My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Res19 15780
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
City Council
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
Res19 15780
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2019 12:42:36 PM
Creation date
6/26/2019 12:42:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Resolution
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
6/24/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
REDWOOD CITY <br />Cohesive Sediment <br />17.6% Reduction <br />Total PCBs <br />17.6% Reduction <br />Total Savings <br />(Sediment vs. PC8s) <br />GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN <br />Total Savings <br />(lurisdictionalvs. Countywide) <br />Scenario 1 <br />Scenario 2 <br />4 <br />Savings <br />Scenario 3 <br />Scenario 4 <br />4 <br />Savings <br />Savings Savings <br />The following factors are considered for each model scenario: <br />y Overall <br />Savings <br />• Load Reduction Objective -With a cohesive sediment load reduction <br />objective, Scenarios 1 and 2 represent the most conservative <br />approaches. Those scenarios assume that given the uncertainties <br />about PCB source areas, targeting an overall 17.6% load reduction of <br />cohesive sediment in general (silts and clays) achieves the PCB load <br />reduction objective for GI. Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that PCB <br />sources are spatially distributed based on analysis of land use types. <br />The cost -benefit optimization process targets those areas as having <br />the highest likelihood of PCB sources. Scenarios 3 and 4 highlight the <br />potential cost savings (relative to Scenarios 1 and 2) that could be <br />realized if PCB sources are identified and targeted for GI <br />implementation. <br />• Jurisdictional verses Countywide - There are many possible ways to <br />achieve a 17.6% load reduction for all of San Mateo County. The <br />"Jurisdictional" approach stipulates that each jurisdiction must <br />individually achieve at least a 17.6% load reduction based on the <br />population -based wasteload reduction for each jurisdiction. <br />Conversely, the "Countywide" approach achieves the 17.6% load <br />reduction countywide by allowing the model to allocate the <br />countywide wasteload reduction via GI across jurisdictional <br />boundaries. The countywide approach can provide significant cost <br />savings over the jurisdictional approach, especially where pollutant <br />sources are spatially concentrated. Figure 1 conceptually illustrates <br />the jurisdictional versus countywide optimization approaches. <br />Where there is cooperation among jurisdictions, results from these <br />two scenarios can provide a useful analytical framework for cost- <br />sharing and implementation of the most cost-effective management <br />scenarios. <br />RWC GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN <br />18 JUNE 2019 <br />ATTY/RESO.0075/CC RESO APPROVING THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN — EXHIBITA RESO. NO. 15780 <br />REV: 06-20-19 PR MUFF NO. 802 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.