My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-05-08 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-05-08 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2017 8:43:31 AM
Creation date
5/4/2017 3:47:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
5/8/2017
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.
/
493
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
Water customers are currently served by the Glenloch Tank and the Easter Bowl Tank, <br />but these tanks do not provide sufficient water storage capacity. The project site <br />previously contained two wooden water tanks (150,000 gallons combined capacity) that <br />were removed by the City in 1999. An existing pump station and emergency generator <br />are located on-site within a 6-foot chain link fence. The existing equipment would be <br />replaced and housed with the new construction. <br /> <br />Alternative Designs: <br />As noted above, the EIR studies several alternatives to the Proposed Project, which can <br />be adopted instead of the primary project. The alternative projects studied are as <br />follows: <br /> <br />1. Reduced Project – reduced tank size with 284,500 gallons of storage <br />capacity. Although this project would have less visual prominence with a <br />reduced tank size and fewer environmental impacts, it does not meet the <br />City’s objective of increasing water storage capacity by 750,000 gallons as <br />identified in the Water System Master Plan. The estimated total cost for the <br />Reduced Project is $6.2 million. <br /> <br />2. Partially covered tank - places the tank against the hillside with a soil <br />berm around the front of the tank. This alternative has the same 50’ <br />setback from California Way but reduces the visual prominence with the soil <br />berm. This alternative increases maintenance costs and limits ability for <br />visual inspections as part of the tank is buried and inaccessible. The estimated <br />total cost for the Partially Covered Tank is $8.0 million. <br /> <br />3. Partially underground tank – drops the tank 10’ into the ground resulting in <br />less visual prominence of the tank. This design would require greater <br />excavation, retaining walls and a permanent dewatering system. It would <br />also require a waiver from the California Waterworks standards which <br />requires the tank bottom be located above the highest anticipated <br />groundwater levels. The estimated total cost for the Partially Underground <br />Tank is $9.0 million. <br /> <br />4. Increased setback – moves the water tank 10’ further away from California <br />Way into the site. It would result in additional grading, retaining walls and <br />may not sufficiently reduce the visual prominence of the tank. The estimated <br />total cost for the Increased Setback Alternative is $8.5 million. <br /> <br />5. Hillside location – also known as the “Hillside Alternative,” <br />shifts the tank 135’ from California Way into the hillside. It w o u l d <br />require additional grading, removal of additional trees and requires higher <br />retaining walls. It w o u l d take longer to construct and is more costly, <br />but would reduce the visual prominence of the tank from the adjacent <br />residences more than any of the other alternatives. Additional geotechnical <br />8.A. - Page 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.