Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 370-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 10 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES CMR:370:07 SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF PALO ALTO’S COMMENTS ON DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONSiENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONCERNING SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (HETCH-HETCHY) PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Staff reconmaends that the City Council approve Palo Alto’s commems on the Draft Pro~ana Envirormaental Impact Report concerning the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Pro~am, including informing San Francisco of Palo Alto’s expectations and wish to be consulted on any projects being constructed in and around Pa!o Alto and on the use of any of the water resource options that Palo Alto controls, such as recycled water, ~oundwater, or water efficiency programs. BACKGROUND In January 2000, the City’s primary water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), released a report indicating that its regional water system is va.dnerable to damage from a large earthquake and that water supplies could be cut off to the users, including Palo Alto, for up to 60 days. On July 10, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution reconm-~ending that the SFPUC take prompt action to improve .regional water supply reliability and quality [CMR:311:00]. The SFPUC proposes to implement the Water System Improvement Progam (WSIP) to repair and replace aging portions of its water delivery system. The system currently serves 2.4 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Tuolurrme counties. The WSIP is a program to implement the service goals and system performance objectives established by the SFPUC for the regional water system in the areas of water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply through the year 2030. The SFPUC approved the WSIP in November 2005. CMR:370:07 Page 1 of 11 Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA is a special district that represents the interests of 25 cities and water districts, and ~o private utilities that purchase water wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. These agencies, in turn, provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Palo Alto and the other BAWSCA member agencies are on record in support of the SFPUC’s program to improve the regional water system. The environmental review process is a major step in receiving approvals to proceed towards implementation of the WSIP. Since early 2003, in preparation for the enviromnentat review phase of the WSIP, BAWSCA and SFPUC have coordinated on completing the foundational work of establishing the water supply needs for the BAWSCA agencies and San Francisco through 2030. As part of this effort, San Francisco obtained copies of each land use planning agency’s adopted general or comprehensive plan. The long-term demands were calculated for each agency using a detailed end-use forecasting model. The result of those calculations, Palo Alto’s long-ten’n water demands, were provided to the City Council on March 15, 2004 [CMR:106:04]. These demand projections included the natural efficiency improvements that would take place as a result of changes in the plumbing codes since 1992 requiring new fixtures to be water conserving. After establishing the long-term demands for each BAWSCA agency, SFPUC conducted an analysis of thirty-two water conservation measures to determine which measures would be effective in each agency’s service area. On September 13, 2004, the Council received an information report [CMR:395:04] on this evaluation. That report concluded that the long-term conservation savings potential for Palo Alto is beta,~,een 1.6% and 4% of the water demands in 2030. Palo Alto selected the high end of this range as the basis to determine how much water Palo Alto plans to purchase from San Francisco. A report to the City Com~cil on October 25, 2004 [CMR:449:04] provided Palo Alto’s estimate of water purchases from San Francisco by 2030. These water purchase estimates for Palo Alto, the other BAWSCA agencies, and San Francisco provide the basis for the water supply needs expected to be placed on the reNonal water system. The SFPUC provided these estimates to the San Francisco Planning Department to use in its preparation of the PEIR for the WSIP. The California Enviromaaental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the public be informed about the siN~ificant enviro~m~ental effects of a project or program, and ways to avoid or reduce those enviro~m~ental effects, before that project or program is approved, la~ accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the San Francisco Plalming Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Program Enviro~m~ental Impact Report (PEIR) for the WSIP on September 6, 2005. On June 29, 2007, the San Francisco Planning Department issued a public notice announch~g the availability of the Draft PEIR for the SFPUC’s WS]P. The public notice provided the following Program Description: "The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to adopt and implement the WSIP to increase the reliability of the reNonal water system, which provides drinking water to 2.4 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Tuolumne Counties. WSIP implementation would involve using additional water CMR:370:07 Page 2 of 11 supplies to serve customer needs through 2030 as well as construction of repairs and/or improvements to many facilities within the existing system located in Tuolumne, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alanaeda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties." On July 23, 2007, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc subconvnittee of the Council to work with staff to craft the proposed Council comments to the PEIR. The subcommittee consisted of Vice Mayor Klein and Council Members Mossar and Beecham. The subcommittee met three times to review the Draft PEIR and to develop cormnents for Comacil consideration. DISCUSSION San Francisco’s Public Notice mmouncing the availability of the draft PEI:R provided the following Summary of Impact Analysis: "The Draft PEIR evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed changes in water supply, including ~owth-inducing impacts, as well as the general enviromnental effects of implementing 22 facility projects. The analysis in the Draft PEIR finds that the WSIP would support plam~ed growth in t?~e existing SFPUC service area and indirect effects of growth are significant and unavoidable. All other impacts resulting from water supply changes could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of an unavoidable impact on streamflow for about two miles in Alameda Creek and a potentially significant and unavoidable fisheries impact in Crystal Springs Reservoir. Other potentially significant but mitigable impacts as a result of water supply changes include: impacts on water quality, fishery resources, terrestrial bioloNcal resources, recreation and visual resources in the watersheds of either the Tuolumne River, Alameda Creek, San Mateo Creek, or Pilarcitos Creek; and impacts on Noundwater and related resources in the Westside Groundwater Basin. "The environmental analysis also determined that most of the impacts associated with implementing facility projects could be mitigated to a less-than significant level, although some impacts in the areas of land use, visual resources, cultural resources, biological resources, noise, vibration, air quality, and traffic were conservatively identified as potentially significant and unavoidable at the pro~’a~rmaatic level. These impact determinations may be revised during subsequent environmental review of individual facility improvement projects. The Draft PEIR identifies potentially sig~_ificant, but mitigable impacts from construction and operation of 22 facility projects in the areas of land use, visual quality, geology, hydrology/water quality, bioloNcal resources, cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise, vibration, public services, utilities, recreational resources, agricultural resources, hazards, and energy. "The Draft PEIR also evaluates the environmental effects of variations of and alternatives to the WSIP." CMR:370:07 Page 3 of 11 Level of Service Goals The service goals and perfol-mance objectives, established by SFPUC, include: ¯Water Quality - meet or exceed all current and anticipated water quality requirements ¯Seismic Reliability - restore basic service (wintertime usage) within 24 hours after a major earthquake and full service within 30 days ¯Delivery reliability - allow for system redundancy so that there will be no disruption of service in the event of one planned and one unplanned outage of major facilities. ¯Water Supply - fully meet customer purchase requests through the year 2030 in non-drouNat years. ¯Drought Protection - partially meet customer demands in drought years so the maximum amount of rationing in any year of the design drought does not result in more than a 20 percent system wide reduction in delivery of the 2030 purchase requests ¯Environnaental stewardship - eaahance sustainability in all system activities Water Supply Regarding water supply, the Draft PEIR notes that the proposed pro~mn, the WSIP, would serve the average annual retail and wholesale customer purchase request of 300 million gallons per day (MGD) from SFPUC in the yea 2030. This is 35 MGD more thaa current annual average delivery of 265 MGD fi’om the regional system. The water supply to meet the 35 MGD of increased demand includes 25 MGD of increased use of Tuolumne River water under San Francisco’s existing water rights and 10 MGD of increased conservation, water recycling and ~oundwater supply proganas in the City and County of San Francisco. The proposed WS]P’s drought year water supply includes: (1) reduced supplies from local sources and the Tuolumne River; (2) restoring historic storage capacities in Calaveras and Crystal Springs Reservoirs; (3) acquiring 23 MGD of water though transfer a~eements with the Modesto Irrigation District and the Turlock Irrigation District; (4) implementing a goundwater proNam to store water for recharge in non-drought years; and (5) requiring up to 20% system- wide rationing in any year of a drought. Enviromnental Impacts of WS]P The evaluation Of enviromnental impacts of the WSIP in the Draft PEIR include: (1) impacts associated with facility improvement projects; (2) impacts associated with water supply and system operations; and (3) ~owth-inducement potential and indirect effects of gowth. 