Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 141-10 (2)TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES AND PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FEBRUARY 8, 2010 CMR: 141:10 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Approval of the Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve the Water Supply Assessment (Attachment A) for the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. 2. Direct Staff to incorporate the Water Supply Assessment into the EIR for further environmental analysis of the Project's water impacts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislation enacted in 2002 requires water suppliers to assess whether there is adequate water supply to serve certain large scale projects. This analysis, called a Water Supply Assessment (WSA), is designed to help local governments determine whether to approve such projects. The proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (Stanford Project) is the first project in the City to require a WSA. The Stanford Project will add approximately 0.18 million gallons per day (mgd) of water demand to the City, increasing the City's projected 2030 demands from 13.00 mgd to 13.18 mgd, an increase of approximately 1.4 percent. The WSA concludes that, in normal water years, there are adequate supplies for existing and projected demand, including the Stanford Project. In dry years, the City's water supplies are insufficient for existing and future water demands even without the Stanford Project. The Stanford Project would further increase this deficiency. The City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) addresses these water supply deficiencies by implementing measures to reduce citywide water usage, although some additional measures would be required citywide to achieve the increase in reductions required due to the Stanford Project. The WSA therefore finds it has sufficient water available to serve the Stanford Project in addition to its existing and planned customers through the current water management planning horizon of 2030 CMR: 141:10 Page 1 of 8 since the increased conservation required in water shortages is small. Once approved, this WSA must be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Stanford Project. The EIR will further evaluate the Project's environmental impacts on water supply and propose additional mitigation measures if necessary, BACKGROUND The Law Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), which went into effect in January 2002, requires public water agencies to prepare a WSA to assess the sufficiency of water supplies for certain proposed development projects, in order to assist local governments in deciding whether to approve the projects. The WSA must describe whether the public water agency's "total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years" for a 20 -year period will meet the projected water demand for the proposed project. This analysis must take into account the agency's existing and planned future uses. If the WSA determines there are insufficient water supplies, the WSA must include plans for acquiring additional water supplies. If the water supplies will be provided by a local government (i.e., the City), the local government must prepare the WSA. The City must include the WSA in the EIR for the proposed development project and consider the WSA when deciding whether to approve the project. The intent of this law is to improve the linkage between available water supplies and local land use decisions. SB 610 is designed to build on the information typically contained in an UWMP and requires that a 20 year planning horizon be examined. As required by state law, Palo Alto's City Council has adopted an UWMP every five years starting in 1985. The City's most current UWMP is the 2005 UWMP adopted by Council in December 2005 [CMR 455:05]. The WSA prepared for the Stanford Project incorporates the information from the 2005 UWMP. The Project A WSA must be prepared for specified large projects, including any commercial building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 feet of floor space. The Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project clearly falls under this definition. The City is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Stanford Project. This WSA provides information on water supply availability, for use in the CEQA analysis. The fundamental question posed by these laws is whether available water supplies are sufficient to serve the demand generated by a project, as well as the public water system's existing and planned future uses over the next 20 years under a range of hydrologic conditions. In late April 2009, Stanford withdrew the application for the Shopping Center Expansion Project requiring a substantive revision of the WSA and resulting delay in the environmental review process. Prior Council Action On April 6, 2009, Council held a public hearing to consider approval of the Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and CMR: 141:10 Page 2 of 8 Replacement Project and the Simon Properties Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project [CMR: 141:09]. At that meeting, the City Council requested staff to examine alternate metrics for water demand estimates and a quantification of demand reduction from water conservation measures to demonstrate that the projects would result, in the minimum practicable increase in demand (see Attachment D for minutes of the Council meeting). Staff has prepared a comparison of water use on a square footage metric (Attachment B). The table indicates that although the floor area of the hospital will be increasing by 57% and the water demand is increasing by 49%, the water use "per square foot" is expected to decrease by 5%. The decrease results from the increased clinic space in the new facility, and the use of lower unit water demand (per square foot) factors for the clinic space as compared to the hospital space. These factors are detailed in Stanford's April 28, 2009 letter. (Attachment C.) In addition to the water use analysis on a square foot basis provided in Attachment B, staff also evaluated water use on a "per bed" basis. Staff has calculated that total water demand of the completed Project on a "per bed" basis would increase by 11% over the existing demand. The increase is due to expanded hospital floor space per bed, and to the additional water use resulting from expansion of clinics and other non -hospital building space. Staff has concluded that a "per bed" analysis is not representative of the entire project as major water demand drivers, such as kitchen, surgical, clinic and teaching functions are not captured in this metric. In addition, this metric does not differentiate between in -patient and out -patient facilities, thus over -estimating in- patient water use and discounting out -patient water use. Stanford has also provided a summary of the water conservation measures that would be included with the hospital development. (Attachment C.) These conservation measures were not factored into the WSA. The table in Attachment B includes a column that estimates the possible water demand reductions as described by the applicant in their April 28, 2009 letter. Conservation efforts would lower the total water demand increase from 49% to 27%. The City's environmental consultant, PBS&J, has performed a qualitative review of the conservation measures and water saving estimates. The consultant found that Stanford University Medical Center is making an aggressive commitment to water conservation. It is therefore plausible that SUMC could realize the estimated reductions as compared to an older hospital. Water Supply The City purchases all of its potable water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). During average years, the SFPUC supplies are expected to be sufficient to serve the projected water demands of its service area, including Palo Alto. In October 2008, the SFPUC adopted a Water System Improvement Program that caps water deliveries from the SFPUC watersheds at least until 2018. Palo Alto is working with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), the agency that represents all water supply agencies that purchase water from the SFPUC, to ensure that water efficiency programs and local supplies are developed so that water supplies are adequate during normal years. However, during dry years, SFPUC supplies may be reduced systemwide by up to 20 percent. CMR: 141:10 Page 3 of 8 One component of the City's 2005 UWMP is the Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan that addresses possible dry -year reductions in supply from SFPUC. The Contingency Plan includes four stages, to be implemented progressively as needed. • Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. • In Stage II (10% to 20%), there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented. • Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers' meters. • Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. In 2000, the SFPUC and each of the BAWSCA agencies, including Palo Alto, adopted the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP), which describes how available water will be divided between San Francisco and the BAWSCA agencies and between the BAWSCA agencies during a water supply shortage. The IWSAP expired when the new Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco went into effect on July 1, 2009. The new Water Supply Agreement contains a method to split water between San Francisco and the BAWSCA agencies, but at this time there is no methodology to share water between the BAWSCA agencies. BAWSCA is working with its member agencies to develop a new methodology and expects to have one in place by the middle of 2010. The new methodology could be very similar to the expired IWSAP, however it could differ in ways that are detrimental to Palo Alto such that Palo Alto receives less water in water shortage situations. The WSA for the Stanford Projects assumes that the IWSAP formula will continue. Based on the IWSAP formula and on Palo Alto's projected water supply needs, in the event of single dry year when there is a 10% systemwide shortage, Palo Alto's water supplies would be cut approximately 7%. In the second and third year of a multi -year water shortage when there is a 20% systemwide shortage, Palo Alto's water supplies would be cut approximately 19%. Palo Alto has ongoing water conservation programs that encourage efficient use of water even in normal years when supplies are sufficient to meet demand. Palo Alto residential water per capital is high relative to other BAWSCA agencies so additional efficiency improvements, particularly in outdoor use, are possible. DISCUSSION The City has prepared the attached WSA report to evaluate and document its ability to provide a reliable water supply for the proposed Stanford Project. The report complies with provisions of the California Water Code and Public Resources Code enacted by SB 610 and, upon Council CMR: 141:10 Page 4 of 8 approval, will be attached to and made a part of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Table 3-6 from the WSA is reproduced below. It shows the City's projected demands through 2030 incorporating the City's planned water conservation measures outlined in the 2005 UWMP with and without the Stanford Project. Table 3-6: Demand Projection with Planned Water Conservation Measures (mgd) Total D; Demand Without SU Demand Reduction" Total Crir Domend with Conservation SUMC Project Demandb TWA City' Demand with SUMC Project , 13.33 0.00 13.42 0.02 0.07 13.07 1.3.E 13.56 13.57 -0.56 -0.50 13.00 12.08 0.12 0:18 13.12 13.16 a. City diernar i cm Table 9-4 a nd includes ur ac oLrited for water and does not Include oransematesn estimates. b. IndMdual acena►lo demand from Tatie 3.9. c. eased on cot at Pale Alto UtIllkaa 3335 Urban Weber Managament Plan. p. 9e. Sumac ROW, 3)t77, &mai pedtramCityofPainMb Utilbas 2Ot 5 Urban WaterMangerrrsrt Plan. The table shows that after full implementation of the project, the additional water needs total 0.18 million gallons per day (mgd), increasing the City's projected 2030 demands from 13.00 mgd to 13.18 mgd, an increase of approximately 1.4 percent. One of the tools available to the City in the event of a dry year leading to a water supply shortage is the use of local groundwater as a supplemental supply to the supplies available from the SFPUC. Feasibility studies for the use of groundwater indicate that the sustainable extraction rate for this source is up to 1.34 mgd for a single year or 0.45 mgd for consecutive years. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage Capital Improvement Project that is underway includes the rehabilitation of the City's existing groundwater wells and the drilling of new groundwater wells. When this project is complete, groundwater will be available for use in emergencies. Any use of groundwater as a supplemental supply in years of water shortages would require Council approval. Table 4-1 from the WSA, reproduced below, indicates that dry year demand reductions are required with or without the Stanford Project by 2030. Key results from the data provided in the table and in Appendix B of the WSA are: • In a single dry year or the first year of a series of dry years: o Without the project, demand reductions of 6.8% are required (supply of 12.11 mgd divided by demand of 13 mgd = 0.932). o With the project, demand reductions of 7.7% are required in a single dry year or the first year of a series of dry years (supply of 12.17 mgd divided by demand of 13.18 mgd = 0.923). • In the second and third year of a multi -year dry period: o Without the project, demand reductions of 18.7% are required if no groundwater is used (supply of 10.57 mgd divided by demand of 13 mgd = 0.813) and demand reductions of CMR: 141:10 Page 5 of 8 15.2 % are required if groundwater is used as a supplemental supply (supply of 11.02 mgd divided by demand of 13 mgd = 0.848). o With the project, demand reductions of 19.5% are required if no groundwater is used (supply of 10.61 mgd divided by demand of 13.18 mgd = 0.805) and demand reductions of 16.1 % are required if groundwater is used as a supplemental supply (supply of 11.06 mgd divided by demand of 13.18 mgd = 0.839). Table 4"1: Supply -Demand Balance with Cary -Year [?emend Reductions C a 1 Yar +r af° Yearn i ry Y re Year 1, Year 2 Y3 rngd 90 _.. mitd TO. 3FPUCProject edAllocation 13.18 140% 12.17 €72% 12,17 10.61 81% 10,81 81% Emergency Grc.urr mater 0.03 0,00 0.00 0;45 0.45 Total Available Supptt gn1 13.18 12.17 . , 12.17 11.06 11,03 Pak?Alto Noma! Demand' 13.00 13.00 131.E 13.00 13.00 SUt«iC Pr De4nand 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0,18 PatoAlt Nrrlmai Demarrlve.3UMG Prorjet 13.18 13.18 13,18 13 18 13.18 Dry Year Demand Redactions 0.0% 1CAC 1 20% 20% Palo Alb . Reamed Demand 13.18 11.86 11.88 10 54 10.6,4 Remaining Su pplgr Available 0,00 0.0% 0.31 2.6% 0.31 2,6% 0.52 4.9% 0.552 4;0% Notes: a. htdrilEi Mr SFPUC Pmoded Atiocahan set: equal to (needy a7 Palo Alto's SAA. In a normal year, SFPUC la ate to supply up to the maximum SAA for all wholesale customers ;this assumes Meetly c 1 Hayward and others arttII the ability to grown beyond their X40. will remain vllIrin lher cured SA through 2Ct1D. SFPUC 141II not dearer inc1 B wafer than needed topmost demands. b. [try year reductions based cn PPI..' 2005 Urban Wafer Management Plan, Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocallon Plans. C Iulations Mated ba ills analysts are provided in Appendix A. c. Palo AHD demand baled on Table 348; inciwdea demand tilde management and A39 Ind system toss par City of Palo Alto Uhliass 2005 Urban Water Management Plan pa 36. This does riot relied actual rnacyccunted nor water. d. Average annual demand. eased on linear increase h demand from mirt2009to 2015. Demand calculated InTatde3-3. e. Dry -Year demand reductions are a =Men 10 ongllflp conseraatrrn measures. znrrce: PBS&,.I, 200?, developed rrom City a Palo Alto Unities 2005 Urban Wider Management Plan and SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The Stanford Project does increase the water demand reductions required of the community in dry years. However, the increased reductions are small. Under existing and projected future conditions, with implementation of the Stanford Project, the City anticipates that it will need to implement Stage I reductions during a single dry -year shortage event, and Stage II reductions during subsequent years of a multiple -dry -year shortage event. These are the same Contingency Plan implementation stages the City would need to implement without the project in place. In summary, regarding the availability of water supplies to serve the Stanford Project, the WSA concludes the following: 1. In years of average and above -average water supply, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of normal -year demands, inclusive of the project. 2. In dry -year and multiple -dry -year events, when SFPUC imposes reductions in its normal supply to the City, the City has in place a Water Shortage Contingency Plan sufficient to maintain a balance of supplies and demands. With the project in place, the City projects the need to implement Stage I reductions during a single dry -year shortage event, and Stage II reductions during subsequent years of a multiple -dry -year shortage event. These are the same Contingency Plan implementation stages the City would need to implement without the project in place. 3. The City therefore finds it has sufficient water available to serve the project in addition to its existing and planned customers. Further, the City finds that this water availability CMR: 141:10 Page 6 of 8 extends through its current water management planning horizon of 2030, and that it extends to average year, dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. Stanford University Medical Center Conservation Measures While the WSA concludes that there is sufficient water supply even in dry years, Stanford University Medical Center has incorporated an aggressive conservation program into its project (see Attachment C). This conservation program has not been incorporated into the water demand projections and thus will likely result in even further water savings. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed the Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project and the Simon Properties Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project at its March 4, 2009 meeting. Commissioners asked how successful the City's water customers have been in past water shortages. Staff noted that the City achieved all targets for water use reductions in the 1988 to 1992 drought and that future calls for reductions are expected to be lower than what was achieved in the past. Commissioners also commended Stanford on the aggressive conservation measures proposed for the project and for existing buildings in the Stanford Research Park. The UAC voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the Water Supply Assessment for the Stanford Projects. The draft notes from the UAC's meeting are included as Attachment E. RESOURCE IMPACT The Stanford Project is projected to result in additional water use and, therefore, additional water supply costs, for the City. However, those costs would be recovered from water ratepayers, including the Stanford Project. In a water shortage situation, staff may seek budget increases to implement the measures identified in the UWMP to effect required water demand reductions. These costs would also be recovered from water ratepayers. The Stanford Project will not appreciably impact the costs of implementing the programs in the City. The City would incur costs to hook up the Stanford Project to the existing City water distribution system, but these development -related fees are paid by the applicant. If there were any additional costs to upgrade the City's water distribution systems as a result of the Stanford Project, those costs would also be paid by the applicant. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City's water supplies are expected to be sufficient for the Stanford Project in normal years, but in times of water shortage, the City will be required to implement water conservation measures to balance supplies and demands with or without the Stanford Project. These measures would be consistent with the Council -approved UWMP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As stated above, the City is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Stanford Project. This WSA provides information on water supply availability, for use in the CEQA analysis. Upon Council CMR: 141:10 Page7of8 approval, the WSA will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. Approval of the WSA does not constitute approval of the EIR or the project. ATTACHMENTS A. Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project and Simon -Properties Shopping Center Expansion B. Table Summarizing Water Demand and Conservation Measures C. April 28, 2009 letter from Stanford University Re: Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center D. Final Excerpted Minutes from the April 6, 2009 City Council meeting E. Final Excerpted Notes from the March 4, 2009 UAC Meeting PREPARED BY: M STEVEN TURNER, Advance Planning Manager E RATCHYE, Utilities Assistant Director DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 14 ALERIE O. FONG irector of Utilities ✓�Y CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Plannin_ & Community Environment JAME KE ` NE City Manager CMR: 141:10 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A The City of Palo Alto FINAL Water Supply Assessment for the proposed: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project August 2009 Prepared by: 1200 2nd Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916.325.4800 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Description 1-1 1.2 Climate 1-3 1.3 Water Supply Planning 1-3 1.3.1 Water Supply Assessment 1-3 2.0 WATER SUPPLY 2-1 2.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2-1 2.1.1 City Water Contracts and Agreements with SFPUC 2-2 2.1.1 SFPUC Supply Notes 2-5 2.1.2 Effect of Climate Change on SFPUC Supply Availability 2-9 2.2 Recycled Water (Regional Water Quality Control Plant) 2-10 2.3 Groundwater 2-11 3.0 WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS 3-1 3.1 Historical System Demand 3-1 3.2 Water Demand of the SUMC Project 3-1 3.3 System Demand Forecasts 3-3 3.4 Water Conservation Best Management Practices 3-5 3.5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3-6 3.6 Stanford University Water Conservation 3-7 4.0 SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 4-1 4.1 Supply and Demand Comparison 4-1 5.0 REFERENCES 5-1 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project LIST OF TABLES Table of Contents Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 2-1: Supply Sources and System -Wide Reductions 2-1 Table 2-2: Contracts/Agreements and Allocations 2-4 Table 2-3: SFPUC Allocations to Palo Alto 2005 — 2030 in Normal, Dry and Multiple Dry Years 2-7 Table 2-4: Water Supply Options Outlined in the WSIP and Assumed to be Available 2-8 Table 2-5: Recycled Water Supply — Existing and Projected 2-11 Table 3-1: Historic Water Purchase and Sale Information (mgd) 3-1 Table 3-2: SUMO Project Demand — Existing, Net Increase, Total 3-2 Table 3-3: Net Increase for SUMC Project Demand 3-3 Table 3-4: Purchase Projections by Customer Sector 3-4 Table 3-5: Demand Projections by Scenario (mgd) 3-5 Table 3-6: Demand Projections with Planned Water Conservation Measures (mgd) 3-6 Table 4-1: Supply -Demand Balance with Dry -Year Demand Reductions 4-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Project Site Location 1-2 Figure 2-1: Regional Water Supply System 2-2 APPENDICES A Suburban Reduction Calculations B Supply Demand Comparison Tables (2005 — 2030) II August 24, 2009 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS The City of Palo Alto (City) has prepared this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report to evaluate and document its ability to provide a reliable water supply for the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project). The report complies with provisions of the California Water Code and Public Resources Code enacted by Senate Bill 610 of the 2001 legislative session, and will be attached to and made a part of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the SUMC Project. The City relies on purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) for almost all of its water supply. SFPUC projections indicate that during average years, it will be able to serve all of the normal water demands of its service area, including the City. However, SFPUC projections indicate that during dry years, its supply availability will be reduced by up to 20 percent. As explained in its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to address possible dry -year reductions in supply from SFPUC. The Contingency Plan includes four stages, to be implemented progressively as needed. The 2005 UWMP describes these stages as follows: • Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. • In Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented. • Stage II I (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers' meters. • Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. The SUMC Project will add approximately 0.18 million gallons per day (mgd) of average -day water demand to the City, increasing the City's projected 2030 demands from 13.00 mgd to 13.18 mgd, an increase of approximately 1.4 percent. Under existing and projected future conditions, with implementation of the SUMC Project, the City projects that it will need to implement Stage I reductions during a single dry -year shortage event, and Stage II reductions during subsequent years of a multiple -dry -year shortage event. These are the same Contingency Plan implementation stages the City would need to implement without the SUMC Project in place. Findings Regarding the availability of water supplies to serve the SUMC Project, the City finds as follows: 1. In years of average and above -average water supply, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of normal -year demands, inclusive of the SUMC Project. ES -1 August 24, 2009 2. In dry -year and multiple -dry -year events, when SFPUC imposes reductions in its normal supply to the City, the City has in place a Water Shortage Contingency Plan sufficient to maintain a balance of supplies and demands. With the SUMC Project in place, the City projects the need to implement Stage I reductions during a single dry -year shortage event, and Stage II reductions during subsequent years of a multiple -dry -year shortage event. These are the same Contingency Plan implementation stages the City would need to implement without the SUMC Project in place. 3. The City therefore finds it has sufficient water available to serve the SUMC Project in addition to its existing and planned customers. Further, the City finds that this water availability extends through its current water management planning horizon of 2030, and that it extends to average year, dry -year, and multiple -dry -year conditions. ES -2 August 24, 2009 O INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto (City, or Palo Alto) is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project). This water supply assessment (WSA) provides information on water supply availability, for use in the CEQA analysis. The requirements for such a WSA are described in the sections of the California Water Code and Public Resources Code amended by the enactment of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) in 2001. SB 610 provides a nexus between the regional land use planning process and the environmental review process. The core of these laws is an assessment of whether available water supplies are sufficient to serve the demand generated by a project, as well as the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses, over the next 20 years under a range of hydrologic conditions. This document is divided into six sections as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Water Supply 3. Demand Analysis 4. Supply Demand Comparison 1,1 Project Description The SUMC Project consists of replacement, expansion, and improvements to hospital, clinic/medical office, research/laboratory, and related SUMC facilities. The Stanford Hospitals and Clinics (SHC), Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), and the Stanford University School of Medicine (SoM) request a zoning amendment to create a new hospital zone(s), which would change and increase the development standards for properties within the Project boundaries at the Main SUMC Site and at the Hoover Pavilion Site, as shown in Figure 1-1. Floor area ratios and site coverage percentages are proposed to increase at both Sites. SHC, LPCH, and SoM are proposing improvements to their facilities that would be implemented in an approximately 15 -year period. In total, the SUMC Project would result in a net increase of approximately 1.3 million square feet at the Main SUMC Site and the Hoover Pavilion Site. 1-1 August 24, 2009 � "0ae MEN'L P le r o eV" c70 I© o : au °t10Po - Palo Alto Boundary (existing) i Annexation Project Area Boundary Ar NORDSTROM 0 400 800 Feet • , \`pAC1 Stanford Univerelty Land Use 8 Environmental Planning 01. flg1-4 annex_prop11x17.mxd, Punted: Oct. 14, 2008 Figure 1 -1 SUMC Project Location Revised: 5/2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 1.0 Introduction Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto 1.2 Climate The Palo Alto climate is temperate, with typical high temperatures ranging from 57°F to 78°F, and lows ranging from 38°F to 55°F, and an average annual temperature of 58°F. The warmest month of the year is typically July, and the coolest month of the year is typically December. Yearly rainfall averages 15.3 inches, with over 80 percent falling between November and March. Rainfall from May through September is relatively rare, usually less than an inch, and accounts for less than five percent of the yearly average.' 