HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 212-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: APRIL 19, 2010 CMR: 212: 10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Response to Colleagues Memo Directing the City Manager to Explore
Ways to Reduce Potable Water Use in Palo Alto by 20% by 2020 and
Approve Proposed Baseline and Strategies to Achieve the 20% Goal
J
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
I. Approve the baseline proposed and outlined in this report; and
2. Approve the strategies outlined in this report to reach the 20% goal by 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California may be facing a fourth year of drought, and conservation efforts are being stepped up
across the state. Due to the concern for long-term water supplies and related legislative activity
to produce more water savings, Council developed a Colleagues' Memo in December 2009 to
the City Manager directing him to explore ways to reduce potable water use in Palo Alto by 20%
in 2020. This~taff report is in response to this Colleagues' Memo.
The City of Palo Alto has implemented many residential and commercial water conservation
programs during the last two decades, but still remains one of the highest per capita water users
in the San Francisco Bay Area. This report shows t4at among residential customers, landscape
irrigation still constitutes one of the greatest uses of potable water, and this issue will need to be
addressed to achieve Council's direction. Residential water use is highly dependent on the
weath~r, whicilmakes red~ction efforts and future needs difficult to predict.
The City Manager's office has brought together many departments to respond to the Council's
direction. The effort began with a very productive multi-departmental brainstorming session in
December. . The multi-departmental meeting was followed by discussions with the Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC), members of CEAP and Canopy, as well as larger industrial
customer facility managers. Based on this work, staff is presenting a proposed baseline to
determine water reductions and three options for reduced water usage.
'il To summarize, the baseline internal departments have proposed is 217 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd), which includes all usage (residential, commercial, industrial and unaccounted for water).
The baseline proposed is the easiest for the city to comply with but also represents a 10 year span
CMR: 212:10 Page 1 of22
of our city's use, which more accurately represents traditional economic and development cycles.
Future grants, awards and legislative actions will potentially be measured against local
achievements compared to this baseline. The 20% reduction target from this baseline would
lower consumption to 173.6 gpcd, which the City is currently just below. Staff believes that
current low usage is due to economic conditions and increased environtrJ.ental awareness related
to the drought, but water use levels will rise after the drought is over and economy returns. For
that reason, int~rnal departments have developed a consensus is that the 20% potable water
reduction goal is acceptable and achievable. In addition, all programs and initiatives listed under
the 20% reduction target are currently budgeted for and are in our current work plan. Given the
commitment that the City· has towards sustainability, staff is committed to reviewing new
technologies or breakthroughs in water reduction methodologies and as appropriate, projects
could be developed where funds and resources can be secured.
This report reviews relevant background information, such as legislative activity, historic water
use, current conservation plans and programs and then outlines water reduction strategies to
reach 20%, 30% and 40% below the proposed baseline. The strategies are broken down into
three categories; A) Municipal facilities and city operations, B) Codes and Ordinances, and C)
Residential and Commercial Opportunities.
BACKGROUND
This section of the report will outline relevant legislative activity, Palo Alto's water use, the
City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, and current conservation programs.
Legislative Activity
• Senate Bill 7x-7 (SB 7) -signed 2009
On Februaty 2S, 200S, Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the leadership of the State Senate,
outlining key elements of a comprehensive solution to problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. The first element on the Governor's list was "a plan to achieve a 20% reduction in per
capita water use statewide by 2020." In March 200S the "20x2020" Agency Team was convened
to develop a plan to ,achieve a 20% reduction in per capita urban water use statewide by 2020.
The legislature followed up on the Governor's plan by passing SB 7. The Governor signed it
into law in November 2009. This bill requires the state to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use by December 31 , 2020. The state is required to make incremental progress
towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10% 'on or before December 31,
2015. The bill requires each urban retail water supplier to develop both long-term urban water
use targets and an interim urban water use target, by July 1, 20 II. SB 7 also creates a framework
for future plarming and actions for urban and agricultural users to reduce per capita water
consumption 20% by 2020. The bill requires urban retail water suppliers to adopt one of four
methodologies as potential baselines against which to measure this reduction (to be discussed
later).
• Senate Bill 407 (SB 407) -signed 2009
This bill requires new indoor fixture replacement measures by certain dates depending on
customer' class. In addition, property owners must disclose information on plumbing fixtures at
the time of transfer. Indoor fixture replacement must be completed during certain alterations or
CMR: 212:10, Page 2 of22
improvements starting in 2014. The disclosure of non-compliant fixtures upon sale of residential
property is required by 2017 and multi-family or commercial property by 2019. Other
compliance mechanisms, such as retrofit upon resale, are left to the individual jurisdictions.
• Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881) -signed 2006
This bill directed the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the State Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) which was originally approved in 1992. The DWR
update was finished in February 2009, and the final version was available in September 2009.
The State legislature deemed the DWR model ordinance in place as of January 1, 2010, if the
local water agencies did not adopt requirements that are at least as effective in reducing
landscaping water usage. .
Provisions in AB 1881 required water agencies to have the foll?wing requirements in their
individual ordinances:
• Minimize overspray and runoff;
• Have residents. develop landscape water budgets, submit a landscape design plan,
irrigation design plan, and grading design plan when retrofitting or installing a new
landscape;
• Require appropriate use and groupings of plants;
• Require automatic irrigation systems and schedules;
• Require that all redeveloped or new landscapes have completed soil assessment and soil
management plans;
• Include landscape maintenance;
• "Encourage the capture and retention of storm water onsite;
• Encourage the use of recycled water;
• Include monitoring of water budgets for propelties over one acre in size, through
irrigation water use analyses andlor audits;
• Encourage use of economic incentives; and
• Provide more education to water users.
City of Palo Altostaff presented the new state Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and
a draft Palo Alto specific version to the Utilities Advisory Committee in January 2010 and to a
variety of community and landscape industry groups in January and February. Based on input
received, staff has decided to continue to enforce the statewide Ordinance until the State Green
Building Code (CALGreen) goes into effect in 2011. Many of the water efficiency measures will
be required by Cal Green when it becomes mandatory in 2011. . The Planning· Department is
coordinating a City-wide team to work on this update.
Palo Alto's Water Use
Palo Alto's water use has fallen significantly since just prior to the 1976-77 drought. Although
water usage rebotmded after that drought, water use did not rebound as much during the longer
term 1987-1992 drought. As shown below in Figure I, staffprojects that water use will remain
steady in the future despite projected population increases due to implementation of the
efficiency programs identified in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The future water
usage shown in the chart does not include any expansion of recycled water use in the City.
CMR: 212:10 Page 3 of22
,.
~ 16 a
~ ,.
& 12
,~
~ 10
j :
j .
2
o
Figure 1: Historical Water Usage in Palo Alto
1965 1970 1975 1980' 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
As shown below, in Figure 2, nearly half of wflter consumption in Palo Alto comes from single
family residential customers, primarily during the summer months" The remainder of use comes
from commercial and industrial customers (29%), City and public facilities (7%), and multi
family residential customers (16%). Multi-family customers are the only customer group
without a significant peak of consumption in the summer. This summer-time water consumption
is the primary reason why much of the plan to reduce water usage between now and 2020 will
need to be focused on landscape watering.
f
§ -~
jj
j
Figure 2
City of Palo Alto Monthly WFlter Usage by Customer Class
(average for FY 2001 to FY 2009)
800,000
700,000 --------------------_. -----....... : .... ·'1ID~4-;,8~%"'S;c-F "'Re':csl"'de"C':nl:cc,el:-"--~----',· ................. .
