CC 2016-08-23 Supplemental Information
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, ACTING CITY MANAGER
TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 12.a. – AUGUST 23, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF
RESOLUTION 4659 RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR THE DECLARED
STAGE 1 WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY AND CONSIDERATION
OF OPTIONS FOR A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANNEXATION
MORATORIUM
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016
Attached is correspondence received this afternoon regarding the above-referenced
agenda item.
cc: City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
23 August 2016
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
c/o Mr. Geoff English, Acting City Manager
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: RESOLUTION AMENDING EXHIBIT ‘A’ OF RESOLUTION 4659 – DECLARED STAGE 1
WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY – OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND ANNEXATION MORATORIUM and the EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
Dear Council Members,
Thank you, in advance, for the opportunity to address the Council regarding item # 12.a. on your agenda
this evening. As you know, we represent the property owners of the parcels collectively known as the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan. This work effort was initiated in 2014, with an application lodged in May
2015, and has been a true collaboration with City staff, the environmental consultant(s), our team of
consultants, your advisory bodies and, as importantly, the community and neighbors surrounding the
projects. Based upon California’s fifth year of drought and the resultant critical state of water resources in
the City of Arroyo Grande, we want to acknowledge the City’s continued efforts to be at the forefront of
this situation. The importance of a sustainable water supply and conservation strategies have been key
components of the Specific Plan and related individual developments.
With your discussion this evening regarding the Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency and related policies,
we felt compelled to bring forward one of the unique aspects of the Specific Plan properties related to water
resources. Our initial water assessment analysis, the third party environmental review (i.e., the
environmental impact report), and our updated analysis all conclude that the project’s water consumption
will be a reduction from the current agricultural use, resulting in a net increase to the City’s water supply
of upward of ten (10) acre feet/year. Attached is the revised analysis that now also reflects the City’s
updated Urban Water Management Plan. This additional supply reflects the delta between the existing and
long-term agricultural water usage and the projected water use of the three development proposals.
In addition to increasing the City’s water supply, the Specific Plan addresses the maximum water
conserving measures to be implemented in each of the three projects, ensuring compliance with the City’s
goals and objectives. Again, to put the Specific Plan projects in perspective, should the City Council
approve the Specific Plan and the various other entitlements during the September 27, 2016 hearing, any
one of the projects would not require “wet water” for at least two (2) years.
We anticipate that projects like the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan or “pipeline” projects, would not be
subject to a development moratorium for this and the next calendar year, given the current circumstances
outlined by staff. As stated, the General Plan Housing and Economic Development Elements prioritize
continued modest infill development to meet housing needs and achieve economic sustainability. Both
priorities could be jeopardized by the implementation of a moratorium as impacts would include a housing
shortfall and a further risk to the City’s image as a reliable place to invest and do business.
We ask that the Council carefully consider the details and resultant ramifications of any decision that would
place projects like East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan in a precarious situation. We look forward to your
positive response and so appreciate your time and consideration of these important challenges.
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
23 August 2016
CC Item 12.a. – Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency
Page 2 of 2
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com
CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907
Yours respectfully,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
SRK HOTELS, INC.
NKT DEVELOPMENT, LLC
AG VALLEY JAPANESE WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS
Attachment – Memorandum E. Cherry Ave Specific Plan Subareas Water Use Assessment, RRM,
July 24, 2016
c: D. Malicoat, Admin Services Director
T. McClish, Community Development Director
D. Hirsch, Asst. City Attorney
S. Taylor, Utilities Supervisor
K. Heffernon, Associate Planner
SRK, NKT, AGVJWA
15-0024
15-0219
MEMORANDUM
Date:July 24, 2016
To:Carol Florence Organization:Oasis Associates
From:Robert Camacho Title:Project Manager
Project Name:East Cherry Ave Entitlement Project Number:0144-01-RS15
Topic:East Cherry Ave Specific Plan Sub Areas Water Use Assessment Addendum
The purpose of this addendum to the “Water Use Assessment” prepared by RRM Design Group, is to
demonstrate how the project known as “East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Sub Areas”, is s till in
compliance with the statewide emergency conservation requirements, even when compared to the 2015
Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande.
(For methodology on determining residential water usage from Gross Baseline Data, see original report.)
Original Data From 2010
Urban Water Management
Plan
Original Data From 2015
Urban Water Management
Plan
Gross
(GPCD)
Residential
(GPCD)
Gross * .77
Gross
(GPCD)
Residential
(GPCD)
Gross * .77
UWMP Gross
Baseline Usage 186 143 191 146.7
UWMP Target
Usage 149 115 153 117.8
(2010 UWMP)(2015 UWMP)
Per Capita Per SFR Unit Per Capita Per SFR Unit
Calculated Baseline
Usage 132 317 113 271
28% Reduction 95 228 81 195
Note: Per SFR unit = Per Capita * 2.4
(2010 UWMP)
GPD
(2015 UWMP)
GPD
Project
Estimated
Demand GPD
Total Residential
Usage 349 229 204
(11% Below 2015
UWMP)
Indoor Usage
(39%)136 89 122
Outdoor Usage
(61%)213 140 82
The project’s projected water usage (indoor + outdoor) =204 GPD (see original report for calculation) is
still 11% below the 2015 Calculated Residential usage per unit.
As stated in the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, the City has used the following ground
water sources, Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, as well as Lopez Reservoir as supply sources.
However, this project currently is supplied water through an on-site well that provides 35-65 AFY,
which is in addition to the city groundwater entitlements.
Per the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, Sub Area 2 has an estimated annual water usage of
14.4 AFY, which is about one third of the existing use for farming operations. In addition, the proposed
use represents approximately 0.7% of the City’s existing 2,106 AFY usage (2015 UWMP).
Area
(Acres +/-)
Current Usage
(* 3 afy per acre)
Projected
Water
Demand
(afy per acre)
Δ
(afy)
Sub Area 1 2.2 6.48 13.8 -7.32
Sub Area 2 11.6 34.8 14.4 20.4
Sub Area 3 1.5 -2.7 -2.7
15.3 41.3 30.9 10.4
AF
surplus
The proposed project is projected to increase the City’s Water Supply entitlement by about 10.4 AFY
(see above table). This Ag conversation adds approximately 0.3% back to the City’s existing 3,813 AFY
entitlement (2015 UWMP page 5-2)