1.3 Water Supply Planning The statutes enacted by Senate Bill 610 went into effect on January 1, 2002. SB 610 amended portions of the Water Code, including Section 10631, which contains the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as adding Sections 10910, 10911, 10912, 10913, and 10915, which describe the required elements of a WSA. Senate Bill 610 is designed to build on the information that is typically contained in an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The amendments to Water Code Section 10631 were designed to make WSAs and UWMPs consistent. A key difference between the WSAs and UWMPs is that UWMPs are required to be revised every five years, in years ending with either zero or five, while WSAs are required as part of the environmental review process for each individually qualifying project. As a result, the 20 -year planning horizons for each type of document may cover slightly different planning periods than other WSAs or the current UWMP. Additionally, not all water providers who must prepare a WSA are required to prepare an UWMP. 1.3.1 Water Supply Assessment The water supply assessment process involves answering the following questions: • Is the project subject to CEQA? • Is it a project under Section 10912 (a)? • Is there a public water system? • Is there a current UWMP that accounts for the project demand? • Is groundwater a component of the supplies for the project? • Are there sufficient supplies available to serve the project over the next 20 years? 1.3.1.1. "Is the Project subject to CEQA?" SB 610 amended Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 to read: "Whenever a City or county determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, is subject to this division [i.e., CEQA], it shall comply with part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code." The City of Palo Alto has determined that the SUMC Project is subject to CEQA. The information contained in this assessment will be used to inform and support the 1 Western Regional Climate Center. Palo Alto Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 9/1/1953 — 6/30/2007. Accessed September 2007. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAIN.pl?ca6646. 1-3 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 1.0 Introduction Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project and will be appended thereto. 1.3.1.2. "Is It a Project under Section 10912 (a)?" Under Section 10912 (a), a "Project" is defined as meeting any of the following criteria: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (ft2) of floor space; 3) A commercial building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 ft2 of floor space; 4) A hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms; 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 ft2 of floor area; 6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of these elements; or 7) A project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. The SUMC Project is an institutional project that would create the equivalent demand of 500 residential units, and therefore meets the requirements of a "Project" under item 7 above. 1.3.1.3. "Is there a Public Water System?" Section 10912 (c) of the California Water Code states: "[A] public water system means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3,000 or more service connections." City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the public water system that serves the City of Palo Alto and the SUMC Sites, which includes the Main SUMC Site and the Hoover Pavilion Site. CPAU served an annual average of 19,365 customers in 2004: of that, single family residences accounted for 78 percent of the customers, 10 percent were multiple family residences, commercial users made up nine percent, two percent was used for city facilities, one percent was used for industrial uses, and less than one percent was for public facilities. CPAU's service area is coincident with the City's jurisdictional boundary. 1.3.1.4. "Is there a current UWMP that accounts for the Project demand?" The Water Code requires that all public water systems providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet annually (AFY), must prepare an UWMP, and the plan must be updated at least every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero. Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) states: "If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g) [i.e., the WSA]." The City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 UWMP is currently available as a final report. 1-4 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 1.0 Introduction Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto The projected demand of the SUMC Sites is higher than the existing demand of the SUMC Sites. Therefore, this WSA considers the net increase in demand from the SUMC Project as new demand in excess of the City's existing and planned demands, and not accounted for in the City's 2005 UWMP. 1.3.1.5. "Is groundwater a component of the supplies for the Project?" This section addresses the requirements of Water Code Section 10910 (f), paragraphs 1 through 5, which apply if groundwater is a source of supply for a proposed project. The City in 2007 approved implementation of its proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage project (EWSS), which will include the development of local groundwater resources for use during water supply emergencies and also possibly during dry -year supply shortages. Additional information on the EWSS is presented in later sections of this WSA. 1.3.1.6. "Are there sufficient supplies to serve the Project over the next 20 years?" Water Code Section 10910 (c)(3) states: "...the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." As required, the next step is to prepare the actual assessment of the available water supplies, including the availability of these supplies in all water -year conditions over a 20 -year planning horizon, and an assessment of how these supplies relate to project -specific and cumulative demands over that same 20 -year period. Construction of the SUMC Project is expected to begin in approximately mid to late 2009; therefore, the 20 -year planning horizon dictates an analysis of water supply and demand through 2030. There are three primary areas addressed in a water supply assessment: • relevant water supply entitlements, water rights, and/or water contracts; • a description of the available water supplies; and • analysis of the demand placed on those supplies, both by the Project and on a cumulative basis. Water contracts are addressed in Section 2.0 and demand analysis is discussed in Section 3.0. 1-5 August 24, 2009 2.0 Water Supply This section reviews the City of Palo Alto's water supply entitlements, water rights and/or contracts. Water Code Section 10910 (d)(1) states: "The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights or water service contracts." 2.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission In 1934, San Francisco combined the Hetch Hetchy system and Spring Valley system to create the SFPUC system. The rights to local diversions were originally held by the Spring Valley Water Company, which was formed in 1862. The SFPUC is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. At present, the SFPUC System consists of three regional water supply and conveyance systems: the Hetch Hetchy, the Alameda, and the Peninsula system, which are all connected. Approximately 85 percent of the SFPUC water supply is served through deliveries from the Hetch Hetchy system. The balance of the SFPUC water supply (approximately 15 percent) comes from diversions on a variety of streams and stored in local reservoirs, as listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Supply Sources and System -Wide Reductions SFPUC Water Sources Normal Year Supply Source Approximate Multiple Dry -Year Supply Source (20%System-wide Reduction)° Origin/System mgd Approximate % of Supply mgd Approximate % of Supply Local Source Alameda Systems 39.75 15 14.84 7 Peninsula System° Imported Source Hetch Hetchy System 225.25 85 197.16 93 Total 265.00 100 212.00 100 Notes: a. Calaveras Reservoir, San Antonio Reservoir. b. Crystal Springs Reservoirs, San Andreas Reservoir, Pilarcitos Reservoir. c. A 20% system -wide reduction in multiple dry years is one objective of the Water System Improvement Plan. 2-1 August 24, 2009 OVAL WATER SYSTEM .. .. . ... .. . . . . . . . .. .. ._. . Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto On the San Francisco Peninsula, SFPUC utilizes Crystal Springs Reservoirs, San Andreas Reservoir, and Pilarcitos Reservoir to capture local watershed runoff. In the Alameda Creek watershed, the SFPUC constructed the Calaveras Reservoir and San Antonio Reservoir. In addition to capturing runoff, these facilities also provide storage for Hetch Hetchy diversions, and serve as an emergency water supply in the event of an interruption to Hetch Hetchy diversions. Figure 2-1 shows the SFPUC distribution system. Figure 2-1: Regional Water Supply System ETCH"FIETCHY SAN RANCISCO Spey,. 2.1.1 City Water Contracts and Agreements with SFPUC In 1984, the SFPUC executed the Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (MSA) with the 27 member agencies of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The BAWSCA members purchase approximately two-thirds of the water delivered by the SFPUC system and the balance is delivered to the City of San Francisco and its retail customers. The MSA primarily addresses the rate -making methodology used by SFPUC in setting wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers, in addition to addressing water supply and water shortages within the regional water system. The MSA provides 184 mgd as an annual average of "Supply Assurance" to all BAWSCA wholesale customers but is subject to reductions in the event of droughts, water shortage, earthquake, other acts of God or system maintenance and rehabilitation.2 Each member holds an individual water supply contract and the MSA governs the contract. The current twenty-five year contract ends in June 30, 2009. While preparation of this WSA was occurring, the SFPUC and the BAWSCA agencies are currently approving the new MSA twenty-five year contract. In fact, SFPUC has approved the new MSA and now each BAWSCA agency is in the process of approving its individual contract with SFPUC. Upon approval, this new MSA expires on June 30, 2034. 2 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2000. Water Supply Master Plan. p. 23. 2-2 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Section 7.01 of the 1984 MSA states "Supply Assurance continues in effect indefinitely, even after expiration of the MSA in 2009" and this is still the case in the new MSA. The condition is a reflection of case law, which holds that a municipal utility acts in a trust capacity with respect to water supplied to outside communities (Durant v. City of Beverly Hills, 39 Cal. App. 2d 133, 102 P.2d 759 (1940); and Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura, 42 Cal. 3d 1172 (1986)). Expiration of the Agreement does not mean that the SFPUC can terminate water supplied to the suburbs, whose entire communities have developed in reliance on these water supplies. Consequently, the Supply Assurance of up to 184 mgd shall survive the termination of the MSA and the Individual Contracts. Additional agreements and plans have been developed over the last twenty-five years and are summarized in Table 2-2. In the early 1990's, for planning and reliability purposes, BAWSCA negotiated, and then formally adopted in 1993, the Supply Assurance Allocation (SAA) that quantifies SFPUC's contract obligation to supply water to each of the members. The MSA does not guarantee that SFPUC will meet peak or hourly demands if the individual wholesaler's annual usage exceeds the SAA. The SAA helps the wholesaler plan for future demands and growth within their service area; for that reason, the SAA transcends the MSA expiration and continues indefinitely. Although Palo Alto's purchases from SFPUC since 2000 have not exceeded 13.79 mgd, the SAA for the City is 17.07 mgd. Some wholesale agencies have been guaranteed the ability to increase water demands at the potential expense of other communities. Hayward, for instance, does not have a limit on its SAA; their agreement stipulates that if Hayward purchases 22.1 mgd for three consecutive years, then SFPUC will recalculate the supply deliveries to the other BAWSCA agencies with an appropriate reduction. This has the potential in the future to affect the SAA for other communities, such as Palo Alto. It should be noted that Hayward's 2007-2008 supply purchase was 19.1 mgd. Due to Palo Alto's high SAA relative to the current purchase estimates, the City's required demand reduction in 2030 without implementation of the SUMO Project is just 4.1 percent for a 10 -percent system -wide reduction (critical dry year and the first multiple dry year). In the event of a second and third consecutive dry year, SFPUC supplies will be reduced by 20 percent from normal and each BAWSCA member will be required to reduce their demands accordingly. Palo Alto's allocation will be reduced to just 83 percent of normal, again due to its relatively high SAA relative to current purchase estimates. These reductions increase with the additional demand generated by the proposed SUMC Project as well as with any other increase in City demand. These reductions will also increase if enhanced supply and supply reliability are not gained through implementation of the Water System Improvement Program. Dry year reductions are based on the SFPUC system wide cutback of 10 and 20 percent. Supply reduction to individual agencies is a function of the SAA and historic water use. For the purpose of this analysis, normal year supply was set equal to the SAA because in normal and above -normal years, SFPUC has the ability to supply up to the Supply Assurance Allocation for each of the wholesale customers. However, the normal year demands (which reflect the normal year purchase request) were used in conjunction with the Tier One and Tier Two Water Shortage Allocation Plans to determine single dry and multiple dry year supplies (Appendix A). As demands increase, supply deficiencies also increase. If all BAWSCA members increase their demand in the future, the frequencies and magnitudes of cutbacks will also increase. 2-3 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 2-2: Contracts/Agreements and Allocations Document Contract Source/ Agreement Wholesalers Year Established Supply Quantity Expiration Terms of Plan/Contract/Agreement Settlement Agreement & Master Sales Contract (MSA) City and County of San Francisco All members 1984, 2009 184 mgd (annual avg.) 2034 Rate making methodology, wholesale rates for wholesale customers; addresses water supply and water shortages; doesn't guarantee SFPUC will peak daily or hourly demands when customer usage exceeds the SAA (See - Section Supply Reliability) Individual Water Supply Contract City and County of San Francisco Palo Alto 1984, 2009 -- 2034 Establishes terms and conditions to deliver water. Supply Assurance Allocation (SAA) City and County of San Francisco All members 1994 184 mgd (annual avg.) Continues indefinitely Quantified SFPUC's obligation to supply water to its individual wholesale customers (at members adopted the SAA; each wholesale customer has a specified quantity) Palo Alto 1994 17.07 mgd Continues indefinitely SFPUC can meet the demands of customers in years of average and above -average precipitation. Water Supply Master Plan SFPUC BAWSCA 2000 219 mgd due to recent operating restrictions on Calaveras Dam N/A Planning/guiding document - identified WSIP, CIP - cooperative effort b/w SFPUC and BAWSCA Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) SFPUC Regional Water System PEIR Certified October 30, 2008 Identifies water supply options to meet projected 2030 demand of 300 mgd N/A SFPUC capital improvement program to "firm -up" supplies and ensure supply reliability to meet customer purchase requests during both drought and non- drought years; 35 mgd demand increase expected by 2030; options include increased diversions and conservation, water recycling, and groundwater supply programs Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP) SFPUC BAWSCA 2000 Allocates water when system- wide reductions are less than or equal to 20% 2009 Two Tier Plan, 1) Allocates water between SFPUC and BAWSCA - based on level of supply shortage. 2) Allocates the collective wholesale customer share. Allocation is based on SAA, purchases during 3 years preceding adoption of the IWSAP, and rolling averages of purchases during 3 years immediately preceding onset of shortage Source: Developed by PBS&J, 2009 2-4 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto 2.1.1 SFPUC Supply Notes In terms of water supply reliability, the SFPUC's UWMP defines system "firm delivery capability": system supply reliability is expressed in terms of the system's ability to deliver water during historically experienced droughts."3 The 1987 to 1992 drought is the basis for this plan. The SFPUC plans its water deliveries assuming that the worst drought experience is likely to reoccur and then adds an additional period of limited water availability. An 8.5 year drought scenario is referred to as the "design drought" and is the basis for SFPUC water resource planning and modeling. In 2000, the SFPUC and BAWSCA prepared a Water Supply Master Plan, which is a water resource strategy for the SFPUC system. The Water Supply Master Plan identified a 239 mgd annual average delivery over a hydrologic period equivalent to that experienced from 1921 to 1999 with no deficiencies.4 Currently, under existing operations, the SFPUC system has a firm delivery capability of 219 mgd.' This reduction in firm delivery capacity is due to the 2001 Department of Safety of Dams operational restrictions on Calaveras Dam. According to the SFPUC's 2005 UWMP, there is sufficient water to meet all expected future demand in normal and above -normal hydrologic periods; however, the MSA allows the SFPUC to curtail deliveries during droughts, emergencies and scheduled maintenance activities.' SFPUC system operations are designed to allow sufficient water remaining in SFPUC reservoirs after six years of drought to provide some ability to continue delivering water, although at significantly reduced levels.' SFPUC is currently delivering approximately 265 mgd,' about 46 mgd above firm delivery capabilities; consequently, if SFPUC declares a shortage, demand reductions would be necessary. Supply reliability is expected to increase following Crystal Springs and Calaveras reservoir improvements to be completed by 2012.9 The SFPUC and the wholesale customers developed a long-term strategy to accommodate or rectify the potential of future water shortages throughout its wholesale and retail operations.1° The methodology for determining water supply reliability during drought years is the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP). In 2000, the SFPUC and BAWSCA members agreed upon and adopted the IWSAP. Under this plan, the SFPUC will determine the available water supply in drought years for shortages up to 20 percent on a system -wide basis. The IWSAP will remain in effect through June 2009. The IWSAP was necessary because the MSA's default formula discouraged the wholesale customers from reducing purchases during normal or above - normal years by applying demand management (conservation) programs or pursuing alternative supplies (groundwater, water recycling or transfers). 3 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2000. Water Supply Master Plan. p. 20. 4 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2000. Water Supply Master Plan. p. 22. 5 ESA and Orion. June 2007. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program. Prepared for City and County of San Francisco Planning Department. p. 5.1-12. 6 City of Palo Alto Utilities. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. p. 15. 7 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2000. Water Supply Master Plan. p. 20. 8 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 11. 9 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 27. 10 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 22. 2-5 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto The IWSAP has two components. The Tier One component of the IWSAP allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customer agencies collectively. The Tier Two component of the IWSAP allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each of the wholesale customers. This allocation is based on a formula that considers three factors, the first two of which are fixed: (1) each agency's SAA from SFPUC, with certain exceptions, and (2) each agency's purchases from SFPUC during the three years preceding adoption of the Plan. The third factor is the agency's rolling average of purchases of water from SFPUC during the three years immediately preceding the onset of shortage." The City of Palo Alto purchases the majority of its water from SFPUC. Palo Alto's SAA is 17.07 mgd; this is its share of the 184 mgd allocated for the BAWSCA members. Table 2-3 shows Palo Alto's purchase requests from SFPUC based on the demand projections provided in the City's UWMP, including unaccounted for water and demand side management measures. The Tier One and Tier Two allocation plans were used to calculate supply reductions in single and multiple dry year scenarios (Appendix A). Palo Alto planned to request 13.23 mgd from SFPUC to meet customer needs in 2005; actual deliveries in 2005 were 12.08 mgd. If 2005 was a critical dry year, mandatory reductions would have been necessary and supplies would be reduced to 12.03 mgd; over multiple dry years, the supply would be further reduced to 10.45 mgd. As illustrated in Table 2-3, the City projected its water consumption to remain almost constant through 2030. Although the City's projected supply requests do not increase through 2030, supplies requested by all BAWSCA members are projected to increase. The ability of SFPUC to meet these additional demands is based upon the assumption that supply contracts will be renewed and SFPUC is able to "firm up" local sources, expand recycled water programs, improve conjunctive groundwater uses or increase diversions from the Tuolumne River.12 These additional supplies, which are necessary to meet increased demands in the future, are outlined in the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). The WSIP is a multiple year, system -wide capital improvements program aimed at firming up the SFPUC's ability to meet its water service goals. Many aspects of the WSIP are rooted in the 2000 "Water Supply Master Plan" (WSMP) and various water system vulnerability studies. 11 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 81. 12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 22-29. 2-6 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 2-3: SFPUC Allocations to Palo Alto 2005 - 2030 in Normal, Dry and Multiple Dry Yearsa 2005 Normal Year One Critical Multiple Dry Year Event Purchase Request Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd % BAWSCA 177.9 100% 153.7 86.4% 153.7 86.4% 133.4 75.0% 133.4 75.0% Palo Alto 13.23 100% 12.02 90.9% 12.02 90.9% 10.44 79.0% 10.44 79.0% 2010 BAWSCA 184.0 100% 152.6 83.0% 152.6 83.0% 132.5 72.0% 132.5 72.0% Palo Alto 13.05 100% 12.13 92.9% 12.13 92.9% 10.58 81.1% 10.58 81.1% 2015 BAWSCA 184.0 100% 152.6 83.0% 152.6 83.0% 132.5 72.0% 132.5 72.0% Palo Alto 12.97 100% 12.10 93.3% 12.10 93.3% 10.56 81.4% 10.56 81.4% 2020 BAW SCA 184.0 100% 152.6 83.0% 152.6 83.0% 132.5 72.0% 132.5 72.0% Palo Alto 13.00 100% 12.11 93.1% 12.11 93.1% 10.57 81.3% 10.57 81.3% 2025 BAWSCA 184.0 100% 152.6 83.0% 152.6 83.0% 132.5 72.0% 132.5 72.0% Palo Alto 12.98 100% 12.11 93.1% 12.11 93.1% 10.57 81.3% 10.57 81.3% 2030 BAWSCA 184.0 100% 152.6 83.0% 152.6 83.0% 132.5 72.0% 132.5 72.0% Palo Alto 13.00 100% 12.11 93.1% 12.11 93.1% 10.57 81.3% 10.57 81.3% Notes: a. Based on Appendix A , which calculates dry year reductions for BAWSCA and the City of Palo Alto based on SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Assumes implementation of SFPUC's Water System Improvement Plan. Source: PBS&J 2007, as developed from 2005 SFPUC UWMP. Table 2-3 also shows that as the demands of the wholesale customers increase, the percent reduction in supply during dry years will increase. This is a function of the projected rate of demand increases exceeding the projected rate of supply increases. In other words, the disparity between supply and demand, even with implementation of the WSIP, increases through time. In comparison, the City of Palo Alto's percent reductions decrease; this is due to its relatively high Supply Assurance Allocation and the increasing supplies related to implementation of the WSIP. The SFPUC prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) under CEQA for the WSIP. The PEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed WSIP associated with thirty-seven regional seismic, water quality and other projects and identifies potential mitigations to those impacts.13 The PEIR also evaluates several alternatives to meet the SFPUC service area's projected increase in water demand between now and 2030. As the PEIR was being prepared it became apparent that a major political and environmentally charged issue would arise if the additional supplies were simply diverted off the Tuolumne River. Therefore, in March 2008, SFPUC presented a variation of the original WSIP that became the Phased WSIP Variant. The Phased WSIP Variant PEIR was certified in October 2008. The "Phased WSIP Variant," studied as part of this environmental analysis, establishes a mid- term planning milestone - the year 2018 - when the SFPUC would re-evaluate water demands 13 SFPUC Urges Adoption of Regional Water System Improvement Program Released October 31, 2008. 2-7 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto through 2030 in the context of then -current information, analysis and available water resources. Under this alternative, the SFPUC would construct and operate all proposed regional WSIP facility projects while limiting water delivery to an average annual 265 mgd from SFPUC's Sierra and Bay Area watersheds through 2018. The Phased WSIP Variant would not provide water supply to meet the projected 300 mgd average annual water delivery in 2030 as proposed under the original WSIP. Rather, the SFPUC would supply no more than an average annual 265 mgd from watersheds through 2018 and the SFPUC and wholesale customers would collectively develop 35 mgd (10 mgd in the City and County and an additional 10 mgd within the BAWSCA agencies — the remaining balance of 15 mgd comes from similar ongoing efforts within the BAWSCA agencies) in additional conservation, recycling and groundwater projects to meet demand in 2018 and out to 2030. Before 2018, the SFPUC would engage in a new planning process to re-evaluate water system demands and supply options, including conducting additional studies and environmental reviews necessary to address water supply needs after 2018. 14 Due to the important nature of the WSIP and based on projects identified in WSMP, SFPUC completed some capital improvement projects and engaged in the environmental review process of other qualifying improvement projects. As of preparation of this WSA, many projects are currently undergoing environmental review. Some of the water supply improvement options being investigated are: 1) SFPUC Regional Water System Conjunctive Use Program: South Westside Groundwater Basin. 2) SFPUC Regional Water System Water Transfers from the Tuolumne River Districts. 3) SFPUC Regional Water System Recovery of Storage: Restoration of Calaveras and Crystal Springs Reservoirs. The water supply options being investigated as part of the Phased WSIP Variant, listed above, are assumed to be available to the SFPUC Regional Water System in its 2005 UWMP. These additional supplies, as identified in the WSIP, are assumed to be available in the volumes and timeframes shown in Table 2-4 during dry years in order to meet the reliability goal of 80 percent set by SFPUC in January 2005. Table 2-4: Water Supply Options Outlined in the WSIP and Assumed to be Available Water Supply Options - 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Crystal Springs Reservoir Storage Recovered to 22 Billion Gallons No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Conjunctive Use/Westside Basin Groundwater (AFY) - 4,500 7,000 8,100 8,100 8,100 Calaveras Reservoir Storage Recovered to 31.5 Billion Gallons No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Water Transfers (AFY) - 23,200 23,200 29,000 29,000 29,000 Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 36. 14 SFPUC Urges Adoption of Regional Water System Improvement Program Released October 31, 2008. 2-8 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto The WSIP is also investigating the potential options of developing local water resources such as water recycling, groundwater, desalination and improved conservation to meet SFPUC purchase requests or demands. These resources, which are expected to provide an additional 10 mgd, are potential opportunities that exist throughout the regional water system and could be used to meet customer demands over the next 25 years.15 On October 30, 2008, SFPUC certified a Final PEIR for the WSIP, adding an additional measure of certainty to the project. However, it is important to note that as with any planned project, there remains some relative risk associated with assuming the availability of the supplies outlined in the WSIP. This is especially true for the water transfer component of the WSIP, for which there are no agreements in place at this time. Further, even with certification of the PEIR, individually qualifying projects are still subject to project -level CEQA review. With this understanding, the additional supplies produced by implementation of the WSIP are considered relatively secure and have been included in this WSA. 2.1.2 Effect of Climate Change on SFPUC Supply Availability The issue of climate change has become an important factor in water resources planning in the State, and it is being considered during planning for the RWS. There is evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause a rise in temperatures around the world, which will result in a wide range of changes in climate patterns. Moreover, there is evidence that a warming trend occurred during the latter part of the 20th century and will likely continue through the 21st century. These changes will have a direct effect on water resources in the State, and numerous studies on climate and water in the State have been conducted to determine the potential impacts. Based on these studies, global warming could result in the following types of water resources impacts in the State, including impacts on the RWS and associated watersheds: • Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a shallower snowpack in the low- and medium -elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne River basin, and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year, • Changes in the timing, intensity, and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow, • Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that could affect water quality, • Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion, • Increased water temperatures with accompanying adverse effects on some fisheries, • Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need, and • Changes in urban and agricultural water demand. However, other than the general trends listed above, there is no clear scientific consensus on exactly how global warming will quantitatively affect State water supplies, and current models of State water systems generally do not reflect the potential effects of global warming. 