Laserfiche WebLink
&A -0 <br />0 <br />Kennedy/Jenks Consultants <br />Memorandum <br />Peter Ingram, City of Redwood City <br />21 February 2003 <br />Page 3 <br />3. 85% of HOAs with Sensitivity Level 3 (least sensitive) would voluntarily enlist in the recycled <br />water program. <br />The facilities requirements and costs of Alternative E have been developed and are compared <br />with Alternative D to demonstrate the differences in performance and cost due to the City <br />Council's decision to not implement a mandatory use ordinance for residential customers in the <br />Redwood Shores area. For the purpose of delineating Alternative E, it is assumed that the City <br />will require recycled water use for commercial and industrial customers, for all City -owned sites, <br />for other existing landscape irrigation accounts and for any future development that could be <br />served recycled water by the proposed system. The facilities sizing and cost methodology used <br />herein are consistent with the Redwood City Water Recycling Feasibility Study, dated 7 August <br />2002. <br />Alternative E Results <br />Under Alternative E, 385 AF /yr of potable water supply could be lost as a result of not <br />establishing a mandatory use ordinance in Redwood Shores, using the assumptions stated <br />herein. The lost water supply in the Redwood Shores HOAs is summarized in Table 1 below. <br />Table 1: Lost Water Supply Without a Mandatory Use Ordinance <br />Sensitivity Level Irrigation Water Loss Factor Lost Water Supply <br />Supply ( %) (AF /yr) <br />In order to compensate for the lost yield of the project, some customers on the west side of <br />Highway 101 must be served. Table 2 below provides a supply comparison of Alternatives D <br />and E by geographic area, and Figure 2 shows the City's projected water supply deficit versus <br />recycled water supply alternatives over time. <br />VW+`pq��ZM] W rww AoY�m aW� MW2J53902 ni Wq�h9tie��eYwnenMM MemMiw nwnolnY- �bhmeME Ex <br />(AF /yr) <br />Level 1 — Most Sensitive <br />283 <br />100% <br />283.2 <br />Level 2 — Less Sensitive <br />177 <br />50% <br />88.3 <br />Level 3 — Least Sensitive <br />88 <br />15% <br />13.2 <br />Total <br />548 <br />- <br />385 <br />In order to compensate for the lost yield of the project, some customers on the west side of <br />Highway 101 must be served. Table 2 below provides a supply comparison of Alternatives D <br />and E by geographic area, and Figure 2 shows the City's projected water supply deficit versus <br />recycled water supply alternatives over time. <br />VW+`pq��ZM] W rww AoY�m aW� MW2J53902 ni Wq�h9tie��eYwnenMM MemMiw nwnolnY- �bhmeME Ex <br />