenses of landscaping and lighting public areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting of June 13, 2023, approved Resolution No. 5291 approving the Engineer’s Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect annual assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 and set a public hearing for June 27, 2023 for the Parkside Village Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to levy the annual assessment of the Parkside Village Assessment District was held June 27, 2023 at the City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, 93420 and the City Council took public testimony from all interested persons as to the levy of the annual assessment for the Parkside Village Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22130, the City Council is authorized to levy this assessment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22646, the assessments herein confirmed by the City Council shall be collected on the secured property tax roll and collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. The annual levy for the maintenance of Parkside Village Assessment District, located as shown in the approved Engineer’s Report for the Parkside Village

Page 665 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
Assessment District is hereby ordered and the assessment of $446 or $734 per parcel for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as indicated on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby confirmed.

3. Adoption of this Resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and the City Clerk shall file the diagram and assessments with the County of San Luis Obispo Auditor.

4. Adoption of this Resolution to levy and collect annual assessments is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378. The actions merely constitute an administrative activity of the City.

Alternatively, the adoption of resolutions to levy and collect annual assessments is exempt from CEQA on that basis that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).) The levy and collection of assessment fees applies to maintenance of existing improvements and does not result in new construction or physical change in the environment.

On motion of Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member _____, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of June, 2023.

Page 666 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 667 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
Exhibit A

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2310 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2023-24
FUND ASSESSMENT # CHARGE FUND ASSESSMENT # CHARGE
1893 077255002 $ 446.00 1893 077255038 $ 734.00
1893 077255003 $ 446.00 1893 077255039 $ 734.00
1893 077255004 $ 446.00 1893 077255040 $ 734.00
1893 077255005 $ 446.00 1893 077255041 $ 734.00
1893 077255006 $ 446.00 1893 077255042 $ 734.00
1893 077255007 $ 446.00 1893 077255043 $ 734.00
1893 077255008 $ 446.00 1893 077255044 $ 734.00
1893 077255009 $ 446.00 1893 077255045 $ 734.00
1893 077255010 $ 446.00 1893 077255046 $ 734.00
1893 077255011 $ 446.00 1893 077255047 $ 734.00
1893 077255012 $ 446.00 1893 077255048 $ 734.00
1893 077255013 $ 446.00 1893 077255049 $ 734.00
1893 077255014 $ 446.00 1893 077255050 $ 734.00
1893 077255015 $ 734.00 1893 077255051 $ 734.00
1893 077255016 $ 734.00 1893 077255052 $ 734.00
1893 077255017 $ 734.00 1893 077255053 $ 734.00
1893 077255018 $ 734.00 1893 077255054 $ 734.00
1893 077255019 $ 734.00 1893 077255055 $ 734.00
1893 077255020 $ 734.00 1893 077255056 $ 734.00
1893 077255021 $ 734.00 1893 077255057 $ 734.00
1893 077255022 $ 734.00 1893 077255058 $ 734.00
1893 077255023 $ 734.00 1893 077255059 $ 734.00
1893 077255024 $ 734.00 1893 077255060 $ 734.00
1893 077255027 $ 734.00 1893 077255061 $ 734.00
1893 077255028 $ 734.00 1893 077255062 $ 734.00
1893 077255029 $ 734.00 1893 077255063 $ 734.00
1893 077255030 $ 734.00 1893 077255064 $ 734.00
1893 077255031 $ 734.00 1893 077255065 $ 734.00
1893 077255032 $ 734.00 1893 077255066 $ 734.00
1893 077255033 $ 734.00 1893 077255067 $ 734.00
1893 077255034 $ 734.00 1893 077255068 $ 734.00
1893 077255035 $ 734.00
1893 077255036 $ 734.00 TOTAL $ 43,966.00
1893 077255037 $ 734.00

Page 668 of 699 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DIRECTING THE LEVY OF THE

ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE GRACE

LANE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 (STREETS
AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTIONS 22500 ET. SEQ.) FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3976 ordering the formation of the Grace Lane Assessment District under Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code 22500- 22679 (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), which allows local governmental agencies to form assessment districts for the purpose of financing the costs and expenses of landscaping and lighting public areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting of June 13, 2023, approved Resolution No. 5292 approving the Engineer’s Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect annual assessments for the Grace Lane Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and set a public hearing for June 27, 2023 for the Grace Lane Assessment District; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to levy the annual assessment of the Parkside Village Assessment District was held June 27, 2023 at the City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, 93420 and the City Council took public testimony from all interested persons as to the levy of the annual assessment for the Parkside Village Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22130, the City Council is authorized to levy this assessment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22646, the assessments herein confirmed by the City Council shall be collected on the secured property tax roll and collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. The annual levy for the maintenance of Grace Lane Assessment District, located as shown in the approved Engineer’s Report for the Grace Lane Assessment District is hereby ordered and the assessment of $460 for lots 1 through 15 and

Page 669 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
$608 for lots 16 through 19 for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as indicated on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby confirmed.

