Laserfiche WebLink
8• A 00 M <br />ATTACHMENT NO.4 <br />Kennedy /Jenks Consultants <br />21 February 2003 <br />Memorandum <br />To: Peter Ingram, City of Redwood City <br />Prepared By: Mary Trail <br />Reviewed By: Craig Lichty <br />Subject: Redwood City Recycled Water Program Support Services (T.044) <br />Refined Project Feasibility Analysis — Alternative E <br />K/J 020539.02 <br />This memorandum was prepared at the request of City staff to create a new recycled water <br />system alternative (Alternative E) that could be implemented as a result of the City Council's <br />recent policy decision: <br />`Redwood City will not make the use of recycled water mandatory to existing residences <br />or homeowners' associations °. <br />Alternative E eliminates some residential landscape customers from assumed connection to the <br />project in Redwood Shores, based on concerns raised by some residents over using recycled <br />water in close proximity to their homes. Recycled water is being successfully used, however, <br />for front and back yard landscape irrigation in the State of California, as permitted under the <br />California Code of Regulations Title 22, which is administered by the California Department of <br />Health Services in conjunction with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. <br />Background <br />The Water Recycling Study Feasibility Study for Redwood City, dated 7 August 2002, provided <br />a market assessment of potential recycled water customers within Redwood City. The study <br />also screened, developed and presented several recycled water system alternatives that <br />considered cost - effectiveness issues and water supply needs. The study recommended that <br />Alternative D be implemented to eliminate the City's current water supply deficit and provide a <br />new, drought -proof water supply for landscape irrigation and industrial uses. Additional <br />assumptions for Alternative D included: <br />• Water use forecast developed by John Whitcomb, including active and passive water <br />conservation totaling up to 1,900 AF /yr of additional/new water supply by 2010. <br />• Rapid Council decisions in 2002 and phased implementation beginning in 2003. <br />• Adoption of a mandatory use ordinance as permitted by law to secure state and /or <br />revenue bond funding and assure that the project delivers desired new water supply. <br />9bp pVOUWX539 00 . . pmQem•VpW Lo UM09 U wpmpd fa.U.,•&*me*mbW Wnkr! memo Ally��bbeNWEx <br />