15 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. p. 22-24. 2-9 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto The SFPUC staff performed an initial evaluation of the effect on the Regional Water System (RWS) of a 1.5 -degree Celsius (°C) temperature rise between 2000 and 2025. The temperature rise of 1.5°C is based on a consensus among many climatologists that current global climate modeling suggests a 3°C rise will occur between 2000 and 2050 and a rise of 6°C will occur by 2100. The evaluation predicts that an increase in temperature of 1.5°C will raise the snowline approximately 500 feet every twenty-five years. The elevation of the watershed draining into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir ranges from 3,800 to 12,000 feet above mean sea level, with about 87 percent of the watershed area above 6,000 feet. In 2000 (a normal hydrologic year in the 82 - year period of historical record), the average snowline in this watershed was approximately 6,000 feet during the winter months. Therefore, the SFPUC evaluation indicates that a rise in temperature of 1.5°C between 2000 and 2025 will result in less or no snowpack between 6,000 and 6,500 feet and faster melting of the snowpack above 6,500 feet. Similarly, a temperature rise of 1.5°C between 2025 and 2050 will result in less or no snowpack between 6,500 and 7,000 feet and faster melting of the snowpack above 7,000 feet. The SFPUC climate change modeling indicates that about 7 percent of the runoff currently draining into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir will shift from the spring and summer seasons to the fall and winter seasons in the Hetch Hetchy basin by 2025. This percentage is within the current interannual variation in runoff and is within the range accounted for during normal runoff forecasting and existing reservoir management practices. The additional change between 2025 and 2030 is not expected to be detectible. The predicted shift in runoff timing is similar to the results found by other researchers modeling water resource impacts in the Sierra Nevada due to warming trends associated with climate change. Based on these preliminary studies and the results of literature reviews, the potential impacts of global warming on the RWS are not expected to affect the water system operations through 2030. SFPUC hydrologists are involved in ongoing monitoring and research regarding climate change trends and will continue to monitor the changes and predictions, particularly as these changes relate to water system operations and management of the RWS. The SFPUC has developed a workplan to further advance its research on the effects of climate change on the RWS. 2.2 Recycled Water (Regional Water Quality Control Plant) The source of the recycled water within the City is the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) of which the City is the operator and part owner. All of the wastewater treated at the PARWQCP can be recycled. Disinfected tertiary treated water meets the requirements of Title 22 unrestricted use standards; typical uses include irrigation, fire fighting, residential landscape watering, industrial uses, food crop production, construction activities, commercial laundries, toilet flushing, road cleaning, recreational purposes, lakes, ponds and decorative fountains. The plant already has the capacity to produce 4 mgd of recycled water that meets Title 22 unrestricted use standards; however, as operated, there is only capacity to produce 2 mgd of recycled water that qualifies for unrestricted use. The remainder of treated wastewater meets the restricted use standard and can also be recycled. In 1992, the City and the other PARWQCP owners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan identified a five-year, three -stage implementation process for recycled water development in the service area of PARWQCP; however, in 1995, the owners decided not to pursue the expansion of the water recycling system because the costs exceeded the benefits at the time. 2-10 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Currently, 850 acre-feet annually (0.8 mgd) of recycled water is used within the City. At the time the City's UWMP was prepared, the City had not decided to pursue any of the recommended expansion stages to the water recycling system outlined in the Master Plan, and so use of recycled water was expected to remain at 0.8 mgd through 2030 as shown Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Recycled Water Supply — Existing and Projected 2005 - 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Recycled Water Use (mgd) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Source: City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 36. However, since preparation of the City's UWMP, several changes to the recycled water system have occurred. The recycled water system is currently being expanded via a pipeline from the RWQCP to Mountain View, which has been sized to meet future recycled water demands in Palo Alto. This will increase recycled water supplies available to the City at some point in the future. 2.3 Groundwater The City has approved the development of its Emergency Water Supply and Storage project (EWSS), which will develop groundwater capacity for use during water supply emergency conditions. The EWSS project will also provide the City the ability to use groundwater during dry years, to partially supplement dry -year supply reductions from SFPUC. Such use in any given year would be at the discretion of the City Council, with the Council also having the option of increasing demand reduction targets in lieu of using groundwater. The City of Palo Alto overlies the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, which is part of the larger San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, as defined by the Department of Water Resources in its Bulletin 118. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which manages the basin through artificial recharge paid for by fees levied on groundwater users.16 The City's existing water well system consists of five wells (Hale, Rinconada, Peers Park, Fernando, and Matadero) with a combined total rated capacity of 4,300 gpm. Of these five wells, two are non -operational, reducing the current rated capacity to 3,575 gpm." These wells were constructed in the mid -1950s and were operated continuously until 1962. In 1988, the wells were operated to provide supplemental supplies as SFPUC implemented mandatory rationing. Two of the wells were operated for about six weeks in 1991 when it appeared that the City was facing a severe (45 percent) cutback requirement. At present, the wells are not in good condition. During the past six years, the City has completed significant analysis of the city -owned wells and local distribution system. This analysis included several studies conducted by Carollo Engineers, which are discussed in the City's UWMP. The first study was completed in December 1999 and produced a report "Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Systems Study" (1999 Study). The 1999 Study recommended a list of capital projects to improve the system's ability to meet water demands during a temporary shutoff (8 hours) of water from the Regional Water System operated by the SFPUC. The recommended 16 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2001. Groundwater Management Plan. p. 4. 17 City of Palo Alto Utilities. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. p. 16. 2-11 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto improvements related to addressing the City's emergency water supply deficiency included rehabilitating the five existing wells, constructing a new storage reservoir, and drilling up to three new wells. Carollo Engineers completed the "Alternative Emergency Water Supply Options Study" (2001 Study) to provide a high-level analysis of the various water supply options under different emergency scenarios. . The conclusions of the 2001 Study were that the capital projects recommended in the 1999 Study were the best solution and that the wells could assist in shortages such as a multiple year drought and 30-60 day outages, as well as the 8 -hour outage they were designed to handle. In 2002, Carollo Engineers conducted a Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study to "evaluate whether operating one or two of the City's water wells as active supplies would cause significant decrease in groundwater levels or deterioration in groundwater quality." The study, completed in April 2003, concluded that producing 500 AFY (0.45 MGD) of water from the wells on a continuous basis or 1,500 AFY (1.34 MGD) on an intermittent basis, such as during a drought year, would not result in subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or migration of contaminated plumes. One well producing 1,000 gpm would provide 1,500 AFY. Thus, only one or two wells would need to be operated to provide the water quantities identified, if the City Council decided to operate the wells during droughts or on a continuous basis. The City completed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the projects to improve the distribution system reliability recommended in the 1999 Study (rehabilitation of the existing wells, siting new wells and reservoir facilities). The project is referred to as the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project (EWSS). The EIR was certified in March 2007. The City estimates the total project cost for the reservoir, new wells, and rehabilitation of the existing wells and of the existing Mayfield Pump Station at $40 million. A portion of the funds for the project is in the City's Capital Improvements Project budget. The City plans to obtain additional funding by issuing revenue bonds to be repaid through water utility revenues.18 Project completion is targeted for 2012.79 The sustainable yield of the groundwater basin was discussed in the EIR. Carollo Engineers analyzed the basin response to the 1988 drought pumping regime to determine the yield of the basin; however, they did not incorporate the entire basin into their calculations, and instead defined and analyzed a smaller groundwater area in and around the City of Palo Alto. As analyzed by Carollo, the pumping performed by the City of Palo Alto during the drought provides data to directly estimate the response of the basin to extractions. The City operated the wells for an approximately 5 -month period in 1988 and extracted approximately 1,505 AFY. Averaging the observed water level declines results in an average decline of about 24 feet. This water level decline reflects Palo Alto's pumpage while also reflecting the simultaneous pumpage from neighboring utilities. Water levels recovered to pre -pumping levels within 18 months of the extraction period.2° 18 City of Palo Alto. Accessed 12/11/2007. Emergency Water Supply Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.city.palo- alto.ca. us/depts/utl/fags/emerge ncy_water_su pply. asp. 19 City of Palo Alto. Accessed 12/11/2007. Emergency Water Supply and Storage: November Ballot Measure. http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/utl/news/details.asp?NewsID=691 &TargetlD=10. 20 ESA. November 2006. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Draft Environmental Impact Report. p. 3.5-19. 2-12 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 2.0 Water Supply Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Based on estimated groundwater recovery rates, the basin could accommodate the pumpage of 1,500 AFY on an emergency basis without impacts to groundwater levels. Mitigation measures were included in the EIR to ensure potential impacts to the basin would be less than significant. These mitigation measures include aquifer testing for all new and rehabilitated wells. Additional mitigation requires restricted groundwater production following emergency pumping until groundwater levels recover to pre -pumping levels.21 The City approved the EWSS project in 2007. Accordingly, supplemental supplies to be made available by the project are included as part of drought supplies in this WSA. Note though that such use in any given year would be at the discretion of the City Council, with the Council also having the option of increasing demand reduction targets in lieu of using groundwater. 21 ESA. November 2006. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Draft Environmental Impact Report. p. 3.5-20. 2-13 August 24, 2009 3.0 Water Demand Analysis This section shows the calculated water demand for the SUMC Project as well as projected demand for the entire system and then compares the demand to the supply. Demands for the SUMC Project assume full buildout and occupancy by 2025. 3.1 Historical System Demand Table 3-1 presents the City's historical water purchase and sale information. Included are purchases and sales of potable water from SFPUC and deliveries and sales of recycled water within the City. Unaccounted for water has also been included and makes up the difference between purchases (deliveries) and sales. Table 3-1: Historic Water Purchase and Sale Information (mgd) Year Purchases from SFPUC Recycled Water Deliveries Total Supplies Potable Water Sales - Recycled Water Sales Total Sales Unaccounted for Water FY 00-01 13.79 0.55 14.34 12.31 0.55 12.85 1.48 FY 01-02 13.19 0.57 13.76 11.93 0.57 12.50 1.26 FY 02-03 12.65 0.56 13.21 11.26 0.56 11.82 1.39 FY 03-04 13.37 0.69 14.06 11.80 0.69 12.49 1.57 FY 04-05 12.08 0.72 12.81 10.67 0.72 11.39 1.42 FY 05-06 11.89 0.77 12.67 10.37 0.77 11.14 1.53 FY 06-07 13.04 0.85 13.89 11.23 0.85 12.09 1.80 Source: City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005, personal communication with Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities. 3.2 Water Demand of the SUMC Project The existing and projected water use of the SUMC Project was provided by the Project applicant in the Project application. Details regarding the existing and projected water use are provided in the Infrastructure Plan for the Project prepared by Mazzetti and Associates. Table 3-2 estimates the existing demand onsite and the projected water demands associated with the SUMC Project. A net increase in demand of 199 acre-feet annually is projected upon full implementation of the SUMC Project. The analysis assumes buildout by 2025. 3-1 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities . Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 3-2: SUMC Project Demand - Existing, Net Increase, Total Lindits xisting*8 xistil�g Wate ►eltnand (gpdJ nand SHC Core, East, West, Boswell, Core Exp, HMP 1,096,300 160,000 179 SHC 1101 Welch 40,100 8,400 9 LPCH Children's Hospital 274,700 58,000 65 LPCH 701 and 703 Welch 79,800 10,500 12 SHC Falk Center 52,200 11,000 12 SHC Blake Wilbur Building 73,100 9,500 11 SHC Advanced Medicine Center 224,800 18,000 20 SoM SHC Grant, Always, Lane, Edwards Hoover Pavilion 415,000 84,200 83,000 3,640 93 4 Total Existing 1,100,000 224,000 251 SHC SCH New Stanford Hospital New SHC Clinics 2,340,200 429,000 362,040 43,000 406 48 SCH SCH SCH LPCH Demo - Core, East, West, Boswell Demo - 1101 Welch Demo - Core Expansion New LPCH Hospital (441,200) (40,100) (223,800) 471,300 (88,000) (8,400) (45,000) 100,000 (99) (9) (50) 112 LPCH New LPCH Clinics 50,000 5,000 6 LPCH SoM Demo - 701 and 703 Welch New Foundation in Medicine Bldg 1,2,3 (79,800) 415,000 (10,500) 34,200 (12) 38 SoM SCH Demo - Grant, Always, Lane, Edwards Hoover New Medical Office Building (415,000) 60,000 (83,000) 6,000 (93) 7 Total Increase 1,325,400 177,300 SHC All Included utidr 2,454,600 rn 342,140 TE 199 )ems 384 LPCH All Included 796,000 163,000 183 SoM All Included 415,000 34,200 38 Total Notes: Assumes full bu'Idout and occupancy by 2025. BGSF = Building Gross Square Footage. a. SHC = Stanford Hospitals and Clinics; LPCH = Lucile Packard Children's Hospital; SoM = School of Medicine Source: Stanford University Medical Center Project Application. Tab 6 - Utilities. 3,665,600 539,340 605 3-2 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto As shown in Table 3-2 the SUMC Project will use an estimated 605 AFY or an average demand of 539,340 gallons per day (gpd) upon full buildout and occupancy. The existing demand is approximately 406 AFY or an average demand of 362,040 gpd. The net increase in demand (difference between existing and proposed demand) is approximately 199 AFY on an average demand of 177,300 gpd. The approach used in this WSA considers the net demand increase from the SUMC Project as new demand, in addition to the City's existing and planned demands. Table 3-3 is a summary table, which shows the average annual demand associated with the SUMC Project. The table illustrates the increase in demand through 2030 broken down into five-year increments. For the purposes of this WSA, the increase in demand associated with implementation of the SUMC Project is assumed to occur at a linear rate from the beginning of construction to full buildout and occupancy. Table 3-3: Net Increase for SUMC Project Demand Demand (mgd) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 SUMC Projecta - 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.18 Notes: a. Assumes a linear increase in demand from mid -2009 to 2025 and full buildout and occupancy in 2025. Source: PBS&J, 2007. 3.3 System Demand Forecasts The SFPUC 2004 Wholesale Customer Water Demand Projections Study (Demand Study) analyzed water demands associated with each customer sector and then forecasted demands over a twenty-five year planning horizon. The Demand Study evaluated demands in each of the wholesale customers' service areas using data provided by the wholesale customers; this provided a uniform way for demands within SFPUC to be analyzed. The projections were developed using an "End Use" model, which initially establishes a base -year water demand at the end -use level (such as toilets and showers) and calibrates the model to initial conditions, and then forecasts future water demand based on projected demands of existing water service accounts and future growth in the number of service accounts. The forecasts incorporate effects of the plumbing and appliance code on existing and future accounts, but do not incorporate the effect of planned demand management measures. The total number of accounts is anticipated to increase by over 10 percent, but due to the reduced demand per account, the overall City potable water demand is projected to increase by two percent. Although the City's projected water demands include growth beyond current demands, the City's demand projections did not specifically include the increased demand from the SUMC Project. For that reason, the tables below include the anticipated SUMC Project demand (beyond the current demand at the SUMC Sites) in addition to the City's total projected water demands. Table 3-4 shows total demand in the City without conservation. Table 3-5 shows total demand in the City in addition to demand generated by full buildout of the SUMC Project. By 2030, demands within the City of Palo Alto including the SUMC Project will be approximately 13.78 mgd. 3-3 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 3-4: Purchase Projections by Customer Sector Number of Accounts 2005° 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 to 2030 Change Single Family Residential 15,136 15,535 15,935 16,314 16,534 16,753 11% Multiple Family Residential 1,967 2,019 2,071 2,120 2,148 2,177 11% Commercial 1,648 1,675 1,704 1,722 1,743 1,765 7% Industrial 250 254 259 261 265 268 7% City Facilities 298 306 313 321 325 330 11% Public Facilities 66 68 70 71 72 73 11% Total 19,365 19,857 20,352 20,809 21,087 21,366 10% Water Use per Account (gpd) 2005° 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 to 2030 Change Single Family Residential 387 380 373 368 363 359 -7% Multiple Family Residential 1,014 989 961 939 922 907 -11% Commercial 1,438 1,399 1,367 1,343 1,323 1,306 -9% Industrial 4,957 4,949 4,929 4,936 4,915 4,913 -1% City Facilities 1,890 1,891 1,897 1,894 1,895 1,891 0% Public Facilities 5,316 5,291 5,280 5,319 5,319 5,320 0% Use by Account Type (mgd) 2005c 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 to 2030 Change Single Family Residential 5.86 5.91 5.95 6.00 6.00 6.02 3% Multiple Family Residential 1.99 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.97 -1 Commercial 2.37 2.34 2.33 2.31 2.31 2.31 -3% Industrial 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.32 6% City Facilities 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.62 0.62 11% Public Facilities 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 11% Unaccounted For Watera 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0% Totalb 13.36 13.42 13.48 13.56 13.57 13.60 2% Notes: a. Based on City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. This does not reflect actual losses. b. Total does not reflect conservation. Conservation included in Table 3-6. c. 2005 projections represent an average use and are not representative of 2005 actual use. Source: PBS&J, 2007, developed from City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 3-4 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 3-5: Demand Projections by Scenario (mgd) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 to 2030 Change Total City Demand without Projecta 13.36 13.42 13.48 13.56 13.57 13.60 2% SUMC Projectb 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.18 Total City Demand with SUMC Project 13.36 13.44 13.55 13.68 13.75 13.78 3% Notes: a. City demand from Table 3-3 and includes unaccounted for water and does not include conservation estimates. b. Individual scenario demand from Table 3-3. Source: PBS&J, 2007, developed from City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 3.4 Water Conservation Best Management Practices The City's UWMP lists the following water conservation measures currently in effect. The City estimates these water conservation programs will help reduce demands an additional four percent by the year 2030, as compared to the demands in Table 3-7. • Residential water surveys • Residential plumbing retrofit • Residential washing machine rebates • Public Information • Evapotranspiration (ET) controller rebates • Low flow restaurant spray nozzles • Large landscape conservation audits • Rebates for dual flush toilets • Water audits hotels -motels • Commercial water audits • Industrial/commercial/institutional ultra -low flush (ULF) toilet rebate • Incentives for replacement of coin operated washers • Award program for commercial water savings The End Use Model, described in Section 3.3, was developed to estimate base water demand projections for SFPUC's wholesale customers. The model incorporated the effects of passive conservation from plumbing and appliance codes on fixtures and appliances. The conservation methods discussed above will provide additional water savings if successfully implemented. The City estimates these water conservation measures will help reduce water purchases from SFPUC by four percent by the year 2030. Table 3-6 presents the projected future demands through 2030 with the additional water conservation measures included. 3-5 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto Table 3-6: Demand Projections with Planned Water Conservation Measures (mgd) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 to 2030 Change Total City Demand without SUMC Protecta 13.36 13.42 13.48 13.56 13.57 13.60 2% Demand Reduction° -0.13 -0.37 -0.51 -0.56 -0.59 -0.60 Total City Demand with Conservation 13.23 13.05 12.97 13.00 12.98 13.00 -2% SUMC Project Demandb 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.18 Total City Demand with SUMC Project 13.23 13.07 13.04 13.12 13.16 13.18 0% Notes: a. City demand from Table 3-3 and includes unaccounted for water and does not include conservation estimates. b. Individual scenario demand from Table 3-3. c. Based on City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. p. 38. Source: PBS&J, 2007, developed from City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 3.5 Water Shortage Contingency Plan As explained in its 2005 UWMP, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to address possible dry -year reductions in supply from SFPUC. The Contingency Plan includes four stages, to be implemented progressively as needed. The 2005 UWMP describes these stages as follows: • Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. • In Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented. • Stage II I (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers' meters. • Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. The UWMP also notes the City's history of having successfully achieved necessary demand reductions during past drought events, including the 1990-93 drought when the City's customers achieved demand reductions of up to 35 percent. In considering the potential for dry -year demand reductions, the City notes that these reductions would be over and above long-term conservation savings already achieved in the City, and additional planned long-term conservation savings. The historical and continuing implementation by the City and its customers of water conservation measures results in an effect referred to as "demand hardening." Demand hardening occurs where implementation of long-term conservation reduce the potential of short-term measures to effect significant reductions in water use. Thus percentage reductions achieved within the City in previous droughts will be more difficult to achieve in future droughts. 3-6 August 24, 2009 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project 3.0 Water Demand Analysis Water Supply Assessment City of Palo Alto 3.6Stanford University Water Conservation sumc is committed to implementing various water conservation policies and measures in accordance with green building actions and goals. SUMC is currently providing water conservation measures on their sites, including water saving fixtures, dual flush toilets, water recirculation sterilizers and equipment, minimizing landscape irrigation use through drought tolerant plantings and weather based irrigation controls, storage of rainwater for irrigation needs, and the use of grass clipping and bark mulch where applicable to retain moisture in the soil. These existing water conservation measures will continue to be implemented in the expansion and replacement facilities of the SUMC Project. 3-7 August 24, 2009 4.0 Supply and Demand Comparison Section 10910 (c)(3) of the Water Code states, "the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available for normal, dry and multiple dry water years during a 20 -year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." 4.1 Supply and Demand Comparison Table 4-1 shows a comparison of supplies and demands for average year, dry year, and multiple -dry -year conditions for the year 2030. The table indicates that supplies are sufficient to meet the demands of the City in addition to the SUMC Project. As reviewed in Section 3.0, the City plans to implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan in progressive stages as needed to achieve a positive balance of supplies and demands. For the conditions shown in Table 4-1, this results in demand reductions of up to 10 percent in a single dry -year and up to 20 percent in subsequent years of a multiple -dry -year event. These reduction levels correspond to implementation Stages I and II, respectively, of the City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Additional tables showing all of the SUMC Project Supply -Demand scenarios in 5 -year increments (2005 to 2030) are included in Appendix B. As with Table 4-1, the Appendix B tables all indicate that supplies are sufficient to meet the demands of the City in addition to the SUMC Project. Table 4-1: Supply -Demand Balance with Dry -Year Demand Reductions Normal Year a One Critical • Dry Yeare Mu tiple Dry Year Events Year 1 Year 2 • Year 3 2030 mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd %- mgd % SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.18 100% 12.17 92% 12.17 92% 10.61 81% 10.61 81% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Total Available Supply (mgd) 13.18 12.17 12.17 11.06 11.06 Palo Alto Normal Demand` 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 SUMC Project Demand 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Palo Alto Normal Demand w/ SUMC Project 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 13.18 Dry Year Demand Reductione 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.18 11.86 11.86 10.54 10.54 Remaining Supply Available 0.00 0.0% 0.31 2.6% 0.31 2.6% 0.52 4.9% 0.52 4.9% Notes: a. Normal year SFPUC Projected Allocation set equal to the City of Palo Alto's SAA. In a normal year, SFPUC is able to supply up to the maximum SAA for all wholesale customers (this assumes the City of Hayward and others with the ability to grow beyond their SAA will remain within their current SAA through 2030. SFPUC will not deliver more water than needed to meet demands. b. Dry year reductions based on SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Calculations related to this analysis are provided in Appendix A. c. Palo Alto demand based on Table 3-6; includes demand side management and 0.98 mgd system loss per City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan p. 36. This does not reflect actual unaccounted for water. d. Average annual demand. Based on linear increase in demand from mid -2009 to 2015. Demand calculated in Table 3-3. e. Dry -Year demand reductions are in addition to ongoing conservation measures. Source: PBS&J, 2007, developed from City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 4-1 August 24, 2009 5.0 References City of Palo Alto Utilities. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. City of Palo Alto. Accessed 12/11/2007. Emergency Water Supply Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.city.palo-alto.ca. us/depts/utl/fags/emergency_water_supply.asp City of Palo Alto. Accessed 12/11/2007. Emergency Water Supply and Storage: November Ballot Measure. http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/depts/utl/news/details.asp?NewsID=691 &TargetlD=10 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. October 4, 2006. Recycled Water Market Survey Results. Memorandum to Utilities Advisory Commission. Department of Water Resources. October 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of SB 610 and SB 221 of 2001, 2003. ESA. November 2006. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. ESA and Orion. June 2007. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program. Prepared for City and County of San RMC Water and Environment. July 2006. City of Palo Alto — Recycled Water Market Survey Report, Final Report. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Draft Water System Improvement Program. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2000. Water Supply Master Plan. San Francisco Public Utilities of San Francisco. San Francisco Public Utilities Prepared by URS. San Francisco Public Utilities Report. Prepared by URS. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County Commission. 2004. 2030 Purchase Estimates Technical Memorandum, Commission. 2004. Wholesale Customer Demand Projection Technical Commission, Water Supply Reliability letter, June 1, 2005. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, PUC Meeting, November 28, 2006. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission website. http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_I D/18/MSC_I D/114/MTO_I D/342/C—I D/3124/Keyword/climate%20change Accessed July 2007. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2001. Groundwater Management Plan. Seattle Public Utilities Resource Conservation Section. July 2002. "Hotel Water Conservation, A Seattle Demonstration" Prepared by O'Neill & Siegelbaum and The RICE Group. Western Regional Climate Center. Palo Alto Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 9/1/1953 — 6/30/2007. Accessed September 2007. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAIN.pl?ca6646 5-1 August 24, 2009 APPENDICES A Suburban Reduction Calculations B Supply Demand Comparison Tables (2005 — 2030) APPENDIX A Suburban Reduction Calculations The following appendix tables detail the effect of each added Project Scenario water demand on the overall SFPUC Supply Allocation for Wholesale Customers (2005 — 2030): Al SFPUC Tier I Water Shortage Allocation Plan A2 SFPUC Tier II Water Shortage Allocation Plan — No Project Scenario A3 SFPUC Tier II Water Shortage Allocation Plan — SUMC Project Tier One Allocation Custo mer Type SFPUC Supply Projections (mgd) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Retail Customers a 88.9 81 81 81 81 81 Wholesale Customers a 177.9 184 184 184 184 184 Total Supply a 266.8 265 265 265 265 265 Total Supply with 10% System Wide Shortage b 240 .1 238 .5 238.5 238 .5 238.5 238 .5 Who lesale Custo mers Supply (10% System Wide Shortage) ° 153.7 152 .6 152 .6 152.6 152.6 152 .6 Single Dry Year Supply as % of Normal 86 .4% 83 .0% 83 .0% 83 .0% 83.0% 83 .0% Total Supply with 20% System Wide Shortage b 213.4 212.0 212.0 212 .0 212 .0 212 .0 Wholesale Customers Supply (20% System Wide Shortage) ° 133.4 132.5 132.5 132.5 132 .5 132.5 Multiple Dry Year Supply as % of Normal 75 .0% 72.0% 72 .0% 72 .0% 72 .0% 72.0% a Source: SFPUC WSIP, Adopted October 30, 3008 b Total Supply reduced by 10 and 20 percent for a 10 and 20 percent system wide shortage, respectively. c Source: SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan for City and County of San Francisco . Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Wholesale Customers supply to be reduced to 64 percent of total available water in a 10 percent system wide reduction; Wholesale Customers supply to be reduced to 62.5 percent of total available water in a 20 percent system wide reduction. C:\Documents and Settings\21807\Desktop\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft5 112008\WSA tables\ Appendix A1-1 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario Wholesale Customer Base Year Demand (2001) (mgd) SFPUC Demand (% of Total Demand) SFPUC Demand (mgd) Demand from Other Sources (mgd) Total Demand Projections (mgd). 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Alameda County Water District 51.1 24.3% 12.42 38.68 53.20 53.03 54.11 55.09 55.53 56.08 Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3 .7 100.0% 3 .70 0.00 3.70 3 .60 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.80 Brisbane, City of 0.44 100 .0% 0.44 0 .00 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.76 0.84 0 .93 Burlingame, City of 4.8 100.0% 4.80 0.00 4 .80 4.80 4.81 4.85 4 .88 4.92 Coastside County Water District 2.6 70 .3% 1.83 0.77 2 .70 2 .94 3.05 3.13 3.18 3.24 California Wa te r Service " 39.5 93 .2% 36 .80 2 .70 40.00 40 .53 40 .64 41 .14 41.44 42.06 Daly City, City of 8.7 63.6% 5.53 3 .17 8 .70 9 .31 9.31 9.22 9 .15 9 .11 East Palo Alto, City of 2.5 100.0% 2.50 0.00 2.60 3.10 3.80 4.60 4 .90 4 .80 Estero MID/Foster City 5 .8 100 .0% 5.80 0.00 6 .00 6 .20 6.30 6.50 6.70 6.80 Guadalupe Valley MID 0.32 100 .0% 0.32 0.00 0.39 0.47 0.56 0 .64 0.72 0.81 Hayward, City of 19.3 100.0% 19.30 0.00 20 .80 22.20 23 .30 25,00 26.80 28.70 Hillsborough, Town of 3.7 100.0% 3 .70 0.00 3.70 3.85 3.81 3.93 3.98 3 .99 Menlo Park, City of 4 .1 100.0% 4 .10 0 .00 4 .10 4 .26 4.37 4 .50 4.57 4.70 Millbrae, City of 3.1 100 .0% 3.10 0.00 3.30 3 .30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3 .30 Milpitas, City of 12 59 .3% 7.12 4.88 13.00 14.40 15 .44 16.24 17 .03 17.70 Mountain View, City of 13.3 89.4% 11.89 1.41 13.40 13.80 14.10 14.30 14.60 14 .80 North Coast County Water District 3. 6 100.0% 3 .60 0.00 3.70 3.56 3.66 3 .71 3.76 3.80 Palo Alto, City of a 14.2 100 .0% 14 .20 0 .00 14.50 14 .26 14.26 14 .36 14.36 14.36 Purissima Hills Water District 2.2 100.0% 2.20 0.00 2 .40 2.60 2 .80 2 .90 3.10 3 .30 Re dwood City, City of 11. 9 100.0% 11 .90 0.00 12.10 12.70 13.00 13 .20 13 .30 13 .40 San Bruno, City of 4.4 64.4% 2.83 1.57 4.20 4 .30 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.50 Skyline County Water District 0.17 100. 0% 0 .17 0.00 0.19 0.21 0.26 0 .31 0 .31 0 .31 Stanford University 3.9 68. 0% 2.65 1.25 4.30 4.70 5.09 5.70 6 .20 6.80 Sunnyva le, City of 24. 8 43. 6% 10.81 13 .99 25.00 25.49 25 .99 26.29 27.39 26.80 Westborough Water District 0. 99 100.0% 0.99 0 .00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.20 1 .20 1.20 Total 272 282 292 299 308 315 324 San Jose, City of (portion of north San Jose) 5.2 96.0% 4.99 0 .21 5 .40 6.44 6.50 6.50 6 .50 6.50 Santa Clara, City of 25.8 16. 2% 4.18 21.62 28.00 29.70 30.90 31 .90 32.90 33 .90 Notes: Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report . a Demand values for the City of Palo Alto have been updated since the 2004 URS study with information from the City's UWMP and d emand from the proposed project (see Table 3-8 in the Water Supply Assessment) . b Califo rnia Water Service Total is equal to the sum of the three CWS districts and Los Tr ancos County Water District . C:\Documents and Settings\21807\Desktop\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft5 112008\WSA tables\Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-1 Tier Two Allocation - No Pr oject Scenario Who lesale Customer Dema nd Incr ease from 2001 (mgd) SFPUC D emand Projections (mgd) Demand Increase from 2001 (mgd) mgd % 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 mgd % Alameda County Water District 4.98 10% ` 14.52 13 .76 13.76 13.76 13 .76 13 .76 -0.76 -5% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 0.10 3% 3.70 3 .89 3 .89 3.89 3.89 3.89 0 .19 5% Brisbane, City of 0 .49 111% "` 0 .50 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0 .46 -0.04 -8% Burlingame, City of 0 .12 3% ¶// 4.80 5.23 5 .23 5.23 5.23 5.23 0.43 9% Coastside Co unty Wa ter District 0.64 25% 1.93 2.18 2.18 2.18 2 .18 2 .18 0.25 13% California Water Service " 2.56 6% i ' 37 .30 35.50 35 .50 35 .50 35 .50 35.50 -1.80 -5% Da ly City, City of 0.41 5% 5.53 4 .29 4 .29 4.29 4.29 4 .29 -1.24 -22% East Palo Alto, City of 2 .30 92% : 2.60 1 .96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1 .96 -0.64 -25% Estero MID/Foster City 1.00 17° '' 6.00 5 .63 5.63 5.63 5.63 5 .63 -0.37 -6% Gua dalupe Va lley M ID 0 .49 153% 0 .39 0 .52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.13 33% Hayward, City of 9.40 49% 20 .80 22 .37 22.37 22.37 22.37 22 .37 1 .57 8% Hillsborough, Town of 0.29 8% 3 .70 4 .09 4.09 4 .09 4 .09 4.09 0.39 11% Menlo Park, City of 0 .60 15% ? 4.10 4 .46 4.46 4.46 4 .46 4 .46 0.36 9% Millbrae, City of 0.20 6% 3 .30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3 .15 -0 .15 -5% Milpitas, City of 5.70 48% 8 .12 9 .23 9.23 9 .23 9 .23 9.23 1.11 14% M ountain View, City of 1. 50 11% 11 .99 13 .46 13.46 13 .46 13 .46 13.46 1.47 12% North Coast County Water District 0.20 6% `" 3 .70 3.84 3 .84 3 .84 3 .84 3 .84 0.14 4% Palo Alto, City of a. 0. 16 " - 1% 13.23. 13.05 12:97 13 .00 12.98 13.00 -0.22 -2% Purissima Hills Water District 1. 10 50% 2.40 1.62 1 .62 1 .62 1.62 1.62 -0 .78 -33 % Redwood City, City of 1.50 13% `' 12.10 10.93 10.93 10 .93 10.93 10 .93 -1.17 -10% San Bruno, City of 0. 10 2% , 2 .63 3.25 3.25 3 .25 3 .25 3.25 0 .62 23% Skyline County Water District 0.14 82% '' 0 .19 0.18 0 .18 0.18 0.18 0 .18 -0.01 -5% Stanford University 2.90 74% 3 .05 3.03 3 .03 3 .03 3.03 3 .03 -0 .02 -1% Sunnyvale, City of 2.00 8% 11.01 12 .58 12 .58 12 .58 12 .58 12 .58 1.57 14% Westborough Water District 0. 21 21% ` 1.00 1 .32 1 .32 1.32 1 .32 1 .32 0 .32 32 % Total 52 19% ;,. 190 184 184 184 184 184 -6 .23 -3% San Jose, City of (portion of north San Jose) 1.30 25% 5.19 2 .00 2.00 2 .00 2 .00 2 .00 -3.19 -61 % Santa Clara, City of 8.10 31% 6. 38 2.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 -4.38 -69% Notes: a b C:\Documents and Settings\21807\Desktop\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft5 112008\WSA tables\Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-2 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario 2005 Allocation Calculation 2005 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 153.7' 2005 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 133.4' for Single Dry Vear Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Vear Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Varlable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2006 Purchases' Initlal Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Flnal Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 14.52 13.41 7.271 11.18 1452 -3.34 -23.01% 7.68% 11.22 -3.30 -22.70% 7.30% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.70 3.62 1.96% 3.01 3.70 -0.69 -18.53% 2.07% 3.02 -0.68 -18.28% 1.97/ Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.30 0.50 0.42 0.23% 0.35 0.50 -0.15 -29.99% 0.24% 0.35 -0.15 -29.58% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 4.80 4.90 2.66% 4.09 4.80 .0.71 -14.85% 2.81% 4.10 -0.70 -14.66% 2.67% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 1.93 1.82 0.99% 1.52 1.93 -0.41 -21.34% 1.04% 1.52 -0.41 -21.06% 0.99% CWSTotaI 35.50 33.51 37.30 35.44 19.22% 29.54 37.30 -7.76 -20.81% 20.31% 29.64 -7.66 -20.54% 19.29% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 553 4.84 2.62% 4.03 5.53 -1.50 -27.13% 2.77/ 4.05 -1.48 -26.7655 2.64% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.10 2.60 2.29 1.24% 1.91 2.60 -0.69 -26.48% 1.31% 1.92 -0.68 -26.13% 1.25% Estero MlD/Foster City 7.23 5.45 6.00 6.23 3.38% 5.19 6.00 -0.81 -13.50% 3.57% 5.20 -0.80 -13.32% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.21% 0.33 0.39 -0.06 -15.94% 0.23% 0.33 -0.06 -15.72% 0.21% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 20.80 20.79 11.27% 17.33 20.80 -3.47 -16.70% 11.91% 17.37 -3.43 -16.48% 11.30% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.60 3.70 3.80 2.06% 3.16 3.70 -0.54 -14.47% 2.18% 3.17 -0.53 -14.28% 2.06% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.10 3.92 2.13% 3.27 4.10 -0.83 -20.24% 2.25% 3.28 -0.82 -19.97% 2.14% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.30 3.03 1.64% 2.53 3.30 -0.77 -23.47% 1.74% 2.54 -0.76 -23.16% 1.65% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.80 8.12 8.05 4.37% 6.71 8.12 -1.41 -17.34% 4.61% 6.73 -1.39 -17.11% 4.38% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 11.99 11.94 6.47% 9.95 11.99 -2.04 -17.02% 6.84% 9.98 -2.01 -16.79% 6.49% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.70 3.61 1.96% 3.01 3.70 -0.69 -18.68% 2.07% 3.02 -0.68 -18.43% 1.96% Palo Alto, City of .: • • - • 17.07 12.96. . 13.23 • 14.42 7.82% - `-12.02 - - 1323 -1.21 -9.13% . 8.26% - 12.03 - -1.19 -9.01% • 7.83% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 2.40 2.03 1.10% 1.69 2.40 -0.71 -29.38% 1.17% 1.70 -0.70 -28.99% 1.11% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 12.10 11.32 8.14% 9.43 12.10 -2.67 -22.05% 6.49% 9.47 -2.63 -21.75% 6.16% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 2.83 2.63 1.43% 2.19 2.63 -0.44 -16.73% 1.51% 2.20 -0.43 -16.50% 1.43% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.10% 0.15 0.19 -0.04 -2250% 0.10% 0.15 -0.04 -22.20% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.05 2.89 1.57% 2.41 3.05 -0.65 -21.15% 1.65% 2.42 -0.64 -20.86% 1.57% Sunnyvale, Cityol 12.58 10.73 11.01 11.44 6.21% 9.54 11.01 -1.48 -13.41% 6.56% 9.56 -1.46 -13.23% 6.22% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.00 1.10 0.60% 0.92 1.00 -0.08 -8.31% 0.63% 0.92 -0.08 -8.20% 0.60% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 178.59 174.49 94.64% 145.44 17859 33.15 -18.56% 100.00% 145.88 -32.71 -18.31% San Jose, City of 4 2.68 4.10 5.19 3.99 2.16% 3.33 5.19 -1.87 35.94% 3.33 -1.87 -35.94% 2.16% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 6.38 5.89 3.19% 4.91 6.38 -1.47 -23.05% 4.47 -1.91 -29.99% 2.91% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 190.16 184.37 100.00% 153.68 190.16 -36.48 -19.19% 153.68 -36.48 -19.19% 100.00° First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2005 Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 14.52 13.41 7.27% 9.70 14.52 -4.82 -33.17% 7.68% 9.74 -4.78 -32.93% 7.30% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.70 3.62 1.96% 2.62 3.70 -1.08 -29.28°% 2.07% 2.62 -1.08 -29.06% 1.97% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.30 0.50 0.42 0.23% 0.30 0.50 -0.20 -39.22% 0.24% 0.31 -0.19 -38.94% 0.23% Burlingame, City o1 5.23 4.68 4.80 4.90 2.66% 3.55 4.80 -1.25 -26.09% 2.81% 3.56 -1.24 -25.90% 2.67% Coastside County WO 2.18 1.35 1.93 1.82 0.99% 1.32 1.93 -0.61 31.72% 1.04% 1.32 -0.61 -31.49% 0.99% CWSTotal° 35.50 33.51 37.30 35.44 19.22% 25.64 37.30 -11.66 -31.26% 20.31% 25.73 -11.58 -31.03% 19.28% Daffy City, City of 4.49 4.49 5.53 4.84 2.62% 3.50 5.53 -2.03 -36.74% 2.77% 3.52 -2.02 -36.47% 2.64% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.10 2.60 2.29 1.24% 1.66 2.60 -0.94 -36.18% 1.31% 1.67 -0.93 -35.92% 1.25% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 6.00 6.23 3.38% 4.51 6.00 -1.49 -24.91% 3.57% 4.52 -1.48 -24.73% 3.39% Guadalupe Valley MIO 0.52 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.21% 0.28 0.39 -0.11 -27.03% 0.23% 0.29 -0.10 -26.83% 0.21% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 20.80 20.79 11.27% 15.04 20.80 -5.76 -27.69% 11.91% 15.08 -5.72 -27.49% 11.31% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.60 3.70 3.80 2.06% 2.75 3.70 -0.95 -25.76% 2.18% 2.75 -0.95 -25.57% 2.06% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.10 3.92 2.13% 2.84 4.10 -1.26 -30.76% 2.25% 2.85 -1.25 -30.54% 2.13% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.30 3.03 1.64% 2.19 3.30 -1.11 -33.57% 1.74% 2.20 -1.10 -33.32% 1.65% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.80 8.12 8.05 4.37% 5.82 8.12 -229 -28.25% 4.61% 5.84 -2.28 -28.04% 4.38% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 11.99 11.94 6.47% 8.64 11.99 -3.35 -27.97% 6.84% 8.66 -3.33 -27.76% 8.49% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.70 3.61 1.96% 2.61 3.70 -1.09 -29.41% 2.07% 2.62 -1.08 -29.19% 1.96% Palo Alto, City of - - 17.07 _ 12.96 ' -13.23 , -14.42 - 7.82% ..10.43 - . '-_ 13.23 --2.79 - - -21.12% 8.26% - • 10.45 -2.77 . -20.96% - 7.84% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 2.40 2.03 1.10% 1.47 2.40 -0.93 -38.70% 1.17% 1.48 -0.92 -38.42% 1.11% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 12.10 11.32 6.14% 8.19 12.10 -3.91 -32.33% 6.49% 8.22 -3.88 -32.09% 6.18% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 2.63 2.63 1.43% 1.90 2.63 -0.73 -27.71% 1.51% 1.91 -0.72 -27.51% 1.43% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.10% 0.13 0.19 -0.06 32.72% 0.10% 0,13 -0.06 -32.48% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.05 2.69 1.57% 2.09 3.05 -0.96 -31.55% 1.65% 2.10 -0.96 -31.32% 1.57/° Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 11.01 11.44 6.21% 8.28 11.01 -2.73 -24.83% 6.56% 8.30 -2.71 -24.65% 6.22% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.00 1.10 0.60% 0.80 1.00 -0.20 -20.41% 0.63% 0.80 -0.20 -20.26% 0.60% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 178.59 174.49 94.64% 126.25 178.59 -52.34 -29.3155 100.00% 126.64 -51.95 -29.09% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.10 5.19 3.99 2.16% 2.89 5.19 -2.30 -44.39% 2.89 -2.30 -44.39% 2.16% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 6.38 5.89 3.19% 4.26 6.38 -2.12 -33.20% 3.88 -2.50 -39.22% 2.91% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 190.16 184.37 100.00% 133.40 190.16 -56.76 -29.65% 133.40 56.76 -29.85% 100.00' Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no ed. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C:\Documents and Settings \21807\Desktop\Stanford WSA local files \WSA\uratt5 112008\WSA tables\ Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2.3 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario 2010 Allocation Calculation 2010 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6 2010 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 ° for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2010 Projected Purchases' WWI Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors AdJusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback AdJusted Purchase Cutback % Final individual Share Alameda County W D 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 -2.74 -19.95% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.95% 7.40%'! Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.80% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.72% 2.07%x. Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 022% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.98% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.39% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.21% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.29% 2.83%i Coastside County WO 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.90% 1.09°/ 1.65 -0.53 -24.21% 1.08% CWS Total` 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -6.33 -17.84% 19.91% 29.80 -5.70 -16.06% 19.52% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.67% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.31% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 208 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.15% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.04% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.83 -0.52 -9.24% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.31% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.69% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.73% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.24% 12.18% 18.29 -4.08 -18.22% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.62% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.66% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.10% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.69% 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.49 3.15 -0.66 -20.79% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.72% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.62°% - 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.26% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.40 13.46 -3.08 -22.70% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.43% 7.02% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 206 3.84 -0.78 -20.27% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.25% 2.06% Palo Alto, City Of . ., - • .17.07 12.96 13.05 • 14.36 - 7.88% 12.02 13.05 -1.03 -727% 8.21% 12.13 - • -0.92 -7.08% .7.84% Purissima Hills W D 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.35% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.52°% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -18.30% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.67% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.37 3.25 -0.88 -26.92% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.23% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.38% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.44% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58°% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.42% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.38% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.38% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.34% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.46% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.12% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.98 174.96 95.9616 146.48 179.98 -33.50 -0.19 100.00% 149.83 -30.15 -16.75% San Jose, City ofd 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.52% 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.45% 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.98 182.31 100.00% 152.64 183.98 -31.34 -0.17 152.64 -31.34 -17.03% 10000% r First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2010 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors AdJusted Shortage Allocation AdJusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.51% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.83% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.25% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.53% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0,46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 35.75% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.78% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.87% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.23% 2.83% Coastside County WD , 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 38.55% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.54% 1.08% CWS Total` 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.68% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.10% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 429 4.42 2.43% 3.21 4.29 -1.08 -25.06% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.69% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.87% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.62% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.3556 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.21% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.05% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.97% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.8316 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -6.88 -30.77% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.07% 11.97% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 30.23% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.56% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.11% 2.3116 3.02 -1.44 -32.24% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.25% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.53% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.70% 4.81% 6.29 - -2.94 -31.85% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 8.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.90% 7.10% 9.27 -4.19 -31.09% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.79% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.10% 2.05% Palo Alto. City o6 . 17.07 • 12.96 • 13.05 14.36 7.88°% • • 10.44 13.05 .. -2.61 -20.02% - - 821% 10.58 - -. -2.47 . -18.92% • 7.98% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.44% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.32% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.34% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.84% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 325 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.57% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.55% 1.61% Skyline County WO 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.01% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.36% 0.10°% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.92% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.2216 1.62% Sunnyvale, Cityof 12.58 10.73 12,58 11.96 6.56°% 8.69 12.58 -3.89 -30.89% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.19% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 121 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.56% 0.6956 0.90 -0.42 -31.72% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 . 157.23 179.98 174.96 95.98°% 127.15 179.98 -52.83 -29.35% 100.00% 130.06 -49.92 -27.74% San Jose, City ofd 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.35% 1.22 -0.78 -38.97% 0.80% Santa Clara, Cityof 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.98% 1.22 -0.78 -38.97% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.98 182,31 100.00% 132.50 183.98 -51.48 -27.98% 132.50 -51.48 -27.98% 86.81 Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherxise no ed. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWO are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C:\0ocuments and Settings l21807\Desktop \Stanford WSA local Iiles\WSA\Draft51120088WSA tables 0Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-4 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario 2015 Allocation Calculation 2015 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2015 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5' for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Inllltal Shortage Allocation 2015 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 -2.74 -19.94% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.94% 7.40% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.78% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.70% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.48 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 2.12 -25.97% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.37% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.20% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.28% 2.83% Coastside County WD ' 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.89% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.20% 1.08% CWS Total` 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -6.33 -17.83% 19.91% 29.80 -5.70 -16.04% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.66% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.29°! 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.14% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.02% 1.16% Estero MlD/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.83 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.22% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.30% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.68% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.71% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 - -4.53 -20.23% 12.18% 18.30 -4.07 -18.21% 11.99% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.8 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.61% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.64% 2.21% - Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.09% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.67% 2.29%. Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.50 3.15 -0.65 -20.78% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.70% 1.68%'. Milpitas, City of 9.23 - 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.61% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.25% 4.76%, Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.41 13.46 -3.05 -22.69% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.42% 7.02%' North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.86 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.26% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.23% 2.06% Pato Alto, City of .: - - • 1707 - 1296 - 1297 • 14.33 -7.86% 12.00 . 12.97 - - -0.97 -7.48% 8.19% 12:10 . -0.87 -6.73% 713% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.34% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.50% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.29% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.66% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 325 2.84 1.56% 2.38 3.25 -0.87 -26.91% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.22% 1.81% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.37% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.43% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.82 -20.41% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.37% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.37% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.33% 6.73% Westborough WO 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.68% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.45% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.10% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.90 174.93 9596% 146.48 179.90 -33.42 -18.58% 100.00% 149.83 -30.08 -16.72% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 111% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.53% 1.41 -0.59 -29.68% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.47% 1.41 -0.59 -29.68°/ 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.90 182.29 100.00% 152.64 183.90 -31.26 -17.00% 152.64 -31.25 -17.00% 100.00°/ First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Inllltal Shortage Allocation 2015 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback °Y. Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 722% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% • 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.07'. Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.74% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.77% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.88% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.22% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.52% 1.08% CWS Total° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.67% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.09% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.22 4.29 -1.07 -25.05% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.67% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 218 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.88% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.60% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.20% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.03% 3.40°/ Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 025% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -8.88 30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.06% 11.98% 2.21%I Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 30.22% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.55% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 222% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.10% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.22% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.24% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.51% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 8.