1.Impacts associated with facility improvement projects The Draft PEIR indicates that most of the impacts associated with the WSIP projects occur during the construction phase mad can be mitigated to less than significant. Some impacts were determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable and mitigations were identified in the PEIR. hnpacts from implementation of WSIP projects exist, but implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 2. Impacts associated with water supply mad system operations The Draft PEIR evaluates the impacts of the WSIP water supply and system operations on the watersheds which are the supply sources of the reNonal water system. The Draft PEIR notes that CMR:370:07 Page 4 of 11 the impacts can be less than significant with proposed mitigation measures, except for the following: a) a si~aificant and unavoidable impact in the Alameda Creek watershed below the Alameda Creek Diversion Dan; and b) a potential significant and unavoidable impact in the San Mateo creek watershed on fishery resources in Crystal Springs Reservoir. Impacts on the upper Tuolunme River meadow habitat are mitigable with controlled releases. Inapacts on fishery resources on the lower Tuolumne River below La Grange Dam are significant and include a listed species. Mitigation measures identified include water transfers from MID/TID or enhanced fishery protection projects. 3. Growth-inducement potential and indirect effects of ~owth. According to the Draft PEIR, the WSIP would support planned Nowth in the SFPUC service area and Nowth inducement impacts cannot be entirely mitigated. The Draft PEIR states that the WSIP supports plamaed gowth in the area served by the regional water system. Most of the gowth is infill, or "smart growth" in existing developed areas. Most of the growth identified has .been addressed in adopted general plans, but the plaming horizons for many general plans do not extend to 2030, the plaming horizon for the WSIP. Palo Alto’s comprehensive plan, adopted in 1998, has a planning horizon of 2010. Alternatives to the Proposed Pro~am The Draft PEIR evaluated seven alternatives to the proposed WSIP: 1. No Prod’am Alternative Only projects that are required by regulations would be completed in this alternative. Seismic and delivery reliability goals would not be achieved. Although in normal and wet years additional water would be diverted from the Tuolumne River under San Francisco’s water rigahts, more severe rationing would be required in droughts since the transfers with MID/TID would not be effected and the additional conservation, recycled water, and goundwater projects would not be completed. The Draft PEIR concludes that the re~onal water system would be placed at significant risk due to seismic events under this alternative. 2. No Purchase Request Increase Alternative Under this alternative, SFPUC’s wholesale customers would receive additional water up to the anount required under the existing Master Water Contract between San Francisco and the SFPUC’s wholesale customers, including Palo Alto. Currently, the wholesale customers purchase about 170 MGD and the Master Water Contract requires that San Francisco deliver up to 184 MGD. However, the projected wholesale customer’s purchase requests in 2030 of 209 MDG are not served under this alternative. The Draft PEIR notes that the wholesale customers may seek supplemental supplies to meet their long-term demands, but impacts from those potential actions are not analyzed. In droughts, water transfers from MID/TID would total 1 MGD, instead of the _~ MGD in the Proposed WSIP. The Draft PEIR notes that additional development in the SFPUC service area might be slowed somewhat, but it is likely that gowth would occur elsewhere in the Bay Area or in the Central Valley. Gro~mh in these outl?dng areas could have more severe environmental impacts due to the CMR:370:07 Page 5 of 11 effects of new development versus infill that would occur in the co~rnnunities served by the regional system. 3. Aggressive Conservation/Water Recycling and Local Groundwater Alternative All WSIP facilities would be constructed in this alternative, but the additional 25 MGD of water purchase requests through 2030 would be met by about 19 MGD of aggessive conservation, water recycling, and local ~oundwater projects. The additional water purchase requests would be either: 1) additional 6 MGD of Tuolumne River diversions; or 2) not be met. If the additional purchase requests are not met, then the maximum ratiol~ing amount would increase to 25%, rather than the 20% maximum under the WS~. SFPUC worked with BAWSCA to identify potential additional conservation, water recycling and local grom~dwater projects that were not included in the demand projections. Projects were classified into ttnee categories: (1) projects likely to be implemented; (2) projects in early plarming stages; and (3) potential projects for futm-e consideration. There were two projects in Category 1, projects likely to be implemented, that were not included in the 10 MGD of recycled water, conservation, and D’oundwater projects included in the WSIP. Ten projects in Category 2, projects in early planning stages, were identified. Expanding the recycled water distribution system in Palo Alto was included in this category of projects with a maximum yield of 1 MGD. The range of yield for all Category 2 projects was 5.1 to 15.2 MGD. Category 3 projects identified are conceptual in nature and have not yet been determined to be feasible. The five projects in this category could yield between 0.5 and 2.23 MGD. The total an~ount of conservation or new water supply from the projects totals up to 19 MGD if all the projects are completed, including those for which no planning or feasibility studies have been done. The Draft PEIR calls the 19 MGD "an optimistic, high-end estimate based on very prelinainary studies." The Draft PEIR states that this alternative may not meet the seismic objectives and could partially, but not fully, meet the delivery reliability and water supply performance objectives. In addition, this alternative would provide less drought year supply reliability than the WS~. Additional enviromnentalimpacts from development of recycled water and gn-oundwater projects would occur under ttss scenario, but these would be mostly related to construction, water quality, and use of energy. The D’owth inducement potential would be similar to that for the No Progam Alternative. 4.Lower Tuolumne River Diversion Alternative In this alternative, all WS~ facilities would be implemented and increased customer purchase requests would be served from diversions from the lower Tuolumne River near its confluence with the San Joaquin River. This alternative would result in additional environmental impacts from construction and operation of additional conveyance and treatment facilities to divert, transport, and treat the new re~onal system supply. This alternative would only partially meet the water quality goal and it is uncertain that the seismic and delivery reliability goals would be met. The water supply reliability goal would be CMR:370:07 Page 6 of 11 met, but the sustainability objectives may not be met due to the need to resolve numerous regulatory and permitting issues, including the effects on fisheries in the lower Tuolunme. Due to significant increases in energy use, the cost-effectiveness goal would not be achieved. The additional flows on the lower Tuolumne River above the diversion point near the confluence with the San Joaquin River would benefit fisheries, habitat, and recreation. However, operation of the intake structures is critical as they could result in trapping of certain critical fish species. Additional enviromnental impacts include geater energy use and impacts from construction and operation of the conveyance, pumping, and treatment facilities. 5.Year-Round Desalination at Oceanside Alteruative All WSIP facilities would be implemented in this alternative. This alternative does not include any increased diversions from the Tuolurm~e River since a new 25 MGD desalination plant in San Francisco would be constructed and operated year-round to serve additional customer purchase requests. Most of the service objectives are met for this alternative with the possible exception of the sustainability goal due to the regulatory and permitting issues related to building a desalination facility. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness goal is not met due to increased energy use and the cost for the new facilities. Increased enviromnental impacts would occur due to the construction and operation of the additional facilities, which include an intake structure, pipelines, pump stations, and the desalination plant. This alternative would not result in changes in average ammal releases to the upper Tuolumne River, but changes could occur due to operational changes. Occasional differences in releases in the lower Tuolumne River could occur, but no changes in average am~ual releases. 6.Regional Desalination for Drought Alternative SFPUC is cunently investigating the construction of a regional desalination plant with other regional water supply agencies in the Bay Area. This alternative would implement all the WSIP projects and operate this regional plant to provide the SFPUC with supplemental water supplies in dry years. This alternative is the same as Variant 2 described below. 