On motion of Council Member _____, seconded by Council Member _____, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of June, 2023.

Page 670 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 671 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
Exhibit A

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2236 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2023-24
FUND ASSESSMENT # CHARGE
1895 007019002 $ 460.00
1895 007019003 $ 460.00
1895 007019004 $ 460.00
1895 007019005 $ 460.00
1895 007019006 $ 460.00
1895 007019007 $ 460.00
1895 007019008 $ 460.00
1895 007019035 $ 460.00
1895 007019036 $ 460.00
1895 007019037 $ 460.00
1895 007019012 $ 460.00
1895 007019014 $ 460.00
1895 007019015 $ 460.00
1895 007019016 $ 460.00
1895 007019017 $ 460.00
1895 007019034 $ 608.00
1895 007019033 $ 608.00
1895 007019025 $ 608.00
1895 007019030 $ 608.00
TOTAL $ 9,332.00

Page 672 of 699 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DIRECTING THE LEVY OF THE

ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE ARROYO

GRANDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, WITHIN TRACT 1769, PURSUANT TO
THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
(STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTIONS 22500 ET.

SEQ.) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 2932 ordering the formation of the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (“District”), within Tract 1769 under Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code 22500-22679 (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), which allows local governmental agencies to form assessment districts for the purpose of financing the costs and expenses of landscaping and lighting public areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its meeting of June 13, 2023, approved Resolution No. 5293 approving the Engineer’s Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect annual assessments for the District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and set a public hearing for June 27, 2023 for the District; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to levy the annual assessment of the Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 was held June 27, 2023 at the City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, 93420 and the City Council took public testimony from all interested persons as to the levy of the annual assessment for the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22130, the City Council is authorized to levy this assessment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22646, the assessments herein confirmed by the City Council shall be collected on the secured tax roll and collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. The annual levy for the maintenance of District, located as shown in the approved Engineer’s Report for the District is hereby ordered and the assessment of $3,000

Page 673 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
to be equally distributed per assessable parcel for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as indicated on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby confirmed.

On motion of Council Member ____, seconded by Council Member ____, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of June, 2023.

Page 674 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 675 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4 Exhibit A

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 1769 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2023-24
FUND ASSESSMENT # CHARGE
1765 077253001 $ 100.00
1765 077253002 $ 100.00
1765 077253003 $ 100.00
1765 077253004 $ 100.00
1765 077253005 $ 100.00
1765 077253006 $ 100.00
1765 077253007 $ 100.00
1765 077253008 $ 100.00
1765 077253009 $ 100.00
1765 077253010 $ 100.00
1765 077253011 $ 100.00
1765 077253012 $ 100.00
1765 077253013 $ 100.00
1765 077253014 $ 100.00
1765 077253015 $ 100.00
1765 077253016 $ 100.00
1765 077253017 $ 100.00
1765 077253018 $ 100.00
1765 077253019 $ 100.00
1765 077253020 $ 100.00
1765 077253021 $ 100.00
1765 077253022 $ 100.00
1765 077253023 $ 100.00
1765 077253024 $ 100.00
1765 077253025 $ 100.00
1765 077253026 $ 100.00
1765 077253027 $ 100.00
1765 077253028 $ 100.00
1765 077253029 $ 100.00
1765 077253030 $ 100.00
TOTAL $ 3,000.00

Page 676 of 699 ends

Item 10.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Emergency Shelters; Development Code Amendment 23-004
DATE: June 27, 2023
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Introduction of a proposed ordinance amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) to: 1) align the AGMC with the City’s adopted Housing Element by clarifying that emergency shelters are permitted in the Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) and the Highway Mixed-Use (HMU) zoning districts without discretionary review; and 2) permit emergency shelters without discretionary review in the Fair Oaks Mixed-Use (FOMU) zoning district. Introducing the ordinance will allow for adoption at a future City Council meeting, and following this noticed public hearing.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is projected.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance amending Sections 16.36.030 and 16.52.091 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding Emergency Shelters and finding the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).).