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.69% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.48 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 32.89% 7.10% 9.28 -4.18 -31.08% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.78% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.06% Palo Alto,.City.of. , 17.07 12.96 - .12.97' 14.33 7.86% 10.42 --.12.97 . .• -2.55 -19.69% ' 8.19% - 10.56 . -2.41 -. --18.60% - 7.97% Purisslma Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97°% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.43% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.33% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 325 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.08 3.25 -1.19 -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.54% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.00% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.35% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56°/ 8.70 1258 3.88 -3188% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.55% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.90 174.93 95.96% 127.15 179.90 -5275 -29.32% 100.00% 130.06 -49.84 -27.71% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.37% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 61.00% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.90 182.29 100.00% 132.50 183.90 -51.40 -27.95% 132.50 -51.40 -27.95% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise noted. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C4Documents and Seltings\21807\Desktop\Stanford WSA local files \WSA \Drait5 112008 WSA tables \Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-5 Tier Two Aliocation - No Project Scenario 2020 Allocation Calculation 2020 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2020 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2020 Projected Purchases ° initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 - -2.74 -19.94% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.94% 740% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.79% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.71% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22°/ 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.98% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.38% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.20% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.28% 283% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.89% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.20% 1.08% CWS Total° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -8.33 -17.83% 19.91% 29.80 -5.70 -16.05% 19.52°! Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 243% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.67% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.30% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -022 -11.14% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.03% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5-45 5.63 6.10 335% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 - -9.23% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.31% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 024% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.69% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.72% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.24% 12.18% 18.30 -4.07 -18.21% 11.99% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 215% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.61% 2.24% - 3.37 -0.72 -17.65% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.09% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.68% 229% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.50 3-15 -0.65 -20.79% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.71% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.62% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.25% 4.76% Mountain View. City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.41 13.46 -3.05 -22.70% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.43% 7.02% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.27% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.24% 2.06% Palo Alto, Cityof .. 17.07 12.96 - .. • 13.00 '14.34 7.67% 12.01 - 13.00 -0.99 -7.62% • . _ 8.20% 12.11 - - --0.89 -6.86% 7.93% Pu4ssima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.34% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.51% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.29% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.86% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.38 3.25 -0.87 -26.92% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -2422% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.37% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.43% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.41% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.37/ 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 1258 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.37% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.33% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.68% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.46% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.11% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.93 174.94 95.96% 146.48 179.93 -33.45 -18.59% 100.00% 149.83 -30.10 -16.73% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.53% 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.47/ 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.93 182.30 100.00% 152.64 183.93 -31.29 -17.01% 152.64 -31.29 -17.01% 100.00 First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltel Shortage Allocation 2020 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WO 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 326 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.74% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.7816 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 277% 3.67 5.23 -1.58 -29.86% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.22% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.53% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.67% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.10% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 . 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.22 4.29 -1.07 -25.06% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.68% 2.47%. East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.87% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.61% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.21% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.04% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 025% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -6.88 -30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.07% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.22% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.56% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.11% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.23% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.24% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.52% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.69% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City or 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.90% 7.10% 9.28 -4.18 -31.09% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 30.79% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.06% Palo Alto, City of • 17.07 - 12.96 13.00 -. 14.34 - 7.87% 10.43 - 13.00 - -2.58 -19.81% 8.20% -' 10.57 - -2.43 -18.72% 7.98% Purissima-Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97/ 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.44% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.34% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.58% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 - -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.55% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.01% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.36% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 8.70 12.58 -3.88 -30.88% 8.84% 8.91 -3.87 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.56% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.93 174.94 95.96% 127.15 179.93 -52.78 -29.33% 100.00% 130.06 -49.87 -27.72% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.36% 1.22 -0.78 -3096% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 243% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.99% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.93 182.30 100.00% 132.50 183.93 -51.43 -27.96% 132.50 -51.43 -27.96% 86.81% Note: All values In million gallons per day unless otherwise noted. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C:Oocumenis and Settings\ 21807\ Desktop\ Stanford WSA local Iiies1W SA\Drall5 112008\WSA tables\Scenario 0 -14o Project Appendix A2-6 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario 2025 Allocation Calculation 2025 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6 2025 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 for Single Dry Vear Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Vear Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2025 Projected Purchases ° initial Purchase Cutback initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 -2.74 -19.89% 7.53% 11.30 -2.46 -17.88% 7.40% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.74% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.64% 2.07/ Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.93% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.31% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 -5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.15% 2.89% 4.33 -0.90 -17.22% 2.84%. Coastside County WO 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.85% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.14% 1.08%'' CWSTotai 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.12% 29.19 35.50 -6.31 -17.78% 19.93% 29.83 -5.67 -15.99% 19.54% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.71 4.29 -0.58 -13.61% 2.53% 3.77 -0.52 -12.24% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 21 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.09% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -9.97% 1.16 % Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.17% 3.49% 5.17 -0.46 -8.25% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.64% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.65% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.70% 17.85 22.37 -4.52 -20.19% 12.19% 18.31 -4.06 -18.15% 12.00% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.16% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.56% 2.25% 3.37 -0.72 -17.59% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.04% 2.31% 3.50 -0.96 -21.61% 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.64% 2.50 3.15 -0.65 -20.74% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.64% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.57% 4.82% 7.27 -1.96 -21.19% 4.77% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 8.82% 10.41 13.46 -3.05 -22.65% 7.11% 10.72 -2.74 -20.36% 7.02% North Coast County WO 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.22% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.17% 2.06% Palo Alto, city of _ 1.7.07 ' 12.96 . 12.98 14.34 - 7.87% 12.01 - -12.96 -0.97 -7.46% 8.20% - • 12.11 -0.87 -6.70% - 7.93% Purissima Hills WO 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.49 1.62 -0.13 -8.29% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.45% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 6.00% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.24% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.60% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.38 3.25 -0.87 -26.87% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.16% 1,61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.32% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.37% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.37% 1.65% 2.48 -0.55 -18.31% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.57% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.32% 6.84% 10.28 -2.30 -18.27% 6.74% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.01 1.10 0.61% 592 1.01 -0.09 -8.48% 0.63% 0.93 -0.08 -7.62% 0.61% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.60 174.83 95.96% 146.48 179.60 -33.12 -18.44% 100.00% 149.83 -29.77 -16.58% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.60% 1.41 -0.59 -29.64% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.58% 1.41 -0.59 -29.64% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.60 182.19 100.00% 152.64 183.60 40.96 -16.86% 152.64 30.96 -16.86% 100.00° First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2025 Protected Purchases Initial Purchase Cutback initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 1276 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont -Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 202% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.07°/ Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.74% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.77% 0.23°. Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.86% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.22% 2.83%I Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.53% 1.08%- CWSTotalc 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.67% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.09% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.22 4.29 -1.07 -25.05% 253% 3.27 -1.02 -23.67% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.86% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.60% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.20% 3.49°/ 4.50 -1.13 -20.03% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 025% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 2237 -6.88 -30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.06% 1158% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.22% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.55% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.10% 231% 3.02 -1.44 -3223% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.24% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.52% 158% Milpitas, Clty of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.69% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.89% 7.10% 9.28 -4.18 -31.08% 7.0010 North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.78% 2.09. 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.06%. Palo Alto, City of 17.07 . .12.96 12.98 14.34 : - 7.86% - 10.42 12.98 : -2.56 - - -19.71% - 8.20% - 10.56 --2.42 -18.63% 7.97% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.43% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.34% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.54% 1A1% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0:17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.01% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.35% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 8.70 12.58 -3.88 -30.88% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.55% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.91 174.93 95.96% 127.15 179.91 -52.76 -29.32% 100.00% 130.06 49.85 -27.71% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.36% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 81.00% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.91 182.29 100.00% 132.50 16351 -51.41 -27.95% 132.50 -51.41 -27.95% 86.81 Note: An values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no ed. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C7Documents and Settings121807iDesktOplStanlord WSA local fileslWSA\Draf15112008\WSA tables4Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-7 Tier Two Allocation - No Project Scenario 2030 Allocation Calculation 2030 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6 2030 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 r for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2030 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 -2.74 -19.941 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.94% 7.40% Belmont - Mid-Pennisuia 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.79% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.71% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.98% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.38% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 523 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.20% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.28% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.90% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.20% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -6.33 -17.83% 19.915 29.80 -5.70 -18.05% 19.52% Daly City, City of 419 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.67% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.30°/ 2.46% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.14% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.03% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 8.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.23% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.31% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.69% 0.25T 0.38 -0.14 -26.72% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.24% 12.18% 18.30 -4.07 -18.21% 11.99% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.61% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.65% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.09% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.68% ' 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.50 3.15 -0.65 -20.79% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.71% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.62% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.2516 4.76°/ Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 1316 12.43 6.82% 10.40 13.46 -3.06 -22.70% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.43% 7.02% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.27% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.24% 2.06% Palo Alto, City of - 17.07 -- 12.96 - • 13.00 . . 14.34 - 7.87%. .. 12.01 - -13.00 -0.99 =7.63% .8.20% 12.11 -0.89 '. ' -6.87% 7.93% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1-85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.34% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.51% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.29% 6.25% 9.33 -1.80 -14.68% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.38 3.25 -0.87 -26.92% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.22% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.37% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.43% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.41% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.37% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.37% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.33% 6.73% Westborough WO 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.46% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.11% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.93 174.94 95.96% 146.48 179.93 -33.45 -18.59% 100.00% 149.83 -30.11 -16.73% San Jose, City of a 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 015 22.53% 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.46% 1.41 -0.59 -29.69% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.93 182.30 100.00% 152.64 183.93 -31.29 -17.019 152.64 -31.29 -17.01% 100.00 ry Year First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2030 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 326 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.076 Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.18 -35.74% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.78% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 523 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.86% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.2216 2.83% Coaslside County WO 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -3153% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10-18 -28.67% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.1016 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.22 4.29 -1.07 -25.06% 2.53% 327 -1.02 -23.68% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.87% . 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.61% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.83 -1.19 -21.21% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.04% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -6.88 -30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.07% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.22% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.56% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.11% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.23% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.99 -31.24% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.52% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.70% 4.81% 8.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 1316 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.90% 7.10% ' 9.28 -4.18 -31.09% 7.00% North Coast County WO 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.79% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.05% Palo Alto .City of . . . 17.07 12.96 13.00 _. 14.34 -' 7.87% 10.43 - 13.00 .. -2.58. . -19.825 .. 8.20% - - 10.57 -2.44 ' -18.73% 7.98% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.44% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.995 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.34% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 325 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.55% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.01% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.36% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale. City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 8.70 12.58 -3.88 -30.88% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.56% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.93 174.94 95.96% 127.15 179.93 -52.78 -29.33% 100.00% 130.06 -49.87 -27.72% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.36% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.99% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 183.93 182.30 100.00% 132.50 183.93 51.43 -27.96% 132.50 -51.43 -27.96% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise noted. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated wi01 Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. C:\Documents and Settings\21807\Desktop \Stanford WSA local files \WSA\Dralt5 1120081WSA tables\Scenario 0 - No Project Appendix A2-8 Tier Two Allocation - SU MC Project Whole sale Custom er Base Year Demand (2001) (mgd) SFPUC Demand (% of Total Demand) SFPUC Demand (mgd) Demand from Other S ources (mgd) Total Demand Projections (mgd) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Alameda County Water District 51 .1 24 .3% 12.42 38 .68 53.2 53.03 54 .11 55.09 55 .53 56.08 Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.7 100.0% 3 .70 0 .00 3 .7 3 .6 3 .7 3 .7 3.7 3.8 Brisbane, City of 0.44 100 .0% 0.44 0.00 0 .5 0.58 0 .67 0.76 0.84 0.93 Burlingame, City of 4.8 100.0% 4.80 0 .00 4.8 4.8 4.81 4.85 4 .88 4.92 Coastside County Water District 2 .6 70.3% 1.83 0.77 2 .7 2.94 3.05 3.13 3.18 3 .24 California Water Service " 39 .5 93.2% 36 .80 2.70 40.11 40.53 40.64 41 .14 41 .44 42.06 Daly City, City of 8 .7 63.6% 5 .53 3.17 8 .7 9.31 9 .31 9 .22 9.15 9.11 East Palo Alto, City of 2 .5 100.0% 2 .50 0 .00 2.6 3 .1 3.8 4.6 4.9 4 .8 Estero MID/Foster City 5.8 100 .0% 5.80 0.00 6 6 .2 6 .3 6.5 6.7 6.8 Guadalupe Valley MID 0 .32 100 .0% 0.32 . 0.00 0.39 0 .47 0.56 0.64 0 .72 0.81 Hayward, City of 19.3 100 .0% 19 .30 0.00 20 .8 22.2 23 .3 25 26.8 28.7 Hillsborough, Town of 3.7 100 .0% 3 .70 0.00 3.7 3 .85 3 .81 3 .93 3.98 3 .99 Menlo Park, City of 4.1 100.0% 4.10 0 .00 4.1 4.26 4.37 4 .5 4 .57 4.7 Millbrae, City of 3.1 100 .0% 3 .10 0.00 3.3 3.3 3.3 3 .3 3.3 3 .3 Milpitas, City of 12 59.3% 7.12 4 .88 13 14 .4 15.44 16 .24 17.03 17.7 Mountain View, City of 13.3 89.4% 11.89 1.41 13.4 13 .8 14.1 14.3 14 .6 14.8 North Coast County Water District 3.6 100.0% 3.60 0.00 3 .7 3.56 3.66 3 .71 3 .76 3 .8 Palo Alto, City of a 14. 2 99.4% 14 .11 0.09 14.5 14.26 14 .26 14 .36 14.36 14 .36 Purissima Hills Water District 2.2 100.0% 2.20 0 .00 2.4 2 .6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 Redwood City, City of 11.9 100.0% 11.90 0.00 12 .1 12 .7 13 13.2 13.3 13.4 San Bruno, City of 4.4 64.4% 2 .83 1 .57 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 Skyline County Water District 0.17 100.0% 0 .17 0 .00 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.31 Stanford University 3.9 68. 0% 2.65 1 .25 4.3 4.7 5 .09 5.7 6.2 6.8 Sunnyvale, City of 24. 8 43.6% 10.81 13.99 25 25 .49 25.99 26.29 27 .39 26.8 Westborough Water District 0.99 100. 0% 0.99 0 .00 1 1.15 1.15 1 .2 1.2 1 .2 To tal 272 282 292 299 308 315 324 San Jose, City of (portion of north San Jose) 5. 2 96.0% 4. 99 0 .21 5 .4 6 .44 6 .5 6.5 6 .5 6.5 Santa Clara, City of 25.8 16.2% 4.18 21.62 28 29.7 30 .9 31.9 32.9 33.9 Notes: Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report . a Demand values for the City of Palo Alto have been updated since the 2004 URS study with information from the City's UW MP and demand from the proposed project (see Table 3-8 in the Water Supply Assessment) . b California Water Se rvice Total is equa l to the sum of the three CWS districts and Los Trancos County Water District. H:\Common\WaterRes In-Box\Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft 11 2008\WSA tables\Scenario 2 Appendix A3-1 Tier Two All ocation - SUMC Project Wholesale Customer Demand Increa se from 2001 (mgd) SFPUC Demand Projections (mgd) Demand Increase from 2001 (mgd) mgd % 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 mgd Alameda County Water District 4.98 10% . 14.52 13.76 13 .76 13.76 13.76 13.76 -0.76 -5% Belmont - Mid-Pennlsula 0.1 3% -;;!, 3.70 3.89 3.89 3.89 3.89 3.89 0.19 5% Brisbane, City of 0.49 111% _; 0.50 0 .46 0.46 0 .46 0.46 0 .46 -0.04 -8% Burlingame, City of 0.12 3% :h' 4.80 5.23 5 .23 5.23 5.23 5.23 0 .43 9% Coastside Co unty Water District 0 .64 25% 1 .93 2.18 2.18 2 .18 2 .18 2.18 0.25 13% California Water Service " 2.56 6% 37 .41 35.50 35.50 35 .50 35.50 35.50 1 .93 5% Daly City, City of 0 .41 5% 5 .53 4.29 4.29 4 .29 4.29 4.29 -1.24 -22% East Palo Alto, City of 2.3 92% 2.60 1.96 1.96 1 .96 1.96 1.96 -0 .64 -25%'i Estero MID/Foster City 1 17% 6 .00 5 .63 5 .63 5.63 5.63 5.63 -0 .37 -6%I Guadalupe Valley M ID 0.49 153% 0.39 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.13 33% Hayward, City of 9.4 49% 20.80 22.37 22.37 22 .37 22.37 22.37 1.57 8% Hillsborough, Town of 0 .29 8% 3.70 4 .09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 0.39 11% M enlo Park, City of 0.6 15% : 4.10 4 .46 4 .46 4.46 4 .46 4.46 0.36 9% Millbrae, City of 0.2 6% 3 .30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3 .15 3 .15 -0.15 -5% Milpitas, City of 5.7 48% 8.12 9 .23 9.23 9 .23 9.23 9.23 1.11 14% M ountain View, City of 1.5 11% 11.99 13.46 13.46 13 .46 13.46 13.46 1 .47 12% North Coa st County Water District 0.2 6% 3.70 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.84 0.14 4% Palo Alto, City of a 0.16 1% 13 .23 13.07 13.08 13.14 13.16 13.18 -0 .04 0% Purissima Hills Water District 1. 1 50% .;< .' 2.40 1 .62 1.62 1 .62 1.62 1 .62 -0.78 -33% Redwood City, City of 1. 5 13% ' 12 .10 10.93 10 .93 10.93 10.93 10.93 -1.17 -10% San Bruno, City of 0.1 2% 2.63 3 .25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 0.62 23% Skyline County Water District 0. 14 82% 0.19 0 .18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 -0 .01 -5% Stanford University 2. 9 74% .` -' 3.05 3.03 3 .03 3.03 3.03 3 .03 -0.02 -1% Sunnyvale, City of 2 8% 11.01 12.58 12.58 12.58 12 .58 12.58 1.57 14% Westborough Water District 0.21 21% 1.00 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 0.32 32% To tal 52 19% 190 184 184 184 184 184 -6.16 -3% San Jose, City of (portion of north San Jose) 1.3 25% '. 5. 19 2 .00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 -3.19 -61% Santa Clara, City of 8. 