_29% Commercial and Industrial
600,000 ..... + .. c .. 1 07% City and Public Facilities
500;000
400,000
300,000
200,000
1.00,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
CMR: 212:10 Page 4 of22
Jun
Figure 3 below breaks down single-family residential water usage by end use. As the figure
shows, about 39 percent of the average single family resident's consumption is for ilTigation (or
watering the landscape). Water consumption for irrigation tends to increase as a customer's lot
size and amount of turf (lawn) increases.
Figure 3: Residential Water Use
Current Conservation Plans and Programs
2005 Urban Water Management Plan
The City of Palo Alto adopted its latest 20-year Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in
2005. An update to the plan will be brought to Council for review and adoption in 2011. Many
of the strategies in this report may 'be expanded upon in the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan, if appropriate. The 2005 UWMP's water use projections include "natural conservation"
that will occlJrdue to appliance efficiency standards in the plumbing code and all cost-effective
water conservation and efficiency programs identifiediat the time of preparation of the plan. If
these programs are all implemented as projected, they will save a total of approximately 4.7% of
the City'S long-term water demand by 2030 and 4.3% by 2020. The Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BA WSCA) is helping member agencies evaluate additionalineasures that
could be incorporated into the 2010 UWMP.
CMR: 212:10 Page 5 of22
2009 Water Conservation Implementation Plan
In July 2009, the. BA WSCA agencies, including Palo Alto, signed a new 25 cyear Water Supply
Agreement (WSA) with the City and County of San Francisco (CMR 252:09). The WSA also
imposd an Interim. Water Supply Limitation (IWSL) of 265 MGD (184 MGD for BA WSCA
agencies and 81 MGD for San Francisco) until 2018. If water deliveries exceed 265 MGD from
now until 2018, a penalty rate will be charged for all water usage above the Individual Supply
Guarantee (ISG) of any agency.
To address the shortfall in water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC), BA WSCA initiated the development of a Water Conservation Implementation Plan
(WCIP) to update existing demand models and to identifY additional conservation measures to
reduce the projected shortfall. BA WSCA updated its 2004 demand model to provide a more
accurate depiction of future usage patterns and to identify new potential conservation measures
that could be quickly implemented.
Following calibration of the model, the agencies selected five new conservation measures
(beyond the measures evaluated in 2004) to meet these goals, which include:
1 .. High-efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebate Prpgram .
2. Education/Training Program for Residential Landscape Water Use Efficiency
3. High-efficiency Washing Machine (HEW) Rebates
4. New Building Indoor Water Efficiency Ordinances
5. New Building Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinances (WELO)
With the. exception of the ordinance-based measures, the new measures are currently part of the
suite of conservation measures already offered by the City, but have far more aggressive
penetration targets. With the existing measures, the new WCIPmeasures, and existing recycled
water use, Palo Alto demand served by the SFPUC system is projected to be essentially flat up to
2030 and remain well below Palo Alto's ISG of 17.08 MGD.
Customer Conservation and Efficiency Rebates and Incentives
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and complies with its Best Management
Practices (BMPs) (CMR 126:09). CPAU reports on progress toward completingand complying
with these BMPs every two years. This is reported to Council and the UAC, with the last
informational memo provided to the UAC on January 9, 2009 and to Council in February 2009.
CPAU partners with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to offer rebates and
incentives for water efficiency, as well as indoor and outdoor water use audits. The City also
implements ordinances or codes that promote water conservation.
Following its Memorandum of Understanding, the City cost-shares with SCVWD for current
efficiency programs, and pays the SCVWD for these rebates and for performing water audits at
customer -locations. Current rebates and free programs for water conservation measures with
Santa Clara Valley Water District are:
• Residential:
• Water Wise House Call-free program
• High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebates -$125 per retrofit
• High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates -up to $200
CMR: 212:10. Page 6 of22
• Commercial:
• High Efficiency Toilets and Urinal Flush Valve Retrofits (HET/HEU) -free
direct installation
• High Efficiency Urinal (HEU) Rebates -$500 per retrofit
• High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates -$400 per retrofit
• Indoor Water Use Surveys -free program
• Landscape Surveys -free program
• Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Distribution -free program
• Equipment Retrofits -up to $50,000 per project
• Both Residential and Commercial:
• High Water Use Landscape Conversion -up to $3,000 -$30,000
• Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Rebates -various rebate levels
• Irrigation Hardware Upgrades and Repairs -various rebate levels
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department (PWD) also offers incentive rebates to local
residents and businesses to reduce storm water runoff. Retaining the water on-site is important
not only to reducing demand on the municipal storm drain system, but also to nourish the
existing landscape. Some of the measures eligible for the rebate program also have the benefit of
reducing potable water usage for landscape irrigation. These water-saving measures include rain
barrels and cisterns, installed as part of a rainwater harvesting system. These systems capture
rain runofffrorh building rooftops and store it fOl"future use as irrigation water. While rain
barrels have a modest capacity of 50 to 250 gallons, cisterns may range up to 50,000 gallons in
size. ·Participants may receive a $50 rebate per rain barrel, up to $1,000 for a residential cistern
installation, or up td $10,000 for a commercial cistern installation (calculated at $0.15/gallon).
Thus far 31 rebates (for a total of 56 rain barrels and two small cisterns) have been issued, since
the program started in September 2008.
Conservation Programs
Other departments in the City also implement programs, ordinances or codes which have been
developed to promote water conservation. The City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department implements the Green Building Program. Under this program, new
construction and major renovations for both residential and non-residential projects, including
public projects, must include indoor and outdoor water saving strategies, as well as reduce the
quantity, and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. This program's water savings potential
is further outlined in the discussion section of this report.
The. Community Services Department has implemented an on-line irrigation management control
system, called the Maxicom system, which claims efficient water use can yield a savings of 25 to
45% per year, although this is not yet verifiable because the installation is so new. Sites currently
on Maxicom system are Baylands Athletic Center, Bowling Green, Cubberley Community
Center, EI Camino Park, Greer Park, Lytton Plaza, Mayfield/Stanford Playing Fields, Mitchell
Park, Mitchell Park Community Center, and Rinconada Park. Sites coming on-line to Maxicom
in 20 I 0 are the Art Center, Bol Park, Boulware Park, Bowden Park, Cameron Park, Eleanor
Park, Hoover Park, Peers Park, Ramos Park, Robles Park, Seale Park, Ted Thompson Garage,
Werry Park, Weisshaar Park. Nine schools are currently using the Maxicom system as per a City
and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) agreement.
CMR: 212:10 Page 7 of22
Ahwahnee Water Principles:
The City is committed to the Ahwalmee Water Principles. Attachment B, from the original staff
report in 2005 (CMR 367:05), outlines the modified Ahwahnee Water Principles for resource
efficient land use that were adopted by the City Council. Many of the goals from these
principles are already in place or are being reviewed as a part of the' 201 0 Urban Water
Management Plan, Recycled Water Plan, or other programs.
DISCUSSION
This section of the report will quantify each strategy; to the extent this information is available,
in terms of w!lfer savings impact, cost and unintended consequences. The water savings impact
will be calculated against the proposed baseline, as determined by the guidelines in Senate Bill 7.
Baseline
Senate Bill 7 (SB7) outlines the guidelines to set a baseline against which water use reduction
targe~s will bemeas.ured by. Future grant awards and legislative actions will potentially be
measured against local achievements compared to this baseline. Under SB 7, there are fo.ur
,options to choose from to track compliance. Three methodologies for calculating a target are
currently available, with a fourth that will be made public later by DWR later this year. The
three methodologies are 1) eighty percent of the urban r.etail watersupplier's baseline per capita
daily water ,use over a specified time; ,2) the per capita daily water use that is estimated using the
sum of specific standards. including indoor residential, landscape, commercial, industrial and
institutional uses; and 3) ninety five percent of the applicable state hydrological region target.
