DOCSLIB.ORG

2040 Demand Study Water Supply Management Program 2040

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2040 Demand Study Water Supply Management Program 2040 FEBRUARY 2009 2040 Demand Study Water Supply Management Program 2040 Prepared by: East Bay Municipal Utility District Oakland, California, Karen E. Johnson, Water Resources Planning and EDAW | AECOM In association with CBRE Consulting, Inc. and Weber Analytical East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Supply Management Program 2040 2040 Demand Study Prepared by: East Bay Municipal Utility District Oakland, California, Karen E. Johnson, Water Resources Planning, and EDAW | AECOM In association with CBRE Consulting, Inc. and Weber Analytical February 2009 Printed on 50% post-consumer recycled paper. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................ 1-1 Planning Periods ............................................................................................................ 1-2 Study Area and Boundaries ........................................................................................... 1-2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................. 1-4 Chapter 2: Projection Methodology ......................................................................................... 2-1 Basis of Planning ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Overview of Projection Methodology .............................................................................. 2-1 Land Uses ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 Land Use Unit Demands ................................................................................................ 2-3 Example Application ....................................................................................................... 2-4 Demand Tool .................................................................................................................. 2-5 Chapter 3: Land Uses and Trends .......................................................................................... 3-1 Land Use Categories...................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3-3 Future Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 3-7 Meetings with Land Use Planning Agencies ................................................................ 3-13 Summary of Land Use Activities and Trends ............................................................... 3-15 Chapter 4: Base Year Water Demands ................................................................................... 4-1 Base Year Demands and Introduction to Adjustments ................................................... 4-1 Summary of Base Year Demands .................................................................................. 4-8 Chapter 5: Future Adjustment Factors ..................................................................................... 5-1 Land Use Unit Demands ................................................................................................ 5-1 Existing Residential Development .................................................................................. 5-3 Existing Non-Residential Development .......................................................................... 5-8 Results for Existing Development ................................................................................ 5-10 New Residential and Non-Residential Development .................................................... 5-11 Results for New Development ...................................................................................... 5-13 Special Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 5-15 Conservation and Non-Potable Water .......................................................................... 5-17 Application of Future Adjustment Factors .................................................................... 5-17 Chapter 6: Water Demand Projections ................................................................................... 6 -1 Demand Projections to 2040 .......................................................................................... 6-1 Demand Projections by Region ...................................................................................... 6-3 Future Demand Study Updates ...................................................................................... 6-6 i 2040 Demand Study Tables Table 1.1 Communities within Each Demand Model Region ................................................ 1-4 Table 3.1 Land Use Categories ............................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3.2 Base Year Land Use Acreage by Region .............................................................. 3-4 Table 3.3 2040 Land Use Acreage by Region ..................................................................... 3-11 Table 3.4 Comparative Land Use Changes ........................................................................ 3-12 Table 3.5 Planning Agencies ............................................................................................... 3-14 Table 4.1 Adjustment Factors for Normalization ................................................................... 4-5 Table 4.2 Base Year Non-potable Water Projects ................................................................. 4-8 Table 4.3 Base Year District-wide System Input ................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.4 Base Year System Input (Adjusted) by Land Use and Region ............................ 4-11 Table 5.1 Adjustment Factor Data Sources ........................................................................... 5-2 Table 5.2 Infill Potential Data ................................................................................................ 5-5 Table 5.3 Historical Comparison Data ................................................................................... 5-7 Table 5.4 High Density Housing Occupancy Data and Factors ............................................ 5-8 Table 5.5 Jobs per Acre Data and Factors .......................................................................... 5-10 Table 5.6 Sample Consumption Data ................................................................................. 5-14 Table 6.1 2040 District-wide Demand Projections ................................................................ 6-2 Table 6.2 Water Demand by Regions ................................................................................... 6-4 Figures Figure 1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1.2 Demand Model Regions ........................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 2.1 Overview of Water Demand Projection Methodology ............................................ 2-2 Figure 3.1 Example of Existing Land Use Polygons ............................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.2 Existing Land Uses: 2005 ...................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.3 Changes in Land Uses: 2010 – 2040 ..................................................................... 3-9 Figure 4.1 Historical Metered Consumption ........................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Examples of Seasonality ....................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4.3 Normalization of Data ............................................................................................ 4-5 Figure 4.4 Example of Land Use Polygons and Meter Locations ........................................... 4-9 Figure 4.5 Calculation and Distribution of Base Year Demands ........................................... 4-12 Figure 5.1 Example of Infill Potential ...................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5.2 Comparison of ER2 in Region F .......................................................................... 5-13 Figure 6.1 Actual System Input with Demand Projections ...................................................... 6-2 Figure 6.2 Demand Projections: East and West of Hills ......................................................... 6-3 Figure 6.3 Demand Projections for Regions AS (Berkeley Hills), B (Oakland Hills), and C (Castro Valley) ....................................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6.4 Demand Projections for Regions AN (Pinole), GC (Oakland), GN (Richmond), GS (San Leandro), and F (Danville) ............................................................................ 6-5 Figure 6.5 Demand Projections for Regions D (Orinda), E (Eastern Lafayette), and H (Walnut Creek) ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 14. Official Statement
