The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 Supplement SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM # j 1 Distributed: 10/t/16 From: Deborah Padovan Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:33 PM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Suzanne Avila; Steve Padovan Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission: Water use information Attachments: image003.jpg; ATT00001.htm; PHWD Water Saving Target.pdf; ATT00002.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ray Collins<rcollins@purissimawater.org> Date: October 1, 2015 at 3:29:55 PM PDT To:<dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: <iim@iimabraham.com> Subject: Planning Commission:Water use information Hi Deborah, I understand the Planning Commission is discussing tonight a proposed water ordinance; it's been brought to my attention that water use data from PHWD might be helpful in the discussion. Attached is a chart showing water use and savings from PHWD customers. Our goal is to meet the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirement of irrigating only two days a week, and reduce total usage 25% over 2013 use between May-Nov. which is requested (not required) by the SWRCB. Please feel free to send the attached chart to the Commissioners, if needed. Ray X'aq(eoe edei Administrative Manager/District Secretary Purissima Hills Water District 26375 Fremont Hills Rd. Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022 650-948-1217 1 WATER SAVINGS COMPARISONS CY 2013 CY 2014 2014 Savings Month ccf ccf mo cum SCVWD Jan-13 44,227 48,502 -10% Feb-13 33,545 51,299 -53% Mar-13 56,469 31,306 45% 45% Apr-13 60,121 46,225 23% 34% May-13 107,708 83,655 22% 28% Jun-13 98,619 117,120 -19% -19% 14% Jul-13 126,987 108,306 15% 0% 14% Aug-13 113,778 108,273 5% 2% 12% Sep-13 136,385 105,409 23% 8% 14% Oct-13 97,677 84,437 14% 9% 14% Nov-13 79,441 68,508 14% 9% 14% Dec-13 49,725 26,954 46% 12% 16% Total 1,004,682 879,994 Total savings for CY14 12% CY 2013 CY 2015 2015 Savings ccf ccf cum mo cum SWRCB Jan-13 44,227 35,508 35,508 20% 20% Feb-13 33,545 34,804 70,312 -4% 10% Mar-13 56,469 42,533 112,845 25% 16% Apr-13 60,121 61,737 174,582 -3% 10% May-13 107,708 65,038 239,620 40% 21% 40% Jun-13 98,619 61,756 301,376 37% 25% 39% Jul-13 126,987 76,310 377,686 40% 28% 39% Aug-13 67,343 * 43,304 420,990 36% 29% 38% Sep-13 111,172 * 77,227 498,217 31% 29% 37% Oct-13 98,392 * Nov-13 65,037 * Dec-13 44,522 * Total 914,142 274 2014(12%) 879,994 264 25%Goal 685,607 206 35%Goal 594,192 178 population 6148 * actual meter reads at end of month due to SFPUC meter read date change TEXT AMENDMENT KEY Strikeout=Text deleted from the current WELO ordinance Red Text= Modified text to address new state regulations 3) All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor. (t) Water Waste Prevention. Runoff is prohibited from leaving the target landscape area due to low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. Penalties for violation of these prohibitions shall be established locally. Restrictions regarding overspray and runoff may be modified if: 1) the landscape area is adjacent to permeable surfacing and no runoff occurs; or 2) the adjacent non-permeable surfaces are designed and constructed to drain entirely to landscaping. (u) Reporting. The Planning Department shall report to the Department of Water Resources by December 31, 2015 and then report annually by January 31st of each subsequent year. The report shall address the following: 1) State that the Town is adopting a single agency ordinance and the date of adoption or anticipated date of adoption; 2) State that the Town is using a locally modified Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), explain any differences between the Town's WELO and the state's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), identify that the Town's WELO is it at least as efficient as MWELO, and specify any exemptions; 3) State the entity responsible for implementing the ordinance. State number and types of projects subject to the ordinance during the specified reporting period; 4) State the total area (in square feet or acres) subject to the ordinance over the reporting period, if available; 5) Provide the number of new housing starts, new commercial projects, and landscape retrofits during the reporting period; 6) Describe the procedure for review of projects subject to the ordinance; 7) Describe actions taken to verify compliance; 8) Describe enforcement measures; 9) Explain challenges to implementing and enforcing the ordinance; and 10) Describe educational and other needs to properly apply the ordinance. (v) Deed Restriction. As a condition of approval for site development, a deed restriction shall be recorded establishing the (PWB) and/or (MAWA) for the subject property. (w) Penalties. Any responsible party violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of WELO, other than administrative provisions thereof, shall be subject to an initial penalty of up to ten (10) times the applicable Site Development Permit fee. 10 TEXT AMENDMENT KEY Strikeout=Text deleted from the current WELO ordinance Red Text= Modified text to address new state regulations • The initial minimum penalty amount shall be proportional to the percentage that the user exceeds their WAMA or PWB allocation (whichever is more restrictive) and shall be as follows: 10% over water allocation = 1 x permit fee; 20% over water allocation = 2 x permit fee; etc., up to... 100% or more over water allocation = 10 x permit fee The responsible party shall also be assessed for all expenses incurred by the Town associated with inspection, processing and enforcement of the WELO regulations. Penalties shall be applicable two years after the installation of the landscape area (x) Exceptions. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to grant exceptions to the one hundred twenty (120) unit allocation for yearly indoor water use in cases where, due to exceptional conditions involved, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; provided, however, no such exceptions shall be granted unless the Planning Director shall find that the granting of such exception will not be contrary to the intent of the provisions of this chapter. (y) -Deposit Required Forfeiture of Deposit. Anyone who is subject to the requirements of landscaping project subject to the provisions here-, -- _ e e-• . e . _ _ - _ -- the -the certificate of completion) of water use and billing- lata from the subject property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds the--calculated PWB, the deposit shall be held for twenty five (25) through try six (34))-of water u-se and billing data from the subject from a forfeited deposit shall be utilized to further the purposes of this section. 11 Jaime McAvoy From: Partridge, Richard [richp@slac.stanford.edu] • Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 9:15 PM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: Fw: Comments on LAH WELO update Sent from OWA on Android From: Peter Evans<peterevans@newpowertech.com> Sent:Thursday, October 1, 2015 6:45:19 PM To:jitze@Couperus.org; kavitat@Comcast.net;jsmandel@Hotmail.com;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@Comcast.net Cc:John Harpootlian; 'Gary Waldeck'; 'Deborah Padovan' Subject:Comments on LAH WELO update All, I am a strong advocate for water conservation,especially irrigation efficiency. My comments here acknowledge the need for the town to update its local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), and are in support of efficient, effective regulation. The California Department of Water Resources issued a model WELO in 2009, and town took on the task of developing a local ordinance for Los Altos Hills. Our local ordinance was approved by the DWR and is now in effect as Section 10- 2.809 of the Municipal Code.The DWR has updated its model WELO, making it more stringent, and there is no doubt that the town must follow suit in updating its local ordinance. The context of this WELO update is far different than the circumstances around the adoption of the original measure. It is no longer the case that PHWD is consuming far above its firm entitlement on the Hetch-Hetchy system; PHWD expects to finish the present fiscal year under its entitlement and the financial plan going forward contemplates consumption within the entitlement. PHWD is also adopting technologies and measures such as smart water meters that are already providing customers better insight into their water use, including leaks and over-watering,yielding reduced consumption. Los Altos Hills customers of PHWD and CalWater, when asked to reduce their water use by 25%or more in light of the ongoing drought, have actually delivered closer to 40% reduction.Town residents are already doing the right thing; better information, new technology, customer empowerment, and changing attitudes are working to yield the water conservation we need. 1. Prescriptive Compliance Path The DWR model WELO update extends the applicability of the ordinance from landscapes of 2,500 sf to landscapes 500 sf, as does the town's draft WELO update. However, the model WELO provides an optional prescriptive path that would allow an applicant with a smaller project an option to avoid the significant costs of a landscape plan and irrigation plan prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. Consider that a 500 sf landscape is about 1%of a typical LAH lot. I recommend that the LAH WELO update include such a prescriptive path. 2. Water Conservation Factor The DWR model WELO defines a Maximum Applied Water Allowance as the upper limit of water consumption for an individual landscape project.The MAWA