The approach staff recommends is the first methodology where .baseline formula uses the 10-
year average water consumption for the period from 1995 to 2004 and the target is eighty percent
of that average. Although staff is currently proposing this baseline approach, the fourth
methodolgy will also be evaluated when it becomes available.
As shown in Figure 4 below, using this recommended methodology, Palo Alto's SB 7 baseline is
217 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which includes all usage (residential, commercial,
industrial and unaccounted for water). The 20% reduction target from the SB 7 baseline would
,lower consumption to 173.6 gallons per capita per day. While water usage has varied up and
down historically, current usage is about 20% below the SB 7 baseline. Staff believes the ~.urrent
low usage is related to the four-year drought, increased environmental awareness in the
community; City water conservation incentives and programs and current economic conditions.
Water consumption may increase to levels close to that prior to 2005 after the drought, but will
then be reduced from this higher level due to conservation and plumbing code requirements.
Note that part of the reason that Figure 4 shows per capita use decline in the future is that
population is projected to increase. 'The assumption in this projection is that population will
increase from an estimate of 63,406 in 2010 to 70,152 in 2020. (The census estimate for Palo
Alto's population in 2008 is 63,370.)
CMR: 212:10 Page 80f22
Figure 4
City of Palo Alto Water Usage
Actual, Projected, Baseline and Target
250 r~
~ 200
~'
! 150
8
~
§
~
1 00 ~~
50
!A! ~!
---Actual and Projected Consumption
-SB 7 Baseline
---Target: 20% below baseline
I:: --,--,--~-::: ---------,
11
.. _----.. -------
IActual
. _ .... ----.-~-.. --
I . . . --------------.--------~---------~-------,--------,----. . .
o+---~--~--~~~~--~--_+--_+--_+--~--~--~--~--~--~
Water Reduction Strategies
The following three sections describe the water reduction strategies proposed, reviewed or
discussed by staff. Each goal is broken down into three categories: Municipal Facilities and City
Operations, ,Codes and Ordinances, and Residential and Commercial opportunities. Where
applicable, cost and water savings and potential unintended consequences are described. Where
described, water cost savings for residential, commercial or city operations are based upon retail
rates and water cost savings for the whole commllnity are based upon wholesale rates.
A. Strategies to, Reach 20% Below Proposed Baseline
Staff believes that this goal of a 20% reduction over the proposed SB 7 baseline is achievable if
the current programs are continued, and in some cases, improved. The proposed SB 7 baseline
as described above is 217 gallons per capita per day. A 20% reduction would be 173.6 gallons
per capita per day.
These strategies were discussed at length internally and with community stakeholders. These
strategies are summarized in the table below and are evaluated on their water savings impact and
cost, effectiveness. The water savings impact is relative to the city's water use as measured by SB
7. The cost effectiveness takes into account approximate costs and cost savings due to water
reduction. High cost effectiveness means the cost of the measure is greater than the benefit
associated with the reduction in water usage. Low cost effectiveness means that the cost of the
measure outweighs or is significantly higher than the benefits or vahle associated with the water
use reduction.
CMR: 212:10 Page 9 of22
.'.,', 'c~i~~~ry'
A.1. Municipal
Facilities and City
o erations
A.2. Codes and
Ordinances
A.3 Residential
and Commercial
o ortunities
Demonstration Gardens and Education
City Facility Updates
Urban Water Mana ement Plan
Rec cled Water Ordinance
More Emphasis on Rebates
A.I. Municipal Facilities and City Operations
• Demonstration Gardens and Education
.j ·.cok
..... eff~cti,,~iteS8
Medium
Medium Medium
Low Medium
Medium Medium
Medium Low
High High
Staff is working toward developing demonstration gardens at the Water Quality Control Plant
and Mitchell Park Library. Water savings from such educational programs are difficult to
quantify, but most case studies and reports on water conservation indicate that demonstration
facilities are an essential component to individual participation in reduction efforts. Smart
Garden Tours be could also be coordinated to promote the good water saving projects and
behaviors that should be encouraged.
• City Facility Updates:
The Facilities Management Division is committed to managing and operating City buildings in a
sustainable manner. Improving water efficiency in City buildings is crucial because high water
consumption increases maintenance and life cycle costs for building operations. Reducing water
use also' conserves precious water sources, reduces the amount of chemicals and energy needed
to treat water, and reduces costs through lower water use and less sewage volume to treat. In
short, lower water use decreases the envirOl11hehtal impact of our buildings.
In mid-2009, Facilities Management initiated a multi-phase project to maximize water fixture
efficiency with restroom urinals by.utilizing a rebate program offered by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD). The scope of the project involved replacing older conventional
urinals and flush valves used in male restrooms with high-efficiency urinals and flush valves.
After thorough product evaluation, a high-efficiency model was chosen by Facilities
Management. An informal bid solicitation process was then used to obtain the lowest cost for
the new urinals, enabling the rebate amount to cover the full cost of each urinal. Bids ranged
from $418 to $800 per urinal. The cost of materials was fully covered by the rebate program and
resulted in a material cost savings of $23,000. The only cost to the City was the cost to install
the urin:als.
Installation of the new urinals was primarily accomplished by Facilities mechanics on weekends
to minimize disruptions to regular maintenance work. Initially three City locations were chosen
to perform the first phase of upgrades. City Hall, Cubberley Community Center, and the
Municipal Service Center were chosen because the high number of occupants and visitors at
CMR: 212:10 Page 10 of22
these locations would offer a qUicker environmental and economic payback. A fourth location,
Rinconada Pool, was added later. While this facility was shut down for pool repairs, it presented
an opportune time to upgrade the urinals at this facility. A total of 54 urinals were installed
throughout these four locations.
The new urinals chosen by Facilities Management are 92% more water efficient than the old
urinals. The old urinals used 1.5 gallons per flush while the new high efficiency urinals use only
0.125 gallons per flush (one pint) and are controlled by automatic flush valves. Fixture water use
calculations for all four locations estimate a remarkable urinal water savings of approximately
1.1 million gallons oi'water per year and a cost savings of$15,000 per year for water and waste
water costs. Facilities Management will continue upgrading urinals at other City Facilities
thr9ughout 2010 as staffing and budgets allow.
A.2. Codes and Ordinances
• Green Building Program and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO)
The City's current Green 'Building Program encourages and, in some cases, requires proper site
planning and water conservation through measures that reduce indoor water consumption, reduce
outdoor water use for irrigation, promote the use of non-potable water sources, and reduce the
overall quantity of water runoff from a site. This program impacts approximately 200 sites a
year, primarily new consttuction and major renovations of residential and non-residential
projects. While this program is new, water savings annually from these projects are expected to
be conservatively 5,535,000 gallons per year for residences and 10,130,000 gallons per year for
commercial projects. Water savings under this program are expected to increase in 2011 with
enforcement of the CAL Green Building Code, which increases water use efficiency requirements
through mandates for such items such as weather-based irrigation controllers at time of
construction and use of water budgets.
The Planning Depaliment is working collaboratively with the Utilities Department on
incorporating the City'S existing Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements
and necessary improvements into the Green Building Program to achieve further savings in 2011
and beyond. One of the reasons for this recommendation is that potential water savings from
DWR's WELO are not great. These savings are included in the 2009 Water Conservation
Implementation Plan, and in summary, could result in only 45,000 to 48,100 gallons per day.