7.Modified WSIP Alternative The Draft PEIR identified this alternative as the "environmentally superior alterative." All the WSIP facilities would be constructed, but system operations would be modified to minimize enviromnental impacts. Key features of this alterative include: ¯Transfer of conserved water from MID and TID. ¯Implementation of minimum stream flow requirements in a portion of Alameda Creek. ¯Modification of operations at Pilarcitos Creek to accorm:nodate increased demands from Coastside County Water District, a wholesale water customer; ¯Management of the levels at Crystal Springs Reservoir to prese~we upland habitat; and ¯Implementation of 5-10 MGD of additional conservation, water recycling, and local groundwater projects in the service areas of the wholesale customers. CMR:370:07 Page 7 of 11 This concept requires the implementation of water conservation measures in the MID and TID service areas with the freed up water being used by SFPUC for delivery into the regional w~ter system. The transfer of conserved water would be implemented every year, not only as a dry- year supplement, so that WSIP impacts on the lower Tuolumne River could be avoided. The additional 5-10 MGD of conservation, water recycling and local groundwater projects would likely be a subset of the most feasible of those identified in the Aggressive Conservation/Water Recycling and Local Groundwater Alternative (see #3 above). The Modified WSIP Alternative would reduce impacts on natural resources along the lower Tuolunme River, parts of Alameda Creek, Pilarcitos Creek and Reservoir, and Crystal Springs Reservoir. The additional conservation, water recycling, and local groundwater projects would cause construction impacts, but they are minor compared to the fewer and less severe envirolmaental impacts on the Tuolumne River for this alternative. The ad-hoc Council subcommittee supported the Modified WSIP Alternative. Water Supply Variants The Draft PEIR evaluated ttzree water supply variants to the proposed WSIP, which differ from the proposed WSIP in water supply sources or rationing limits, but are identical in terms of meeting water quality, seismic reliabilit?; and delivery reliability goals. These variants are not complete alternatives, but could be substituted for the water supply component of some of the alternatives described above. 1.Va-iant 1 - All Tuolunme This variant would accommodate the entire 35 MGD of additional water supply needs from the Tuolun’me River and would not include the 10 MGD of recycled water, conservation, and groundwater projects that the WSIP includes. Modeling of historic hydrologic years indicates that the system under this variant would require increased diversions from the Tuolumne River of 32 MGD compared to existing conditions and 5 MGD compared to the proposed WSIP. Rationing in droughts would be both more frequent and more severe compared to the proposed WSIP. This variant would have slightly more severe impacts on the Tuolurm~e River resources compared to the WSIP, although no additiona! mitigations measures would be required. 2.Variant 2 - ReNonal Desalination for Drought This variant differs from the WSIP in that supplemental dry-year supplies would come from a regional desalination plant instead of from drought-tinge water transfers from MID and TID. This variant would result in slightly reduced impacts on the Tuolurrme River resources due to the absence of transfers from MID and TID. However, environmental impacts from the desalination plant and conveyance facilities would be substantial due to the increased energy consumption and impacts related to seawater intake structmes and brine disposal. 3.Variant 3 - 10% Rationing Under this variant, the maximum rationing during droughts would be reduced to 10%, compared to the WSIP maximum rationing of 20%. This would be accomplished by increasing dry-year transfers from MID and TID, thereby increasing average annual diversions from the Tuolumne CMR:370:07 Page 8 of 11 River (35 MGD compared to 23 MGD under the WSIP). These increased dry-year diversions would result in somewhat more severe impacts on Tuolurnne River resources, but not enough to trigger additional mitigation measures. Overall, this variant and the WSIP would result in an increase of average am~ual diversion from the Tuolumne River over current conditions of about 27 MGD over the 82-year hydrologic record. Proposed Comments The attached letter contains proposed comments on the Draft PEER on SFPUC’s WSIP that were developed by the Council ad-hoc sulocommittee. The major comments summarized in the first part of the letter are repeated below: ¯Palo Alto cormnends the City of San Francisco for completing the very comprehensive PEER for the WSIP. Preparing the Draft PEIR is a major undertaking and Palo Alto commends San Francisco on its substantial effort. Overall, Palo Alto would support a finding that the Draft PEER on SFPUC’s WS]:P is adequate and, therefore, satisfies CEQA requirements. ¯Pa!o Alto appreciates the precious nature of the water supplies delivered to it in a manner that utilizes a welt-enNneered system desi~o-ned to flow by gavity from the pristine mountain source to end users in the Bay Area, and knows that the aNng system of pipes, mmMs, dams and water treatment plants is in dire need of upgrades. ¯Palo Alto urges San Francisco to move expeditiously to implement the seismic improvement projects contained in the WSIP as they are urgent for earthquake reliability. Palo Alto’s City Council has named emergency preparedness as one of its top three priorities. ¯Palo Alto supports the enviromnentalty superior alternative identified in the Draft PEER, the "Modified WS]:P" alternative. Ttzis alternative would result in less severe enviromnental impacts, particularly on the lower Tuolm~me River. Palo Alto supports reducing diversions from the lower Tuolunme River as it believes that there is significant potential to conserve or recycle water rather than diverting more water from the river. ¯Palo Alto is aware of other diverters of Tuolumne River water with significant potential for implementing conservation measures. Palo Alto would support and commit to pay its share for ag~essive conservation measures in these areas as well as in the SFPUC’s service area. Palo Alto is co~mnitted to implementing cost-effective conservation and water recycling projects in Palo Alto itself. ¯The WSIP should limit drought year reductions to no more than 10% per year. Palo Alto is concerned that a plan that incorporates up to 20% cutbacks in drought years discourages long-term investments in conservation measures by providing what an~ounts to a "penalty" for maximizing conservation in non-drought years. The PEER should clarify how the 2030 water demand projections were developed using Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates population and emplosanent figures only through 2010. Fm-~her, the PEER should explain the inconsistency between ABAG’s 2030 population projections for Palo Alto and the population forecast used in the PEIR. Palo Alto considers the PEER estimates to be reasonable and realistic based on anticipated development and historic gowth rates for the City. ¯The WSIP project schedule should be coordinated with Palo Alto’s Gunn High School to minimize construction impacts of Project BD-2 on the school, its students, and any other users of the facilities. CMR:370:07 Page 9 of 11 COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Utilities Advisory Commission CUAC) received a presentation on the Draft PEIR at its September 5, 2007 meeting. The UAC unanimously recommended that the Council: (1) Strongly support completion of the WSIP project to seismically improve the water system; (2) Support the following activities recon~nended by BAWSCA: ¯Agencies should review PEIR for overall accuracy in describing retail agency activities ¯Agencies should review how their own systems and growth plans are described ¯Make sure cormnents do not unintentionally conflict with other wholesale customers (intentional conflicts may exist) ¯Convey the urgency of the seismic improvements needed for the system - water supply decisions are not urgent; and (3)Jaaclude a cost effectiveness measure such as a cost not to exceed more than 10% of the projected water rate of $1600/acre-ft for any conservation measures pursued within TID or MID. NEXT STEPS Written cormnents on the Draft PEIR for SFPUC’s WSIP will be accepted by the San Francisco Plamaing Department until close-of-business on October 1, 2007. It is anticipated that the Final PEIR will be certified in May 2008. RESOURCE IMPACT The estimated cost for SFPUC’s WSIP is incorporated into long-te~rn cost projections. Any alternatives that are identified in the PEIR wil! need to be evaluated as to the cost impact. City Staff resources to monitor and participate in this project are budgeted. The cost for BAWSCA, which is deeply involved in the process to represent its member agencies, is also included in the water fund budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comments submitted to San Francisco on the PEIR are in conformance with Council-approved policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Submitting comments on the Draft PEIR for SFPUC’s WSIP does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, no environmental assessment is required. ATTACHMENT A.Proposed Cormnents of the Council of the City of Palo Alto on the Draft PEII~ for SFPUC’s WSIP CMR:370:07 Page 10 of 11 PREPARED BY: O. RATCHYE ~ ,sistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: VALERII~ f). I~O/~TG Director of~Utiliffes , EMILY H.