BACKGROUND:

The AGMC currently allows emergency shelters in the IMU and HMU zoning districts.

Consistent with state law, the AGMC defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”

Page 677 of 699 ends

Item 10.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Emergency Shelters; Development Code Amendment 23-004
June 27, 2023

Page 2 ends

Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which became effective on January 1, 2008, requires the Housing Element of all cities and counties in California to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed without a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval. The City’s Housing Element identifies the IMU and HMU zones as districts where emergency shelters are allowed without a discretionary permit. However, AGMC section 16.36.030 currently conflicts with the Housing Element as it provides that emergency shelters are allowed in these areas with a minor use permit (MUP), which is a discretionary permit. The ordinance included as Attachment 1 rectifies this inconsistency.

In 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 4883, declaring a homeless shelter crisis citing a lack of homeless shelters in the City and neighboring cities (Attachment 2). As in 2018, there are still no permanent emergency shelters within city limits. To increase the number of potential sites for this use, the ordinance also proposes to expand the zones in which an emergency shelter can be established ministerially to the FOMU zone. 5 Cities Homeless Coalition is evaluating sites for a permanent emergency shelter and this code amendment makes many more sites potentially available for this use.

The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at its meeting on June 6, 2023.

The Commission was supportive of the ordinance as proposed and recommended that Council adopt the ordinance as drafted. The Commission’s recommendation to the Council is included as Attachment 3. Courtesy notices were mailed to owners of property in the FOMU district ahead of the Planning Commission meeting, and no public comment was received.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Consistency Between General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Housing Element is one of eight (8) mandatory elements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and is a critical component of the City’s blueprint to providing affordable housing opportunities in the community. State law mandates that a Housing Element identify and analyze projected housing needs, identified goals, policies, programs, and quantitative objectives to further the development of housing within the City. Updates to the Housing Element occur on regular schedules, typically referred to as cycles. The current Housing Element was adopted in January 2021, and covers the period between December 30, 2020, through December 31, 2028.

Goal J of the Housing Element establishes policies and programs to reduce or minimize the incidence of homelessness in the community. Specifically, Policy J.2 states “the City shall continue to allow emergency shelters for overnight lodging and other housing serving homeless persons in appropriate zoning districts, in compliance with state law.” As previously noted, the AGMC defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less

Page 678 of 699 ends

Item 10.c.

Page 3 ends

by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
AGMC section 16.36.030 is inconsistent with the Housing Element because it requires the approval of a MUP to establish an emergency shelter in the IMU and HMU zones.

This section prohibits emergency shelters in all of the other zoning districts. The impetus for the proposed ordinance included in Attachment 1 is to comply with California Government Code section 65860, which requires an agency’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with its General Plan. To achieve that consistency, the proposed ordinance amends AGMC section 16.36.030 to allow emergency shelters without a discretionary permit in the IMU and HMU districts.

Fair Oaks Mixed-Use District (FOMU)
The FOMU zone is located along East Grand Avenue between Brisco Road and Halcyon Road. The ordinance included in Attachment 1 proposes to allow emergency shelters in the FOMU district without a discretionary permit. The FOMU zone is adjacent to the HMU zone and a logical expansion of the area in which an emergency shelter can be established. This stretch of East Grand Avenue is centrally located between Highway 101 and Oak Park Boulevard. Existing development in this zone is predominantly commercial uses and most of the residential development is within a single manufactured home park near Halcyon Road. SB 2 requires the zones in which emergency shelters are allowed to be evaluated to confirm there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the need. The evaluation of the properties within the zone for suitability for the establishment of an emergency shelter should take the location into consideration and whether it is near transit, public and community services, and job centers. The FOMU zone contains services to support an emergency shelter such as bus stops on both the north and south side of the street, and the Community Health Center located at 1057 E Grand Avenue.

San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services also has a location in the FOMU zone, at 1086 E Grand Avenue. The Social Services Department provides public services and programs that ensure the protection of children, the elderly and dependent adults, and provide a safety net for individuals and families who need assistance with basic necessities, such as food, housing and health care. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CASPSLO) also has a family resource center located at 1086 E. Grand Avenue.