• 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
.The 2005 UWMP included water conservation measures and programs that are expected to save
about 4.7% of the City'S long-term water supply needs by 2030 (and 4.3% by 2020) in addition
to the "natural" savings that occur as a result of changes in appliance efficiency standards in the
plumbing code. As mentioned above, the 2005 UWMP is currently being updated. The 2010
UWMP will update projections based on known changes to the plumbing code and all existing
and likely future cost-effective water efficiency programs. The analyses for this plan, including
estimated costs and benefits are still not developed; however, it is expected that the 2010 UWMP
will show greater savings than originally reported in the 2005 UWMP. BA WSCA is helping
member agencies evaluate additional measures to be incorporated into the 2010 UWMP.
RecyCled Water Ordinance
CMR: 212:10 Page 11 of22
The City currently has an ordinance to promote the use of recycled water (CMR 203 :08) that
requires customers (other than single-family residences) adjacent to the recycled water pipeline
system to use the recycled water when it becomes available. The ordinance also requires large
new buildings to add dual plumbing to their buildings so that, when recycled water is available, it
can be used for toilet and urinal flushing. This ordinance prepares the City for the long term
when the. recycled water distribution system is expanded. The adoption of the ordinance is
consistent with the Ahwahnee Water Principles that were adopted by the City Council.
A.3 Residential and Commercial Opportunities
• Continued Emphasis on Rebates
The Colleagues' Memo suggested this as one potential way to achieve reductions. In looking at
ways to reduce potable water consumption, staff reviewed current rebate programs to determine
appropriateness in terms of incentive and value to both the customer and the City. The chati
below lists a number of the water conservation progratns from FY 2005 through December 31,
2009. These progratns are coordinated and partially funded by CPAU but delivered by the
SCVWD. The chart details the program participation rates and water savings or estimates in
g~llons. The total program expenditures from FY 2005 to date have been $772,829. .' .
The S~cond Amendment to the MOU with the SCVWDwas approved by Council on April 27,
2009 (CMR: 200:09). It includes a budget of $245,905 for the current fiscal year with an
anticipated water savings of 63 million gallons per year, or 172,506 gallons per day.
Participants
Item FY 05 to Mid FY 10 Water Savings (gallons)
,
. Residential:
Water Wise House Call 2,485 8,491,296
. Res. Bigh Efficient Toilet (HET) Rebate 578 4,781,557
Res. Clothes Washer Rebate 1,913 . 12,299,836
Both .,
Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Rebate 16 7,521,366
Landscape Conversion Rebate 155 5,403,427
Commercial:
High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Installation 1,172 19,267,736
Clothes Washer Rebate 77 2,467,508
Indoor Water Audits 39 38,801,752
Irrigation Audits Performed . 87 52,060,800
. Pre-Rinse Spray Valves 178 12,993,904
TOTAL WATER SAVED (GALLONS) . 164,089,182
TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES $ 772,829
While it appears that the most successful progratns in terms of water savings are audits, both for
irrigation and for commercial interiors, it should be noted that the, SCVWD report estimates of
water savings are based on recommendations and not on actual implemented updates or changes
CMR: 212:10 •. Page 12 of22
to.o.perations. To. pro.duce mere water savings, it co.uld be appro.priate to. increase the SCVWD
pro. gram to. increase funds available fer the audits, washing machine rebates, and high efficiency
to.ilets.
If the City were to. decide to. expand its HET pro. gram to. pay the entire Co.st o.f replacing all high
water usage to.ilets in the City, the Co.sts wo.uld be high. The American Co.mmunity Survey fro.m
2008 estimates that there are 27,000 single family residences in Palo. Alto., 13% o.f which were
built between 1990 and 19990.1' after, and, therefo.re, will have lew-flush to.ilets using 1.6 gallo.ns
per flush (gpt). Assuming that the remaining ho.useho.lds were built with an average o.f two.
to.ilets, 50% o.f which are net lew-flush 0.1' high efficiency units, the City wo.uld need to. replace
abo.ut 24,000 residential to.ilets. This wo.uld save an estimated 104,000 CCF 0.1' 77,792,000
gallo.ns per day and Co.st at least an estimated $7,200,000.
Ano.ther effective pro. gram is the rebate to. replace lawns with Io.wer water using Bay Friendly
landscaping;' CPAU has paid 155 such rebates since FY 2005. Water use reductio.ns are
estimated to. be high, but no. firm estimate is currently available. It sho.uld be no.ted that the
rebate currently pays a maximum of $3,000 per resident ($2,000 fro.m the SCVWD and $1,000
fro.m CPAU),and a maximum o.f $30,000 per business ($20,000 fro.m the SCVWD and $10,000
fro.m CPAU). This rebate amo.unt is typically much less than the Co.st o.f upgrading the
landscaping. Sho.uld the City wish to. increase participatio.n in this pro. gram, the rebate co.uld be
enhanced, but it wo.uld be Co.stly. The 155 rebates paid Co.st $155,000. Do.ubling the rebate
amo.unt fro.m CPAU wo.uld increase this expense to. $310,000 fer just 155 rebates.
Rebates fer co.llectio.n o.f rainwater fer use en landscaping are also available to. Io.cal residents
and businesses thro.ugh the PWD's Sto.rmwater Rebate Pro.gram. With regard to. the level o.f
incentive pro.vided by this rebate pro. gram, the Directo.r o.f the Io.cal tree pro.tectio.n group,
Cano.py, has provided so.me insight fro.m· perso.nal experience, as she installed a large
underground rainwater cistern in her yard in 2008. She retro.fitted her residential property to.
accommo.date a 14,000 galien cistern at the Co.st o.f appro.ximately $30,000 to. $35,000, including
the Co.st of the tank and installatio.n. Staff has researched and fo.und ether cistern systems which
may be slightly mere econo.mical, but they are best suited for new co.nstruction due to the
co.mplexity o.f the mechanical systems needed fer pumping the water fer irrigatio.n use, and the
space co.nstraints present en develo.ped sites.
Based en the high initial capital cost and the relatively small annual water costs savings, a rebate
o.f $1,000 by itself is unlikely to. create adequate incentive fer installatio.n o.f a cistern. The Co.st
o.f a cistern is probably o.ut o.f the price range o.f many Palo. Altans, and the $1,000 rebate has
little impact en this price tag. The $50 rain barrel rebate is m~re enticing, since a 50-galien
barrel can be purchased fer aro.und $100 and installed as a do.-it-yo.urself pro.ject. Rain barrels,
ho.wever, can o.nly provide a fractio.n o.f annual irrigatio.n water needs. Mo.st Palo Altans living in
a single family residence use abo.ut 40% o.f their annual water use 0.1' abo.ut 50,116 gallo.ns o.f
water per year fer landscape irrigatio.n. Rain barrels, which typically held 50 to. 250 gallo.ns,
unfo.rtunately are net able to. sustain the garden during the sunny summer mo.nths. The
Sto.rmwater Rebate Pro. gram do.es have the po.tential to. generate a mo.dest amo.unt of savings,
especially if the level ofparticipatio.n can be increased, and staff will co.ntinue to pursue it.
CMR: 212:'10 Page 13 of22
Regarding rainwater for landscape ilTigation, one must use a drip or non-overhead spray
ilTigation system, which could double the efficiency, but can not generally be used for grass.
Thus the anticipated savings for potable water use could be increased if a drip system is used and
grass is removed.
