HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Supplement SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# `6. 3
Distributed: 1VO/Z2,/G
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:08 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: Fwd: updated WELO update
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Evans<peterevans@newpowertech.com>
Date:October 22,2015 at 3:50:16 PM PDT
To:<litze@Couperus.org>,<kavitat@Comcast.net>,<jsmandel@Hotmail.com>, <iima.pc@gmail.com>,
<richard.partridge@comcast.net>
Cc:John Harpootlian<john.harpootlian@gmail.com>, 'Gary Waldeck'<gcwaldeck@gmail.com>,
'Deborah Padovan'<dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>,<spadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: updated WELO update
All,
Here are some brief additional thoughts on the proposed update to the town's local Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance as included in your packet for this evening's meeting.
1. Prescriptive Compliance Path
I note that today's draft includes a prescriptive path for landscapes under 2,500 sf.
2. Water Conservation Factor
As I explained in my prior email,the DWR model WELO update reduced its operative upper limit of
water consumption by about 20% by reducing Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor(ETAF)from 0.7 to
0.55.The proposed revision to the LAH local WELO makes this same change. However,the proposed
LAH local WELO goes further by reducing a second factor,the Water Conservation Factor,from .8 to .65,
for an overall reduction in the operative upper limit of water consumption under the LAH local WELO of
over 36%.This is confirmed in Example 2 provided by staff, where the project's Parcel Water Budget
excluding domestic use of 504 units becomes 322 units under the new formula—a reduction of 36%.
This reduction goes well beyond what the DWR model WELO update requires, and I would argue is
unwarranted in light of the conservation our residents have achieved.
Therefore, I again recommend that the LAH local WELO incorporate the reduction of ETAF of from .70 to
.55 to conform to the state DWR revision, but leave the Water Conservation factor at 0.8.Again, 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
1
The Los Altos Hills local WELO presently uses the Parcel Water Budget(PWB)as the upper limit for water
use in place of the MAWA of the DWR model WELO.This formulation has already been approved by the
DWR.
As I noted previously,the proposed update to the LAH local WELO reintroduces the Maximum Applied
Water Allowance(MAWA)formulation of the DWR model WELO alongside the PWB as a second test for
a landscape project.This change is not mandated by the DWR WELO update; it is our choice:
Both the PWB and the MAWA have their merits; PWB is particularly suited to the LAH local WELO's
present 2-3 year enforcement provision, while MAWA is specific to landscaped are.The problem comes
with using both,which can create an incentive for the applicant to landscape more. In the staff's
Example 1,the applicant can eliminate the more restrictive operation of MAWA by simply increasing the
landscaped area of the project.
I recommend against the use of both PWB and MAWA.
4. New enforcement and penalty provision
The proposed update Los Altos Hills local WELO now eliminates the previous deposit requirement,
demonstration of performance over two to three years, and possible loss of the deposit that have been
approved by the DWR.The local WELO update imposes new enforcement and penalty provisions—
specifically, either the PWB or MAWA 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.
Again, nothing in the DWR model WELO requires such a burden;this is our choice as a town for our
residents. It is warranted to ask if such measures have any precedent in other cities in California.A
rational property owner would surely act to minimize the burden on his or her property(and property
value) by maximizing landscaped area (and MAWA)and using water right up to any limit.
I think the 2-3 year compliance provision in the present ordinance makes sense and should be retained. I
do not believe an applicant, having developed a compliant landscape, has a strong motivation to tear
that landscape out and replace it years later. Present water rates are a disincentive as are evolving
norms. If at some point there is a demonstrated problem for which permanent limits,deed restrictions,
and heavy financial penalties are a solution,we can consider themat that time.Therefore I recommend
against the new deed restriction and monetary penalties in the proposed LAH local WELO update.
5. New provisions
In my prior email I pointed out some sections of the DWR model WELO that Los Altos Hills had not
included in its local WELO approved by the DWR, but were now proposed to be added to the LAH local
WELO,separate from the DWR update. In tonight's draft several of these sections have now become
ordinance provisions that refer to"requirements" of Landscape Guidelines.These include:
• 10-2.809(e)Soil Management Report
• 10-2.809(f) Landscaping Design,Soil Preparation and Mulching (portions)
• 10-2.809(h) Irrigation Design Criteria
• 10-2.809(i) Irrigation Plan Requirements(portions)
• 10-2.809(j)Grading Design Plan
2
• 10-2.809(1) Irrigation Scheduling
• 10-2.809(m) Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule
There is a second set of sections proposed to be added that are not in the LAH local WELO approved by
the DWR and are presently addressed by ordinances and tariffs of the water purveyors--PHWD,
CalWater, and perhaps SCVWD.These include:
• 10-2.809(r)(2)and 10-2.809(s) Irrigation Audits
• 10-2.809(t)Water Waste Prevention
These would be largely or entirely duplicative of requirements and programs already established by the
water purveyors.
I again recommend that the LAH local WELO be updated to conform to the individual changes in the
DWR WELO update. I suggest that we avoid unilaterally adding unchanged provisions from the DWR
model WELO to our ordinance and creating additional costs and burdens for applicants or the town.
In addition, I recommend that the ordinance function to establish mandatory requirements with
objective compliance,with the Landscape Guidelines functioning to convey recommended or preferred
practices, and a clear distinction between them.
Restating, 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