~d~ S ON Assistant City Manager CMR:370:07 Page 11 of 11 Attachment A September 24, 2007 Paul Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer, WSIP PEIR San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re:Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program Dear Mr. Maltzer, The City of Palo Alto receives all of its potable water supplies from the regional water system operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Palo Alto has great interest in the Water System Ianprovement Program (WSIP) that ainas to repair and upgrade the regional water system to increase its reliability. Palo Alto understands that the completion of the Draft Program Enviromnental Impact Report (PEIR) for the WSIP is a si~aificant step towards timely completion of the urgent seismic improvement projects needed for improved earthquake reliability. Sunmaarv of Co~mnents ¯ Palo Alto commends the City of San Fraacisco for completing the very comprehensive PEtR for the WSK~. Preparing the Draft PEIR is a major undertaking and Palo Alto commends San Francisco on its substmatial effort. Overall, Palo Alto would support a finding that the Draft PEIR on SFPUC’s WSIP is adequate and, therefore, satisfies CEQA requirements. ¯Palo Alto appreciates the precious nature and high quality of the water supplies delivered to it in a maimer that utilizes a well-en~neered system designed to flow by gravity fi’om the pristine mountain source to end users in the Bay Aaea, and lcnows that the aging system of pipes, tunnels, dams and water treatment plants is in dire need of upgrades. ¯Palo Alto urges San Francisco to move expeditiously to implement the seismic improvement .projects contained in the WSIP as they are urgent for earthquake reliability. Palo Alto’s City Council has named emergency preparedness as one of its top priorities. ¯Palo Alto supports the environmentally superior alternative identified in the Draft PEIR, the "Modified WSIP" alternative. This alternative would result in less severe environmental impacts, particularly on the lower Tuolunme River. Palo Alto supports reducing diversions fi-om the lower Tuolumne River as it believes that there is si~aificant potential to conserve or recycle water rather than diverting more water from the river. ¯Palo Alto believes there is a significant oppommity for implementing conservation measures tl~ough cooperative effort between the Bay Area’s wholesale water purchasers and other diverters of Tuolurmae River water. Palo Alto would support and conmait to pay its share for aggressive conservation measures in these areas as well as in the SFPUC service area. Palo Alto is also committed to implementing cost-effective conservation and water recycling projects in Palo Alto itself. Attachment A ¯The WSIP should limit drought year reductions.to no more than 10% per yea’. Palo Alto is concerned that a plan that incorporates up to 20% cutbacks in drought years discourages long-term investments in conservation measures by providing what amounts to a "penalty" for maximizing conservation in non-drought years. ¯The PEIR should clarify how the 2030 water demand projections were developed using Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates population and employanent figures only tbaough 2010. Further, the PEIR should explain the inconsistency between ABAG’s 2030 population projections for Palo Alto and the population forecast used in the PEIR. Palo Alto considers the PEIR estimates to be reasonable and realistic based on anticipated development and historic growth rates for the City. ¯The WSIP project schedule should be coordinated with Palo Alto’s Gram Hi~ School to minimize construction impacts of Project BD-2 on the school, its students, and any other users of the facilities. The City of Palo Alto respectfully submits the following more detailed comments on the subject Draft PEIR: Palo Alto strongly supports timely completion of the seismic improvement projects contained in the WSIP. Palo Alto has understood since 1999 that a large earthquake in the Bay Area could result in parts of the SFPUC service area being without water for up to 60 days. The Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution #,’7986 (Attachlnent A) in July 2000 urging the SFPUC to take immediate steps to safeguard the regional water system fiom earthquakes mad to secure water supplies for dry years. Subsequently, City Council adopted Resolutions #8135 and #8136 (Attachments B and C) in support of bills in the state legislature that xvould form emities that could provide funding for the projects to up~-ade and repair the regional water system. The Palo Alto City Council has determined that emergency preparedness is the first of its top four priorities and strongly supports projects such as the WSIP that would increase the seismic preparedness for the community and better ensure its health and safety. Palo Alto has also supported major local capital projects to improve the reliability of the Palo Alto water distribution system. Palo Alto supports the "Modified WSIP" alternative, which is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Palo Alto believes that completing the seismic up~ades and repairs of the regional water system are critical. 1Vhile ensuring adequate water supply for the future is important, it is not nearly as nrgent as completing the seismic improvements to the reNonal system. Since water use by San Francisco’s wholesale customers remains below the anaount committed in the existing Master Water Contract, there is time to explore the development of alternate resources, including recycled water and more aggressive conservation measures. Palo Alto strongly supports the development of these alternate resources and is especially supportive of searching for water conservation opportunities wherever they make the most sense, including in the service areas of Modesto and Turlock In’igation Districts (M]]D and TID). Attachment A Palo Alto believes that the transfers of conserved water from MID and TID that are part of the Modified WSIP alternative should be aggressively pursued, as this may be potentially the least expensive and most effective "new" water supply available for the regional water system. Because MID and TID are by far the largest diverters of water from the Tuolmmae River, they are an obvious source of conservation opportunities that would result in minimizing total river diversions. Palo Alto advocates that SFPUC’s wholesale customers pay for the best conservation measures, wherever they exist, to improve enviromnental conditions on the Tuolurrme River. Palo Alt0 supports ag~’essive pursuit of conservation opportunities in the MID and TID service areas mad would support creating a net increase to flows in the lower Tuolumne River to improve enviromnental conditions. Palo Alto is concerned about the enviro~xmental impacts identified on the lower Tuolurm~e River and supports siNaificant improvements. Palo Alto strongly supports efficient use of natural resources, including water. Attactm~ent D contains ordinances, resolutions, guidelines, policies, and reports that document that support. For example, Palo Alto adopted enforceable water use regulations in 1989 that made certain wasteful practices illegal, such as landscape runoff and using potable water to wash vehicles. In March 199!, Palo Alto produced a booklet "Using the Palo Alto Landscape Guidelines" to educate the public and developers on how to use effective water management methods such as automatic controller use, adjusting irrigation for evapotranspiration rates, zone planting for water needs, water budgeting, separating irrigation meters, etc. to limit water used for landscape irrigation. Palo Alto enforces landscape water efficiency standards that are in compliance with the State of California’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325). Palo Alto also strongly supports stewardship of the natural environment, including responsible management of water resources and smart growth practices. In October 2005, Palo Alto adopted modified Ahwatmee Water Principles. These principles address issues such as water contamination, storm water runoff, flood damage, and reliability of water supply. The principles promote compact co~mnunity design, preservation of natural habitats, reduction of runoff, appropriate landscaping, use ofpern-teable sin-faces, dual plmnbing for nonpotable water uses, and use of water conservation tectmologies. Palo Alto understands the relationship between land use practices and natural resource stewardship. Many of the Ahwahnee Water Principles are reflected in Palo Alto’s land use ordinances and practices. For example, in 2005, Palo Alto’s application for a Priority Development Aa’ea designation near a transit station with the potential for in-fill growth was approved. In 2006, Palo Alto adopted an ordinance amending its Municipal Code in support of pedestrian and transit oriented development combfi~ing district, to implement Palo Alto’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan policies in support of resource conservation. An amendment to the Municipal Code in 2007 promotes sustainable landscaping (Chapter 18.40.130), stream co~Tidor protection (Chapter 18.40.140), and storm water quality protection (Chapter 18.40.150). Also, in 2007, Palo Alto adopted an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapters 18.76 and 18.77, which address Palo Alto’s Sustainability Policy and Green Building practices. Attachment A 10. Palo Alto has long offered robust energy and water conservation programs, services and technical support, to its residential and business customers. As a provider of natural gas and electricity as well as water, the City of Palo Alto Utilities can effectively promote efficiency improvements by informing customers t!