1 31% - 6.38 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 -4 .38 -69% Notes: a b H:\Common\WaterRes In-Box\Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft 11 2008\WSA tables\Scenario 2 Appendix A3-2 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2005 Allocation Calculation 2005 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 153.7' 2005 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 133.4' for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2005 Purchases° 1511191 Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 14.52 13.41 727% 11.17 14.52 -3.34 -23.03% 7.68% 11.22 -3.30 -22.72% 7.30% Belmont- Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.70 3.62 1.96% 3.01 3.70 -0.69 -18.54% 2.07/° 3.02 -0.68 -18.30% 1.97% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.30 0.50 0.42 0.23% 0.35 0.50 -0.15 -30.00% 0.24% 0.35 -0.15 -29.60% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 4.80 4.90 2.66% 4.09 4.80 -0.71 -14.87% 2.81% 4.10 -0.70 -14.67% 2.67% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 1.93 1.82 0.99% 1.52 1.93 -0.41 -21.36% 1.04% 1.52 -0.41 -2127% 0.99% CWS Total° 35.50 33.51 37.41 35.47 19.24% 29.56 37.41 -7.85 -20.98% 20.33% 29.67 -7.74 -20.70% 19.30% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 5.53 4.84 2.62% 4.03 5.53 -1.50 -27.14% 2.77% 4.05 -1.48 -26.78% 2.64% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.10 2.60 2.29 1.24% 1.91 2.60 -0.69 -26.49% 1.31% 1.92 -0.68 -26.14% 1.25% Estero MID/Foster City - 7.23 5.45 6.00 6.23 3.38% 5.19 6.00 -0.81 -13.52% 3.57% 5.20 -0.80 -13.34% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.21% 0.33 0.39 -0.06 -15.95% 0.23% 0.33 -0.06 -15.74% 0.21% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 20.80 20.79 11.27% 17.32 20.80 -3.48 -16.72% 11.91% 17.37 -3.43 -18.50% 11.30% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.80 3.70 3.80 2.06% 3.16 3.70 -0.54 -14.49% 2.18°/ 3.17 -0.53 -14.30°/ 2.06% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.10 3.92 2.13% 3.27 4.10 -0.83 -20.26% 2.25% 3.28 -0.82 -19.99% 2.13% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.30 3.03 1.64% 2.53 3.30 -0.77 -23.48% 1.74% 2.54 -0.76 -23.17% 1.65% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.80 8.12 8.05 4.36% 6.71 8.12 -1.41 -17.36% 4.61% 6.73 -1.39 -17.13% 4.38% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 11.99 11.94 6.47% 9.95 11.99 -2.04 -17.04% 6.84% 9.97 -2.02 -16.81% 6.49% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.70 3.61 1.96% 3.01 3.70 -0.69 -18.69% 2.07% 3.02 -0.68 -18.44% 1.96/, 7.83% Palo Alto, City of • 17.07 . - 12.96 13.23 ' 14.42 782% 12.02 -. - -13.23 -1.21 - -9.15% 8.26% - 12.03 -1.19 -9.03% . Purissima Hills WO 1.85 1.85 2.40 2.03 1.10% 1.69 2.40 -0.71 -29.40% 1.17% 1.70 -0.70 -29.01% 1.11% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 12.10 11.32 6.14% 9.43 12.10 -2.67 -22.06% 6.48% 9.47 -2.63 -21.77% 6.16% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 2.63 2.63 1.43% 2.19 2.63 -0.44 -16.74% 1.51% 2.20 -0.44 -16.52% 1.43% Skyline County WD 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.10% 0.15 0.19 -0.04 -22.51% 0.10% 0.15 -0.04 -2221% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.05 2.89 1.57% 2.41 3.05 -0.65 -21.16% 1.65% 2.41 -0.64 -20.88% 1.57% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 11.01 11.44 6.20% 9.53 11.01 -1.48 -13.43% 6.56% 9.55 -1.46 -13.25% 6.22% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.00 1.10 0.60% 0.92 1.00 -0.08 -8.33% 0.63% 0.92 -0.08 -8.22% 0.60% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 178.70 174.53 94.64% 145.44 178.70 -33.26 -18.61% 100.00% 145.89 -32.81 -18.36% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.10 5.19 3.99 2.16% 3.33 5.19 -1.87 -35.95% 3.33 -1.87 -35.95% 2.16% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 6.38 5.89 3.19% 4.91 6.38 -1.47 -23.06% 4.47 -1.91 -30.00% 291% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 190.27 184.41 100.00% 153.88 190.27 -36.59 -19.23% 153.68 .36.59 -19.23% 100.00% First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2005 Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 14.52 13.41 7.28% 9.69 14.52 -4.83 -33.25% 7.68% 9.73 -4.79 -33.00% 6.33% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.70 3.62 1.96% 2.61 3.70 -1.09 -29.36% 2.07% 2.62 -1.08 -29.14% 1.71% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.30 0.50 0.42 0.23% 0.30 0.50 -0.20 -39.29% 0.24% 0.30 -0.20 -39.01% 0.20% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 4.80 4.90 2.66% 3.54 4.80 -1.26 -26.17% 2.81% 3.55 -1.25 -25.98% 2.31%. Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 1.93 1.82 0.99% 1.31 1.93 -0.61 -31.80% 1.04% 1.32 -0.61 -31.57% 0.86% CWSTotal° 35.50 33.51 37.41 35.47 19.22% 25.64 37.41 -11.77 -31.47% 20.31% 25.72 -11.69 -31.24% 16.74% Daly City, City of 4.49 5.53 5.01 2.72% 3.62 5.53 -1.91 -34.54% 2.87% 3.64 -1.90 -34.29% 2.37% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.10 260 2.29 1.24% 1.66 2.60 -0.94 -36.25% 1.31% 1.66 -0.94 -35.99% 1.08% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 6.00 6.23 3.37% 4.50 6.00 -1.50 -25.00% 3.58% 4.51 -1.49 -24.82% 2.94% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.21% 0.28 0.39 -0.11 -27.11% 0.23% 0.29 -0.10 -26.91% 0.19% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 20.80 20.79 1126% 15.02 20.80 -5.78 -27.78% 11.90% 15.06 -5.74 -27.57% 9.80% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.60 3.70 3.80 2.06% 2.74 3.70 -0.96 -25,84% 2.17% 2.75 -0.95 -25.65% 1.79% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.10 3.92 2.13% 2.84 4.10 -1.26 -3184% 2.25% 2.84 -1.26 -30.62% 1.85% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.30 3.03 1.64% 2.19 3.30 -1.11 -33.64% 1.73% 2.20 -1.10 -33.40% 1.43% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.80 8.12 8.05 4.36% 5.82 8.12 -2.30 -28.33% 4.61% 5.83 -2.28 -28.12% 3.80% Mountain View, City o1 13.46 10.36 11.99 11.94 6.47% 8.63 11.99 -3.36 -2825% 6.83% 8.65 -3.34 -27.85"/ 5.63% North Coast County WO 3.84 3.29 3.70 3.81 1.96% 2.61 3.70 -1.09 -29.49% 2.07% 2.62 -1.08 -29.27% 2.07% • Palo Alto, City or -.: • - - - - 17.07 •- 12.96 13.23 1'4.42 . -. -7.81 % 10.42 - 13.23 -2.81 - --21.21% 8.25% - 10.44 ' - -2.78 -21.05% 7.83% Pudssima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 2.40 2.03 1.10% 1.47 2.40 -0.93 -38.77/ 1.16% 1.48 -0.92 -38.49% 0.96% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 12.10 11.32 6.13% 8.18 12.10 -3.92 -32.41% . 148% 8.21 -3.89 -32.17% 5.34% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 263 2.63 1.43% 1.90 2.63 -0.73 -27.80% 1.51% 1.91 -0.73 -27.59% 1.24% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.10% 0.13 0.19 -0.06 -32.80% 0.10% 0.13 -0.06 -32.56% 0.08% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.05 2.89 1.56% 2.09 3.05 -0.97 -31.63% 1.65% 2.09 -0.96 -31.40% 1.36% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 11.01 11.44 6.20% 8.27 11.01 -2.74 -24.92% 6.55% 8.29 -2.72 -24.74% 5.39% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.00 1.10 0.60% 0.79 1.00 -0.21 -20.50% 0.63% 0.80 -0.20 -20.35% 0.52% SUBTOTAL 187.66 152.74 178.70 174.70 94.65% 126.26 178.70 -52.44 -29.35% 100.00% 126.64 -52.06 -29.13% San Jose, City of 4 2.68 4.10 5.19 3.99 2.16% 2.88 5.19 -2.31 -44.45% 2.88 -2.31 -44.45% 1.88 Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 6.38 5.89 3.19% 4.26 6.38 -2.12 -33.28% 3.87 -2.51 -39.29% 2.52% TOTAL 196.91 161.56 190.27 184.58 100.00% 133.40 190.27 -56.87 -29.89% 133.40 -56.87 -29.89% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no ed. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City a d County of San Francisco Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion o1 No4h San Jose. H:\Common\WalerRes In-Box\Engr In -Box \Leanne Abe \Stanford WSA local tlles\WSA\Draft 11 20081W SA tables \Scenario 2 Appendix A3-3 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2010 Allocation Calculation 2010 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2010 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5' for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2010 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WO 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 722% 11.01 13.76 -2.75 -19.95% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.96% 7.40% Belmont -Mid-Pennisuia 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.80% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.72% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.99% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.39% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 - -1.00 -19.21% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.30% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.90% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.22% 1.08% CWS Total' 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -6.33 -17.84% 19.91% 29.80 -5.70 -16.06% 19.52% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.68% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.31% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.98 -0.22 -11.15% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.04% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.24% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.32% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.70% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.73% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.25% 12.18% 18.29 -4.08 -18.23% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.62% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.66% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.10% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.69% 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.49 3.15 -0.66 -20.80% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.72% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.63% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.27% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.40 13.46 -3.06 -22.71% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.44% 7.02% North Coast County WO 3.84 329 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.28% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.25% 2.06% Palo Alto, City of 17.07 12.96 - 13.07 14.37 7:88% 12:03 - .13.07 - -1.04 - -7.99% 8.21% 12.13 -0.94 -.7.19% - 7.95% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.36% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.52% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -18.31% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.68% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.37 3.25 -0.88 -26.93% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.24% 1.61% Skyline County WO 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.38% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.45% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.42% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.39% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.38% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.35% 6.73% Westborough WO 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.47% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.12% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.00 174.96 95.96% 146.48 180.00 -33.52 -0.19 100.00% 149.83 -30.18 -16.76% San Jose, City o1 ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.51% 1.41 -0.59 -29.70% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.44% 1.41 -0.59 -29.70% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.00 182.32 100.00%_ 152.64 184.00 .31.36 -0.17 152.64 -31.36 -17.04% 100.00 le Dry Year First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2010 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WO 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont -Mid-Pennisuia 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.74% 0.23% 0.30 -0.18 -33.78% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.86% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.22% 2.83% Coastside County WO 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 38.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.53% 1.08% CWS Total' 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.67% 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.09% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.29 4.39 2.41% 3.19 4.29 -1.10 -25.62% 2.51% 3.25 -1.04 -24.21% 2.45% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.86% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.61% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.20% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.04% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -6.88 30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.07% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.8 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 30.22% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.55% 2.21% Menlo Park, Clly of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.10% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.23% 2.28% Millbrae City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.24% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.52% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.69% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.89% 7.10% 9.28 -4.18 -31.08% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.78% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.06% Palo Allot City of 17.07 - - - - 12.96 13.07 14.37 7.88% 10.44 ,13.07 - -2.63 -20.12% -. 8.21% 10.59 -2.49 • • -19.01% - . - 7.99% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.43% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.33% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34,55% 1.61% Skyline County WO 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.00% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.36% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.98 6.56% 8.70 12.58 -3.88 -30.88% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WO 1.32 0.98 1.32 121 0.66°/ 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.55% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.66% SUBTOTAL 187.66 152.74 180.00 174.93 95.96% 127.15 180.00 -52.85 -29.36%_ 100.00% 130.06 -49.94 -27.75% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.81% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.37% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% Santa Clara. City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 61.00% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 161.56 184.00 182.29 100.00% 132.50 184.00 -51.50 -27.99% 132.50 -51.50 -27.99% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise noted. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Is Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request tor year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. 4 Portion of North San Jose. HJCommon\WaterRes In-Box\Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files\WSA\Draft 11 2008\WSA IabieslScenario 2 Appendix A3-4 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2015 Allocation Calculation 2015 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2015 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5' Dry Year for Single Dry Vear Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) tor Multiple Dry Vear Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Vadeble Component° Average Allocation Factors Inilital Shortage Allocation 2015 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 1176 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.01 13.76 -2.75 -19.95% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.96% 7.40% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.80% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.72% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.99% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.39% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 277/ 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -1922% 2.88% 4.33 -0.90 -17.30% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.91% 1.09°/ 1.65 -0.53 -24.22% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 29.17 35.50 -6.33 -17.84% 19.91% 29.80 -5.70 -16.06% 19.52% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 243% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.68% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.31% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City or 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.15% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.04% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.24% 3.49% . 5.16 -0.47 -8.32% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.70% 0.25% 0.38 -014 -26.73% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.25% 12.18% 18.29 -4.08 -18.23% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 215% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.62% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.66% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.48 -1.07 -24.10% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.70% 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.49 3.15 -0.66 -20.80% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.72% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.63% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.27% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.40 13.46 -3.06 -22.71% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.44% 7.02% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.28% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 18.25% 2.06% - Palo Alto, City of 17.07 12.96 13.08 - 14.37 7.88% 12.03 - 13.08 - . '-1 L05 . i-8.02% - 8.21% 12:14 . -0.94 -7.22% 7.95% Purissima Hills WO 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.36% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.52% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.31% 6.25% 9.33 -1.60 -14.68% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.37 3.25 -0.88 -26.93% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.24% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.38% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.45% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.43% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.39% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City o1 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.58 -20.38% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.35% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.47/ 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.13% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.01 174.97 95.97% 146.48 180.01 -33.53 -18.63% 100.00% 149.83 30.18 -16.77% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.51% 1.41 -0.59 -29.70% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.44% 1.41 -0.59 -29.70% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.01 182.32 100.00% 152.64 184.01 -31.37 -17.05% 152.64 -31.37 -17.05% 100.00 Dry Y First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors Inilital Shortage Allocation 2015 Projected Purchases' initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.50% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.82% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.24% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.52% 2.07/ Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.74% 0.23% • 0.30 -0.16 -33.78% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.86°/ 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.22% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 36.54% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.53% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.11% 25.32 35.50 -10.18 -28.67/ 19.91% 25.88 -9.62 -27.10% 19.53% Daly City, City or 4.49 4.29 4.39 2.41% 3.19 4.29 -1.10 -25.62% 251% 3.25 -1.04 -2421% 2.45% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.86% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.81% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.83 6.10 3.35% 4.44 5.63 -1.19 -21.20% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.04% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 027 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.96% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.82% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.49 22.37 -6.88 -30.76% 12.18% 15.87 -6.50 -29.07% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -3022% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.56% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.10% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.23% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -3124% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.52% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.82% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.69% 4.81% 8.29 -2.94 -31.84% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.89% 7.10% 9.28 -4.18 -31.09% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.78% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.09% 2.06% Palo Alio;City of . - 17.07 - 12.96 - .. 13.08 14.37 - • .7.88% 10.44 13.08 .. -2.63 . • -20.14% 8.21% - 10.59 -2.49 -19.03% - 7.99% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97/° 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.43% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.31 % 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.34% 6.25% 8.11 -2.82 -25.83% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.56% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.55% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.01% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.36% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.91% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -28.21% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 1258 11.96 6.56% 8.70 12.58 -3.88 -30.88% 5.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.18% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.55% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.71% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 152.74 180.01 174.93 95.96% 127.15 180.01 -52.86 -29.36% 100.00% 130.06 -49.95 -27.75% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.36% 1.22 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 8.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 61.00% 122 -0.78 -38.96% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 161.56 184.01 182.29 100.00% 132.50 184.01 -51.51 -27.99% 132.50 -51.51 -27.99% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no ed. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trencos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. H:\Common\WaterRes In-Box\Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files \WSA \Drat t 11 2008\WSA tables\Scenario 2 Appendix A3-5 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2020 Allocation Calculation 2020 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2020 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initltal Shortage Allocation 2020 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.01 13.76 -2.75 -19.96% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.97% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.81% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.74% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 . -0.12 -26.00% 023% 0.35 -0.11 -23.41% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.22 5.23 -1.01 -19.22% 2.88% 4.32 -0.91 -17.31% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.91% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.23% 1.08% CWS TotaW 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.10% 29.16 35.50 -8.34 -17.85% 19.91% 29.79 -5.71 -16.08% 19.52% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.69% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.33% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 21 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.17% 1.19% 1.78 -0.20 -10.05% 1.15% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.83 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.25% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.33% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.71% 0.25% 0.38 .0.14 -26.75% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 2237 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.26% 12.18% 18.29 -4.08 -16.24% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.63% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.68% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.36 4.46 -1.08 -24.11% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.71% 2.29% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.49 3.15 -0.66 -20.81% 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.74% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.84% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.28% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 13.48 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.81% 10.40 13.46 -3.06 -22.72% 7.10% 10.71 -275 -20.45% 7.01% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.29% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.27% 2.06% Palo Plto, City of - • • 17.07 12.96 . • 13.14 14.39 7.69% 12.05 • 13:14 -1.10 -. -8.35% • 8.22% • 12.16 --0.99 -7.52% 7.96% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.37% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.53% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.32% -6.24% 9.32 -1.61 -14.69% 6.11% San Bruno, City o1 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.37 3.25 -0.88 -28.94% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.25% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.39% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.46% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.43% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.40% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.01 12.58 -2.57 -20.39% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.36% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.48% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.14% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.07 174.99 95.97% 146.48 180.07 33.59 -18.65% 100.00% 149.83 -30.25 -16.80% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1:61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.49% 1.41 -0.59 -29.71% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.439 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.42% 1.41 -0.59 -29.71% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.07 182.34 100.00% 152.64 184.07 -31.43 -17.08% 152.64 31.43 -17.08% 100.00 First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component' Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2020 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.52% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.85% 7.39% Belmont -Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.26% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.54% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.76% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 -33.80% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.88% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.24% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.56% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.55% 1.08°! CWS Total° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.10% 25.31 35.50 -10.19 -28.69% 19.91% 25.87 -9.63 -27.12% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.21 4.29 -1.08 -25.08% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.70% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14%, 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.89% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.63% 1.16%' Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.43 5.63 -1.20 -21.23% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.06% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.98% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.84% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.48 22.37 -6.89 30.78% 12.18% 15.86 -6.51 -29.09% 11.97% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2,15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.24% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.58% 2.20% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.12% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 32.25% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 217 3.15 -0.98 -31.28% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.54% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.71% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.86% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.81% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.91% 7.10% 9.27 -4.19 -31.11% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.80% 209% 2.72 -1.12 -29.11% 2.05% Palo Alto, City of . - , .17.07 . -12.96 '13.14 - 14.39 - 7.89% 10.46 13.14. 4.69 - -20.44% 8.22% 10.60 -2.54 -19.32% - • 8.00% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.82 -0.33 -20.46% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.33% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.36% 6.24% 8.10 -2.83 -25.88% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.58% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.57% 1.60% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.03% 0.10°/ 0.13 -0.05 -28.38% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.93% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.23% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 8.69 12.58 -3.89 -30.90% 6.8496 8.91 -3.67 -29.20% 6.72% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.57% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.73% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.07 174.99 95.97% 127.15 180.07 -52.92 -29.39% 100.00% 130.06 -50.02 -27.77% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.13 2.00 0.13 8.33% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.95% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.07 182.34 100.00% 132.50 184.07 -51.57 -28.02% 132.50 -51.57 -28.02% 86.81° Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no 06. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County o1 San Francisco Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Nate: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. H:\Common\WaterRes In -Box \Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files VA/SA \Draft 11 2008\WSA tables\Scenario 2 Appendix A3-6 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2025 Allocation Calculation 2025 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6 ° 2025 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5 ° for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Year Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable- Component° Average Allocation Factors InItital Shortage Allocation 2025 Protected Purchases° Initial purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22% 11.02 13.76 -2.74 -19.92% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.91% 7.40% Belmont - Mid-Pennisuia 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.77% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.68% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -25.96% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.35% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.23 5.23 -1.00 -19.18% 2.89% 4.33 -0.90 -17.25% 2.84% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.78 -0.59 -26.87/ 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.17% 1.08% CWSTotal° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.12% 29.18 35.50 -6.32 -17.81% 19.92% 29.81 -5.69 -16.02% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43°/ 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.64% 2.53% . 3.76 -0.53 -12.27% 2.47% East Pato Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.12% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.00% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.83 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.20% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.28% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.67% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -26.68% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.85 22.37 -4.52 -20.21% 12.1896 18.30 -4.07 -18.18% 11.99% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.59% 2.25% 3.37 -0.72 -17.62% 2.21% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.39 4.46 -1.07 -24.07% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.65% 2.29% Millbrae, Cityot 3.15 2.64 3.75 2.98 1.64% 2.50 3.15 -0.65 -20.77% 7.