In. summary, mcmy of the above programs are currently within the City's staffing plan or can be
accommodated with current staff. Some programs such as increasing rebates programs will
require increased funding and staff. Staff reviews these programs regularly to determine
effectiveness and will return to Council if increased funding and staffing is recommended.
B. Strategies to Reach 30% Below Proposed Baseline
Staff has heard from a number of stakeholders that it should be the goal of Palo Alto to reach
beyond the 20% reduction. from the proposed SB 7 baseline. Staff believes that a goal of 30%
reduction from the SB 7 baseline could potentially be achievable, if funds and staff resources
were available to implement the appropriate programs. The SB 7 baseline as described above is
217 gallons per capita per day. A 30% reduction would be 151.9 gallons per capita per day.
This sec(ion outlines strategies that have been discussed internally and with community
stakeholders. These strategies are summarized below and are evaluated based on their water
savings impact and cost effectiveness.
Category Strategy Water savings Cost
impact effectiveness
Remove turf, incorporate sustainable Medium Low irrigation and landscape techniques
City Facility Updates Low Low
A.I. Municipal WarningslN otices for Those Irrigating Low to Low . Facilities and During Rain Medium
City Operations Include Water Use Information in the Medium Medium . Upcoming Home Energy Reports
Install Rain Water Harvesting Low Low
. Systems
Expanded Recycled Water Program Medium Low and GrayWater Opportunities
A.2. Codes and Increase the Inclining Block Rate for Medium High Ordinances Water Price Tiers ...
Implement a Retrofit on Resale Low Low to
Requirement .. Medium
A.3 Residential I· Increase the Funding for Water Medium to Medium to
and . Conservation Rebates High High
Commercial . .. Low to Medium Opportunities Water Budgets Medium
Set Water Use Targets and Goals Low Medium
Half Gallon (0.5) Gallon Per MInute Low Medium (GPM) Aerators . . . ... ,L r<!~ :'L .'LA: , ,.
OJ
CMR: 212:10 Page 14 of22
High Efficiency Toilets (HETS)
Set Stringent Water Use Targets and Medium Medium Goals
B.1. Municipal Facilities and Operations
• Remove Turf; Incorporate Sustainable Irrigation and Landscape Techniques
PWD currently has three artificial turf playing fields. PWD received 12 bids to replace one (1)
field at Cubberley Community Center in February 2009. The bids ranged from $895,000 to
$1,650,000, 'depending upon the alternatives proposed. The project was completed for
approximately $1,000,000 in July 2009. The anticipated water savings the one field at
Cubberley is 208,911 gallons annually or just under $14,000 although this has not been verified.
There are two other fields at the newly constructed Stanford/Mayfield site on the corner of Page
Mill and EI Camino. These were installed in 2007 with mixed results. Some players do not like
the feel of the synthetic grass, although others prefer it due to the absence of mud or bald spots.
The benefits for artificial turf include reduced maintenailce and no pesticide use, although the
artificial turf needs to be replaced every 8-10 years and only the more costly artificial turf is
recyclable. The City has 10 more soccer fields that have not been converted to artificial turf. If
the City were to convert five more at a cost of $5,000,000, the savings would be approximately 1
million gallons annually which equates to 2,739 gallolls of water per day. If the City were to
replace 10 playing fields at a cost of approximately $10 million, the anticipated water savings
would be 2 million gallons per year, based upon the anticipated savings for the Cubberley field.
All grass on non-playing fields could also be removed and replanted with native grasses or other
climate-appropriate plants that are drought tolerant. This reduction in water use compares to the
current total City facility consumption of about 662,850 gpd annually, including the treatment
plant.
PWD is also looking into the Kapillary Irrigation Sub-Surface System (KISSS)1 which could
potentially saVe up to an additional 30 to 70% of i'rrigation water use, depending upon is the type
and location of irrigation hardware replaced:'
Foothills Park staff is also looking into replacing its irrigated fields with native plantings. There
are 15 acres of irrigated fields in Foothills Park. These fields use approximately 15.6 million
gallons of water per year for itTigation. Staff is working with Acterra on a pilot program to
replace a small portion of this area with plantings from Acterra's Native Plant Nursery. The cost
to replace the Whole area is estimated at more than $1,000,000 and the expected water cost
savings are about $90,000 per year based on the retail cost of water. The expected water savings
to the General Fund would likely be realized after two to three years, which is the estimated
'establishment period for the native grasses used in the project. The preliminary calculation for a
discounted payback was 8 to 10 years (even with upcoming steep SFPUC rate increases for water
supply due to upgrades to the water delivery system). This is net of the $30,000 rebate provided
by SCVWD and CPAU. The estimated annual water savings is approximately 12,288,144
gallons, or 33,666 gallons per day.
I http://www.kisssusa.com!
CMR: 212:10 Page 15 of22
Finally, PWD has started a program to mulch the shrub beds to retain water on site. It is hard to
determine the exact amount of water saved, but this sustainable landscape management
technique has become common.
• City Facility Updates:
Last year staff developed a comprehensive outreach program including an educational
conservation display at the Rinconada swimming pool. The community responded well to this
educational program. There may be an opportunity to further update and expand this program
and potentially compliment it by fixing the leaky showers in the pool's locker rooms, if funds are
available. This could result in water savings to the city and show Palo Alto's commitment to
water conservation.
• , 'V lIrningsIN otices for Those Irrigating During Rain
It. was, .recommended th~t staff send out emails to, customers telling them to turn off their
irrigation systems when it is scheduled to rain. In addition, one customer recommended an
,additional email after the rain, telling them to turn their systems back on. While it might seem
redundant, ,this customer mentioned that the reason he does not turn off his irrigation system
when it rains is because he never remembers to turn it back on! It is unknown how much water
thi~ would save, although the expectation is that some staff resources would be required at some
co~t to implement this program.
• Include Water, Use Information in the Upcoming Home Energy Reports
Staff is negotiating a contract to provide Home Energy Reports and will be going to council for
approval 'op April19th. The contractor will be able to provide reports that compare a resident's
energy usage with an average of similar homes in the area, but at this point in time, water
comparisons are not available. Staff is working with the contractor to add water use information
in the upcoming 12 to 24 months at a cost of potentially $75,000 to $100,000 per year. It is
, unknown how much water this will save, but studies of energy use reductions in other cities have
found a 2 to 3% average reduction after the reports are mailed. '
• InstaJl Rain Water Harvesting Systems
An additiomil recommendation is for the City to explore the addition of rain water harvesting
, ~ysterns to' store rain water for future irrigation ~sage. This has been successfully implemented
at cities in Australia. At this point in time, water savings and cost estimates are not available, but
costs could be, high if the appropriate space for a rain water harvesting system is limited or if
significant modifications to existi~g irrigation systems are required. These systems could make
sense if high water using landscaping, including turf, is replaced with drought tolerant plants.
, This way, rain harvesting could provide a much larger amount of the irrigation requirements than
would be the case with plants that have a high watpr requirement.
Staff conducted "a preliminary investigation into the feasibility of rain water harvesting at
existing City facilities. The most likely candidate .iocationsare those with a combination of large
roof areas and extensive site landscaping, including Cubberley Community Center, the
Municipal Service Center, Main Library, Lucie Stern Community Center, and the Art Center. At
these locations, there appears to be the potential to collect enough rain water from building
rooftops (each square foot of roof area generates approximately nine gallons of rain runoff over a
CMR: 212:10 Page 16 of22
typical rainfall year) to provide a significant percentage of the site's annual irrigation water
needs. Assuming that a 50,000-gallon cistern could be accommodated into these sites and that a
significant amount of collected water could be used for site irrigation during dry spells
throughout the course of the rainy season, up to 100,000 gallons of water could be saved at each
rain water harvesting site each year. The installation cost of a rain water harvesting system
would vary depending upon the specific conditions of each site, but would likely range from
$100,000 to $150,000 per site. Before staff could provide a more definitive recommendation on
rain water harvesting at City facilities, a more detailed feasibility study would be required to
determine the potential water savings and the construction costs.