Site Design and Development Standards
State law limits local agencies to applying objective standards to emergency shelters such as maximum number of beds, provisions for onsite management, length of stay, and security. AGMC Section 16.52.091 already contains these objectives standards, and no changes are proposed to those standards at this time. For example, this section limits the number of guests an emergency shelter can host to 34. The emergency shelter must be operated by onsite management. The operators are required to have a written

Page 679 of 699 ends

Item 10.c.

Page 4 ends

management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility, and for training, and counseling and treatment programs for residents.

Additionally, onsite security is required during all hours of operation. Emergency shelters may not be located within 300 feet from another emergency shelter, school, childcare center, or park. This measurement is taken from property line to property line where the subject uses are located.

Next Steps
Introduction of the ordinance is the first step in amending the regulations related to emergency shelters. If introduced as proposed, adoption of the ordinance would be scheduled to occur at the July 25, 2023 City Council meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Introduce the attached ordinance; or

2. Modify as appropriate and introduce the modified ordinance; or

3. Do not introduce the ordinance and provide direction to staff on specific revisions to the ordinance; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The ordinance will make the AGMC consistent with its Housing Element, and therefore, in compliance with State law. Allowing emergency shelters in the FOMU zone provides additional opportunities for the establishment of a shelter and improve the shelter crisis.

DISADVANTAGES:

Allowing shelters in the FOMU zone potentially eliminates parcels that could otherwise be developed with permanent housing and commercial uses in a mixed-use district.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, which could potentially result in either a direct physical change, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change, in the environment. Here, the ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. The ordinance therefore does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

Page 680 of 699 ends

Item 10.c.

Page 5 ends

In the alternative, even if the ordinance did qualify as a “project” under CEQA, it would be exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects from CEQA “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Thus, even if the ordinance could result in some physical change in the environment, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. A public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on June 16, 2023. Courtesy notices were mailed to property owners in the FOMU zone on June 16, 2023 also.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. City Council Resolution 4883

3. Staff Report and Minutes from the June 6, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting

Page 681 of 699 ends

65501.00002\41296594.1
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTIONS 16.36.030 AND

16.52.091 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND FINDING

THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified the City’s sixth cycle (2020-2028) housing element; and WHEREAS, the housing element profiles the City’s compliance with various state housing laws, including Senate Bill 2; and
WHEREAS, among other things, SB 2 requires cities’ housing elements to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary review; and WHEREAS, the City’s housing element states that emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary review in the Industrial Mixed Use (“IMU”) and Highway Mixed Use (“HMU”) zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, with respect to emergency shelters, portions of the City’s zoning code are internally inconsistent and conflict with the housing element; and WHEREAS, AGMC section 16.52.091 states that emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary review in the IMU and HMU zones; section 16.36.030 provides that emergency shelters in these zones require a minor use permit (a discretionary approval); and
WHEREAS, this ordinance amends section 16.36.030 to specify that emergency shelters are permitted in the IMU and HMU zones without discretionary review. So amending this section will ensure it no longer conflicts with the housing element and section 16.52.091; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that emergency shelters provide critical shelter and support to unhoused individuals. For these reasons, this ordinance also amends sections 16.36.030 and 16.52.091 to specify that emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary review in the Fair Oaks Mixed Use (“FOMU”) zone; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and

Page 682 of 699 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
-2-
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the ordinance; (2) the policy considerations discussed therein; and (3) the consideration and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on June 27, 2023 introduced this Ordinance to amend Sections 16.36.030 and

16.52.091 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the ordinance does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA and because the ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15060, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, which could potentially result in either a direct physical change, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change, in the environment.

Here, the ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any other effect that would physically change the environment. The ordinance therefore does not qualify as a project subject to CEQA.

In the alternative, even if the Ordinance did qualify as a “project” under CEQA, it would be exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects from CEQA “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Thus, even if the ordinance could result in some physical change in the environment, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Required Findings. In accordance with section 16.16.040(E) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. General Plan. The ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the general plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

Specifically, housing element policy J.2 provides that the City shall allow emergency shelters in appropriate zoning districts in accordance with state law. This ordinance effectuates and implements policy J.2 by: (1) aligning the AGMC with the requirements of SB 2; and (2) expanding the areas where emergency shelters are permitted by allowing

Page 683 of 699 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
-3-
this use in the FOMU zone. The ordinance is also consistent with, and implements, the general plan because it ensures that the AGMC does not conflict with the housing element’s provisions regarding emergency shelters in the IMU and HMU zones. For these reasons, the ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the general plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

