Morgan Hill City Council
May 15, 2024

16 Updated: May 2023

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION RATES
Please see hourly rates on the next page

175.00
175.00
$225.00
$225.00
$257.00
$125.00
$165.00
$165.00

17 Updated: May 2023

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
Services to be scheduled on an on-call basis with City Maintenance Staff.

13 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Hilary Holeman, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager

RATIFY CITY POSITION ON PENDING LEGISLATION, ASSEMBLY
BILL 3035 (PELLERIN) AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING:

STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL APPROVAL: COUNTIES OF SANTA

CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Ratify the City’s support position on pending legislation, Assembly Bill 3035 (Pellerin) Agricultural employee housing: streamlined ministerial approval: Counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety and Quality of Life
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Healthy Community
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Per Resolution No. 20-010 (attachment 1), the City Council recognizes occasional situations arise where communication indicating support or opposition on pending State, County, or other regional boards' legislation or action that could be important and may occur prior to the next scheduled City Council meeting. Under these circumstances, the Mayor or City Manager is delegated the authority to prepare, execute and transmit written or verbal communications indicating a City's position when any of the following criteria are met: a) the League of California Cities, or a similar organization, has requested the City to comment or take a position, b) the timing to express a position occurs prior to the next scheduled Council meeting, or c) the pending State, County, or other regional boards' legislation or action clearly supports or clearly hinders the implementation or fulfillment of an adopted City Council Priority, Goal, or Strategy in a substantial manner such that it is in the best interest of the City to indicate its comment or position. When this occurs, a written report to the City Council for acceptance is required at the next possible meeting.

13 Assembly Bill 3035 (attachment 2) authored by Assembly Member Pellerin expands, in the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz, the existing streamlined, ministerial approval process for farmworker housing established by AB 1783 (Rivas). Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows, in the Counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz, the streamlined, ministerial approval process for farmworker housing established by AB 1783 to apply to agricultural housing developments of 150 units or fewer and within 15 miles of an area designated as farmland or grazing by the Department of Conservation.

2. Specifies an eligible agricultural employee housing development under these provisions may not be ineligible for state funding pursuant to a specified provision of the Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker Housing Grant Program, which prohibits funding under that program to an agricultural employer or farm labor contractor who employs at least one H-2A worker, as specified, and would make additional clarifying changes.

On April 11, 2024, the County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, requested the City send a letter of support prior to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee meeting on April 24, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the Mayor communicated the City's support of AB 3035 (attachment 3).

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform - this report serves to inform the Community of the City’s position on pending legislation that may directly impact the City of Morgan Hill.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could rescind the position taken.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

City Council periodically ratifies City positions on various pending State, County, or other regional board legislations or actions that have a direct impact on the City of Morgan Hill.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Tracking legislation is an activity included in the annual workplan of the City Manager’s Office.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project - administrative action/activity without an impact.

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 2024
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3035
Introduced by Assembly Member Pellerin
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Kalra, Lee, and
Robert Rivas)
February 16, 2024
An act to amend Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to housing.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 3035, as amended, Pellerin. Agricultural employees. employee housing: streamlined, ministerial approval: Counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.

Existing law, the Employee Housing Act, generally regulates employee housing, as defined. Among other things, the act authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial process, as specified, and is not subject to a conditional use permit if certain requirements are met, including that the development is located on land designated as agricultural in the applicable city or county general plan, and that the development is an eligible agricultural employee housing development.

The act defines eligible agricultural housing development as, among other things, an agricultural employee housing development that consists of no more than 36 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household and is not ineligible for state funding under a provision that prohibits state funding from being provided to an employer who employs at least one H-2A worker, as specified.

Revised 4-26-24—See last page. 98

This bill would additionally authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a development that would subject to the above-described conditions, if the development is located on land in the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz that is within 15 miles of an area designated as farmland or grazing by the Department of Conservation. The bill would also increase the maximum number of units in an eligible agricultural employee housing development from 36 units to 150 units if the development is located with the County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz. The bill would also specify that an eligible agricultural employee housing development under these provisions may not be ineligible for state funding pursuant to a specified provision of the Joe Serna, Jr., Farmworker Housing Grant Program, which prohibits funding under that program to an agricultural employer or farm labor contractor who employs at least one H-2A worker, as specified, and would make additional clarifying changes. By expanding the scope of housing developments eligible for approval under these provisions, thereby increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to establish the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program under which, subject to the availability of funds, there are made to local public entities, nonprofit corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships, among other things, loans for the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing for lower income agricultural employees and their families, including the cost of acquiring the land and any building related thereto and constructing or rehabilitating-related support facilities necessary to the housing, as specified.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to promoting the development of farmworker housing. 98 AB 3035 — 2 —

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes.