In order to increase the amount of rain water harvesting conducted by local residents and
businesses, the rebate amounts offered by the PWD's Stormwater Rebate Program could be
increased in order to offer a better incentive for these systems. It is unclear at this point how
much the rebates would have to be increased in order to achieve a meaningful increase in rain
water harvesting by members of the community. Additional funding would need to be secured
from the Public Works or Utilities Departments to increase the rebate amounts above their
current levels. Another option would be to make rain water harvesting mandatory for specific
types of new construction and remodeling projects as part of a' modified Green Building
Ordinance.
B.2. Codes and. Ordinances
• Expanded Recycled Water Program and Graywater Opportunities
.The City currently has completed a Recycled Water Facility Plan (December 2008), based upon
the Council-adopted ordinance to promote the use of recycled water (CMR 203 :08), and is
completing the environmental documents for the project to expand the recycled water
distribution system. A Capital Improvement Project to construct the extension to the recycled
water distribution line is in the plarming process. The project is projected to save 900 acre feet
or about 293 million gallons per year of potable water and reduce treated wastewater discharges
to the, Bay. Initial capital cost estimates to construct the recycled water pipeline total $33.5
million. The City is currently pursuing federal and state funding opportunities to help lower the
City's cost of the project. Annualized capital and operations costs are projected to be $2,500 to
$2,700 p<:;r aCre foot under the most likely funding scenario. The city has participated in a
regional working group to provide comments .. to the Californian Department of Housing and
COlllmunitY,Development on regulations for residential graywater systems. It is not possible at
this time to estimate potential water savings or costs for this type of initiative.
• Increase the Inclining Block Rate for Water Price Tiers
One method that staff is currently considering is the expansion of water price tiers to add
additional, higher priced tiers and/or to increase the price of water consumption at higher levels
of consumption. This method has the advantage of providing economic incentives to customers
to conserve. and is often seen as the easiest way to encourage conservation. An expressed
concern about this method is that water use is typically "inelastic;" that is, consumption for most
customers (both residents and businesses) does not typically change by a significant amount
when, there are changes in rate structures. This inelasticity is due to a variety of factors,
including:
• Comparatively speaking, water is relatively inexpensive;
CMR: 212:10 Page 17 of22
• Thos.e with the greatest ability to save (larger yards, more bathrooms, hot tubs and pools,
and so on), typically have the resources to pay higher bills;
• Those who would be most likely to restrict consumption due to higher prices are often
using the least amount of water and have the least flexibility in reducing usage; and
• Businesses that use water for operational needs, from washing dishes to production, are
understandably focused on increasing or maintaining production and revenue.
Staff will consider the implementation complexities involved in creating greater tiers to the rate
structure when it prepares a recommendation on water rate structural changes. Once that· is
determined, estimated water savings and potential benefits and costs of implementation will be
identified.
• Implement a Retrofit on Resale Requirement
A few cities have passed requirements that all inefficient plumbing fixtures be replaced at the
point of sale. This proposal does have water reduction capabilities and would upgrade the
housing stock within the City. However, these requirements are typically controversial and
complicated to implement, as the real estate community, current occupants, and others see this
step as an unnecessary complication and cost that could reduce the value of homes in comparison
to neighboring communities. Since only about 470 2 homes, including single family homes,
condos and townhomes are sold each calendar year, assume that 500 toilets would be replaced.
Each home is assumed to have two toilets per home, but perhaps 50% would likely need to be
retrofitted. Water savings from the toilet replacements required in the RECO would be an
estimated water savings of 1,620,603 gallons per year (3,241 gallons per year per toilet) at a cost
of $300 per tbilet. Savings from aetators installations and· other RECO replacements would be
much less than for the toilet upgrades.
B.3 Residential and Commercial Opportunities
• Increase the Funding for Water Conservation Rebates
The MOU with the SCVWD for implementation of water conservation and efficiency rebates
ends in June 2010. Staff is currently reviewing the potential for expanding the number of rebates
and/or increasing the amount available to customers to incentivize participation in programs. All
increased incentives to the customers would come at a cost to the water utility, al1d water savings
for some of these options are still being developed. However, staff analysis of the most cost
effective programs that have yielded the greatest water savings include indoor and outdoor water
use surveys and rebates for high efficiency toilets and high efficiency clothes washers.
• Water Budgets
CPAU staff continueS to review the option of developing water budgets for some segment of the
customer popUlation, such as all customers with irrigation meters or those who are the largest
water customers. This would require additional staffing in Utility marketing services (UMS) to
implement the programs and enhancements to the utility billing software and a ramp-up in timing
of smart meter implementation for these customers. The costs would be higher during ramp up
time,· presumably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for software and meter purchases, but
on an ongoing basis would at least require one staff person at a cost of $75,000 to $100,000 per
2472 homes were sold in Palo Alto in 2009. This included 387 single family homes and 85 condos or townhomes.
CMR: 212;10 Page 18 of22
yeai'. Actual water savings would depend on the number of customers involved in the program,
but can be estimated at 5% for participating customers.
Planning staff is interested in researching if there are ways to enforce a performance period after
construction is cornplete to confirm that the water budgets developed during design and
construction are being maintained during operation. This is a similar concept to
recommissioning, which is practice to ensure that a building's designed energy savings continue
into operation. This would only be applicable for projects required to go through the Green
Building Program, but might provide good data and feedback on designed versus actual water
performance. .
• Set Water Use Targets and Goals
CPAU staff and other stakeholders have suggested that the City set well published goals or
targets for savings per resident. Some jurisdictions, for example, have a target water use saving
goal of 10 gallons per capita per day. Note that residential per capita water use for the City of
Palo Alto is currently ilboutl20 gallons per capita per day. This includes water sales to
residential single-and multi-family customers only. Staff could enhance its website and other
promotional activities to provide residents with a list of options that could be implemented on a .
more regular basis to achieve target water use reductions. Assuming that privacy issues can be
dealt with appropriately, some type of neighborhood competition program could be developed.
This program would require additional funds for marketing and educational development and
potentially a requirement to develop a program to analyze water usage by neighborhood. Water
savings for the total utility, assuming all or a large percentage of residents participated in the
program, could be as high as 4% of water consumption
• Half Gallon (0.5) Gallon Per Minute (GPM) Aerators
CPAU could work with Acterra and the SCVWD to distribute 0.5 gpm faucet aerators for
bathrooms. (as opposed to current 1.5 gpm aerators provided by SCVWD). Other jurisdictions
have implemented this option with mixed results because some people feel that the reduced
water flow is not sufficient. SCVWD currently provides the 1.5 gpm aerators to residents who
participate in the Water Wise House Call Program, as well as those who are involved in the
Greel1@Home audits through Acterra. If Palo Alto chooses this alternative, CP AU would need
to provide the new 0,5 gpm aerators to Acterra at a relatively small cost, assuming the current
rate of about 125 audits per year continues. Assuming 125 homes participate in the
Green@Home audits each year, the anticipated annual water savings would be 730,048 gallons
per year. The anticipated water savings if all homes in Palo Alto had 0.5 gpm aerators installed
iil their bathrooms instead of the 1.5 gpm aerators would be 145,999,876 gallons per year. This
estimate assumes 100%·ri1arket penetration. The City would need 25,000 to 50,000 of the 0.5
gprn aerators at a cost of $62,500 to $125,000 to realize these water savings.