~’ough its Utilities bill inserts. Attachment E contains past bill inserts specifically related to water efficiency. Along with bill inserts, City of Palo Alto Utilities has produced andJor distributed marketing materials to its customers to promote efficiency. Attacl~nent F contains a sampling of marketing materials specific to water efficient progams and practices. City of Palo Alto Utilities also makes extensive use of advertisements in print media to get out the message on efficiency. Attactvrient G contains copies of ads and articles promoting water efficiency. City of Palo Alto Utilities also has an active school education prodam to encourage efficient use of resources. Attacbarient H is a collection of materials, including workbooks, flyers, and brochures used in school water efficiency education progrmns. Palo Alto’s efforts to manage demand citywide are effectively illustrated in the graphic showing actual water consumption since 1965 in Attachment I. Palo Alto’s water usage peaked in 1976 at almost 20,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). After lowered consumption during the 1976-1977 drought period, usage rebounded to almost 19,000 AFY in 1988. Efforts to curb consumption during the extended drought period fiom 1988 to-1992 were successful with consumption since the drought ranging between 14,000 AFY and 15,000 AFY. Consumption projections for the future are flat at about 15,000 AFY, far lower than actual usage in 1976 despite increases in population and economic activity in Palo Alto over the last 30 years. During both the 1976-77 and the 1988-1992 drought periods, Palo Alto implemented an extensive public education program on water conservation. Palo Alto produced many materials designed to educate the public about the drought and promote water efficiency. A sampling of these materials is found in Attaclmaent J. Palo Alto has long structured its residential retail water rates to promote efficient use of water. Since July 1976, Palo Alto has had an "increasing block rate structure" for residents, h~creasing block rates increase as the quantity used increases. This rate Stl~lcture is considered by the Califorrda Urban Water Conservation Council to be water conserving pricing. Attachanent K contains Palo Alto’s residential water rates since July 1976. During the 1988-1992 &ought, Palo Alto was able to achieve the goals for water use cutbacks by increasing the differential between the rates in lower and higher use tiers. Because the conservation pricing, extensive public education, conservation progams, use restrictions and related enforcement practices that were used were so effective, Palo Alto did not need to implement rations or limits for residential customers during that drought. Palo Alto’s ongoing efforts to encourage and invest in conservation are not well served by the proposed drought-time rationing goal of cutbacks of up to 20%. With the tl~’eat of a pre-determined ratio~xing goal, Palo Alto and other wholesale customers may have difficulty continuing to invest in conservation measures and recycled water projects. To the extent that demands axe limited and wastes are eliminated, getting an Attachment A additional 20% reduction in usage is and wilt be difficult. The Draft PEIR evaluated a °’water supply variant" with 10% maximum drought reduction and detetxained that the enviromnental impacts of such an option were similar to the impacts of the proposed progran and that the average annual diversions from the Tuolunme River would be the same over a long period of time. Besides increasing suppty reliability, the 10% rationing option would reduce the inevitable economic impact resulting from the extended reduction of water supplies. Palo Alto supports the 10% maximum drought reduction "water supply variant" and encourages San Francisco to select that option. In concert with the pursuit of additional conselwed water fi’om MID and TID, tlxis option could result in no additional diversions from the Tuolunme River in droughts than the proposed program. 11.The Draft PEIR addresses the concept of an additional intertie with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), but presents it only as a strategy that affects water supply sources. This concept, which Palo Alto raised in its written coma~nents regarding the Notice of Preparation of the PEIR, would increase desirable redundancy and operational flexibility for both regional systems (SFPUC and SCVWD) and offers improved emergency response. The concept could help meet or exceed the Level of Seladce goals for the project relating to seismic reliability and deliverability. The PEIR discusses a dry year transfer concept and a future water supply source for the SFPUC regional-system and rejects those ideas with good reasons. However, the concept of using a new intertie for emergencies is not given adequate discussion. Such an intertie would be created by extending SCVWD’s West Pipeline from the point where it currently ends at Foothill Expressway and Fremont Avenue in Mountain View to Foothill Expressway and Page Mill to Bay Division Pipelines 3&4. Alternately, the West Pipeline could be paralleled back to SCVWD’s Rinconada Water Treatment Plant to improve reliability for both regional systems. 12.Palo Alto understands that one of the crossovers between Bay Division Pipelines 3&4 for WSIP Project BD-2 is located in Palo Alto. The site for the crossover in Palo Alto is identified in the Draft PEIR is "near Ban:on Creek, adjacent to the rmming track and sports fields at Gram High School." According to the Draft PEIR, the project includes a valve vault of approximately 3,750 square feet with the drainage outfall located on the site and that piping to comaect the facility to outfalls would be required. In addition, a control building (3 to 8 feet high) for electrical mad mechanical equipment at the valve vault is required. Section 4.3 of the PEIR should include an elevation/schematic of the control building and/or vault so the reader has an understanding of what the facility will look like and how it may visually impact sensitive areas. Many of the mitigation measures for WS~ project impacts located within Palo Alto involve construction. The PEIR should state that mitigation measures may not violate City ordinances, including, but not limited to, noise mad nuisance ordinances. The City of Palo Alto respectfully submits the following comrnents with reference to specific sections and pages on the subject Draft PEIR: Attachment A 13.In addition, Palo Alto expects to be involved in and consulted at an early stage in this project. 14.Pages 4.3-17 and 6-4 list several mitigations for construction impacts. The first measure listed on page 6-4, Neighborhood Notice, in and of itself is not mitigation. This measure may make it more palatable to neighboring residents because they wi!l lcnow when construction will occur, but it doesn’t reduce the impact. As a substitute mitigation, Palo Alto suggests coordinating with Gram High School in order to limit Construction of the crossover to times during the school year that would be least likely to result in noise and other construction impacts on school activities. 15.Page 4.3-22 mentions that additional right of way/easement could be needed for the crossover outfall at the GulmYVeteran’s Administration hospital location. The PEIR should identify how much additional land will be required, when that will be detem~ined and where it wi!l be located. Page 4.3-40 of the PEIR is ambiguous as to whether the control building and!or vault will be visible from Foothill Blvd. If it will not to be visible, then no mitigation is needed. If it is going to be visible, then it should be so stated in the PEIR. 17.On page 4.12-10, the first two sentences of the City of Palo Alto section should read: "Palo Alto has a total of 4,358 acres of parkland and open space areas including 32 City urban parks encompassing approximately 200 acres mad several large open space and nature preselwes. Foothills Park is approximately 1400 acres and the Arastradero Preserve is approximately 610 acres." Many of the City parks are dedicated parks, created by ordinance. The City Charter bans substantial building, construction, reconstruction, or development upon or with respect to any dedicated park lands except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum. 18.Page 6-6 in the last paragaph reader the Cultural Resources section should clarify that it is San Francisco’s Plamaing Department and Environmental Review Officer that will be responsible for these actions. 19.Section 7.3 needs to be clarified regarding the population and employment forecasts used for the water demand projections and assumptions. The discussion should be clear that the City’s projected population and employment forecasts in the PEIR for the year 2030 are assumed to be extrapolated from the Palo Alto 2010 Comprehensive Plan; the forecasts used in the analysis are within 10% mad 16% of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan population and emploN~lent figures, respectively. ABAG’s projected 2030 population Nowth cited in the PEIR for Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence is over 33% higher than the 2030 population projection for Palo Alto used in the PEIR. The PEIR does not explain why ABAG’s population projections are siNaificantly higher than the population projections used for the water demand plan Nven that both are for a 2030 horizon. The PEIR should explain that the City considers the forecast used in the PEIR to be a reasonable and realistic projection of Palo Alto’s anticipated go~vth through 2030. Historically, Palo Alto has gown very slowly; the 2000 census sho~ved a 5% increase in Attachment A population over a thirty year period fi’om 1970. Although in the last seven years, Palo Alto has experienced unprecedented new housing development resulting in an 8% increase in population (stil! far below the ABAG projections), this growth camot be sustained given Palo Alto’s limited land availability and redevelopment potential; therefore, the City considers the PEIR 2030 population forecast, which is approximately a 10% growth increase from our 2010 Comprehensive Plan projected population, to be a reasonable increase. Palo Alto commends the City of San Francisco for completing the very comprehensive PEIR for the WSIP, especially in the context that the WSIP is a significant step towards timely completion of the urgent seismic improvement projects needed for improved earthquake reliability. Sincerely, Yoriko Kishimoto Mayor Attachments: A. Resolution No. 7986 - Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Reconm~ending