Part of the Bay Area News Group

Water rates, Burbank homes, Bunker Hill on tap tomorrow

By Eric Kurhi
Monday, July 11th, 2011 at 11:25 am in Development, General, Hayward, Real Estate.

hetchhetchyview

Who wouldn't want to drink this water?

UPDATE: Here’s the story on the approval of the rate hike.

City officials love Hayward’s water. It’s from the scenic Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, the same water that is piped to San Francisco. Some businesses have even located themselves in Hayward to take advantage of the superior water, officials say, and Hayward has been buying the precious commodity from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission since the 1960s.

Unfortunately, upkeep of the pipeline has been lax, and there are seismic improvements that need to be done. All told, it’s going to cost more than $4 billion, and those who buy water from the utility need to pay their share. Hayward’s share is estimated at $200 million. So SFPUC has increased the water rate to the city, and the city in turn will discuss raising rates for water users at tomorrow’s meeting.

We had a story earlier this year on the damned-if-you-do fact that saving water results in higher prices, but Hayward officials said that effect is minimal compared with the cost of the upgrades and retrofit to the pipeline.

This could cost water-intensive businesses a lot of money.  Maybe we’ll see some concerned parties at the meeting.

Also on the agenda: The proposed 57-home development at the former site of Burbank Elementary School. It went before the council at a meeting last month, and while everyone liked the green features and were generally supportive, they want to talk more about undergrounding utilities along B Street, and who is going to pay for it.

And staff is recommending a resolution supporting Bunker Hill residents who want to buy the homes they’ve been renting from Caltrans, part of the aborted Route 238 bypass project.

Find the agenda and reports here.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Michael Moore

    400 pages to read in preparation for a city council meeting in 1 day. This is definitely the kind of activity on the part of the council that generates real anger, whether it is deserved or not. The documentation should be parsed so that it is easily read and commented upon before the end of the road, but that is not the case here. While it is good to see it written down, and I must confess that the City Clerk emailed me the documentation when it was published, it is still a lot to read.

    Much of this has not been written down so that it could be commented upon and now it can’t because it is in close to final form.

    My issue with this is that if you support a vote for it, you are trusting the politicians to not be exercising their authortity to grant jobs and favors to those who contributed to their campaigns. Given history I am inclined to urge the council to vote no on every single item that does not support local business. That means that most of the proposals, which are written by contracted services outside of Hayward, should be voted no.

    The idea of covering Sulphur Creek where it runs through the airport is ludicrous. The creek has been there since the beginning. If the airport finds it dangerous, they should leave, not cover up Sulphur Creek. Do not spend money folks. We are broke.

  • John W. Kyle

    Michael Moore;

    On your mis-informed comments about the Sulfur Creek cost:

    If you were well informed, you would know that HWD airport is one of two entrepreneurial enterprises, owned by the City. One is the Water Company and the second is the Airport.

    Unfortunately the arrangement with the FAA which was the Grantor under the deed executed after WWII was written with a caveat requiring that profits from the airport, generated by land leases etc which are controlled by the City are used by the City only to the extent capital expenditures must be spent on improvement to the airport and that theses expenditures are often assisted by grants from the FAA,

    It then follows that covering up the limited portion of Sulfur Creek targeted in the project is of fairly short length but should be sufficiently well engineered to sustain sudden imposition of weight or forces evolving from aircraft which may or may not ever find a need to cross over the creek at that location.

    For your further edification, Sulfur Creek wends it’s way from the park where the Plunge is located on Mission Blvd, within an underground culvert from Mission Blvd to the Rte 880 road bed where it exits out under a sometimes blue sky on the opposite side of 880. It the runs in a concrte, open to the elements and vagaries of our citizenry trough the side and back yards of the many dwellings between 880 and Hesperian Blvd. In the South Garden area it has been used several times to hide murder victims who remain undetected until decomposition offers a clue, to some of our more stalwart and curious citizenry, as to the location of missing gang victims.

    Passing under Hesperian, it emerges into a fenced off ‘natural’ area where it has a limited chance to recoup in a habitat conducive to survival of least some creatures. It is again tunneled at West A Street and the airport perimeter at Skywest St. On the airport perimeter it again is tucked under the land surface except for a short stretch between runways 28L and 10R.

    With pending arrival of additional improvements to Runway 28L/28R which are required for the new ’EXECUTIVE Jets of the type requiring a landing speed of 143 miles per hour; it would seen prudent to cover the remaining portion of Sulfur Creek with the airport boundary. Be advised that the creek emerges on the west side of the airfield where it eventuates to a position opening on SF Bay..

    WHAT THE COST WOULD BE IS UNKNOWN TO,ME BUT THE BILL WOULD BE PAID BY THE AIRPORT; ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT ‘IMPROVEMENT’ IS MADE TO BENEFIT THE AITPORT’S SAFETY. It frequently occurs that FAA offersw another ‘GRANT’ of free money to aid onsite improvements. I have not followed this transaction, so you might advise me, if the entire bill comes out of the entrepreneurial refund which is not replenished by taxation upon the citizens of Hayward.

    Too bad that you have not volunteered sufficiently to be aware of how biz is conducted in this City…it might be well if you volunteered to a seat on some standing ‘commissions’ or at least took up the habit of attending the quarterly meetings of Council’s airport committee. That group meets for an hour or two every quarter at 5:00 pm in City Hall meeting room on second level. Airport Secretary will put you on the ‘notice of meeting’ list if you advise her of your e-mail address.

    Additional scribble by me involving ‘WatchDogs’ concern about West Winton and Hesperian a concerns also touch upon the changes resulting from the shift of runway 28L TO THE EXTENT OF 5OO FEET FURTHER WAY FROM THE INTERSECTION BUT EXTENDING INTO AN AREA OF THE GOLF COURSE WHICH DENIES THE LONG PLANNED EXTENSION OF West ‘A’ as means of alleviating truck traffic at W. Winton.

    It too is long read and as it is written by me while using spell check etc is legible,,,,, but since you have vowed not to read my stuff…. I should maybe care ??? ( What was the advice Cardinal Richelieu offered?)

  • John W. Kyle

    Wa6tch Dog

    Further discussion of background data pertinent to your enwquiry about W. Winton / Hesperian is found imn my lengthy expose of MNoote’s inane complaint about Sulpher Creek at # 1 above.

  • Sherry Blair

    I didn’t watch the city council meeting last night. What happened to the Burbank development?

  • Eric Kurhi

    Sherry — Approved unanimously, city and developer will split undergrounding costs about 50-50.

  • qodrn

    They voted for the water increase as well. Who needs water anyway?

  • Sherry Blair

    Thanks, Eric.