• Set Stringent Water Use Targets and Goals
Water budgets could be developed "for all custorners based on lot size, previous usage, or some
other criteria. Fees or fines for violating these budgets could be authorized through the
Administrative Penalty Code. This option could produce water savings up to 5% of total (l0%
CMR: 212:10 Page 19 of22
of landscaping usage for residents), but is estimated to require significant costs in development
and result in significant levels of unintended consequences. This budget is yet to be developed.
In summary, the above programs will most likely help Palo Alto reach an extended goal of 30%
reduction from the proposed SB 7 baseline. Staff would potentially need.to engage an outside
consultant to further vet these additional strategies and calculate more accurate savings and
cost figures.
C. Strategies to Reach 40% Below Baseline Goal
Staff has also heard from some stakeholders that it should be the goal of Palo Alto to reach
beyond the 20% from the proposed SB 7 baseline, to a goal of 20% reduction from last year's
(2009) water use level, which would be similar to 40% below the proposed SB 7 baseline. Staff
b~lieves thatthis will be difficult and costly to reach. The SB 7 baseline as described above is
217 gallops per capita per day. A 40% reduction would be 130.2 gallons per capita per day.
This section briefly outlines a few strategies staff has discussed at length internally and with
community stakeholders. SOlI)e of the strategies are controversiaL These strategies will require
more ,time to assess both in terms of cost, water savings and unintended consequences.
This. level of reduction could require severe reduction landscape irrigation, as landscape
irrigation accounts for 40% of residential use, as described in Figure 3 on page 4. The only
feasible way for residents to reduce 40% of water consumption would be to either eliminate or
severely. restrict all landscape irrigation, in addition to replacing all indoor appliances and
fixtures with more efficient units. Businesses would face similar restrictions.
Currently Palo Alto residential water consumption is 120 gpcd as outlined in the graph in the
Colleagues' Memo. Reducing this by 20% (since 20% reduction from current use is about 40%
.reduction from SB 7 baseline use) would establish a goal of 96 gpcd for residenti<tl per capita
lise.
The Citycurr(;)ntly classifies all City-owned potable groundwater wells as emergency stand-by
only with the California Department of Public, Health (CDPH) permitting agency. Drilling new
wells for irrigation use is an option that c.ould be considered, but has not been investigated in
detail. Another option that had been discussed in public forums was replenishing the ground
water with our, recycled water, as is done in Southern California. Staff will need additional
resourCeS ,and time to be able to properly ass()ss this option.
" Another option that has been reviewed is, to use, ,the water currently pumped out of such locations
as the Oregon Expressway underpass for dewatering. This would require infrastructure
development (piping, storage, and treatment) in order to use the water for irrigation purposes.
These costs are so high as to render the option to be uneconomic. '
Other site planning strategies which, could be incorporated into the City's update to the Green
Building Code and that could have an impact on potable water use are:
CMR: 212:10 Page 20 of22
• Reduce allowed amount or percentage of turf on custorner-owned land significantly and
mandate Bay Friendly plant palettes beyond those required in the Green Building
Program;
• Only allow irrigation during certain times or day or on certain days of the week; and/or
• Discourage or even outlaw use of potable water for landscape irrigation.3
The strategies to reach 40% reductions. from the proposed SB 7 baseline are still in review by
staff. Staff may also need to engage an outside consultant to detail these additional strategies
and calculate more accurate savings and cost figures. Therefore, estimations of gallons saved or
cost to implement is not yet available. It can be assumed that most of these options, if
implemented, would cost a significant amount of money and may face some unintended
consequences.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Strategies described to meet the 20% reduction goal are within the staffing plan and budgets.
Strategies described to meet a 30% goal would require additional funding and staff resources, as
outlined in that section of this report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
Approval of this policy is consistent with current City policies. It also supports the Council's
priority of Enviromnental Protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Public Resource Codes sec
21065, this California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Colleague's memo for 20% Water Reduction by 2020
B. Section of CMR 393:05; Modified Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient
Land Use Proposed for Adoption by the City of Palo Alto.
OTHER RESOURCES
• High-contact, hands-on outreach program changes customers' water use behavior, By
Annette Humm Keen, David Keen, Guy E. Francis, and Adam Wolff
http://www.awwa.org/publications/ A WW AlournalArticle.cfm ?itemnumber=53987
• Principles for Level 3 Enhanced Water Restrictions for All Council/Developer Outdoor
Irrigation from the Government of South Australia
3 There are a number of jurisdictions in Australia and in the south western U.S. states that have implemented or are
looking at these measures.
CMR: 212:10 Page 21 of22
http://www.sawater.com.auINR/rdonlyresI77501150-EOD9-4E8F-8AB3-
A65 8 C 13 2824 AlO/L3 Enhanced Water RestrictionsCouncils. pdf
PREPARED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 212:10
Joyce Kinnear, Manager Utility Market Services
Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
Nicolas Procos, Sf. Resource Planner, Utilities
Kristin Parineh, Associate Planner
. Joe Teresi, Sr. Engineer, Public Works
Debravan Duynhoven, Assistant to the City
Manager for Sustainability
I
CITY MANAGER
Page 22 of22
•
Attachment A
DATE: ,October 26, 2009
TO: City Council Colleagues
FROM: Council Members Klshimoto, Klein and Yeh
SUBJECT: Directing the City Manager to Explore Ways to Reduce Potable
,Water Use In Palo Alto by 20% by 2020. ,
Recommendation
We ask our Council colleagues to join us In directing the City Manger to
explore and recommend ways the City can reduce our community-wide use
of potabl~ water by 20% by 2020 in conformance with the Governor's water
conservation directive. '
We would like the City Manager to come back to Council with his interim
recommendations on World Water Day -March 22, 2010.. '
Background,
Palo ,Alto. purchases its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Roughly 85% of SFPUC water comes from the
Tuolumr)e, River via the Hetch Hetchy Water System and 15% comes from
local sources such as Alameda Creek and Crystal Springs Reservoir. Palo
Alto's contract with the SFPUC guarantees the City up to 17 million gallons of
water per day (mgd) during wet and normal years. Palo Alto currently uses
an average of about 13 mgd.
Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA), which represents the SFPUC's 27 wholesale water
customers. The average per capita dally reSidential water use In the
BAWSCA territory is 90. gallons per day (see attached graph). The average
in Palo Alto I,s 120 gallons per person per day, one of the highest rates In the
region. There is much room for improvement. ,
As a result of th'e Water System Improvement Program that the SFPUC
approved last year, the total ,amount of water allOcated to, BAWSCA will be
capped at 184 mgd until at least 2018. To stay within this cap, BAWSCA has
committed to conserving or recycling an additional 22 mgd. By reducing its
water use, Paio Alto will play its role in helping BAWSCA stay within the cap.
Other BAWSCA agencies also will be embarking on water conservation and
recycling programs.
On February 28, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a comprehensive
plan for improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
Including an aggressive new goal for water conservation. The first element
on the Governor's list was "a plan to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per
caPita water use statewide by 2020."
Conserving water helps protect natural resources. The Tuolumne -
designated a federal Wild and Scenic River in 1984 -provides water for 2.4
million people in the Bay Area, as well as water for agriculture in the Central
Valley. Currently, 60% of the Tuolumne Is diverted for human uses, and as
a result the River has suffered. For example, the salmon population has
plummeted from 18,000 In 2000 to fewer than 500 last year.