that the San Francisco Public Utilities Comrnission Take Prompt Action to Improve Regional Water Supply Reliability and Quality. B.Resolution No. 8135 - Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Legislation Allowing the Fom~ation of a Regional Water Agency, Specifically Senate Bill 1870, the Bay Area Water Reliability Financing Authority Act C.Resolution No. 8136 - Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of Legislation Allowing the Formation of a Regional Water Agency, Specifically Assembly Bill 2058, the Bay Area Water Regional Water Supply and Conservation Agency Act D.Water Policies and Reports Regarding Water E.City of Palo Alto Utilities Bill Inserts F.City of Palo Alto Utilities Marketing Material G.Advertisements and Articles relating to Water Efficiency H.City of Palo Alto Utilities School Education Prograna Materials I.City of Palo Alto A~mual Water Supply Purchases Since 1965 and Long-Term Purchase Forecast J.City of Palo Alto Utilities School Special Drought Materials K.City of Palo Alto Utilities Residential Water Rate Schedules (since July 1976) cc:Art Jensen, General Manager of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 79~6 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDING THAT THE SAN F~NCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TAKE PROMPT ACTION TO IMPROVE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND QUALITY WHEREAS, the City of Pa!o Alto ("City") provides water to 62,000 residents and 2,200 businesses providing jobs for 91,000 people; and it has purchased water for these customers from the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco") since 1939; and WHEREAS, the Hetch Hetchy water system ("System") is like an artery carrying an essential element of the lifeblood of the community, and the community’s economic power provides an important foundation for the Bay Area’s vitality and way of life; and WHEREAS, the Mayor of San Francisco has publicly noted the regiona! importance of upgrading the System and, in January, he released a certain Facility Reliability Report, citing the potentia! for extended interruptions in supply from San Francisco’s regional water system for up to 90 days, endangering an economi-c vitality and job potentia! that are the envy of the rest of the world; and WHEREAS, in February, 2000, the California State Auditor issued a report criticizing the San Francisco Public Utilities CoMmission’s ability to implement capita! improvements to the .System and suggests that the Commission may be unable a!one to raise sufficient funds to pay for them; and WHEREAS, in April, 2000, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approved the Water Supply Master Plan ("WSMP"), a welcome indication of the Commission’s desire and intention to meet System-wide demands expected over the next 30 years, and, in so approving, stated its intention to adopt coordinated !ong-term financial and capita! improvement program plans; and WHEREAS, these steps, while necessary, are not sufficient in themselves to assure the suburban agencies that 000712 cl 0071899 I their concerns will be addressed, or that they will he addressed in a lasting manner; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION i. In light of the above-stated concerns, and in order to provide the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission with a clear statement of its neighboring customers’ expectations, the Council of the City of Palo Alto joins with other similarly situated agencies, collectively responsible for supplying water to over 1.4 million residents and to industries, businesses and institutions which provide jobs for over 800,000 Californians (including many San Franciscans), in respectfully urging the Commission to do the following: (a)Take im~mediate steps to safeguard the System against damage from earthquakes and other hazards. (b) c) Secure negotiated water transfer agreements for back-up supplies during dry years in order to "drought proof" the Overal! service area for existing customers. Implement diligently the elements of the WSMP so high priority short-term projects are built on the schedule contained in the WSMP. d) (e) (f) (g) Commit to operating the System to produce water as the first priority, with electric power as a byproduct. Continue to protect the purity of Hetch Hetchy water and commit to providing its wholesale customers with water that meets applicable EPA and State of California drinking water standards. Commit to fair water rationing .methods; a new shortage allocation system is needed which does not penalize long-term conservation efforts or deve!opment of alternative supplies such as recycled water. It should be in effect by the end of this calendar year. Commit to maintaining cost-based pricing on a long-term basis, after 2009, with the cost of the 000712 cl 0071899 2 wholesale water system continuing to be allocated between San Francisco and its wholesale ~ ~CUS ~ome_ s based on their proportionate use. SECTION 2. To the extent independent actions by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission can accomplish these objectives, we urge the Commission to undertake them now and pursue them diligently to completion; and SECTION 3. To the extent accomplishment of these objectives requires agreements between the City and County of San Francisco and its wholesale customers, we urge the San Francisco Public Utilities Co~missiQn to promptly .begin forma! discussions with the Bay Area Water Users Association, which represents our interests, and pursue them in good faith so that mutua! and reciproca! commitments of both San Francisco and wholesale customers can be incorporated into durable and enforceable contracts on which al! parties can prudentZy rely in ordering their affairs. SECTION 4. The Counci! finds that the adoption of this resolution i~ not a project under the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, no environmenta! review is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July i0, 2000 AYES:BEECHAM, BURCH, EAKINS,FAZZINO,KNISS, LYTLE, MOSSAR, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSENT: KLEINBERG ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST : City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Ass~. City~rney cit} _ties 000712 cl 0071899 3 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 8135 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL ~OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION ALLOWING. THE FORMATION OF A REGIONAL WATER AGENCY, SPECIFICALLY SENATE BILL i870,THE BAY AREA WATER RELIABIITY FINANCING AUTHORITY ACT WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") provides water to 62]000 residents and 2,200 businesses providing jobs for 91,000 people; and it has purchased, water for these customers from the City and County of San Francisco ("SF") since 1939; and WHEREAS, the City depends on the regional water, system operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC) for its water supply; and WHEREAS, the SFPUC-operated regional water system is subject to catastrophic damage in the event of an earthquake on the San Andreas, Ca!averas or Hayward faults, exposing Bay Area communities, including San Francisco, to extended interruptions in water service; and WHEREAS, the SFPUC has delayed for severa! years approving a multi-billion dollar construction program to fix the regional water system and has not acted to obtain financing to pay for the necessary work; and WHEREAS, it.!Is not certain that San Francisco is ready, willing and able to secure the financing necessary to carry out essential repairs and improvements to the regional water system, including critical seismic strengthening projects; and WHEREAS, residents of the 29 cities, districts, and- public utilities in the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda that depend on the water made available by the regional system have no right to vote in elections in San Francisco and are not represented on the commission that oversees operation of the regional system; and WHEREAS, there is no multi-county governmental agency authorized to assist in the financing of such essential repairs and improvements to the regiona! water system; and ~ are WHEREAS, SB 1870 would enable the local governments that dependent on the SF regional water system and are 020402 syn 0072146 responsible for water distribution in the three counties to voluntarily form .such an agency; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION !. The Council supports SB 1870 and urges prompt and favorable action on it by the~ Legislature and Governor. SECTION 2.The Council finds that the action taken hereunder does not constitute a project under the California Environmenta! Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: April I, 2002 AYES:BEECHAIM,BURCH,FREEMAN,KISHI~OTO,KLEINBERG,LYTLE, MORTON, MOSSAR, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City C!