State-mandated local program: no yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code line 2 is amended to read:
line 3 17021.8. (a)  A development proponent may submit an line 4 application for a development that is subject to a streamlined, line 5 ministerial approval process, provided in subdivision (b), and is line 6 not subject to a conditional use permit if all of the following line 7 requirements are met:
line 8 (1)  The development is located on land designated that meets line 9 one of the following:
line 10 (A)  Is designated as agricultural in the applicable city or county line 11 general plan.
line 12 (B)  Is located in the County of Santa Clara or the County of line 13 Santa Cruz and is within 15 miles of an area designated as line 14 farmland or grazing by the Department of Conservation. line 15 (2)  The development is not located on a site that is any of the line 16 following:
line 17 (A)  Within the coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 line 18 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. line 19 (B)  Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife line 20 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
line 21 (C)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined line 22 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to line 23 Section 51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very line 24 high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by line 25 the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section line 26 4202 of the Public Resources Code.
line 27 (D)  A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section line 28 65962.5 of the Government Code or a hazardous waste site line 29 designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control line 30 pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 78760) of Chapter line 31 4 of Part 2 of Division 45, unless the Department of Toxic line 32 Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or line 33 residential mixed uses.
line 34 (E)  Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by line 35 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State 98 — 3 — AB 3035

line 1 Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic line 2 protection building code standards adopted by the California line 3 Building Standards Commission under the California Building line 4 Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901)), and line 5 by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing line 6 with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government line 7 Code.
line 8 (F)  Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated line 9 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the line 10 development has been issued a flood plain development permit line 11 pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 line 12 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of line 13 Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
line 14 (G)  Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by line 15 the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
line 16 (H)  Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural line 17 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community line 18 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section line 19 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat line 20 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act line 21 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural line 22 resource protection plan.
line 23 (I)  Lands under conservation easement. For purposes of this line 24 section, “conservation easement” shall not include a contract line 25 executed pursuant to the Williamson Act (Chapter 7 (commencing line 26 with Section 51200) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government line 27 Code).
line 28 (J)  Lands with groundwater levels within five feet of the soil line 29 surface and for which the development would be served by an line 30 onsite wastewater disposal system serving more than six family line 31 housing units.
line 32 (3)  The development is an eligible agricultural employee housing line 33 development that satisfies the requirements specified in subdivision line 34 (i).
line 35 (b)  (1)  If a local government determines that a development line 36 submitted pursuant to this section does not meet the requirements line 37 specified in subdivision (a), the local government shall provide line 38 the development proponent written documentation of which line 39 requirement or requirements the development does not satisfy and 98 AB 3035 — 4 —

line 1 an explanation for the reason or reasons the development does not line 2 satisfy the requirement or requirements, as follows:
line 3 (A)  Within 30 days of submission of the development to the line 4 local government pursuant to this section if the development line 5 contains 50 or fewer housing units.
line 6 (B)  Within 60 days of submission of the development to the line 7 local government pursuant to this section if the development line 8 contains more than 50 housing units.
line 9 (2)  If the local government fails to provide the required line 10 documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall line 11 be deemed to satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph (2) line 12 of subdivision (a).
line 13 (c)  The local government’s planning commission or an line 14 equivalent board or commission responsible for review and line 15 approval of development projects, or the city council or board of line 16 supervisors, as appropriate, may conduct a development review line 17 or public oversight of the development. The development review line 18 or public oversight shall be objective and be strictly focused on line 19 assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, line 20 as well as any reasonable objective development standards line 21 described in this section. For purposes of this subdivision, line 22 “objective development standards” mean standards that involve line 23 no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are line 24 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform line 25 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the line 26 development applicant or proponent and the public official prior line 27 to submission. The development review or public oversight shall line 28 be completed as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or line 29 preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its line 30 effect, as applicable:
line 31 (1)  Within 90 days of submission of the development to the line 32 local government pursuant to this section if the development line 33 contains 50 or fewer housing units.
line 34 (2)  Within 180 days of submission of the development to the line 35 local government pursuant to this section if the development line 36 contains more than 50 housing units.
line 37 (d)  An agricultural employee housing development that is line 38 approved pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the density line 39 limits specified in Section 17021.6 in order to constitute an line 40 agricultural land use for purposes of that section. 98 — 5 — AB 3035

