My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2026.06.22 Speaker Cards - PC
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Speaker Cards - Public Comments
>
2026.06.22 Speaker Cards - PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2026 3:28:25 PM
Creation date
7/14/2026 3:28:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Speaker Card
Meeting Type
Regular
Date
6/22/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
For water shortages up to 20%, the Tier One water shortage plan will be applied. The Tier One plan does not <br />apply to system-wide shortages greater than 20%. Implementing water use reduction greater than 20% <br />requires the SFPUC to meet and discuss with Wholesale Customers a strategy for meeting incremental <br />reductions above the Tier One plan. The SFPUC has the authority to make final allocation decision for the <br />portion above 20%, though the Wholesale Customers have the contractual right to challenge the proposed <br />approach. The Tier 2 Drought Response Implementation Plan, which allocates the wholesale share during <br />dry years, applies only to system-wide shortages of 20% or less; because the projected wholesale cutbacks <br />in this UWMP range from 31% to 48%, the Tier 2 Plan cannot be applied. The City will exercise its <br />contractual right to challenge any proposed allocation greater than 20% that is not supported by reservoir- <br />storage and supply-availability data at the time the allocation is contemplated, and reserves all rights and <br />remedies available under the Water Supply Agreement, Section 3.11(c)(3). This analysis assumes the <br />relative split of available water between SFPUC Retail and Wholesale Customers will be the same for <br />shortages greater than 20% as shortages of 20%. <br />Editor's note — The Tier 2 acknowledgment is staff's own (Item 4 staff report p. 6, fn. 7); putting it in the UWMP body, <br />rather than only in the staff report, makes the limitation visible to Council and to ratepayers. The reservation-of-rights <br />sentence does not reject SFPUC's analysis; it records that any future >20% allocation will be evaluated against then- <br />current physical supply, consistent with the WSA contractual right that the existing paragraph already references. This is <br />the textual change a Commissioner suggested at the March 31, 2026 UAC meeting (per staff report, p. 9). <br /> <br />────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── <br />Edit 6 — New Appendix: SFPUC End-of-Year Storage Under the Design Drought <br />Subject: add an appendix table so readers can see SFPUC system storage at the end of each Design Drought year. <br />There is no existing UWMP text to replace; this is a proposed new appendix entry, to be referenced from p. 92 (where the <br />UWMP describes the Design Drought as an 8.5-year sequence) and from p. 116 (where the multiple-dry-year cutbacks <br />are presented). <br />Proposed appendix entry (full text shown as insertion): <br />Appendix [X]: SFPUC System Storage Under the Design Drought. The table below presents SFPUC end-of- <br />year system storage under the SFPUC's 8.5-year Design Drought sequence, assuming the Bay Delta Plan is <br />in effect and using SFPUC 2050 demand projections. The table is included for transparency: it shows that, <br />even under the SFPUC's own most-severe planning scenario, system storage remains above 600 thousand <br />acre-feet (TAF) at the end of year 5 and does not approach the RWS "dead pool" of approximately 96.8 TAF <br />until the end of year 8. The cutback percentages presented in Table 27 (UWMP p. 117) are therefore a <br />function of SFPUC storage-management rules under the Design Drought model, not a function of physical <br />absence of water in the system. <br />Proposed Appendix Table: <br />Design <br />Drought <br />86–87 87–88 88–89 89–90 90–91 91–92 92–76 76–77
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.