~ Cit~ Attorney tHE FOREGOING OUCUMENf iS CERTIFIED TO BE A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE. "1 ce~ify (or declare) under penaltyC!TY CLERK, of perjury that the foreooing is tree CITY OF PALO ALTO and correct." - APPROVED : Mayor Director Services trative ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO, 8136 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION ALLOWING THE FORMATION OF A REGIONAL WATER AGENCY, SPECIFICALLY SENAte>BILL 2058,THE BAY AREA WATER REGIONA~ WATER SUPPLY ~/~D CONSERVATION AGENCY ACT WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") provides water to 62,000 residents and 2,200 businesses providing jobs for 91,000 people; and it has purchased water for these customers from the City and County of San Francisco "SF") since 1939; and WHEREAS, the City depends on the regional water system operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC")f~r its water supply; and WHEREAS, the SFPUC-operated regional water system is subject to catastrophic damage in the event of an earthquake on the San Andreas, Calaveras or Hayward faults, exposing Bay Area communities, including San Francisco, to extended interruptions in water service; and WHEREAS, the SFPUC has delayed for several years approving a multi-billion dollar construction program to fix the regional water system and has not acted to obtafn financing to pay for the necessary,.work;-and / WHEREAS, it ’is not certain that San Francisco is ready, willing and able to secure the financing necessary to carry out essential repairs and improvement to the regional water system, including critical seismic strengthening projects; and WHEREAS, residents of the 29 cities, districts, and public utilities in the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda that depend on the water made available by the regional system have no right to vote in elections in San Francisco and are not represented on the commission that oversees operation of the regional system; and WHEREAS, there is no multi-county governmental agency authorized to assist in the financing of essential repairs and improvements to the regional water system (including seismic strengthening), to encourage water conservation ~and the use- o~- recycled water on a regional basis, or to plan for and acquire supplemental water supplies; and 020402 syn 0072147 ~EREAS, AB 2058 would enable the !ocal governments that are dependent on the SF regiona! water system and are responsible for water distribution in the three counties to voluntarily form such an agency; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION !. The .Council supports SB 2058 and urges prompt and favorable action on it by the Legislature and Governor. SECTION 2.The Council finds that the action taken hereunder does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: BEECHAM., BURCH, April !, 2002 FREEMAN,KISHIMOTO, MORTON, MOSSAR, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk KLEINBERG, LYTLE, APPROVED : Mayo: City Attorney THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS CERTIFIED TO A CORRECT COPY OF TMEOFIIGIN~L ON FILE. ~" "3 "! cer!m~’ (or dec are~ under penattyCITV CLER~of perjury t~at the f~regoing is trueC!,~" OF PALO ALTO and correct." ci ~irector Services 020402 svn 0072147 2 POLICY, REPORTS & RATES ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Dept of Wa’ter Resource~ Dept of waier Resources City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of,,palo,,,Alto city of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto ,City of Palo Alto City of ,palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto ......... D&orhanger Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines MQU/Contract MOU/Coni~act Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Policy Policy Policy P,ease ~se Watei car~fuii~::, city of P~lo Ali0 W~ier use Oidinance ’’" ! 1989 Usin~’"the Palo Alto Landscape Guidelines ....... ... " ’ i Mar-91 Graywater Guide Revised Gray’water Standards Cost Share Agreement witl~ SCVW~ for Waier Conservation P~ogr~msCost Sh~~ Agreemen! with SCVVVD’ for Water C0nservat!gn Programs Ordinance No. 4038 - Emergency Water Shortag~ Re.gs Ordinance No. 3960 - Water Use Restriction Ordinance No. 3884 (Amendment) - Potable Water Uses ........ Ordinance No. 3884 - Declaring a Water Use Shortage ...... Landscape Efficiency Standards Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Revised ~.oning Oidinance Update to PAMC for "Pediastian" & Tran~it Oriented Dgvelopment" ’ ........... Jan-95 Mar-97 Jun:05 Oct-02 Jun-91 ...May-90 Apr:90 Jun-89 Aug-02 2007 1 -Sep-06 City of Palo Aito ........ City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto C:ity.of Pal0..Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto ,City of Palo, Alto .City of palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto ,City of Palo Air0 City of Palo Alto !Policy iReport !Report :Report 2001 Annual Water Quality Report 2002 Annual Water Quality ReR..0rt ..... 2003 Annual Water Quality Report ..... 2004 Annual Water Quality Report 2005 Annual Water Quality Report . ........Priority Development Area Appl’icati~n. Approved by ABAG..!MTC ’ Cit~ Manager Report on CSA with SCVWD City Manager Report on CSA w.!.t.h SCVWD Staff Report - Water Use Status & Drought P.rogram ’ ’ 2006 Annual Water Quality Report iStaff Report - Approval of Contract for R~cyc.led Water Facility Pla~ . ..... iStaff Report - Approval to Apply.for SRF Loan-UV Disinfection System !Staff Report - Ordinance for additonal criteria: sustainable & green bldg i.... :Res01ution No. 8560: Adoption of the AhWahnee Principles Report RePort Rgport Report Rgport R~,port ..... Report ......... Report Re.port Resolution 29-Jun-05 Jan-05 ..Sep-02 Jan-91 2001 2002 2603 2~104 2005 2006 16~Apr-07 30-Jul-07~ 6-.Aug-07 Oct-05 CITY OF PALO ALTO BILL INSERTS ATTACHMENT E City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of ~!ty of City of City of City of City of City of City of :City of City of City of city of City of City of City of City of City of City of C!,ty of City of 3ity of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto PaloAIto ’" Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Pato Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Pato Alto Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bi! Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bi! ~Bil IBil :Bi! ~Bil Bit Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bil Bit Bil Bil Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Insert Free water diagn,osis ,for a healthy home & garden Summer Workshops Wate( Savings Tips HETs WWHCs Water,,,,Savings Tips " Summer Workshops ......... Water Heater Tips Clothes Washers Efficiency Rebates (CW) ..... Water Savings Tips Clothes Washer Rebates Clothes Washer Rebates ~~ter Efficient Garden Workshops Appli~nce Rebates Appliance Rebates L~ndscape’Workshops "’ Appliance Rebates ULFT Rebates I Landscape Tips Landscape & Irrigation Tips ULFT Info Landscape & Irrigation Woi, kshops " I[dgation & Landscape Tips Landscape Tips Landscape ,Work§hops ,,Irrigation & Landscape Tips Heating lnfoFFips Landscape Drought Tips Landscape Drought Tips ,,Conservation Services Water Saving Pool Practices ..... 1992 Water Qua,!,!ty Report Slow Leak Info Water Efficient Garde"n Workshops " ULFT lnfo ULFT Rebates Efficient Tree Watering Conservation Checklist Drought HardshiP Exemption Process Outdoor Watering for Summer Water Awareness Month Drought Workshops Water Update Water Use Ordinances Emergency Water Use Restrictions Make Every Drop Count May-07 May-07 May-06 March-06 August-05 May-05 February-05 October-03 ’ August-03 May-03 February-03 November-02Februa !-02 Septembg,r-01 April-00 March-00 August-99 March-99 March-99 March-98 February-97 February-96 May-96 April-95 March-95 June-95 I February:94 August-93 August-92 !July-g2 May-92 April-92 April-92 March-92 October-91 October-91 August-91, Ju!y-91 July-91 May-91 May-91 March-91 February-91 June-90 August-90 May-88 MARKETING MATERIAL ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD Green Business of SCC SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD Garden Soft / SCVWD Garden Soft / BAWSCA Bay Area Water Agencies SCVWD SCVWD / City of Pato Alto SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD BAWSCA SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD / City of Palo Alto SCVWD ’SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD Our Water Our World Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure Brochure CD CD Cling Sticker Door Hanger Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer ..... Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Efficiency Programs for Residents Efficiency Programs for Businesses Energy and Water Conservation Tips for Renters Multi family WWHC Single family WWHC Weather-Based Irrigation controller program Get WET Get green - WET program Water Conservation for your Home (English, Spanish, and Vietnamise) Water Conservation for you Business (English, Spanish, and Vietnamise) Mobile Lab California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS.) Make a Difference - Be a Green Business Lawn Watering - As simple as... The South Bay Water Challenge Irrigation Technical Assistance Program (IT~.p) Clean Up on the Savings! Clothes Washer Rebates Up to $175 Water-Wise Gardening for Santa Clara County Water-Wise Gardening in the Bay Area Residential Washing Machine Rebate program When it rains it doesn’t always pour... Save Money With Every Flush (Commercial HET postcard) !Get up to $400 for Replacing.Old Commercial Washing Machines ’High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebate Commercial CW Rebates Water Wise Landscape Workshop Water Efficient Landscape Rebate Program Landscape Professionals Workshop (English) Landscape Professionals Workshop (Spanish) ... Landscape Professionals Workshop (English...) Pre Rinse Spray Valve Program Dedicated Landscape Meter Program Flyer & Letter ET Irrigation Program Pilot ET Irrigation Program ITAP Program ITAP Program Commercial HET Installation Program Tips for a healthy beautiful lawn 2007 2006 1993 2004 2007 2OO7 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2005 Jan-07 Jan-05 20O5 2004 Mar-05 2004 2006 2001 CUWCC City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto !City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer IFlyer Flyer I Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Water Tips Brochure (Water Use It Wisely) Water Conservation lnfo Lawn Watering Guide Suppliers List of Water Saving Devices Water Saving Strategies for Toilets , Drip Irrigation Facts About Sprinklers Water Conservation in the Home Grey Water and Its Uses Water Efficient Lawn Care Water Saving Landscape Practices Palo Alto Water Shortage Update Flyer Help Your Landscape Survive the Drought Managing Turf During Drought Managing Lawns on Heavy Soils Sprinkler Systems Irrigation Controllers 2002 Jul-82 Aug-87 Jun-88 Apt-89 Mar-89 Aug-88 Jul-88 Aug-88 Jul-88 Jul-88 1988 May-8:~ Apr-89 Apr-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto EBMUD City of SJ Environmental Ser City of Palo Alto Build