2. Health, Safety, and Welfare; Illogical Land Use Pattern. Adoption of the ordinance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as it simply updates the AGMC to remove an internal inconsistency, comply with state law (i.e., SB 2), and ensure that the AGMC is consistent with the City’s housing element. Furthermore, given that emergency shelters provide a safe alternative to sleeping outdoors, permitting emergency shelters in the FOMU zone will augment the public health, safety, and welfare by providing additional opportunities in the City for this use. Finally, this ordinance will not result in an illogical land use pattern as it is not amending the City’s zoning map.

3. Consistency with Title 16. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of AGMC Title 16 because it removes an internal inconsistency therein and ensures that the provisions thereof are consistent with the City’s housing element.

4. Environmental. See Section 2 above.

SECTION 4. Code Amendment. The entry for “emergency shelters” in Table

16.36.030(A) of section 16.36.030 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough):

Allowed Land
Uses and Permit
Requirements—

LAND USE

IMU TMU
D-2.11
VCD
HCO
D-2.4
VMU
D-2.11
HCO
D-2.4
GMU FOMU HMU OMU 1
D-2.20
RC 2 Specific Use
Standards
and other
references
…
Emergency
Shelters

MUP P NP NP NP NP NP P MUP
P
NP NP 16.52.091
…
SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Subsection (A) of section 16.52.091 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough):

Page 684 of 699 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
-4-
“16.52.091 – Emergency Shelters”
A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to facilitate and encourage the provision of emergency shelters for homeless persons and households by allowing permanent year-round emergency shelters without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action in the industrial mixed use (IMU), and highway mixed use (HMU), and the fair oaks mixed use (FOMU) zoning districts, subject only to the same development standards that apply to other permitted uses in these zones, except for the following requirements unique to emergency shelters, as authorized by Government Code Section 65583(a)(4).

SECTION 6. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within 15 days after adoption of the ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted ordinance.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 8. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 9. Records. The documents and materials associated with this ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 2023.

Page 685 of 699 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5
-5-
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________

WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 686 of 699 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 687 of 699 ends

Page 688 of 699 ends

Page 689 of 699 ends

1 ACTION MINUTES

MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 2023, 6:00 p.m.

Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Commission Members Present: Chair Jamie Maraviglia, Catherine Sackrison, Kevin Buchanan, Vice Chair Bruce Berlin
Commission Members Absent: Virginia Roof
Staff Present: Planning Manager Andrew Perez, Associate Planner Patrick Holub, Community
Development Director Brian Pedrotti
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.

Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maraviglia called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00pm.

2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Roof absent.

3. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Chair Berlin led the flag salute.

4. AGENDA REVIEW
None.

5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.

6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.

7. CONSENT AGENDA

7.a Approval of Minutes
(HOLUB)
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 690 of 699 ends

2 Moved by Kevin Buchanan
Seconded by Catherine Sackrison
Approve the Minutes of the May 16, 2023 Regular Meeting.

Passed

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 23-001 and Certification of an Addendum to a Previously Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); Corbett Creek Floodplain and Stream Restoration Project
Associate Planner Holub presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner questions regarding State agency permits required for construction, extents of the project and the proposed timeline for construction.

Chair Maraviglia opened the public hearing.

Joe Brown, 146 Tally Ho, asked questions about the project's timeline and expressed his desire for additional work to be completed upstream.

Kelly Scally, May Street, spoke about maintenance concerns in the areas surrounding the creek.

Andy Unruh, 229 Corbett Canyon, asked what metrics will be used to evaluate the success of the project.

Sharlene Agrusa, 300 and 312 Tally Ho, stated that additional work is needed in reaches 5-6.

Cheryl mentioned that she has spoken with the RCD and would like additional work to occur in reaches 5-6.

Hearing no further public comment, Chair Maraviglia closed the public hearing.

Moved by Catherine Sackrison
Seconded by Vice Chair Bruce Berlin
Adopt a Resolution recommending that City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 23-001 and certify an addendum to a previously certified environmental document.

Passed

8.b Consideration of Amendments to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding Emergency Shelters; Development Code Amendment 23-004 Planning Manager Perez presented the staff report and responded to commissioner questions regarding potential service providers, the number of properties in the Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) district, regional efforts to address homelessness and whether there is a currently proposed applicant or facility.