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK-ENTRY RATINGS: Underlying: S&P: A- BAM Insured: AA (Stable) (See “BOND INSURANCE” and “RATINGS”) In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Series 2014A Refunding Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Series 2014A Refunding Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observes that such interest is included in adjusted current earnings in calculating corporate alternative minimum taxable income. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the Refunding Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the Series 2014B Refunding Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other federal or state tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Refunding Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $25,795,000 $1,655,000 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE RICHMOND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE RICHMOND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Trail Richmond New Year 2021 Report
    Bay Trail Richmond New Year 2021 Report This has been an extraordinary year for the San Francisco Bay Trail in Richmond! The City of Richmond (City) completed the long-awaited Bay Trail connection with Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, and over $4 million in grant funds were secured by the City and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to construct new and improved sections of Bay Trail. The Bay Trail’s popularity soared as an excellent place to refresh the mind and exercise the body with adequate width for social distancing. This 22nd New Year report by TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, describes progress during 2020 toward closing gaps and improving existing sections of the Bay Trail. The map on the last page of this report shows trail completed and gaps remaining. Richmond has 36 miles of Bay Trail in place, representing 10% of the existing 352 miles of this planned 500-mile walking and cycling path encircling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. However, 6.0 miles of gaps remain in Richmond, despite having more Bay Trail completed than any other city in the Bay Area. Stay healthy and be well. See you on the Bay Trail! POINT PINOLE CONNECTED WITH THE BAY TRAIL The City completed construction of a two-way, multi-use trail east of Goodick Avenue between the Richmond Parkway Bay Trail and Dotson Family Marsh Staging Area. This project was funded by a $976,000 grant of Measure J gasoline tax revenues from Contra Costa Transportation Authority and $130,000 from the Bay Trail Project at the Association of Bay Area Governments.
    [Show full text]
  • December 15, 2020
    RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, December 15, 2020 The Richmond City Council Evening Open Session was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference. Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra Costa County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders that allowed cities to hold public meetings via teleconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20). DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to Councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below. Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting. The public was able to view the meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT- Live. Written public comments were received via email to [email protected]. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on December 15, 2020, were summarized at the meeting, put into the record, and considered before Council action. Comments received via email after 1:00 p.m. and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were put into the record. Public comments were also received via teleconference during the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • 33740000 Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency
    NEW ISSUE—BOOK ENTRY ONLY RATING: S&P: “A” See “RATING” In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the 2010 Series A Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2010 Series A Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, nor is it included in adjusted current earnings when calculating federal corporate alternative minimum taxable income. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the 2010 Series A Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $33,740,000 RICHMOND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (Richmond, California) Subordinate Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Merged Project Areas) 2010 Series A Dated: Date of Delivery Due: September 1, as shown on the inside front cover This cover page contains information for quick reference only. It is not intended to be a summary of all factors relevant to an investment in the 2010 Series A Bonds. Investors should read the entire Official Statement before making any investment decision. Capitalized terms used in this cover page shall have the meanings given such terms herein.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 Executive Summary
    Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary The Richmond Bay Specific Plan (RBSP) documents the This Specific Plan focuses on ways the City of Richmond The Plan articulates a clear vision for the area as a series community and stakeholder-driven long-term vision can capitalize on planned development at the Richmond of distinct, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods that can for a 500-acre portion of Richmond’s Bay. Once home Bay Campus as well as future ferry service and other accommodate over 5.6 million square feet of research to the Kaiser Shipyards and supporting industries, the area assets to create a sustainable, waterfront community and development uses, 720,000 square feet of retail and area has declined as industrial uses have transitioned. over time that will provide increased jobs and housing services, over 4,000 housing units, and 145 acres of public Development of UC Berkeley’s Richmond Bay Campus opportunities, improved transportation options, and and natural open space. creates an opportunity for the area to leverage much- access to entertainment and recreation for the city and needed economic investment and intensification. region. Figure 1.1: Bird’s eye view of Sub-Area 4 adjacent to the Richmond Bay Campus 1-2 | Richmond Bay Specific Plan Chapter 1: Introduction 1.3 Purpose and Intent of the Specific Plan 1.3.1 LOCATION AND OVERVIEW 1.3.2 SOUTH RICHMOND PDA 1.3.3 RICHMOND BAY CAMPUS DESIGNATION The Plan Area is located south of Interstate 580 and is defined The University of California (UC) owns properties at by two change areas in the Richmond 2030 General Plan and General Plan 2030 Change Areas 15 and 16 also form part 1301 South 46th Street and 3300 Regatta Street (known adjacent shoreline open space: of the larger South Richmond Priority Development Area as the Richmond Field Station and Regatta properties) (SRPDA), a 1,350-acre portion of the south Richmond within Change Area 16 totaling approximately 143 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • December 1, 2020
    RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, December 1, 2020 The Richmond City Council Evening Open Session was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference. Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra Costa County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders that allowed cities to hold public meetings via teleconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20). DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to Councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below. Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting. The public was able to view the meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live. Written public comments were received via email to [email protected]. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on December 1, 2020, were summarized at the meeting, put into the record, and considered before Council action. Comments received via email after 1:00 p.m. and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were put into the record. Public comments were also received via teleconference during the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Assessment
    Public Health Assessment Final Release Final Release *REVISED Evaluation of Exposure to Contaminants from the ZENECA/CAMPUS BAY SITE 1200 SOUTH 47TH STREET RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EPA FACILITY ID: CAD009123456 Prepared by the California Department of Health Services JULY 22, 2009 Prepared under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Hore Lines News from Citizens for East Shore Parks Spring 2009 CESP Files Lawsuit to Protect Pt
    Shore Lines News from Citizens for East Shore Parks Spring 2009 CESP files lawsuit to protect Pt. Molate (Again) By Robert Cheasty, CESP President CESP filed that lawsuit in 2004 on To protect Point Molate, CESP has grounds that the once again had to file a lawsuit against City of Richmond the City of Richmond, Upstream Point and Upstream Molate LLC, the U. S. Navy, and the planned to proceed two Indian Tribes involved in the with the proposed proposed development project at Pt. Pt. Molate develop- Molate. This is the second lawsuit that ment project (by CESP has filed against the City of entering into a Richmond and the developers (Up- binding agreement) stream) regarding Pt. Molate. Our last without going suit was successful and we have re- through the environmental review tained the same legal counsel, Steve Citizens must step up to required by the California Environmen- Volker. tal Quality Act (CEQA). Once we filed ensure the best possible The timing of the lawsuit was dictated that action we were joined by the East Richmond general plan by certain statutes–CESP had to file or Bay Regional Park District and the miss the window to act. Lawsuits are California Attorney General. By Patricia Jones, CESP Exec Dir not a preferred tactic for CESP. We are Richmond residents have long ex- In the settlement with CESP, Rich- engaged in an education and advocacy pressed a shared desire to have access mond and Upstream not only ac- program to protect the East Bay to their entire 32-mile shoreline. cepted the requirement that the Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 09-243 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: November 18, 2009
    AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 09-243 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: November 18, 2009 Committees: Planning Committee Finance and Audit Committee External Affairs Committee Operations Committee Rider Complaint Committee Paratransit Committee Board of Directors Financing Corporation SUBJECT: Report on Current Uses and Future Development Potential of the Marina Bay Area in Richmond, California RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only Briefing Item Recommended Motion Consider receiving report on Marina Village development. Fiscal Impact: None. Background/Discussion: At the request of Directors Wallace and Peeples, staff has prepared a memorandum to brief the Board on recent developments in the Marina Bay area in the City of Richmond. Several new projects, including housing for sale and for rent, office, light industrial and manufacturing have been planned and built. Many structures have been revitalized and converted from previous industrial uses to offices. Additionally, several projects are pending, in the design phase or in the fund search phase. Ford Point Orton Development completed the majority of construction last year on the revitalization of the Ford Point building. The building features 475,000 square feet of leasable office and retail space, and is home to tenants including SunPower, Vertazzo, Mountain Hardware, and the Boilerhouse restaurant. The featured space of the development is a 40,000 square foot event space (dubbed the Craneway) with two-story glass windows on three sides, and waterfront views. The portion of this development project that is not yet complete is the refurbishment of the ‘Oil Room,’ which is a space reserved for Park Services. The intended use of the Oil Room is the relocation of the Rosie the Riveter Museum.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Richmond Year End Review Mayor Tom Butt
    2019 Richmond Year End Review Mayor Tom Butt December 31, 2019 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 National Community Survey ..................................................................................................................... 3 Crime ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 TOM BUTT E-FORUM ................................................................................................................................ 7 Mayoral Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Top Richmond Stories of 2019 .................................................................................................................... 11 City Manager and Police Chief Purged - Five City Managers in 5 months!............................................. 11 Bill Lindsay ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Henry Gardner .................................................................................................................................... 17 Steven Falk .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Assessment: a Note of Explanation
    Evaluation of Exposure to Contaminants at the University of California, Berkeley, Richmond Field Station, 1301 South 46th Street RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EPA FACILITY ID: CAD980673628 MARCH 13, 2008 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.................................................... Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director Division of Health Assessment and Consultation…. .....................................................................William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director Cooperative Agreement and Program Evaluation Branch ....................................................................Richard E.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2, 2021
    RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, February 2, 2021 The Richmond City Council Evening Open Session was called to order at 4:34 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference. Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra Costa County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders that allowed cities to hold public meetings via teleconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20). DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to Councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below. Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting. The public was able to view the meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live. Written public comments were received via email to [email protected]. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on February 2, 2021, were summarized at the meeting, put into the record, and considered before Council action. Comments received via email after 1:00 p.m. and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were put into the record. Public comments were also received via teleconference during the meeting.
    [Show full text]