My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-12-19
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-12-19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 5:00:53 PM
Creation date
12/15/2005 3:08:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
12/19/2005
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.
/
222
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
�.�-�9 <br /> City is proceeding with a fest well at Red Morton Park to determine the suitability of <br /> site-specific wells for irrigation of parks in the central and western parts of the city. <br /> h) How can citizens get the City to revisit the use of chloramines? <br /> The decision to replace chlorine disinfection with chloramines throughout the service <br /> area of the Hetch Hetchy regional water system was made by the San Francisco <br /> Public Utilities Commission at the urging of the California Department of Health <br /> Services. The change affects an estimated 2.4 million water customers in dozens of <br /> communities. Despite some opposition before and after the changeover, staff is not <br /> aware of any commitment from the SFPUC to consider reversal of their decision. <br /> There is a large body of information available via the health care and medical fields: <br /> City staff can assist residents in finding information. <br /> i) How can residents remove chloramines and fluoride from their individual water <br /> supply? <br /> There are some filter products available for homeowners. Confact the Redwood City <br /> staff at 780-7464 to get assistance. <br /> Group # 1: Concerns about the plan in its current form <br /> a) It may be a problem if other Cities do not choose hot water recirculation. <br /> The concern is that unless cities band together, cost effectiveness of devices such <br /> as hot water recirculators will be difficult to achieve. BWASCA has been very <br /> successful in offering member agencies with subscripfion-based, regional rebate <br /> programs for cloths washers and restaurant pre-rinse nozzles. Redwood City staff <br /> will collaborate with BA WSCA to explore the feasibility of including recirculators in <br /> the future. <br /> b) Concerned about the continued use of chloramines <br /> See responses to questions h) and i) above. <br /> Group # 2: Questions about the content of the UWMP draft <br /> a) What controls does Redwood City have over build-out in Emerald Hills? (review, <br /> permit restrictions, etc.) <br /> Since the Redwood Cify Planning staff, Planning Commission and City Council have <br /> no land use jurisdiction or authority over the building permit process in <br /> unincorporated San Mateo County, they musf rely on influencing policy decisions <br /> that affect Redwood City. Many years ago, Redwood City's supply assurance was <br /> adjusted to include future water supply for the Emerald Hills service area of <br /> Redwood City's water system, based on build-out projections at the time. Section <br /> 2.4 of the Draft UWMP indicates that there are approx. 250 to 300 remainrng <br /> undeveloped single-family parcels. This pofential future new demand is included in <br /> the base water demand forecast of fhe UWMP update. <br /> Group # 2: Concerns about the plan in its current form <br /> a) In Table 3-1, the 2015 — 2030 projections include volumes that exceed supply <br /> assurance figures. But, the Draft UWMP says RWC can't get more water. If we <br /> compare Table 4-3 to Table 3-1, iYs confusing. The forecast purchases exceed <br /> supply assurances figures. <br /> In 2004 the SFPUC asked wholesale customer agencies to provide "best estimates" <br /> of their purchase needs up to 2030 — irrespective of the current contractual supply <br /> assurance limit (the Master Sa/es Agreement expires in 2010). Appendix D of the <br /> Draft UWMP provides detailed correspondence and documents related to that work. <br /> Table 3-1 shows only water supply — both the "best estimafe amounts given to the <br /> SFPUC and new, recycled water. Revised Table 4-3 and new Table ES-1 indicate <br /> 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.