Chair Maraviglia opened the public hearing.

Page 691 of 699 ends

3 Cathy Fields asked whether the ordinance changes are being done to comply with SB2 and whether any shelters are proposed in the pipeline.

Hearing no further public comment, Chair Maraviglia closed the public hearing.

Moved by Vice Chair Bruce Berlin
Seconded by Chair Maraviglia
Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 23-004 regarding emergency shelters.

Passed

9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None.

10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SINCE MAY 16, 2023
Received.

Chair Maraviglia opened the public comment period. Hearing no public comment, Chair Maraviglia closed the public comment period.

11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Maraviglia commended the City for raising the pride flag.

12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Community Development Director Pedrotti highlighted the recently completed Smart Share Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) workshops.

13. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 7:26pm.
_________________________
Jamie Maraviglia, Chair
_________________________
Patrick Holub, Associate Planner

Page 692 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
DATE: June 27, 2023
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

The purpose of this discussion is to provide the City Council an opportunity to direct staff regarding potential ordinance revisions that would limit the use of irrigated turf in landscaping for both new construction and rehabilitation projects.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Financial impacts related to preparation for the study session consist of staff time and legal counsel time for purposes of research and writing the staff report. Additional staff time would be required to prepare ordinance revisions, should Council provide that direction. A future ordinance limiting irrigated turf would likely reduce the amount of revenue from water customers due to the high water requirements of irrigated turf.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive public comment and provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND:

In 2006, the State Legislature adopted the "Water Conservation in Landscaping Act" (Assembly Bill 1881), requiring the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The updated model Ordinance contained several new landscape and irrigation design requirements aimed at reducing water consumption and waste in landscape irrigation. All local land use agencies were required to adopt the model Ordinance or develop an ordinance that is at least as effective.

The State’s MWELO acknowledges that there is a limited water supply, and conservation and efficient use of water is critical to economic prosperity. Water efficient landscape design, installation, maintenance, and management is an important part of the water

Page 693 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 2 ends

conservation strategy. The MWELO furthers this water conservation plan through the following strategies:
1) promote the values and benefits of landscaping practices that integrate and go beyond the conservation and efficient use of water;
2) establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects by encouraging the use of a watershed approach that requires cross-sector collaboration of industry, government and property owners to achieve the many benefits possible;
3) establish provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for existing landscapes;
4) use water efficiently without waste by setting a Maximum Applied Water Allowance as an upper limit for water use and reduce water use to the lowest practical amount;
5) promote the benefits of consistent landscape ordinances with neighboring local and regional agencies;
6) encourage local agencies and water purveyors to use economic incentives that promote the efficient use of water, such as implementing a tiered-rate structure; and
7) encourage local agencies to designate the necessary authority that implements and enforces the provisions of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or its local landscape ordinance.

On June 14, 2011, the City adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that was determined to be as effective in achieving water conservation goals as the State's model, but was simpler to comprehend and implement, making it less onerous on property owners and developers, and less expensive to implement. The Ordinance was incorporated into a new Chapter 16.84 of Title 16 of the City's Municipal Code.

In April 2015, the Governor of California issued an executive order directing the DWR to update the State's MWELO in response to the drought that was in its fourth year at the time, and build resiliency for future droughts. The DWR adopted updates to the State’s MWELO in July 2015 and on September 15, 2015. In 2016, AGMC Chapter 16.84 was updated to incorporate the changes to the State’s MWELO, by reference. This was the last time any standards related to landscaping contained in the AGMC were updated.

Along with the rest of the state, the City felt the impacts of the multi-year drought that existed prior to the storms of this past winter. The water level at Lopez Reservoir dropped below 15,000 acre-feet triggering mandatory water conservation measures. This includes assigning a baseline amount of water for all residential customers, and imposing financial penalties when the water usage exceeds the baseline amount. This is in addition to the permanent water conservation measures, which include the prohibition of using water to

Page 694 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 3 ends

clean driveways, patios and sidewalks, irrigation between the hours of 10:00AM and 4:00 PM, and assigned watering days based on a property’s address.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Projects fall within three different categories for purposes of compliance with MWELO based on the area of new or rehabilitated landscaping. Projects proposing between 500 and 2,500 square feet of landscaping are required to meet the Prescriptive Based Landscape standards. Projects proposing greater than 2,500 square feet of new or rehabilitated landscaping are subject to the Performance Based Landscape Standards.