calculation includes an Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor(ETAF) which is 1 redtced from 0.7 to 0.55 in the update; this is how the DWR model WELO achieves its estimated 20% reduction in ,residential water use.The LAH local WELO defines the upper limit of water consumption for an individual project using a Parcel Water Budget(PWB) instead of the MAWA.The PWB calculation is similar to the MAWA calculation in many respects, and, importantly, was part of the ordinance approved by the DWR. The PWB calculation includes the same ETAF factor, and in the proposed update to the LAH local WELO the value is also reduced from 0.7 to 0.55. However, the proposed update also reduces a second factor in the PWB calculation,the Water Conservation Factor,from 0.8 to 0.65. As a result, the effective upper limit for water use is reduced not by 20% but by over 36%.This reduction goes well beyond what the DWR model WELO requires, and I would argue is unwarranted in light of the conservation our residents have achieved.Therefore, I recommend that the LAH local WELO incorporate the reduced ETAF of.55, as the present draft does, but leave the Water Conservation factor at 0.8. Under our local ordinance the Water Conservation Factor value can be changed by the Los Altos Hills town council at any time. 3. Re-introduction Maximum Annual Water Allowance The Los Altos Hills local WELO uses the PWB as the upper limit for water use in place of the MAWA of the DWR model WELO, as noted above.Again, the LAH local WELO with this PWB element has been approved by the DWR.The proposed update to the LAH WELO re-introduces the MAWA as a second test,with the more restrictive limit applying. I recommend against this as unnecessary. Perhaps more importantly,the key difference between the PWB and the MAWA is that the PWB is calculated based on lot size and the MAWA is calculated based on landscaped area. If applicants are subjected to both limits,they may simply increase the landscaped area of their project until the MAWA no longer controls.Thus the MAWA may create a perverse incentive to increase irrigated landscaping. 4. New enforcement and penalty provision The Los Altos Hills local WELO includes enforcement and penalty provisions.These include a deposit requirement, demonstration of performance over two to three years, and possible loss of the deposit.These provisions are part of what has been approved by the DWR.The proposed update imposes additional enforcement and penalty provisions— specifically,the PWB would become a permanent encumbrance upon and recorded against the property, and all future occupants would be required to demonstrate compliance on an ongoing basis or be subject to a penalty equal to 10x the permit fee. Nothing in the DWR model WELO requires such a burden.The town is obligated to report on its local ordinance and inform the DWR of any enforcement practices or penalties it has adopted. I do not believe the DWR model WELO requires a demonstration of ongoing compliance of individual projects, and it certainly does not require a deed restriction.This would be analogous to a requirement to demonstrate the energy efficiency of your home or vehicle every year,which the state does not presently do. Los Altos Hills could be the only city in the state that imposes water use limits as a deed restriction; this could well affect property values. I believe an applicant, having developed a compliant landscape, has little or no motivation to tear that landscape out and replace it. I believe attitudes are changing, water rates are very high, and PHWD, CalWater, and SCVWD have ongoing conservation programs.Therefore I recommend against these proposed additional enforcement and penalty provisions in the LAH local WELO update. 5. New provisions The Los Altos Hills local WELO update includes the addition of whole sections of the DWR model WELO that were not previously included in the LAH local WELO approved by the DWR.These include the Soil Management Report, portions of the Landscaping Design,Soil Preparation and Mulching section, the Grading Design Plan, and the Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule.All of these requirements potentially add costs for applicants. I recommend that the 2 LAH Adcal WELO, having been approved by the DWR, now be updated to conform with the updated provisions of the DWR model WELO. However, we should limit additions to the ordinance to what is absolutely required by the DWR update. In summary, I believe we should (and must) update the local WELO to conform with the DWR update. However, I would like to avoid unilaterally placing additional regulatory burdens on our residents who have accomplished so much water conservation. I am a member of the EIC and a director of PHWD.These comments are mine as an individual town resident. Thank you for your consideration. Peter Evans 3