CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

: 391 (Councilman Bury left the Council Chambers at 7 47 p.m because of an emergency and returned at 9 00 p.m See below ) , Mr. Urrere read a statement describing the background of his appeal and his experience relating to his application for increased water � allocation for his business , In response to question, Mr. Urrere stated that he requests an allocation of 340 units per month. (Re- port states his average use is 284 units per month, or 9.6 units/ machine/month ) In response to question, Director of Public Works Pusich advised that residential and commercial and other kinds of business were cut back 25% by the water emer9ency ordinance representing the 25Y cutback demanded of the City by the San Francisco Water District. Mr. Pusich said that the only exception was a 10% cutback for process water to industry where water is used to construct or manufacture a piece of merchandtse,noting that the cutback was only 10% because such industry is usually highly water efficient already and because �obs are de- pendent on the use of process water Discussion followed concern�ng whether laundromats might be classified as users of process water, the fact that laundromats are to some ex- tent a public service in that many residents do not have washers and dryers, the fact that laundromats sell water making it possible for those willing to pay for it to exceed their home allocations, the fact that a water emergency exists which must create varying degrees of hardship for residents and businessmen, how much increased use of laundromats might be the result of the drought rather than improved business management, whether or not the machines in use are water � efficient and whether allocations should be increased to accommodate old, inefficient equ�pment, and the fact that some apartment house owners no longer provide laundry facilities on their premises Theo Bodmer Washing Well Laundromat, 1728 Broadway, described the , water allocation arrangements in other nearby cities where he owns laundromats, noting that the Redwood City cutback is much greater He suggested that little permanent increase in business ts related to the drought. Mr Bodmer replied to questions concerning his operation MOTION Councilman Rhodes moved that laundromats be cut back 10% , instead of 25� of their base year usage. � MOTION WITHDRAWN Upon advice of City Attorney Schricker that the two appeals must be handled separately and that the motion is a policy matter rather than a response to each appeal, Councilman ' Rhodes withdrew his motton City Attorney Schricker advised that the question as to whether the present allocations are reasonable and should or should not be in- creased must be based on criteria established by the water emergency ordinance and that if Council wishes to direct staff to interpret the water use of laundromats as the use of process water and therefore make a cutback of on)y 10%, it may do so, but it is a policy ma�tter. � Mr Schricker advised further that any consideration or con�ecture as to the economic or ethnic backgrounds of persons using laundromat facilities is inappropriate and could raise the issue of equal pro- tection for all residents Mr Schricker stated that it is valid to ccnair�er prospectrve volume usage as reflected by residential density �n an area. -3- Reg.Mtg. 9/12/77