Projects proposing less than 500 square feet of landscaping are exempt from MWELO as are the following types of projects:
 Farming, agriculture, and crop production including vegetable gardens, vineyards, and small orchards;
 Public recreational areas (designated for active play, recreation or public assembly);
 Registered local, state or federal historical sites;
 Habitat restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system;  Mines-land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; and
 Existing plant collections, as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public.

Prescriptive standards specify that turf shall not exceed 25% of the irrigated landscape area for residential projects. Where irrigated turf is allowed, it may not be planted on sites with a slope that exceeds one foot of vertical elevation change for every four feet of horizontal length. To comply with MWELO, the remaining landscape areas must be planted with plant species that have a very-low or low water use for the North Central Coast Region according to the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS). WUCOLS was developed to provide guidance for landscape professionals regarding the water needs of landscape species to be maintained in good condition.

Individual plants species are categorized according to its water needs; high, moderate, low, and very low. The water needs are expressed as a numerical value and is an important factor in the MWELO formulas. No irrigated turf is allowed in non-residential projects that are subject to the Prescriptive standards. Irrigated turf is also prohibited in parkways less than ten feet wide. For purposes of this discussion, turf is defined as turfgrasses that have moderate and high-water use requirements according to WUCOLS.

Turf is often ornamental and mowed regularly for aesthetics.

Larger projects that are subject to the Performance Standards are subject to more stringent standards that require an applicant to show that the proposed landscaping uses less water than is available, as established by formulas contained in MWELO. The

Page 695 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 4 ends

Performance standards include formulas for establishing the maximum applied water allowance, and the estimated total water usage for the landscaping proposed. Both formulas rely on the type of landscaping, irrigation type, and area of irrigated landscape.

To show compliance with MWELO, the maximum applied water allowance must be greater than the estimated total water usage. While there is no absolute limitation on the amount of irrigated turf that can be installed on projects subject to the Performance standards, the formula are written in a way that makes it increasingly difficult to meet the standards as the amount of irrigated turf area increases. This can be attributed to the high water usage for turf and the inefficiency of overhead spray irrigation. This is apparent when looking at the Arroyo Grande Suggested Irrigation Schedule. As its name implies, this schedule provides a watering template for turf areas irrigated with traditional pop-up sprinklers. The schedule suggests that irrigated turf should receive 1.5 inches of water per week during the summer months (June – August). This equates to approximately 93 gallons of water for every 100 square feet of irrigated turf area per week. Following the recommendations contained in the schedule would result in the use of approximately 2,050 gallons of water to irrigate just 100 square feet of turf.

Design Guidelines
Many of the City’s subdivisions were conditioned to have design guidelines which are intended to facilitate high-quality architectural and landscape design that complements the project setting. Many of the existing design guidelines include standards for landscape design, including a limitation of turf area. For example, the design guidelines for the Heights at Vista del Mar limit irrigated turf to 25% of the landscape area or 500 square feet, whichever is less. Likewise, the design guidelines for the Rodeo Tract subdivision also limits irrigated turf to 25% of the landscaped area. Staff is responsible for ensuring that the individual projects comply with these standards prior to building permit issuance.

After project completion, staff does not actively monitor landscaping for compliance with MWELO, and would only investigate in the event that a complaint is received from staff or the public.

Regional Jurisdictions
The cities of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, Grover Beach, and Morro Bay also rely on MWELO as a means of limiting the amount of irrigated turf installation. In response to the most recent drought conditions, Paso Robles also follows the water efficiency parameters established by MWELO. Pismo Beach adopted an urgency ordinance that imposed a moratorium on new, irrigated turf installations as of May 18, 2022 in response to the critical drought conditions and water shortage. The ordinance will remain in effect until the Municipal Code is amended to repeal the moratorium. The Code language indicates that the timing of a repeal is based on local drought conditions.

Potential Code Amendment Options
Although specific ordinance amendments are not being proposed at this time, staff requests that Council provide direction for future code revisions, if desired. Among the

Page 696 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 5 ends

concepts for Council’s consideration include whether projects would trigger irrigated turf removal, the types of properties that would be subject to an irrigated turf prohibition, and whether there could be exceptions for recreational purposes.

