AgdaPkt 2003-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�4. i c -4- $.A -% smallest to the largest. With input from City Council's Utilities Committee, Kennedy /Jenks and City staff recommended that the Council consider project "Alternative D', which focused on the highest degree of cost effectiveness with flexibility for use of recycled water in other geographic locations in Redwood City. Alternative D's cost/benefit analysis assumed that all potential landscape irrigation users in the Redwood Shores and Greater Bayfront areas would be required, by a mandatory connection ordinance, to use recycled water as soon as :t was available. On Feb. 3, 2003 the City Council adopted a new policy: 'Redwood City will not make the use of recycled water mandatory to existing residences or homeowners associations'. At the direction of the City Council's Utilities Committee, Kennedy /Jenks and City staff evaluated the impact of a voluntary use policy for existing homeowner associations on the financial aspects of the Project As the attached reports indicate, a preliminary analysis suggests that a significant number of homeowner associations within Redwood Shores may elect not to participate in the recycled water program, at least at the outset This reduced demand creates a need to deliver recycled water to a larger geographical area than contemplated in Altemative D — if the goal of distributing 2,000 acre feet of recycled water by 2010 is to be achieved. This modified / expanded distribution plan was labeled "Alternative E'. The attached reports compare Alternatives D and E and provide additional information on the feasibility of, and financing for, Alternative E. On July 29, 2003 the City Council: • adopted resolution No. 14544 approving and confirming the Mitigated Negative Declaration as certified by the Planning Commission and making the necessary associated findings • adopted resolution No. 14545 finding that the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation is safe, is environmentally responsible, and can contribute to the health, safety and welfare of all Redwood City residents In order for the City to move forward with pending applications for State grants (up to $5 million) and low- interest loans to assist with the cost of the Project, staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution, which formally approves the Project and authorizes the filing of a Notice of Determination. While the staff presentation on August 11 will focus on the differences between Alternatives D and E, staff recommends that the Council approve the Project as broadly defined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment No. 2). This will provide an appropriate and necessary degree of flexibility to provide water to sites other than those originally identified in the early phases of the project. This provides the opportunity for meaningful public involvement in the delivery of recycled water to alternative sites. Altemative E will serve as a basis for comparing different approaches for implementation, and the ultimate configuration of the project can be smaller and /or phased differently. So long as the facilities ultimately constructed have been described in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City will be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation provides for a broad -based citizen task force to look at the financial feasibility of delivering water to other sites. 2of3