Conserving water also will prepare Palo Alto for an uncertain future. As a
result of population growth and climate change, water'will become scarcer in
coming years and there will be Increasing competition for this vital resource.
It behooves the City to begin planning for this challenge now.
The new Water Supply Agreement between the SFPUC and Its 27 wholesale
customers (Including Palo Alto), represented by BAWSCA, allows member
agencies to transfer or sell excess water allocations. This could help drive
more Innovative water programs and practices. Because Palo Alto Is
allocated 4 mgd more water than it uses, we have the potential to sell our
excess water to other agencies to help fund our water conservation and
recycling programs.
Possible City Actions
Some opportunities the City Manager might explore include the following
measures:
• Increasing the use of recycled water from our Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Opportunities might include using recycled water to recharge
. our upper aquifer and using that water for landscape Irrigation.
• Promoting the use of graywater on site. Recent changes to the
plumbing code have made this a little easier.
• Recommending a water efficient landscape ordinance that encourages
the use of drought-tolerant plants and trees .. '
• Expanding water conservation programs, such as, but not limited to,
the use of mulch material to encourage water retention In adobe soils
and the use of precision water control and monitOring devices to
ensure the appropriate amount of irrigation for fields and parks.
• Using pricing incentives to encourage greater conservation:
.'
•
• Working more closely with our largest commercial and residential
water customers to encourage more conservation.
• Exploring a retrofit-on-resale ordinance that requires properties to be
upgraded with wafer efficient appliances ahd devices at the time of
sale.
• Implementing a water budget program similar to that used in Redwood
. City.
• Exploring ordiriances aimed at reducing water waste, such as banning
the use of hoses to wash off driveways and sidewalks.
• Expanding our rebate program for water-efficient appliances.
This memo has been reviewed by staff.
We look forward to discussing this recommended action with you.
B'AWSCA Annual Survey -FV 2007.08 63
Residential Per Capita Consumption andSingle.Family'
, Average Monthly Use Among BAWSCA Members. FV 2007·08
$tanford and Guadalupe Valley excluded due to unique ~ervlce areas; California Water
Service Is separated Into its three service areas. '
'Residential Single-Family
Service 'Residential Per Capita Average
Monthly Use
Daly City 106,361 2,671,556 51.5 8
East Palo Alto 29,690 774,219 53.4 "n/a
Brisbane 3,159 90,331 5B.6' 5
North Coast 40,000 1,155,924 59.2 "nla
CalWater -South SF 57,370 1,701,010 60.8 9
San Bruno 40,165 1,356,917 69.2 "nla
Hayward 149,205 5,086,793 69.9 10
Milpitas 69,419 2,380,541 70.3 12
Coastside 18,887 674,954 73.2 9
Skyline' 1,658 63,885 79.0 11
Millbrae 21,387 834,788 80.0 10
Mountain View 73,932 3,050,492 84.6 10
Mld·Penlnsula 26,050 1,108,593 87.2 10
Redwood City 83,895 M31,006 8B.7 11
Estero 36,000 1,576,730 89.8 13
Santa Clara 114,238 5,109,682 91.7 14
CalWater • Mid-Peninsula 124,279 5,615,040 92.6 12
AlamedaCWD 331,000 15,051,716 93.2 13
Burlingame 28,100 1,298,888 94.7 11
Sunnyvale 133,721 6,271,627 96.1 13
San JQse 14,800 ,698,347 96.7 10
Palo Alto 63,467 ),536,21 !p. 114.2 15'
Menlo Park 10,308 748,048 148.7 16
CalWater • Bear Gulch 55,501 5,633,409 208.0 28
Hillsborough 10,825 1,678,233 317.7 33
Purlssima Hills 6,050 985,962 334.0 40
Totals 1,661,467 73,070,171
Total Averages 90.1 14
Median of Agencies 83.4
'Includes multi·family and single family accounts .
.. East Palo Alto, North Coast, and San Bruno report multl·family with single family use. ,
Source: BAWSCA FY 2007-08 Annual Survey Table VIA
Currant Water U.a Par CapIta January. 2009
"
Agenda Item 114-8 .•
How Efficiently is Water Used Today?
350
300
>-tV
" ~
'" c. 250 .~ c.
G
~
'" 200 a.
" c
.!1
i 150 OJ' ..
::l
'jij
.~ 100 " ~
'" " ... 50
tV
M
~
o
Residential Per Capita Consumption -FY 2006-07 (In gpcpd)
westborough.
OalyClly
East Palo Alto
Brlg!)ane
NonhCoesl
cws. Soulll SF
S'n Bruno
Haywarc:{
Milpitas
skyline
C08stS]di
Millbrae
Mountain Vi8\¥
MltI·Penlnsul,
MEQ,IAN(9t.1)
Redwood City
Estero
Sentaelm·
CWS· Mld·Peninsula
A!amed.
sunn~.r.
San JOlt
:'
o
Burlingame
Pa!()Atlo
M!!nloPar1C.
ews· Bear GulCh
HIIISl)arouOh
Purissima Hills
10 20
Figure \17 A
High Water Using Areas Represent a
Small Percentage of the Population
30 40 50 60 70 ao 90 100
Cumulative Percentage of Population
1C.
Attachment B
The Modified Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use
Proposed for Adoption by the City of Palo Alto
Preamble
Cities and counties are facing major challenges with water contamination, storm water runoff,
flood damage liability, and concerns about whether there will be enough reliable water for
current re~idents as well as for new development. These issues impact city and county budgets
and taxpayers. Fortunately there are a number of stewardship actions that cities and counties can
take that reduce costs and improve the reliability and quality of our .water resources.
The Water Principles below complement the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient
Communities that Were developed in 1991. Many cities and counties are already using them to
improve the vitality and prosperity of their communities.
Community Principles
1. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that
automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that
absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible.
2. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open
space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for
flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall
long-term water resource sustainability.
3. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other
features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and
decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape, while meeting best
practices for mosquito control and groundwater pollution prevention.
4. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the
installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain
runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater.
S. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape where practical. Impervious surfaces
should be minimized wherever practicable or runoff water should be redirected so that
land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge
groundwater and reduce flooding.
6. Dual plumbing that allows gray water from showers, and non-kitchen sinks to be reused
for subsurface landscape irrigation should be encouraged for new and remodeled
buildings, and education programs should be developed on the proper construction and
operation of systems that use grey water.
7. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water or other nonpotable water
supplies for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and
commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in large, new
construction and remodeled ("remodeled", used here, means when the plumbing is being
replaced) buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled, or other
nonpotable, water. .
8. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient-clothes
washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in
all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings.
CMR:367:0S Page 8 of9
9. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when
necessary and practical to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.
Implementation Principles
1. Water supply agencies should be consulted early inthe land use decision-making process
regarding technology, demographics and growth projections.
2. City and. county officials, the watershed council, LAFCO, special districts and other
stakeholders sharing watersheds should collaborate to take advantage of the benefits and
synergies of water resource planning at a watershed level.
3. The best, multi-benefit and integrated strategies and projects should be identified and
implemented before less integrated proposals, unless ljrgency demands otherwise.
4. From start to finish, projects and programs should involve the public, build relationships,
and increase the sharing of and access to inforl1)ation. The pa11icipatory process should
focus on ensuring that all residents have access to clean, reliable and affordable water for
drinking and recreation. ,
5. Plans, programs, projects and policies should be monitored and evaluated to determine 'if
the expected results are achieved and to improve future practices.
CMR:367:05 Page 9 of9