MWELO already prohibits the use of irrigated turf for non-residential projects that are subject to the Prescriptive standards. An ordinance amendment can be written to prevent irrigated turf installation at all non-residential development, regardless of the size or applicable standards. Going one-step further, an ordinance amendment could require removal of existing irrigated turf when a remodel of an existing structure is proposed or there is an addition proposed. An irrigated turf removal requirement could be modeled similarly to the code requirements for fire sprinkler installations. When a project proposes to remodel more than 50% of the floor area of an existing home that is not equipped with fire sprinklers, the California Building Code requires the addition of sprinklers. A similar concept can be applied to residential properties as well, which are generally more likely to undergo a significant remodel or addition without other discretionary review by the City.

An ordinance amendment prohibiting irrigated turf in front yards could further reduce the amount of irrigated turf that can be installed. While most single-family residential projects are limited to installing only 25% of their landscape area with irrigated turf due to the restrictions contained in MWELO, additional restrictions to front yard irrigated turf installations are a possibility. Front yard irrigated turf can tend to be nonfunctional and exist for aesthetic purposes rather than for active recreational use by the residents. The state defines nonfunctional irrigated turf as grass that “is solely ornamental and not regularly used for recreation. It includes areas not in active use but still requiring maintenance, such as street medians and office parking lots. Non-functional irrigated turf does not include sports fields or irrigated turf regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events.” An ordinance amendment prohibiting front yard irrigated turf for new construction could result in additional water savings,. Limitations to irrigated turf installations as a percentage of rear yard area, in addition to the prohibition of front yard irrigated turf, is another way to potentially allow small amounts of irrigated turf for recreational/pet purposes while still reducing the overall amount of irrigated turf that requires irrigation.

It should also be noted that the City already incentivizes the replacement of nonfunctional irrigated turf with water wise landscaping species through the Cash for Grass Program.

Since July 1, 2021 the program has resulted in the replacement of 197,149 square feet (4.53 acres) of turf with low water landscaping.

Staff has provided a summary of some of the stated options above.

Page 697 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 6 ends

Summary of Potential Code Amendment Options
Options – Non Residential Result
Status Quo Option – No change to code  Existing limitations based on MWELO  Less than 500 square feet – exempt
 500-2500 square feet – prescriptive
standards. Less than 25% irrigated
turf.
 Above 2500 square feet –
performance standards
Further restrictions on Non-Residential
Development
 No irrigated turf allowed on new nonresidential projects Removal of irrigated turf as part of remodel or
addition
 Existing irrigated turf required to be
removed.
 Suggested trigger: 50% of floor area
remodeled or added
Options – Residential Result
Status Quo Option – No change to code  Existing limitations based on MWELO  Less than 500 square feet – exempt
 500-2500 square feet – prescriptive
standards. Less than 25% irrigated
turf.
 Above 2500 square feet –
performance standards
Prohibition on irrigated turf in front yards  No irrigated turf allowed in front yards for new residential development
Limitation of irrigated turf to percentage of rear
yard area + Prohibition on irrigated turf in front
yards
 Limit of irrigated turf to 20% of rear yard
area suggested
 Allows small amounts of irrigated turf in
rear yard for recreational/pet purposes
Prohibition on irrigated turf on new residential
development
 No irrigated turf allowed on new residential
projects
Removal of irrigated turf as part of remodel or
addition
 Existing irrigated turf required to be
removed.
 Suggested trigger: 50% of floor area
remodeled or added
Next Steps
Feedback from Council will determine whether an ordinance to further limit or prohibit irrigated turf installation will proceed through the regular consideration and adoption process, at which time legal counsel will also be engaged to assist in crafting a defensible ordinance. In the event that Council is supportive of pursuing additional restrictions, staff

Page 698 of 699 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Study Session to Discuss Potential Restrictions on Irrigated Turf Installation and Use Citywide
June 27, 2023

Page 7 ends

will prepare ordinance revisions for a recommendation Zone Text Amendment hearing with the Planning Commission.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Direct staff to initiate Municipal Code amendments further restricting the use of irrigated turf:

2. Do not direct staff to proceed with Municipal Code amendments at this time; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Ordinance amendments that further restrict or prohibit the use of irrigated turf will further the City’s efforts to conserve water.

DISADVANTAGES:

The decrease in water usage for irrigated turf will also result in reduced revenue from water customers.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for the study session.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Page 699 of 699 ends

Arroyo Grande City CouncilJune 27, 2023

Arroyo Grande City Council
June 27, 2023