My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2004-09-27
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2004
>
AgdaPkt 2004-09-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 3:45:43 PM
Creation date
9/23/2004 1:24:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/27/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
329
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
8�-qfl <br /> City of Redwood City Recycled Water Task Force Report March 3, 2004 <br /> 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> The goal of the Recycled Water Task Force ("Task Force") is to identify 1,946 acre-feet per year <br /> ("AF/Y") of potable water demand reductions by 2010, in a financially feasible manner, that <br /> avoids using recycled water at schoolyards, parks, and playgrounds. The Task Force has <br /> achieved this goal and unanimously makes three recommendations to the City of Redwood City <br /> ("City") City Council. <br /> First, the Task Force recommends that the City implement Alternative TF, as summarized in <br /> Table 1 and Section 3.1. Through a combination of recycled water use, replacement of natural <br /> turf playing fields with synthetic turf, continued use of groundwater at Sequoia High School, and <br /> additional water conservation programs, Alternative TF achieves an estimated 2,002 AF/Y of <br /> potable water demand reductions at an estimated cost of $14,000 more than Alternative E. <br /> Considering the margin of enor in the estimated $43,600,000 capital cost for Alternative E, the <br /> cost difference between Alternatives E and TF is negligible. Therefore, the Task Force considers <br /> the costs of Alternatives E and TF to be essentially the same. In addition, implementation of <br /> Alternative TF will allow increased utilization of the City's playing fields. <br /> Option Potable Water Cost Cost Efficiency <br /> Demand Reduction ($) ($/A►F/Y) <br /> AF <br /> Alternative E 1,946 43,600,000 22,405 <br /> Alternative TF 2,002 43,614,000 21,785 <br /> Second, the Task Force recommends that the City investigate and/or implement Other Potential <br /> Measures ("OPMs") 1 through 10, which will likely result in additional reductions in potable <br /> water demand. This recommendation is made to give the City additional flexibility to meet <br /> future potable water supply demands. The OPMs are listed below and detailed in Section 3.2. <br /> 1) Further Investigate Potential Use of Groundwater <br /> 2) Consider a Commercial Toilet Replacement Program <br /> 3) Promote Conservation <br /> 4) Adopt an Ordinance to Implement Conservation Measures <br /> 5) Consider Requiring Low-Flow Urinals in New Construction <br /> 6) Consider Requiring Conservation Devices in New Construction <br /> 7) Evaluate Incentives for Electronic Eye Faucets <br /> 8) Investigate Potential Water Swaps with Other Potable Water Conveyors <br /> 9) Evaluate Emerging Automated Landscape Irrigation Technology <br /> 10) Evaluate Emerging Treatment Technology <br /> Third, the Task Force recommends that City staff prepare annual reports, for City Council and <br /> public review, on their progress toward implementing the first two recommendations of the Task <br /> Force. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.