AgdaPkt 2004-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. ~, ~"~"__""~"_'''+'''.;.:'''''''''';':''''./''tii''C',,,,t'"':"Sc:".:\~';,ll;,.:., Ij 5.1 c"-3<6 I I Prioritv 1 Customers: . . Existing First step Project customers (dedicated jandscape irrigation meters) j . Customers with agreements In plaoefor service I . Potential customers or groups of customers that have relativElly large irrigation or industrial demands, and are adjacent to potential1ransmlsslcn pipeline corridors I Priority 2 Customers: . Potential customers or groups of alstomers that have smaJlto medium-sized demands, I and are adjacent to or relatively near potential transmission pipeline corridors Priorttv3 Customers: I . Potential customers or groups of customers wlth relatively small delTl8nds, that are either remote from potential transmission plperlf\e corridors, or may have higher customer site retrofit costs I . Proposed Mure developments or ~velopment sites; or existing customer sites that are served by private wells orthe CalIfornia Water Service Company I Prioritv 4 Customers: Landscaped sites that are not presently Irrigated or other uses that have very low . I demands . Sites that are very remote from potential transmission pipellne corridors, require significant additional pumping because of site elevation, or appear to have very I challenging/expensive customer site retrofit costs Priority 1 and 2 customers represent the most viable customers that are ready to be served, if I the Cfty implements a mandatory use ordinance or obtains individual agreements for service. The annual recycled water demand from Priority 1 and 2 customers represents the most reasonable minimum estimate ofpotenlial"new water supply" for Integrated water supply I planning. Some portion of Priority 3costomer demands appear-able to be cos1-effective1y served, however, service in many cases Is dependent upon establishing institutional agreements to replace a current water supplier or future development or redevelopment I activities. Priority 4 customers do not appear viable for a number of reasons. Although they were considered initially, their demands do not appear to be a source of Wnew water suPply" for the City. I The potential recycled water demand for Priority 1, 2, and 3 customer.> in Redwood City appears to range between about 1,100 and 3.172 acre feet per year (AFiyr), for a Redwood Shores only project and a City-wide project, respectively. WithIn these projections, about 582 I AFIyr Is for future developments or redevelopment projects that are in various stages of planning. I t Weier Recycling FeB$ibility Study for Redwood City v __. .__..w<."_'" 'u"u"~__