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.68% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.60% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.22% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 73.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.82% 10.41 13.46 -3.05 -22.67% 7.11% 10.71 -2.75 -20.39% 7.02% North Coast County WD 3.84 329 3.84 3.66 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.24% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.21% 2.06% Palo Altd, City of . 17.07 --12.96 . 13.16 '14.40 720% .12.06 - 13.16 --1.10 •-8.36% 8.23% 12.17 -0.99 --7.52%.. 7:97% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 7.49 1.62 -0.13 -8.32°% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.48% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 6.00% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.27% 6.25% 9.33 -1.80 -14.63% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.38 3.25 -0.87 -26.90% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.19% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.35% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.40% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.41 323 -0.62 -20.39% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.34% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.02 12.58 -2.56 -20.35% 6.84% 10.28 -2.30 -18.30% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.01 1.10 0.61% 0.92 1.01 -0.09 -8.51% 0.63% 0.93 -0.08 -7.65% 0.61% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 179.78 174.89 95.96% 146.48 179.78 -33.30 -18.52% 100.00% 149.83 -29.95 -16.66% San Jose, City of 4 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.61% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.56% 1.41 -0.59 -29.67% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.52°% 1.41 -0.59 -29.67% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 16625 183.78 182.25 100.00% 152.64 183.78 -31.14 -16.94% 152.64 -31.14 -16.94% 100.00% r First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component ° Average Allocation Factors Initital Shortage Allocation 2025 Projected Purchases ° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WO 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.22°% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.52% 7.52°% 9.79 -3.97 -28.85% 7.39% Belmont - Mld-Pennisula 3.89 3.28 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 -31.26% 2.10°A 2.74 -1.15 -29.54% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.76% 0.23% 0.30 -0.16 33.80% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.58 -29.88% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.24% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.56% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.55% 1.08% CWS Total° 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.10% 25.31 35.50 -10.79 -28.69% 19.91% 25.87 -9.63 -27.12% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.21 4.29 -1.08 -25.08% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.70% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.89% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.63% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.43 6.63 -1.20 -21.23% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.06% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.98% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.84% 0.25°% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.48 22.37 -6.89 -30.78% 12.18% 15.86 -6.51 -29.09% 11.97% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.24°% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.58% 2.20% Menlo Park, City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.13% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.25% 2.28 % Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.26% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.54% 1.68% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 6.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.71% 4.81% 6.29 -2.94 -31.86% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.81% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.92% 7.10% 9.27 -4.19 -31.11% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.66 3.84 -1.18 -30.81% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.12% 2.05% Palo Alto, City of . 17.07 ' 12.96 : .. 13.16 14.40 - 7:89% - 10.46 .. .. 13.16 . -2.70 •-20.50% 8.23% .. 10.61 -2.55 -19.37% . • 8.07% Purissima Hills W0 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0-97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.46% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.34% 0.99°% Redwood City, City of 70.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.36% 6.24% 8.10 -2.83 -25.86% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.58% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 -34.57% 1.60% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -025 30.03% 0.10% 0.13 -0.05 -28.38°% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.93% 1.85% 2.14 -0.89 -29.24% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 1 8.89 12.58 -3.89 30.90% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.20% 6.72°% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 33.58% 0.69°% 0.90 -0.42 -31.73% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.09 174.99 95.97% 127.15 180.09 -52.93 -29.39% 100.00% 130.06 -50.03 -27.78% San Jose, City of a 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.60% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.33% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.8094 Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.95% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 164.09 182.35 100.00% 132.50 184.09 -51.59 -28.02°% 132.50 -51.59 -28.02% 86.81°/ Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise no od. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included In the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. H:1Common\WaterRes In -Box \Engr In-Box\Leanne Abe\Stanford WSA local files\WSA1Dralt 11 2008\WSA tableslScenario 2 Appendix A3-7 Tier Two Allocation - SUMC Project 2030 Allocation.Calculation 2030 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 152.6' 2030 Amount of water available to suburban purchcasers collectively 132.5' for Single Dry Year Suppy (10 percent system wide reduction) for Multiple Dry Vear Suppy (20 percent system wide reduction) First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors 101(1191 Shortage Allocation 2030 Projected Purchases b Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback % Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback % Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.78 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.21% 11.01 13.76 -2.75 -19.97% 7.52% 11.29 -2.47 -17.98% 7.39% Belmont - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 3.08 3.89 -0.81 -20.81% 2.10% 3.16 -0.73 -18.74% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.34 0.46 -0.12 -26.00% 0.23% 0.35 -0.11 -23.41% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.88 5.23 5.05 2.77% 4.22 5.23 -1.01 -19.23% 2.88% 4.32 -0.91 -17.32% 2.83% Coastslde County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.59 2.18 -0.59 -26.92°% 1.09% 1.65 -0.53 -24.24% 1.08% CWS Total' 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.10% 29.16 35.50 -6.34 -17.86% 19.91% 29.79 -5.71 -16.08% 19.52% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 4.42 2.43% 3.70 4.29 -0.59 -13.69% 2.53% 3.76 -0.53 -12.33% 2.46% East Palo Alto, City or 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.74 1.96 -0.22 -11.17% 1.19% 1.76 -0.20 -10.08% 1.15% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 5.11 5.63 -0.52 -9.26% 3.49% 5.16 -0.47 -8.34% 3.38% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.37 0.52 -0.15 -29.71% 0.25% 0.38 -0.14 -28.75% 0.25% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 17.84 22.37 -4.53 -20.26% 12.18% 1829 -4.08 -18.25% 11.98% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 3.29 4.09 -0.80 -19.64% 2.24% 3.37 -0.72 -17.68% 2.21% Menlo Park City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 3.38 4.46 -1.08 -24.12% 2.31% 3.49 -0.97 -21.72% 2.29°% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.49 3.15 -0.66 -20.81°.4 1.70% 2.56 -0.59 -18.74% 1.68% Milpitas City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 7.05 9.23 -2.18 -23.64% 4.81% 7.27 -1.96 -21.29% 4.76% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 6.81% 10.40 13.46 -3.06 -22.72% 7.10% 10.71 -2.75 -20.46% 7.01% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.68 2.01% 3.06 3.84 -0.78 -20.29% 2.09% 3.14 -0.70 -18.27% 2.06% Palo Alto; City of 17.07 12.96 • 13.18 14.40 7.90% 12.06 13.18 -1.12 - -8.53% 8.23% - 12.17 -1.01 - -7.68% 7.97% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.48 1.62 -0.14 -8.37% 1.01% 1.50 -0.12 -7.54% 0.98% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 9.15 10.93 -1.78 -16.32% 6.24% 9.32 -1.61 -14.70% 6.11% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.37 3.25 -0.88 -26.94% 1.62% 2.46 -0.79 -24.26% 1.61% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.15 0.18 -0.03 -19.40% 0.10% 0.15 -0.03 -17.47% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2:88 1.58% 2.41 3.03 -0.62 -20.44% 1.65% 2.47 -0.56 -18.41% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 10.01 12.58 -2.57 -20.40% 6.84% 10.27 -2.31 -18.37% 6.73% Westborough WD 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 1.01 1.32 -0.31 -23.48% 0.69% 1.04 -0.28 -21.15% 0.68% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.11 175.00 95.97% 146.48 180.11 -33.63 -18.67% 100.00% 149.83 -00.28 -16.81% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.60% 2.45 2.00 0.45 22.49% 1.41 -0.59 -29.71% 0.92% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.71 2.00 1.71 85.40% 1.41 -0.59 -29.71% 0.92% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.11 182.36 100.00% 152.64 184.11 31.47 -17.09% 152.64 -31.47 -17.09% 100.00% First Fixed Component Second Fixed Component Variable Component° Average Allocation Factors InitItal Shortage Allocation 2030 Projected Purchases° Initial Purchase Cutback Initial Purchase Cutback% Subtotal Allocation Factors Adjusted Shortage Allocation Adjusted Purchase Cutback Adjusted Purchase Cutback% Final Individual Share Alameda County WD 13.76 11.95 13.76 13.16 7.21% 9.56 13.76 -4.20 -30.53% 7.52% 9.79 -3.97 -28.85% 7.39% Belmar - Mid-Pennisula 3.89 3.26 3.89 3.68 2.02% 2.67 3.89 -1.22 31.26% 2.10% 2.74 -1.15 -29.55% 2.07% Brisbane, City of 0.46 0.3 0.46 0.41 0.22% 0.30 0.46 -0.16 -35.76% 023% 0.30 -0.18 -33.80% 0.23% Burlingame, City of 5.23 4.68 5.23 5.05 2.77% 3.67 5.23 -1.56 -29.89% 2.88% 3.75 -1.48 -28.25% 2.83% Coastside County WD 2.18 1.35 2.18 1.90 1.04% 1.38 2.18 -0.80 -36.56% 1.09% 1.43 -0.75 -34.56% 1.08% CWSTotaI' 35.5 33.51 35.50 34.84 19.10% 25.31 35.50 -10.19 -28.70% 19.91% 25.87 -9.63 -27.12% 19.53% Daly City, City of 4.49 4.49 4.29 442 2.43% 3.21 4.29 -1.08 -25.08% 2.53% 3.27 -1.02 -23.71% 2.47% East Palo Alto, City of 2.18 2.1 1.96 2.08 1.14% 1.51 1.96 -0.45 -22.89% 1.19% 1.54 -0.42 -21.64% 1.16% Estero MID/Foster City 7.23 5.45 5.63 6.10 3.35% 4.43 5.63 -1.20 -21.23% 3.49% 4.50 -1.13 -20.07% 3.40% Guadalupe Valley MID 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.44 0.24% 0.32 0.52 -0.20 -38.98% 0.25% 0.33 -0.19 -36.85% 025% Hayward, City of 24.00 17.56 22.37 21.31 11.69% 15.48 22.37 -6.89 -30.78% 12.18% 15.86 -6.51 -29.09% 11.97% Hillsborough, Town of 4.09 3.6 4.09 3.93 2.15% 2.85 4.09 -1.24 -30.24% 2.24% 2.92 -1.17 -28.58% 2.20% Menlo Park City of 4.24 3.43 4.46 4.04 2.22% 2.94 4.46 -1.52 -34.13% 2.31% 3.02 -1.44 -32.26% 2.28% Millbrae, City of 3.15 2.64 3.15 2.98 1.63% 2.17 3.15 -0.98 -31.29% 1.70% 2.22 -0.93 -29.55% 1.67% Milpitas, City of 9.23 6.8 9.23 8.42 4.62% 8.12 9.23 -3.11 -33.72% 4.81% 6.29 -294 -31.87% 4.75% Mountain View, City of 13.46 10.36 13.46 12.43 8.81% 9.03 13.46 -4.43 -32.92% 7.10% 9.27 -4.19 -31.11% 7.00% North Coast County WD 3.84 3.29 3.84 3.66 2.01% 2.86 3.84 -1.18 -30.81% 2.09% 2.72 -1.12 -29.12% 2.05% Palo Alto, City of • 17.07 12.96 - - 13.18 . 14.40 -7.90% • ' 10.47 13.18 • -2.71 -20.60% -8.23% .10.61 -2.57 - - -19.47% -. . 8.01% Purissima Hills WD 1.85 1.85 1.62 1.77 0.97% 1.29 1.62 -0.33 -20.46% 1.01% 1.31 -0.31 -19.34% 0.99% Redwood City, City of 10.93 10.92 10.93 10.93 5.99% 7.94 10.93 -2.99 -27.36% 6.24% 8.10 -2.83 -25.86% 6.12% San Bruno, City of 3.25 2.01 3.25 2.84 1.56% 2.06 3.25 -1.19 -36.58% 1.62% 2.13 -1.12 34.57% 1.60% Skyline County WD 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.10% 0.13 0.18 -0.05 -30.03% 0.10"% 0.13 -0.05 -28.38% 0.10% Stanford University 3.03 2.58 3.03 2.88 1.58% 2.09 3.03 -0.94 -30.94% 1.65% 2.14 -0.89 -29.24% 1.62% Sunnyvale, City of 12.58 10.73 12.58 11.96 6.56% 8.69 12.58 -3.89 -30.90% 6.84% 8.91 -3.67 -29.21% 6.72% Westborough WO 1.32 0.98 1.32 1.21 0.66% 0.88 1.32 -0.44 -33.58% 0.69% 0.90 -0.42 -31.74% 0.68°% SUBTOTAL 187.66 157.23 180.11 175.00 95.97% 127.15 180.11 -52.96 -29.40% 100.00% 130.06 -50.05 -27.79% San Jose, City of ° 2.68 4.1 2.00 2.93 1.60% 2.13 2.00 0.13 6.33% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.80% Santa Clara, City of 6.57 4.72 2.00 4.43 2.43% 3.22 2.00 1.22 60.94% 1.22 -0.78 -38.98% 0.80% TOTAL 196.91 166.05 184.11 182.36 100.00% 132.50 184.11 -51.61 -28.03% 132.50 -51.61 -28.03% 86.81% Note: All values in million gallons per day unless otherwise noted. a Source: SFPUC. 2005. Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. b Source: URS. 2004. SFPUC Wholesale Customer Demand Projections Technical Report. Note: Variable Component equal to Purchase Request for year calculated. c Demands associated with Los Trancos CWD are included in the Cal Water value. d Portion of North San Jose. H:\Common\WaterRes In-Box\Engr In -Box Leanne Abe\Star4ord WSA local files\WSA\Dralt 11 2008\W SA tables\Scenarlo 2 Appendix A3-8 APPENDIX B Supply Demand Comparison Tables (2005 — 2030) Supply Demand Comparison - No Project Scenario 2005 Normal Year° One Critical Dry Year' Multiple Dry Year Event° Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd % SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.23 100% 12.03 91.0% 12.03 91.0% 10.45 79.0% 10.45 79.0% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00- 0.00 0.00 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 13.23 13.23 13.23 13.23 13.23 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.23 11.90 11.90 10.58 10.58 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.13 1.1% 0.13 1.1% (0.13) -1.2% (0.13) -1.2% 2010 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.05 100% 12.13 92.9% 12.13 92.9% 10.58 81.1% 10.58 81.1% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Palo Alto Normal Demand` 13.05 13.05 13.05 13.05 13.05 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.05 11.74 r _ 11.74 10.44 10.44 Surplus/ (Deficit) - 0.00 0% 0.38 3.2% 0.38 3.2% 0.14 1% 0.14 1% 2015 SFPUC Projected Allocation 12.97 100% 12.10 93.3% 12.10 93.3% 10.56 81.4% 10.56 81.4% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.97 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 12.97 11.68 11.68 10.38 10.38 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.42 3.6% 0.42 3.6% 0.63 6% 0.63 6% 2020 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.00 100% 12.11 93.1% 12.11 93.1% 10.57 81.3% 10.57 81.3% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.00 11.70 11.70 10.40 10.40 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.41 3.5% 0.41 3.5% 0.62 5.9% 0.62 5.9%i 2025 SFPUC Projected Allocation 12.98 100% 12.11 93.3% 12.11 93.3% 10.56 81.4% 10.56 81.4%'. Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 12.98 11.68 11.68 10.38 10.38 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.43 3.7% 0.43 3.7% 0.63 6.0% 0.63 6.0% 2030 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.00 100% 12.11 93.1% 12.11 93.1% 10.57 81.3% 10.57 81.3% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand` 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.00 11.70 11.70 10.40 10.40 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.41 3.5% 0.41 3.5% 0.62 5.9% 0.62 5.9% _ Notes: a. Normal year SFPUC Projected Allocation set equal to the Cily of Palo Alto's Supply Assurance Allocation. Ina normal year, SFPUC is able to supply the maximum SAA for all retail and wholesale customers (This assumes the City of Hayward and others with the ability to grow beyond their SAA wilt remain within their current SAA through 2030). SAA for Palo Alto is 17.07 mgd. SFPUC will not deliver more water than needed to meet demands. b. Dry year reductions based on SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Calculations related to this analysis are provided in Appendix A. c. Palo Alto demand based on Table 3 8; includes demand side management and 0.98 mgd system loss per City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan p. 36. This does not reflect actual unaccounted for water. Source: PBSBJ, 2007, developed from Cily of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Supply Demand Comparison - SUMC Project Normal Year' One Critical Dry Year° Multiple Dry Year Event° Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 2005 mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd % mgd SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.23 100% 12.03 91.0% 12.03 91.0% 10.44 78.9% 10.44 78.9% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 'Palo Alto Normal Demand' 13.23 13.23 13.23 13.23 13.23 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Palo Alto Reduced Demand 13.23 11.90 11.90 10.58 10.58 Surplus/(Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.13 1.0% 0.13 1.0% (0.1.4) •1.1% (0.14) -1.1% 2010 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.07 100% 12.13 92.8% 12.13 92.8% 10.59 81.0% 10.59 81.0% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 13.05 13.05 13.05 13.05 13.05 3cenarlo 2 Demand" 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Total Reduced Demand 13.07 11.77 11.77 10.46 10.46 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.37 3.1% 0.37 3.1% 0.13 1.2% 0.13 1.2% 2015 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.08 100% 12.14 92.8% 12.14 92.8% 10.59 81.0% 10.59 81.0% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 'Palo Alto Normal Uemand" 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.97 12.97 Scenario 2 Demand" 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Total Reduced Demand 13.08 11.77 11.77 10.46 10.46 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.36 3.1% 0.36 3.1% 0.58 5.5% 0.58 5.5% 2020 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.14 100% 12.16 92.5% 12.16 92.5% 10.60 80.7% 10.60 80.7% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand' 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Scenaro 2 Demand" 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Total Reduced Demand 13.14 11.83 11.83 10.52 10.52 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.33 2.8% 0.33 2.8% 0.54 5.1% 0.54 5.1% 2025 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.16 100% 12.17 92.5% 12.17 92.5% 10.61 80.6% 10.61 80.6% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand" 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98 12.98 Scenario 2 Demand" 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Total Reduced Demand 13.16 11.84 11.84 10.53 10.53 Surplus/(Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.33 2.8% 0.33 2.8% 0.53 5.1% 0.53 5.1% 2030 SFPUC Projected Allocation 13.18 100% 12.17 92.3% 12.17 92.3% 10.61 80.5% 10.61 80.5% Emergency Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Palo Alto Normal Demand' 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Scenario 2 Demand" 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Dry -Year Demand Reduction 0% 10% 10% 20% 20% Total Reduced Demand 13.18 11.86 11.86 10.54 10.54 Surplus/ (Deficit) 0.00 0% 0.31 2.6% 0.31 2.6% 0.52 4.9% 0.52 4.9% Notes: a. Normal year SFPUC Projected Allocation set equal to the City of Palo Alto's Supply Assurance Allocation. In a normal year, SFPUC is able to supply the maximum SAA for all retail and wholesale customers (this assumes the City of Hayward and others with the ability to grow beyond their SAA will remain within their current SAA through 2030). SAA for Palo Alto is 17.07 mgd. SFPUC will not deliver more water than needed to meal demands. b. Dry year reductions based on SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendix C: Water Shortage Allocation Plans. Calculations related to this analysis are provided in Appendix A. c. Palo Alto demand based on Table 3 8: includes demand side management and 0.98 mgd system loss per City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan p. 38. This does not reflect actual unaccounted for wafer. d. Average annual demand. Based on 60 percent net increase in demand from mid -2009 to 2015 and a linear increase in demand to lull buildout and occupancy in 2025. Demand calculated in Table 3 2. Source: PBSBJ. 2007, developed from City of Palo Alto Utilities 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and SFPUC 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Attachment B SUMC Project Water Demand — Existing, Net Increase, Total Existing SHC, LPCH, SoM 2,340,200 713 362,040 0.155 Project SHC, LPCH, SoM LPCH SoM Total New All Included All Included Increase from Existing: % Change w/ Added Conservation 1,325,400 796,000 415,000 3,665,600 57% SHC All Included 2,454,600 0.14 285,090 0.12 600 r 342,140 361 I 163,000 0 34,200 961 539,340 35% 49% 0.20 0.08 141,750 34,200 0.18 0.08 0.147 461,040 I 0.126 -5% 27% -19% -15% -15% Notes: Assumes full buildout and occupancy by 2025. BGSF = Building Gross Square Footage. SHC = Stanford Hospitals and Clinics; LPCH = Lucile Packard Children's Hospital; SoM = School of Medicine Source: Stanford University Medical Center Project Application. Table 6 - Utilities; Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center, Letter to Cara Silver, Esq., Senior Assistant City Attorney, April 28, 2009 Water demands with coservation are per Stanford's April 28, 2009 letter conservation reduction per Stanford check 461,040 Water Use Table 5 Bed Count Demand Draft 020310 DPG ST Edits.xis Attachment C STANFORD UNIVERSITY April 28, 2009 Ms. Cara Silver, Esq. Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center Dear Cara: At the April 6 City Council hearing on the Water Supply Assessment for the Stanford University Medical Center Project, City staff was directed to return to the Council with a revised plan for the Project that quantifies, on a per unit basis, significant reductions in water use due to conservation and that reflects a net increase in water use that is as low as possible. This letter is intended to address the Council's requests and to provide a detailed, quantified analysis of the Project's water use. We have attached to this letter a series of five tables that quantifies the savings in water use resulting from. the Project's extensive water conservation program. The water conservation program for the Project is set out in detail in .prior correspondence to the City, including our letter to you of February :13, 2009. As explained in that letter, Mazzetti & Associates, leaders in green building engineering for healthcare facilities, quantified the savings from conservation based on a similar hospital and medical office building project in California. This analysis showed that use of water - saving fixtures (such as dual -flushed toilets, automatic sensors, low -flow fixtures, anti- microbial hand pumps, etc.) are expected to reduce water use by nearly 22% for hospital buildings and over 26% for clinic buildings, as compared with comparable buildings with typical water fixtures. To be conservative, we have rounded down these numbers to 20% for hospitals and 25% for clinics, These conservation estimates are based on Mazzetti's best estimates in light of the available data; however, it is important to note that the estimates cannot be assured due to building restrictions that may be imposed by the Office of Statewide Healthcare Planning & Development (OSHPD). LAND, BUILDINGS AND REAL ESTATE 3145 Porter Drive, Building F• Palo Alto, CA 94304-8442 •T: 650.724.1398 • F: 650.725.8598 Cara Silver, Esq. Re: Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center April 28, 2009 The attached tables identify (1) water use at the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (Table 1- SHC); (2) water use at the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital facilities (Table 2 - LPCH); (3) water use at the Stanford University School of Medicine (Table 3 - SoM); water use at the Hoover Medical Office Building (Table 4 - Hoover MOB); and (4) the total water savings due to conservation. The attached tables identify water use on a square footage basis, as we believe that, overall, this is the most appropriate metric for evaluating water use. Water use projections are routinely made on a square footage basis, and the initial water demand estimates for the Project were based on the size of the new facilities that would be built. Conversely, we do not believe that the number of patient beds is an appropriate metric to evaluate water usage for the existing or new buildings. First, with respect to the SHC facilities, it is not possible to make a reliable calculation of existing water use on a per-bedbasis because the existing water use data for these facilities does not adequately differentiate between in -patient and out -patient facilities. The existing buildings do not contain separate meters for the portions dedicated to hospital or clinic uses. As a result, there is no reliable "per -bed" baseline upon which to compare the future water use that would result from the Project. Second, even if separate data were available for existing water use at the SHC, the number of beds is not an appropriate metric for evaluating water use. Every department of a hospital (e.g., Kitchen, Emergency, Imaging, Surgery, etc.) -- and not just the patient areas and floors -- uses water for various functions (cleaning, sterilizing, hand -washing, etc.). As compared with the existing SUMC facilities, the Project will at least double the size of the kitchen facilities, increase the size of surgery facilities by about 40%, and similarly increase the size of central sterile facilities by about 40%. These factors are major drivers of water use, independent of the number of the beds. This is one reason why water use per bed calculations vary widely in hospital studies -- ranging from 250 to 800 gpd per bed -- and are not reliable indicators. In sum, the size of the buildings is a better metric for evaluating water use and the water use calculations for the SUMC Project accordingly have been calculated on a square footage basis. A summary is presented below, followed by a breakdown that separately examines the SHC, LPCH, SoM and Hoover MOB. Summary: Table 5 provides a water use comparison of the new facilities that the Project sponsors propose to build, with the existing facilities that the Project sponsors propose to demolish. The buildings slated for demolition collectively use water at a rate of 0.20 gpd per square foot (gpd/sf). In comparison, the new SUMC facilities are projected to use water collectively at a rate of 0.16 gpd/sf, even if one does not take into account the Project's extensive conservation program. With conservation, the new facilities are expected to use water at a rate of 0.13 gpd/sf. Thus, the Project sponsors are proposing to replace older facilities with newer ones that will use substantially less water on a square footage basis. 2 Cara Silver, Esq. Re: Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center April 28, 2009 Table 5 also shows that conservation will substantially reduce the net increase in water use that is attributable to the Project. As described in our prior correspondence and as depicted in the attached Table 5, without conservation the Project is expected to result in a net increase in water use of 177,300 gallons per day (gpd) over existing conditions. With conservation, the. net increase in water use resulting from the Project is expected to drop nearly 45% to 99,000 gallons per day. Note that both of these figures (177,300 gpd and 99,000 gpd) are a very small fraction of projected City-wide water use (13 million gpd)• Any larger reduction in Project water use is not practical. The Project will add more than 1.3 million square feet of new net uses to enable the SHC and LPCH to serve projected increases in the demand for medical services. An increase of this magnitude cannot be achieved without some increase in water use, even with an aggressive and comprehensive water conservation program. The conservation program is designed to make the increase as small as possible, and as shown in Table 5, the new facilities that are being added will be substantially more water -efficient than the facilities to be demolished. The following presents a more specific breakdown among the SHC, LPCH, SoM and Hoover facilities: 1. SHC: As shown in the attached Table 1, the SHC buildings that are slated for demolition use water at a rate of 0.20 gpd/sf. By comparison, the new SHC buildings are projected to use water at a rate of 0.17 gpd/sf before conservation, and 0.14 gpd/sf after conservation. Thus, the new SHC facilities are expected to achieve substantial water savings on a square footage basis as compared with the SHC facilities that will be demolished. 2. LPCFI: A different type of comparison was conducted for the LPCH because the existing LPCH will not be demolished as part of the SUMC Project. The attached Table 2 compares water use at the existing LPCH facilities with water use at the new LPCH facilities. As shown in the table, the existing LPCH building uses water at a rate of 0.21 gpd/sf. Without conservation, the new hospital facilities are anticipated to use water at the same rate. But with conservation, the new hospital facilities are anticipated to use water at the much lower rate of 0.17 gpd/sf. Further, the new LPCH clinic space is anticipated to use water at an even lower rate -- 0.10 gpd/sf without conservation and 0.08 gpd/sf with conservation. Overall, the new LPCH facilities are projected to use water at a rate of 0.16 gpd/sf, a savings of almost 25% as compared to the existing LPCH. 3. SoM: A comparison of water use at the SoM is straightforward because the SoM proposes to demolish the existing Gale, Alway, Lane, and Edwards buildings, which use 83,000 gpd, and replace them with new facilities of the same size that will use substantially less water (34,200 gpd). This is a reduction in SoM water use of 48,800 gpd and a reduction in the rate of use from 0.20 gpd/sf to 0.08 gpd/sf. 3 Cara Silver, Esq. Re: Water Supply Assessment for Stanford University Medical Center April 28, 2009 As explained in our prior correspondence, the SoM water demand projections in the SUMC Project application and in the WSA already include conservation. 