line 1 (e)  Notwithstanding Section 17021.6, a local government may line 2 subject an agricultural employee housing development that is line 3 approved pursuant to this section to the following written, objective line 4 development standards:
line 5 (1)  (A)  A requirement that the development have adequate line 6 water and wastewater facilities and dry utilities to serve the project. line 7 (B)  A requirement that the development be connected to an line 8 existing public water system that has not been identified as failing line 9 or being at risk of failing to provide an adequate supply of safe line 10 drinking water.
line 11 (C)  If the development proposes to include 10 or more units, a line 12 requirement that the development connect to an existing municipal line 13 sewer system that has adequate capacity to serve the project. If the line 14 local agency has adopted an approved local agency management line 15 program for onsite wastewater treatment systems, those line 16 requirements shall apply to the development.
line 17 (2)  A requirement that the property on which the development line 18 is located be either:
line 19 (A)  Within one-half mile of a duly designated collector road line 20 with an Average Daily Trips (ADT) of 6,000 or greater. line 21 (B)  Adjacent to a duly designated collector road with an ADT line 22 of 2,000 or greater.
line 23 (3)  A requirement that the development include off-street line 24 parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards line 25 do not require more parking for eligible agricultural employee line 26 housing developments than for other residential uses of similar line 27 size within the jurisdiction.
line 28 (4)  Notwithstanding Section 17020 or any other law, health, line 29 safety, and welfare standards for agricultural employee housing, line 30 including, but not limited to, density, minimum living space per line 31 occupant, minimum sanitation facilities, minimum sanitation line 32 requirements, and similar standards.
line 33 (5)  Standards requiring that if a potential for exposure to line 34 significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is line 35 found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be line 36 mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and line 37 federal requirements.
line 38 (f)  Neither the approval of a development pursuant to this line 39 section, including the permit processing, nor the application of line 40 development standards pursuant to this section shall be deemed 98 AB 3035 — 6 —

line 1 to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California line 2 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 3 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 4 (g)  Notwithstanding Section 17021.6, a local agency may impose line 5 fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are line 6 essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the line 7 eligible agricultural employee housing development. line 8 (h)  This section shall not be construed to:
line 9 (1)  Prohibit a local agency from requiring an eligible agricultural line 10 employee housing development to comply with objective, line 11 quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and line 12 policies that are consistent with subdivision (e) and appropriate line 13 to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for line 14 farmworker housing, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of line 15 subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. line 16 (2)  Prohibit a local agency from disapproving an eligible line 17 agricultural employee housing development if the eligible line 18 agricultural employee housing development as proposed would line 19 have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, line 20 and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid line 21 the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development line 22 unaffordable to lower income households, as defined in Section line 23 50079.5, or rendering the development financially infeasible. As line 24 used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a line 25 significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on line 26 objective, identified written public health or safety standards, line 27 policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application line 28 was deemed complete.
line 29 (3)  Prohibit a local agency from disapproving an eligible line 30 agricultural employee housing development if that project would line 31 be in violation of any applicable state or federal law. line 32 (4)  Change any obligations to comply with any other existing line 33 laws, including, but not limited to, Section 116527, Section 106.4 line 34 of the Water Code, Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) line 35 of the Water Code, and Part 12 (commencing with Section 116270) line 36 of Division 104.
line 37 (i)  For purposes of this section, “eligible agricultural employee line 38 housing development” means an agricultural employee housing line 39 development that satisfies all of the following:
98 — 7 — AB 3035

line 1 (1)  The agricultural employee housing does not contain line 2 dormitory-style housing.
line 3 (2)  The development consists of no more than 36 either of the line 4 following:
line 5 (A)  Thirty six units or spaces designed for use by a single family line 6 or household.
line 7 (B)  One hundred fifty units or spaces designed for use by a line 8 single family or household if the development is located in the line 9 County of Santa Clara or the County of Santa Cruz. line 10 (3)  (A)  Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), the line 11 agricultural employee housing will be maintained and operated by line 12 a qualified affordable housing organization that has been certified line 13 pursuant to Section 17030.10. The development proponent shall line 14 submit proof of issuance of the qualified affordable housing line 15 organization’s certification by the enforcement agency. The line 16 qualified affordable housing organization shall provide for onsite line 17 management of the development.
line 18 (B)  In the case of agricultural employee housing that is line 19 maintained and operated by a local public housing agency or a line 20 multicounty, state, or multistate agency that has been certified as line 21 a qualified affordable housing organization as required by this line 22 paragraph, that agency either directly maintains and operates the line 23 agricultural employee housing or contracts with another qualified line 24 affordable housing organization that has been certified pursuant line 25 to Section 17030.10.
line 26 (C)  The local government ensures an affordability covenant is line 27 recorded on the property to ensure the affordability of the proposed line 28 agricultural employee housing for agricultural employees for not line 29 less than 55 years. For purposes of this paragraph, “affordability” line 30 means the agricultural housing is made available at an affordable line 31 rent, as defined in Section 50053, to lower income households, as line 32 defined in Section 50079.5.
line 33 (4)  The agricultural employee housing is not ineligible for state line 34 funding pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section line 35 50205. 50205 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section line 36 50517.10. All subdivisions of agricultural employee housing in line 37 the development and the entire scope of the development are not line 38 ineligible for funding pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) line 39 of Section 50205 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section line 40 50517.10. The use of the term “unit or space” shall not be 98 AB 3035 — 8 —

