CC 2021-09-28_09a Supplemental No 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 9.a. – SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING A
STAGE 1 WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
Attached is correspondence received by 4:00 PM for the above referenced item.
cc: Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Administrative Services Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
From:Norm Stewart
To:public comment
Subject:FW: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING A STAGE 1 WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY
Date:Friday, September 17, 2021 12:28:17 PM
Members of Arroyo Grande City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the consideration of a water emergency
declaration.
I am a 34 year resident of Arroyo Grande and native Californian. I have experienced a number of
California droughts.
There is a recurring, and disturbing, pattern of fee changes during water emergencies. I’ve seen it in
this county, and in San Diego county. When the good citizens of the county respond to the water
shortage and reduce consumption, the result is decreased revenue to the Water District. Since many
of the Water District O&M costs are “sunk costs” the District finds itself operating at a non-
sustainable deficit. The customary remedy is to “temporarily” raise the billing rate for the water to
maintain the original income.
I’m sure that the Council is fully aware of the citizens’ mistrust in this process, as the billing rate
never seems to recede to pre-drought levels when the city approves the return to normal use rates.
I will be interested to see what actions the Council will take (beyond verbal assurances), and what
rules the Council will establish, to prevent the recurring “temporary rate” from becoming
permanent.
Respectfully,
Norman Stewart
Arroyo Grande
From: Krista Jeffries <
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 2:47 PM
To: Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Caren Ray Russom; Keith Storton; Lan George
Subject: Council Meeting 9/28, Item 9
Good Afternoon Council Members,
Please see the attached comments for tonight's meeting regarding water restrictions. I believe
AG can be really proactive on this issue by seeing water and land-use as inherently connected,
especially as we wrestle with housing affordability.
--
Krista Jeffries
SLO County YIMBY
Lead Organizer
To The City Council of Arroyo Grande,
My name is Krista Jeffries and I’m providing public comment on Item Number 9.
As you may be aware, I am an advocate for abundant housing and active transportation across
the Central Coast. Frequently, when I engage in conversations with local city staff or elected
officials, I’m repeatedly told that our water supply presents a large constraint on our region’s
ability to accommodate more housing stock. While our local governments cannot control our
annual rainfall or rising sea levels, I believe our councils can make considerable progress on
residential water conservation and address housing affordability in a single stroke.
Now that the Arroyo Grande Housing Element has been certified by HCD, the city has two years
to update development codes to reflect the constraints and findings provided in that document.
It is no secret that the vast majority of water usage in our region is agricultural rather than urban,
as is true of the state overall. While the majority of water conservation should be happening
within the agricultural sector, the fact remains that in residential areas, anywhere from half to
two-thirds of water used is for landscaping, particularly in Southern California.
This is no accident. We have made this problem ourselves, through decades of prioritizing
large-lot single family homes. We’ve enforced this wasting of water by mandating large front and
rear setbacks, also known as “yards,” which are expensive to xeriscape, and small maximum lot
coverages that prohibit using all of an owner’s land for housing people instead of grass or cars.
Neither of these codes serve any function of safety or affordability but are merely aesthetic
preferences, based on the mid-century fantasy of endless land, endless water, and endless free
parking. For multiple reasons, we cannot afford that fantasy any longer.
Therefore I’m recommending that, as a component of long-term water strategy, this council take
a long, hard look at the codes that limit density and efficient use of land. Allow full use of lots,
particularly close to jobs, bus stations, schools, and within close proximity to parks or public
open spaces. Allow higher density of homes so that those large lots get used to produce the
affordable and accessible housing our neighbors need, instead of large McMansions. Allow for
subdivision of large lots and for the minimum residential lot sizes to be far smaller than they are
today, so that building a cute, quaint starter home is once again a feasible project.
As the three cities begin working together on Central Coast Blue, it is imperative that we take a
regional approach not only to diversify our water portfolio and improve infrastructure, but that we
look at our land-use patterns as a critical component of long term water stability. Below I have
tabled the residential lot coverages and minimum lot sizes across Pismo Beach, Grover Beach,
and Arroyo Grande.