4. Hoover MOB: Table 4 compares several existing clinic buildings (1101 Welch and 701 & 703 Welch) where the medical office uses are comparable to the uses that will occur at the new Hoover MOB. These existing medical office buildings, which are slated for demolition, use water collectively at a rate of 0.16 gpolsf. In comparison, the new Hoover MOB is projected to use water a rate of 0.10 gpd/sf without conservation, and 0.08 gpd/sf with conservation. As with the other Project facilities, therefore, the extensive conservation program is expected to result in substantial water savings on a square footage basis. Conclusion: The SUMC Project will include an extensive and aggressive conservation program that is projected to result in substantial water savings. With this program in place, the Project at full buildout is projected to result in a net increase in water use of only 99,000 gpd, despite the fact that the Project will be adding a net of more than 13 million square feet of new uses at the SUMC. This modest increase in water use represents less than 1% of City-wide demand in 2030 (13 million gallons per day). It also represents a 45% reduction in the net increase in water demand from comparable facilities without conservation We appreciate the City's consideration of these materials. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, r -- William T. Phillips Senior Associate Vice President Land, Buildings and Real Estate cc: Steven Turner Barbara Schussman Enclosure 4 SUMC WATER DEMAND TABLES TABLE 1: Stanford Hospital & Clinics No Conservation With Conservation Buildings(s) Square Footage Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Demo SFIC (Hospital & Clinics) Core, East, West, Boswell (441,200) (88,000) 0.20 -- -- Demo SHC (Hospital) Core Exp. (223,800) (45,000) 0.20 -- -- SHC DEMO - SUBTOTAL (665,000) (133,000) 0.20 -- -- New Replacement SHC Hospital 1,100,000 224,000 0.20 179,200 0.16 New Replacement SHC Clinics 429,000 43,000 0.10 32,250 0.08 NEW SHC BUILDINGS - SUBTOTAL 1,529,000 267,000 0.17 211,450 0.14 Note 1: The "with conservation" figures assume 20% water savings for hospital buildings and 25% water savings for clinics and medical office buildings due to water -saving fixtures, as calculated by Mazzetti based on a comparable hospital and medical office project in California, The "with conservation" figures are based on Mazzetti's best estimate in light of the available data, but cannot be assured due to building restrictions that may be imposed by the Office of Statewide Healthcare Planning & Development (OSHPD). 5 TABLE 2: Lucille Packard Children's Hospital No Conservation With Conservation) Buildings(s) Square Footage Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Existing LPCH' 274,700 58,000 0.21 -- -- New LPCH (Hospital) 471,300 100,000 0.21 80,000 0.17 New LPCH Clinics 50,000 5,000 0.10 3,750 0.08 NEW LPCII BUILDINGS - SUBTOTAL 521,300 105,000 0.20 83,750 0.16 Note 1: The "with conservation" figures assume 20% water savings for hospital buildings and 25% water savings for clinics and medical office buildings due to water -saving fixtures, as calculated by Mazzetti based on a comparable hospital and medical office project in California. The "with conservation" figures are based on Mazzetti's best estimate in light of the available data, but cannot be assured due to building restrictions that may be imposed by OSHPD. Note 2: The existing LPCH (which is not being demolished and will remain in place) is included for comparative purposes. 6 TABLE 3: Stanford University School of Medicine With Conservation Building(s) Square Footage Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Demo - SoM Buildings Gale, Alway, Lane, Ed wards 415,000 83,000 0.20 New SoM Buildings FIM Buildings 1, 2, 3 415,000 34,200 0.08 Note 1: Unlike for the SHC and LPCH facilities, the initial demand estimates for the SoM contained in the SUMC Project application already included conservation. SoM expects to achieve the future water use levels based upon its experience with similar new buildings on the Stanford campus. 7 Table 4 - Hoover Medical Office Building No Conservation With Conservation' Buildings(s) Square Footage Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpolsf) Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpdlsf) Demo - 1101 Welch2 (40,100) (8,400) 0.21 -- -- Demo - 701 & 703 Welch2 (79,800) (10,500) 0.13 -- -- DEMO - MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL (119,900) 18,900 0.16 -- -- New Hoover Medical Office Building 60,000 6,000 0.10 4,500 0.08 Note 1: The "with conservat on" figures assume 25% water savings for clinics and medical office buildings due to water -saving fixtures, as calculated by Mazzetti based on a comparable hospital and medical office project in California. Note 2: 1101 Welch and 701 & 703 Welch are presented for comparative purposes because the uses in these existing buildings are comparable to the uses expected at the new Hoover Medical Office Building. Note that the occupants in 1101 Welch and 701.& 703 Welch will not be relocated to the new Hoover Medical Office Building. 8 Table 5 - Net Increase in Water Use Attributable to SUMC Project No Conservation With Conservation' Building Square Footage Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/sf) Water Use (gpd) Water Use (gpd/st) New Stanford Hospital 1,100,000 224,000 0.20 179,200 0.16 New LPCH Hospital 471,300 100,000 0.21 80,000 0.17 New SHC Clinics 429,000 43,000 0.10 32,250 0.08 New LPCH Clinics 50,000 5,000 0.10 3,750 0.08 New Foundation in Med. 415,000 34,200 0.08 34,200 0.08 Bldg 1,2,3 Hoover New Medical 60,000 6,000 0.10 4,500 0.08 Office Building NEW BUILDINGS - 2,525,3002 412,200 0.16 333,900 0.13 SUBTOTAL Demo SHC - Core, East, (441,200) (88,000) 0.20 (88,000) 0.20 West, Boswell Demo SHC - Core (223,800) (45,000) 0.20 (45,000) 0.20 Expansion Demo SoM - Grant, (415,000) (83,000) 0,20 (83,000) 0.20 Always, I..ane, Edwards Demo MOB - 1 101 (40,100) (8,400) 0.21 (8,400) 0.21 Welch Demo MOB - 701 and (79,800) (10,500) 0.13 (10,500) 0.13 703 Welch DEMO - SUBTOTAL (1,199,900)' (234,900) 0.20 (234,900) 0.20 NET INCREASE 1,325,4004 177,300 99,000 -- Note 1: The "with conservation" figures assume 20% water savings for hospital buildings and 25% water savings for clinics ancl medical office buildings due to water -saving fixtures, as calculated by Mazzetti based on a comparable hospital and medical office project in California. The "with conservation" figures are based on Mazzetti's best estimate in light of the available data, but cannot be assured due to building restrictions that may be imposed by OSHPD. Note 2: The EIR Project Description uses a slightly lower figure for proposed new construction (2,525,277 sf). The difference is largely due to rounding. Note 3: The EIR Project Description uses a higher figure for proposed demolition (1,213,836 st). This is mainly because the EIR includes demolition of 13,831 sf of miscellaneous, mostly storage, uses at Hoover Pavilion, while this square footage was not included in the water demand estimates in the SUMC Project application. Note 4: The EIR Project Description uses a figure of 1,31 1,441 sf for net new construction. See notes 2 and 3 above. 9 Attachment D 11. Consider the Approval of Water Supply Assessment to Stanford Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, and the Simon Properties' Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Projects. Council Member Klein advised he would not be participating in Agenda Item Number 11 as his wife was on staff at Stanford University. Council Member Barton advised that he would not be participating in Agenda Item Number 11 as he was on staff at Stanford University. Interim Assistant City Manager, Steve Emslie stated the State of California had recently mandated that Council hold a Public Hearing prior to the approval of a major project to make a finding if there would be adequate water to support the project. He stated the current allocation from the Hetch Hetchy system was sufficient to support the project. Assistant Director of Utilities, Jane Ratchye stated in a normal year, the water availability supplied to Palo Alto was adequate for the current uses, including the Stanford projects. She noted approval of the water supply assessment did not constitute approval of the Environmental Review or the projects. She noted the demand for water supply during a regular year for Palo Alto was 13 million gallons per day; the total demand with the Stanford projects was 13.22 million gallons per day. She noted in a drought year the allocation amount would drop to 12.12 million gallons per day; or 12.18 million gallons per day with the Stanford projects. Public Hearing opened at 9:20 p.m. Bill Phillips, Stanford University, complimented the Staff for the competent report. He stated it was conservative yet addressed the full measure of what a water assessment was required to do. He added the safety measure for utilization of groundwater was not necessary under the conservation measure the City had in place. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the opportunity to improve the use of recycled water, groundwater, and requested to integrate the system to be more effective. He suggested having a cooperative arrangement with Stanford where they supplied well sites and capital for recycling water and in exchange the City would reduce their fee for water. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, requested more information on the status of the water supply assurance and what that meant in the years when the supply from San Francisco was reduced. Public Hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. 04/06/09 104-330 Council Member Schmid stated in a drought situation the actual gallons used were reduced and asked why. Ms. Ratchye stated San Francisco was required to deliver 184 million gallons per day in perpetuity to the group of agencies who purchase water on a wholesale basis; Palo Alto's share was 17.07 million gallons per day, which was the assurance amount. Council Member Schmid stated the actual amount of usage was 13 million gallons and the amount provided was 17 million gallons, he asked why the actual usage was reduced rather than the amount provided. Ms. Ratchye stated the water share in a time of drought was broken into three elements; the assurance number which was a fixed number, a fixed time number which was determined three years prior to the plan adoption, and the last element was the average of the three years prior to the declaration of the drought. Council Member Schmid stated in a drought, the demand reduction went up dramatically due to the projects. Ms. Ratchye stated the projects added .22 million gallons per day with a total difference of .16 million gallons per day. Council Member Schmid stated it appeared the City was responsible for three-quarters of the entire Stanford usage in a drought year. Vice Mayor Morton asked how the projects used 220 million gallons on a regular year and dropped to 60 million gallons in a drought year. He asked who absorbed the difference. Ms. Ratchye stated the total demand in 2030 for the entire system was presumed to be 265 million gallons per day, which was the interim water delivery limit from the environmental document which approved the large capital program to correct the system. She stated those calculations would remain the same whether the projects happened or not. Council Member Schmid asked the impact if the assumed project usage numbers were higher in actuality. Ms. Ratchye stated her uncertainty of the impact when any one user demanded more than their allotment. Council Member Schmid asked whether there could be a clause implemented into the Development Agreement stating if the water usage grew beyond expectation there would be a penalty. 04/06/09 104-331 Mr. Emslie stated adding conditions into the project approval could be possible. Council Member Schmid asked whether Stanford received their water supply from the San Francisco water project. Ms. Ratchye stated they received water from multiple sources. She stated the bulk of the water was received by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, pumped groundwater through the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local surface water collected through Felt Lake. Council Member Yeh asked how the water supply assessment complied with the volume of water distribution agreed upon without knowing the amount of water being made available to non -San Francisco Public Utilities Commission agencies. Ms. Ratchye stated the gallon ratio was split into two determinations of 184 million gallons per day. In the event a participant exceeded their volume there would be penalties. Council Member Yeh asked whether the shopping center had a targeted goal of conservation measures. Ms. Ratchye stated she had not seen a measurement quantification for the shopping center. Senior Assistant City Attorney, Cara Silver stated Staff was reviewing the measures program supplied by the shopping center and would be able to quantify the measures with more detail at the Environmental Impact Review. Council Member Yeh asked whether Phase II of the recycled water pipeline infrastructure extended to Stanford Shopping Center and Campus. Ms. Ratchye stated no, Phase II was the pipeline to Mountain View. Phase III was the connection to the Stanford Research Park. Council Member Yeh asked whether Stanford had noted interest in participating in the recycled water project. Ms. Silver stated they had been approached. Council Member Kishimoto asked the assumptions for the gross population and employment by 2030. 04/06/09 104-332 Ms. Ratchye stated by 2030 the population was projected to be 69,200 and employment was projected to be at 114,224. Council Member Kishimoto stated she thought the population was projected to be 90,000. Mr. Emslie stated the 2001 and the 2005 Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projection did not include the 2007 projections with the job multiplier which reflected a normalized growth pattern. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there was a supply assurance to the Stanford Hospital. Ms. Ratchye stated the more conservation was implemented from the onset of a project the higher level of difficulty in reduction. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the City would be providing the supply assurance. Ms. Ratchye stated no, the City did not provide a supply assurance to any of the water customers. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether well sites were required on the Stanford project. Ms. Ratchye stated no. Council Member Burt stated the Executive Summary referred to the 2002 legislation which required suppliers to assess whether there was adequate water supply to serve certain large scale projects. He asked whether that was for both, normal and drought years. Ms. Ratchye stated the requirement was for both types of years. Council Member Burt stated the report showed in dry years the City did not have adequate water supply to maintain itself and less with the project. He asked for clarification on whether there was or was not adequate supply. Ms. Ratchye stated there were plans in place in the Urban Water Management to adjust the supply as necessary. Council Member Burt stated the legislation of 2002 clearly stated the requirement for adequate water supply during normal and dry years; Staff had shown in their report there was not adequate supply prior to the project and less with the completion of the project. 04/06/09 104-333 Mr. Emslie stated the legislation did allow the agency to factor in water conservation measures to meet the demand. Council Member Burt stated there were different interpretations of the language and asked whether there was a trial court ruling to determine the interpretations. Ms. Silver stated yes, there was a combination of legislation and published case law. Council Member Burt stated with approval of the project exceeded the demand capacity. He asked how conservation measures, allowed a project to meet that demand. Ms. Silver stated the Council was a Legislative Body and they had the ability to deem the level of conservation. Council Member Burt asked whether the level of conservation could apply citywide or directed to a project. Ms. Silver stated the Council determined the direction of the conservation and to what level. Council Member Burt stated new projects had a higher level of opportunity to conserve water than existing ones. He stated the report referred to Stanford Medical Center water conservation measures and the Shopping Center having a program of conservation without quantification. He asked whether the conservation program included the retrofit of the existing shopping and new portions of the center. Ms. Silver stated there was an outdoor irrigation component to the program which applied to the existing areas. Council Member Burt asked why the shopping center was not required to implement comparable measures to the medical center. Mr. Emslie stated the review of the shopping center was not complete and he could not say the measures would not be the same. Council Member Burt asked why the process was before Council for approval when the project had not been reviewed with adequate data. Mr. Emslie stated the process was a matter of legality, this process needed to be approved prior to the release of the EIR. 04/06/09 104-334 Council Member Burt asked whether the City's leverage would be reduced when trying to assertively encourage conservative measures once this portion of the project was approved. Mr. Emslie stated no, the Applicant had been forthcoming in implementing aggressive measures. Council Member Burt asked whether there was an estimated measure of gallon usage for the medical center's water usage. Mr. Keene stated the information was not currently available, although Staff would provide it to Council on a later date. Council Member Burt asked whether Staff could provide a comparison of reduced water usage. PBS&J Consultant, Doug Gillingham stated the assumed usage numbers for the Stanford projects were developed by the Stanford team which was reviewed for accuracy before the completion of the Water Assessment Study. The determination of reasonable measures was square footage, facilities, landscaping, and other uses. Council Member Burt asked the number of gallons per day the medical center was currently using and at what square footage, and the number of gallons and square footage projected. Mr. Emslie stated they did not have the numbers readily available. Vice Mayor Morton stated the medical center build -out and the shopping center expansion water usage numbers did not include the build -outs for the industrial park, housing on California Avenue or the academic building. He asked whether viewing the entire build -out would alter the perception of the amount of water usage. Ms. Ratchye stated without the proposed build -out demands she was not able to adequately respond to the amount of water usage the completed projects would need. Vice Mayor Morton stated the industrial park future build -out had been approved and the County had approved the academic build -out. The build - out for the entire project had been approved and there should be numbers available to create estimates of usage. He asked why only a small portion of the Stanford build -out was being considered. 04/06/09 104-335 Mr. Emslie stated when the projects were approved they were analyzed in the Mayfield EIR and found to have adequate water supply for the anticipated growth. Vice Mayor Morton stated the projects figures were not included in the current usage numbers since they were not yet built -out. Mr. Emslie stated the projects were included in the ABAG growth projection numbers. Vice Mayor Morton asked whether those numbers included academic growth. Mr. Emslie stated yes, the figures included growth in housing, academic, and employment. Vice Mayor Morton asked whether there was adequate water supply to support the City and the entire Stanford project build -out at a third year drought level without difficulty. Mr. Emslie stated yes. Council Member Burt asked for the patient growth rate for the medical center expansion. Mr. Emslie stated the children's hospital was adding approximately 104 beds and the adult hospital was licensed for up to 700 beds. He noted the adult hospital had not previously had the space to adequately support 700 beds. Council Member Burt asked for a percentage increase between the two hospitals. Mr. Emslie stated thirty-three percent at the main hospital and thirty-three percent at the children's hospital. Council Member Yeh asked how the Green Building Ordinance compared to the Seattle Public Utilities Conservation from 2002 and the 1996 Urban Water Demand. Mr. Emslie stated water conservation was a large part of the Ordinance and regulations. Mayor Drekmeier asked why the Stanford Project water allocation figures were not added into the 2005 Water Management Plan. Ms. Ratchye stated there was a growth potential included in the 2005 plan although these projects were unknown at that time. 04/06/09 104-336 Mayor Drekmeier stated when the report was done Staff was aware of the projects. Ms. Ratchye stated the 2005 report was completed in 2004 and at the time the impending projects had not come to be. Mayor Drekmeier clarified the figures given to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) did not include the projects usage numbers. Ms. Ratchye stated that was correct. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether the same assurances would be received upon the completion of the new contract between Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and the SFPUC. Ms. Ratchye stated the supply assurance in perpetuity did not change in the contract. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether the new contract would require payment to maintain the unused assurances. Ms. Ratchye stated currently the payment was charged at a volumetric rate. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether the groundwater pumped was potable. Ms. Ratchye stated the City did not pump groundwater. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether Stanford's groundwater pumping for irrigation was from the low level aquifer. Ms. Ratchye stated yes. Mayor Drekmeier asked why Phase III of the pipeline was routed up San Antonio Road. Ms. Ratchye stated the transfer route from Highway 101 was near San Antonio Road and curved down Colorado Road. She stated the proposed route gave the ability to connect to multiple parks. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether the City had previously identified the high water users either business or individual and strongly encouraged audits. Ms. Ratchye stated she was unaware of an identification program. 04/06/09 104-3 3 7 Council Member Burt stated there had been a program a decade past on heavy water users via metal dischargers and noted the program resulted in large reductions of use.. Mayor Drekmeier stated if the City proactively informed the community of their individual water level usage, they would participate in reduction. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh to have Staff return to Council with a plan which shows significant water use reductions with no net increase from the projects as possible, using a unit of production or unit of use as a measure. Council Member Burt stated the Stanford program appeared to have a conservative anticipated reductions and noted there were measures without adequate limits or outcomes defined to correlate to the measures. Council Member Yeh stated the Staff report noted the expansion of the medical center triggered the requirement, although the project wasgoing forward as a single EIR, it was important for Council to be fully informed of the conservation measures in place. Mr. Emslie stated the EIR Draft was a device used to measure the potential impacts. The EIR was scheduled to be released in May of 2009. Council Member Burt stated the intent of the Motion was to acknowledge and accept there would not be complete visibility of the entire project. Mayor Drekmeier asked the number of votes required to move forward. Ms. Silver stated five. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Mayor Drekmeier to accept Staff recommendations that Council approve the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project and the Simon Properties Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project (collectively, the Stanford Projects) and request that the Development Agreement and/or Conditions of Approval of the project include language which recognizes and reinforces the conservation measures Stanford has proposed. Council Member Burt stated the Motion was a request for Staff to return with a revised program to include a quantification of the allocation, that it be as low as possible, that it be as close to no net new increases, and that it reflect the measures that were currently in the program. 04/06/09 104-338 Council Member Schmid stated the reductions could range from ten percent to one -hundred percent. Council Member Burt stated the direction would be to have a reduction below what was currently suggested. Vice Mayor Morton stated the Substitute Motion. was the Staff recommendation with language added to build in a Development Agreement or Condition of Approval reinforcing the conservation measures. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-3 Burt, Kishimoto, Yeh, no, Barton, Klein not participating. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Morton no, Barton, Klein not participating COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Council Member Burt reported that he attended the Caltrain Peninsula Joint Powers Board meeting last week and Caltrain agreed to remove reference to a specific number of tracks and alignment configuration. He further stated they did not address the topic of a Peninsula Coalition. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the 04/06/09 104-3 3 9 ATTACHMENT E FINAL UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2009 Excerpt of Agenda Item #6 CALL TO ORDER Chair Dawes called to order at 7:05 P.M. the scheduled meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Present: Commissioners Dexter Dawes, Marilyn Keller, John Melton, Dick Rosenbaum, Asher Waldfogel and Council Member Yiaway Yeh ITEM 6: ACTION ITEM: Approval of the Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project and the Simon Properties Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project Assistant Director Jane Ratchye summarized the report noting that state statute requires that projects of a certain size be evaluated by the local water supply agency to determine if there is sufficient water for the project. This is the first project that is large enough to require this process since the statute was put into place in 2002. The overall conclusion of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Stanford Projects is that there is enough water for the projects in normal years. There are not sufficient water supplies with or without the projects in drought years. The additional deficit in drought years due to the projects is small and that there are measures that are identified in the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan that can be implemented to achieve the required additional water savings needed due to the projects. Bill Phillips with Stanford spoke to say that the WSA is well-done and makes a supportable conclusion. In addition, groundwater supplies that are available are not necessary to meet the required drought -time deficits. In addition, the amount needed for the projects is 500 acre-feet per year, which is the amount of groundwater that could sustainably be used on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Melton asked if there were any problems with the agency that will review the report. Ratchye noted that the City Council is the governing body to make the determination that the conclusions are acceptable — it doesn't get reviewed by an outside agency. Commissioner Keller asked how successful the City has been in achieving reductions in past droughts. Ratchye responded that in the last drought from 1988 to 1992, the City was very successful in reducing water usage and reduced water usage by over 30%. She noted that permanent improvements have been installed since the drought so that these levels of savings may not be achievable currently or in the future. Ratchye noted that in future droughts, landscaping uses would be targeted and that Palo Alto has relatively high per capita water usage. Utilities Advisory Commission Excerpted Minutes Approved on: April 1, 2009 Page 1 of 2 Mark Bruner, with Bingham McCutcheon, noted that the WSA calls for reductions that are much lower than were reduced in the past. Bill Phillips said that the WSA assumes a "business as usual" amount of water use for the projects, but "above and beyond" measures are being proposed for the projects. This would bring water use for the hospital down by 20% and for the shopping center down by 25%. Therefore, the projected water use is very conservative in the WSA. Commissioner Keller stated that she was impressed with the conservation measures and asked if the projects could use recycled water. Staff and Stanford representatives noted that the new buildings for the project and in the Stanford Research Park must be dual -plumbed to accept recycled water per City ordinance. However, Ratchye noted that the recycled water project is targeted to serve the Research Park and a pipeline to serve the new projects is not in the current plans. Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that he thought the report was well prepared and commended the Attachment B that describes the conservation features for the project and Stanford's efforts to reduce water use in its buildings in the Stanford Research Park. He asked that the irrigation use estimates be reviewed again to be compared with the irrigation estimates used in the recycled water facility plan (to be discussed in April). ACTION: Commissioner Rosenbaum moved to recommend that Council approve the WSA for the Stanford Projects. Commissioner Keller seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Respectfully submitted, Marites Ward City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities Advisory Commission Excerpted Minutes Approved on: April 1, 2009 Page 2 of 2