Laserfiche WebLink
�� �� <br /> that the lower end of the range of Redwood City demand on SF water in the future <br /> may be less fhan the current supply assurance. Staff believes that planning within a <br /> range of a 25-year period is a good resource management practice, and staff also <br /> advocates that the Council's policy assumption via the UWMP at this poinf in time <br /> should be fhat Redwood City will not to get more water from the regional system than <br /> we currently get. <br /> b) On page 4-4 under "future water supply reliability" — 3rd paragraph, RWC is being <br /> penalized for being proactive regarding water recycling. We need something in the <br /> UWMP to address this via BAWSCA. <br /> Regionally, the reality is that there is no "extra" water. But communities can transfer <br /> water. The City Council may use recycled water as leverage and could exchange <br /> recycled water for additional drinking water with other agencies. Developers may <br /> buy water rights from another agency and have that amount credited to Redwood <br /> City. However, it is easy to understand the broad perception that the bottom line is: <br /> the more you save in times of normal water supply, the more you get punished in <br /> times of drought. <br /> Group # 2: Suggestions for improving this draft: <br /> a) RWC should supply more information about recycled water and how it can be used <br /> safely for landscaping, firefighting, etc. <br /> The recycled water project is described in Chapters 3 and 7 of the Draft UWMP, and <br /> much more information is available on the City's web site. The City has <br /> implementing an extensive public outreach and information program about recycled <br /> water— which is available to all Redwood City water customers, irrespective of the <br /> location of their homes or businesses relative to the recycled water service area. <br /> Because the Recycled Water Project is now in a phased implementation / <br /> construction process, and due to the many actions and decisions that the Council <br /> take in the years ahead, for the purpose of the UWMP, staff suggests that the current <br /> draft provides a good level of non-time sensitrve information and that it does focus on <br /> supply projections primarily— and as it should. <br /> b) RWC should not expand its recycled water activities until "savings penalty" issue is <br /> fixed. <br /> See response to Group 2- b) above. The Cify Council's approach to date has been <br /> one of preparedness for the next drought and having a drought-proof new water <br /> supply that can provide maximum benefit to the City and perhaps to neighboring <br /> communities. <br /> c) Many of the tables don't give units or give varying units — acre/ft, housing units, etc. <br /> Need to standardize on something easy to understand. <br /> The units used in the UWMP have been selected to be consistent with other city <br /> planning systems and documents. All tables have been revised to indicate more <br /> clearly what the measurement units are. <br /> d) Chart showing changes between old/new water management plan does not show <br /> connections with General Plan and does not list the [detailedJ backup projections. <br /> Please re-insert list of specific projects that were used for the projections. More <br /> detail in Table 2-2 (page 2-3). <br /> As the staff report and aitachments describes, the methodology for projecting future <br /> growth has been modified and the UWMP no longer will depend on specific project <br /> proposals or development sites for setting the "base demand forecast". However, a <br /> new table is proposed to be added to the final UWMP — Table 2-3. See <br /> "Recommended Changes to Draft UWMP" <br /> 3 of 6 <br />