It Green City of Pato Alto Municipal W.D. of Orange City of Palo Alto SCVWD CUWCC Dept of Water Resources EBMUD Consumer Reports Consumer Reports Consumer Reports Bay Nature Magazine Bay Nature Magazine Bay-Friendly Landscaping Sunset Publishing Corp. Sunset Publishing Corp. Sunset Publishing Corp. Sunset Publishing Corp. SCVWD SCVWD Fred Fortune Water Education Foundation City of Palo Alto SCVVVD City of Palo Alto Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Flyer Guidebook Guidebook Guidebook Guidebook Guidebook Guidelines Handbook Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Literature Drought Tolerant Plants in Landscapes Nurseries/Garden Centers Landscape Architects Commercialllndustrial Water Conservation Guide Introduction to Xeroscape Water-Wise Fix-it Guide All About Your Utilities New Home Construction 1 Green Building Guidelines Installing Irrigation Water Meters Landscape Management for Water Savings High Pressure / Low Flow Showerhead Water-wise gardens and nurseries Practical Plumbing Handbook (English and Spanish) Irrigation Controllers for the Homeowner Drip Irrigation Guidelines Water Saving Devices (Low-Flow Showerheads and Toilets) Washers - Loads for less Washer & Dryer Update - A new spin Gardening for Wildlife with Native Plants Soil Matters A Bay-Friendly Guide to Mulch How to Water Your Garden Water-Wise Gardening for California Smart Energy and Water Use in the West Drought Survival Guide for Home and Garden Rules of Thumb for Water-Wise Gardening (1/07) Rules of Thumb for Water-Wise Gardening (3/01) Could your business use $50,000? California Water Facts FAQs and Facts About ULF TOILETS Discover Water CPA Duck Pond Receives a Sustainable Fresh Water Source Mar-89 Mar-89 Mar-89 Jun-88 ? 2007 2005 1999 1998 1989 1991 2006 2000 2001 1991 2002 2002 1998 1988 Jun-04 ADS & ARTICLES SCVWD SCVWD .C.!.ty of Paid Alto City of Pa.10 .Al!o ...... SCVWD PA we,e k,!,,y ...... PA Weekl PA Weekly City of ,,,pa!o ,Ali~ ............ city ,of PaiD Alto ........ !ty of Pa.!.0 Ait0 ... PA Business Tim~s Tribune " Chamber of Commerce PA weekly PA Weekly PA Weekl PA Week.!y .... .... RA Weekly .... .... pA WeeklyTimes Tribune "P~ Weekly PA Weekly A’d SCVWD / Green Business of SCC Ad SCVVVD / Green Business Of SCC Ad SCVWDSCVWD SCVWD SCVWD "Fred Fortune ]=red FortuneSCWVD SCVWD ’sCVWD scvwD ...... SCVWD SCVWD ,Ad .......w@ter wise House Call Program Ad Water Wise House..c.all Program Ad Urban Water Mangagement Pla..n update ........’ Ad Gardening Worksh..ops .... Ad High-Efficien£~/CW Rebate Ad "’ water C.gnservatio.n Tip~ (Drought) ......... .......Ad Appliance Rebates Ad .......Ap.pli~nce Rebates .. Ad ..........Keep.Up up the"good work.:...~very....drop..st!.!.! cou.nt~! Ad Paid Alto Water:....,. De!..!scious, Imported, Valuable Ad Water Ordinance ..... ~ci ’ "Every D.(op Still Counts ......... i......~d ....It all adds UP-.--please...d°n’t W~s’te~ drop ........ Ad we. need your help. to...reduce the flow! ......... Ad We n~ed your help to reduce the flow! Ad ....It all adds Up...:.please d~n’:iwaste a dr0’p .. ’ ......... Ad Save Water (sC.~D.) Ad PaiD Alto’s future..: is..in your hands .... Ad Wlqat’s Happened to the Water? Ad Join the Conservation Effort NOW! &d Th~ water ..shortage i~......getting s~rio.us...~o...§hould we .. Ad .......The water §hortage is g#tt!..ng seri0us..: .. so should we ... Make Ever,/ Drop Count! Start bei.ng.....green, save resources an.d ~oney! .’.’.’.’ .... Start being green, save resources and money! ............ Ad $350 washer rebat.e (CI!, washe~r~bate program) Ad ..........Get up to $,400 for Re...placingYour .01d Wa§.hi.ng Machines &d Ge..! u.~ to. $..350 for Replacing...Yo.ur Old Washing Mac.hines Ad Water Efficient Land~ca.pe.. Workshop Series (3/05) Ad ....Use a shutoff nozzle to sa~.e water. (English & Spanish) , , Ad Set your sprinkler ti"mers to save water(English & Spanish) .... Ad We See Water...Water Wise’House Cal! Program Ad ’..... Are you .wa.~ti..pgwater Without knowing i!-..Hqus..e Call " Ad Be Water Wise - wat~rWise House Call ~kd Buy a..high:.~ff!.ci~.n~y .clo.thes washer and get.....~ $100-$i’50 rebate Ad Save Water & Win! Schedule a FREE Water-Wise House Call Ad Ar~"y~u wasting.water withoui knowing it - House Call .... Ad Are you Water-Wise? Beautify While YOu .Sa.ve...Water .Ad "’Easy .W~ys to Save Water in .your "Yard ............ Ad Are you wasting water without kno~in.g, it? Ad Water-wise up and eater to win a $250 gift certificate! ......,Ad .......Tales from the Grid (3 different ads with the same. mes~.age)Ad May is Water Awaren.~ss Month in California.Shutoff nozzle SCVVVD SCVWD ........ ..S~j Mercury News..... SCVWD ~CVWD .............. SCVWD PA Weekly ..... SJ Mercury News SJ Mercury News .PA Weekly SJ Mercury News PA We.ek.!.y PA Weekly PA Weekly ......... SJ Mercury News ........... SJ Mercury News Ad Ad Insert Article Article Article A’rticle Article Article Article Article Article Regd...#ny good meters lately? Water Update Water rationing becomes ieality a.A. drought plan: Ha.!ve outside water use Strict rationiong plan effect.!.ye i~med.!ately Catch ’em in the act of wat.gring Water, water,....nowhere .... Without city wells, rationing is a .SU.[~ bet P-A- readies water-saving plan ....... Voluntary water saving U.[g.gd ............... Still Thirsty Jun-07 Jun-07 Nov-05"Ma ’iO Feb-05 ....... 1 89 N’0v-99 Nov-9919- p -89 18-Jun-89 ............ 18-A,~g-88 Oct-88 .............. 5-Oct’-~8 Sep-87 1-Jui’87 14-Sep-88 31.-Aug-88 ..... 3.-Aug,88 Aug:88 13-Jul-88 5-Jut-88 29-Jun~88 22-Jui~87 2002 2006 2002 2003 25-Jul-03 2001 2001 1990 Mayi90_ .1. 5-May:..~O... ’, 16TMay:,90,,, 18-May-9Q. .... 23-May-g0 , , 18-Apr-90 24-Mar-90 ..... 25"Jan-90 15-May-89 SJ Mercury News PA Weekly PA Weekly PA Weekly PA Weekly SJ Mercury News PA Weekly PA Weekly Chamber of Commerce Tri-County Apartment Association City of Palo Alto Article Article Article &rticle Article Article Article Article Article Article City Memo P.A. works out rationing plan Palo Alto may turn to mandatory rationing in third drought year Water cuts hinge on Hetch Hetchy Hardships for city water utility could mean higher customer rates For Pato Alto, the drought is over Water supply outlook brightens in Palo Alto Palo Alto rationing adopted for use if conservtion declines Water coodindator plans for the worst City asks residents, businesses to save to avoid shortage IThe Conservation Solution to High Water and Energy Bills Water Conservation Savings 10-Mar-89 1989 1989 19-Jut-89 17-May-89 17-May-89 17-Aug-88 22-Jul-87 Sept87 Sep-05 Jul-07 iCity of Palo Alto .City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City Memo City Memo Newsletter Newsletter Newsletter Website Website Website Website Website WELRP & ISHRP Program Outdoor Water Conservation Commercial Connection - ULFT Program Marjor Accounts Update - Drought lnfo Marjor Accounts Update - Drought Info Water Conservation Programs - Residential Water Conservation Programs - Businesses Landscape Efficiency Standards Urban Water Management Plan Update Water Conservation Programs Jul-07 Jul-05 Jan-92 Mar-91 May-90 Aug-07 Aug-07 Aug-07 Nov-05 Aug-05 SCHOOL EDUCATION ATTACHMENT H Water Education Foundation AWWA SCVWD Channing Bete C’~.’ De, pt of Water Resources City of Palo Alto ............ Cib/of Palo Alto SFPUC AWWA City of Palo Alto Brochure Wordbook iFlyer ........ Workbook Workbook ’" ’F yer.. Newsletter .... Workbook Workbook Grant Water Facts Brochure The Story Of Drinking Water Workbook Middle School Flood Lesson Handout Let’s Learn About S.av!..ng W~te~ Ir~side 8, 0ut.Workbo0k ......... Water Is Your Best Friend Workbook Poster Contest for 4th Graders Res0urces & Watei Edu~ati0n Newtetter The Officia!..Captain Hydro Water Conservation Wo"rkbook "’ water Magic:.Water Activities for Studen.ts & Teach..ers K-3 $50,000/year to Palo Alto Unified Schoo! District.for.efficiency ~ducaiion 1991 1990 1999 i990 1990 4’982 1991 4’"999 CO 0 0 C~ 0r,0o’1 0 o Water Supply Purchases (Acre-Feet per Year) SPECIAL DROUGHT MATERIALS ATTACHMENT City of Palo Alto .... City of Polo Alto City of Palo Alto Cib./of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Notice Guidelines Postcard Postcard Postcard Postcard Po~icard Postcard Postcard Postcard Postcard Po,stcaid I Postcard Official Notiq.# o[....Dro~ght Response Plan !Drought ResPon#e Plan and Residential Water UseGuide .......... water-Saving Ideas Request Form . . Water Conservation Tips .... Please Use Water Carefully Ordinances of the Polo Alto Municipal Code (W~ter Use p, estrictio.ns) .... Baseline Consumption Allowance (BCA) Survey Thank you for using water carefully .... Home Water Use Survey card Water Conservation Materials RequestFor.m ’. ....... Request for Water Conservation Information Reminder: Urgent Meeting ’on Current Wate.r Sh~"rtage ........ An Important. Reminder... (Gush Buster Program) 18-May-90 1991 Jun-88 1988 1991City of P,#lo Alto City,,of Palo Alto ,City of Palo Alto City,,of Palo Alto City of Polo Alto City of Polo Alto City of Polo Alto City of Polo Alto City of Palo Alto City,,,0f Polo Alto !City Of Polo Alto Notice Postcard Form Notice Notice Notice Letter ...Flyer Form Sticker Notice of Drought Condition An Important Remind~... (Gush Buste~ Pr0gram) Residential Water Audit Form Notice of Vioiati0n of ~at~r’ Use Regulations Water Supply Situation Palo Alto’s Water Supply 1.. Background and"1988 Status Program letter to hotels/motets/inns Water Awareness Fair - Dancing for the Rain Request for Hardship.Exemption !Make Ever~ Drop..o~...!qt! ........ ....... May:90 Aug-88 Jul-91 1-May-9~ Jun-88 oct-90’ 29-Nov-90 May-90 ATTACHMENT K Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1 Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: Effective Date: July 1, 1976 July 1, 1977 March 6, 1978 July 1, 1979 July 1, 1981 August 1, 1983 July 1, 1985 July 1, 1986 August 1,1986 July 11, 1988 July 1 1989 July 1 1990 July 1 1991 July 1 1992 July 1 1993 July 1 1994 July 1 1995 July 1 1996 July 1 1999 July 1 2000 July 1 2002 July 1 2003 July 1 2004 July 1 2006