You will notice in the tables below that, out of the three cities, AG has some of the lowest
allowable lot coverage, the most rural land, and the largest lot sizes. This means that AG has
the most room to improve on residential water use when it comes to development codes and the
water scarcity it creates. But you are hardly an outlier, and I strongly urge you to approach your
regional colleagues to address this very common problem as a team. We all share the same
water sources; we’re going into CCB as a region; it’s time we adjust our codes as a region.
Pismo Beach Residential Lot Coverage
Reference:
Development Code
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pismobeach/latest/pismo_ca/0-0-0-15369
Res. Zone RSL RSM RRL RRH
Min Lot Size All residential zones have min lot 5,000sqft
Max Lot
Coverage
All residential zones have max lot coverage of 55% (20% min
landscaping)
Specific Plan
Areas
Baycliff Village
Mattie Road
Pacific Estate
Pismo Oaks
Spyglass Ridge
South Palisades
Sunset Palisades/Ontario Ridge
Toucan Terrace
Max Lot
Coverage
55% (20% min landscaping)
Grover Beach Residential Lot Coverage
Reference:
2020 Housing Element
https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/10920/Housing-Element_11_16_20_final
GB Dev Code PDF
https://www.groverbeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/2758/Chapter-4-Standards-for-Specific-Dev
elopment-and-?bidId=
Res.
Zone
R1 CPR1 CR1 R2 CR2 R3 CR3
Min Lot
Size
All residential zones have min lot of 6,000sqft
Max Lot
Coverag
e
45%45%45%50%50%60%60%
Arroyo Grande Residential Lot Coverage
Reference:
AG Development Code
https://library.municode.com/ca/arroyo_grande/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_T
IT16DECO_CH16.32REDI
Table 16.32.050-A, Table 16.32.050-B
Res. Zone Res Est Res Hill Rural Res Res Sub SFR Village Res
Min Lot
Size
92,500 49,000 40,000 12,000 7,200 6,750
Max Lot
Coverage
35 35 35 30 40 40
Res Zone MF MFA MFVH MHP
Min Lot
Size
10,000 10,000 20,000 5 acres
Max Lot
Coverage
40%45%60%50%
The AG Housing Element Policy A.13. reads “The City shall pursue adequate water sources
and conservation programs to accommodate projected residential development.” I want us to
pay particular attention to the term “conservation.”
In the additional agenda materials, this chart is being listed as the recommended conservation
goals across all the types of water customers.
Given that a sizeable portion of SFR water use is for grass - a non-native plant that does not
feed or clothe anyone - I consider the reduction goals of SFR and MFR to be both unfair and
unrealistic. MFR water use is much lower per capita and is predominantly essential uses, as
they have considerably less landscaping. Any deficient appliances or leaks are the responsibility
of the landlord or ownership corporation and out of the price range of most tenants. Contrast
this with owner-occupied single family homes, with large lawns and gardens, in buildings that
are more likely to have old plumbing and inefficient toilets, sinks, showers, and tubs. SFR water
use is almost seven times more than MFR use. Why should the target reduction for these two
groups be so similar, when their usage patterns and occupants are so different? The target
reduction for SFR should be at least twice that of MFR.
Please be the leaders our region needs you to be on this critical issue. It means making hard
choices, but I think you can do it.
Respectfully,
Krista Jeffries
Lead Organizer
SLO County YIMBY
Post Script: Please see additional materials below and the relevant excerpts I included
PPIC Water Study 2019 https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
California Dept Water Resources Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study 2011
https://www.irwd.com/images/pdf/save-water/CaSingleFamilyWaterUseEfficiencyStudyJune2011
.pdf
Indoor water use is fairly consistent across all regions of California:
Scenarios that provide large potential for Outdoor Water Savings:
Scenario Number One: Reduce Over-Irrigators
Scenario Number Two: Reducing Average Landscape Ratio
Scenario Number Three: Reduction in Landscape Area