line 1 construed to limit those provisions’ prohibition on the use of state line 2 funding to support H-2A employer obligations. Consistent with line 3 paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 50205 and paragraph line 4 (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 50517.10, any employer or other line 5 recipient of state funding who utilizes state funding for a purpose line 6 prohibited under those provisions shall reimburse the state or the line 7 state agency that provided the funding in an amount equal to the line 8 amount of that state funding expended for those prohibited line 9 purposes.
line 10 (j)  For purposes of this section, “agricultural employee housing” line 11 means employee housing for agricultural employees as both terms line 12 are defined in Sections 17008 and 17021 17021, respectively. line 13 (k)  The Legislature hereby declares that it is the policy of this line 14 state that each county and city shall permit and encourage the line 15 development and use of sufficient numbers and types of agricultural line 16 employee housing as are commensurate with local need. The line 17 Legislature further finds and declares that this section addresses line 18 a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that line 19 term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California line 20 Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including line 21 charter cities.
line 22 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 23 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 24 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 25 Constitution because of the unique need to build agricultural line 26 employee housing within the County of Santa Clara and the County line 27 of Santa Cruz.
line 28 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 29 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 30 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 31 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 32 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 33 17556 of the Government Code.
line 34 SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact line 35 legislation that would relate to promoting the development of line 36 farmworker housing.
98 — 9 — AB 3035

line 1
line 2 REVISIONS:
line 3 Heading—Line 2.
line 4
O
98 AB 3035 — 10 —

17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
TEL: (408) 779-7271
FAX: (408) 779-3117
www.morganhill.ca.gov
April 17, 2024
The Honorable Gail Pellerin
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 6310
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE:AB 3035 (Pellerin) Agricultural employee housing: streamlined approval: Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz – SUPPORT
Dear Assemblymember Pellerin:

The City of Morgan Hill supports Assembly Bill 3035, which would create a pilot program for developing affordable housing for agricultural employees in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo Counties.

Specifically, AB 3035 would expand an existing streamlined approval process for agricultural employee housing to apply to larger development projects in areas that are more likely to have access to reliable infrastructure and public amenities.

Santa Clara County's agriculture industry boasts a $1.6 billion production value and supports 8,150 jobs. This diverse sector, encompassing crops, mushrooms, and nurseries alongside processing and wineries, contributes significantly to the local economy (evidenced by its $832 million net production value).

While Santa Clara County has a rich agricultural legacy, the County has an estimated shortfall of 1,400 seasonal and 700 long-term housing units for agricultural workers. These workers and families are often forced into substandard living conditions, including temporary shelters, motels, garages, and vehicles.

Housing needs for agricultural employees are also acute in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, where studies have identified the need for thousands of new units of housing affordable to agricultural employees and their families. While common, the economic hardships faced by Spanish-speaking families often remain unseen. A recent study by the City of Morgan Hill's I Belong/Elevate Morgan Hill initiative highlights significant challenges impairing their quality of life. Housing emerged as the most pressing need, followed by food insecurity and the lack of trusted resources within the community.

The City of Morgan Hill is actively working to address the critical need for affordable housing. We proudly anticipate the July 2024 ribbon-cutting for our upcoming Royal Oak Village community. This partnership with Santa Clara County will provide 73 new units, offering much-needed housing for individuals and families. Importantly, 30 units are specifically designated for agricultural worker households, with the remainder serving very low-income families. Furthermore, the City is supporting the development of Magnolias, a 65-unit affordable family complex that includes 28 units for agricultural workers.

The City of Morgan Hill recognizes the urgent need for affordable housing and is dedicated to creating solutions. State law currently offers a patchwork of special rules for affordable housing for farmworkers.

Most recently, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas authored AB 1783 – the Farm Worker Housing Act of 2019, which created ministerial standards for certain agricultural employee housing operated by affordable housing organizations or public housing agencies. Unfortunately, AB 1783’s streamlining provisions are limited to

areas zoned for agriculture, which often lack access to cost-effective, safe, and reliable drinking water and wastewater services, as well as other municipal services.

To overcome these challenges, AB 3035 proposes to expand existing law to allow streamlined development of agricultural worker housing in three pilot counties. This change would encompass broader geographic areas surrounding agricultural land that have access to municipal services. Additionally, AB 3035 would increase the cap on the number of units for a housing project so that larger, more cost-effective developments are an option. We are pleased to support AB 3035, which will help expedite the development of much-needed agricultural employee housing in areas with access to community amenities and necessary infrastructure.

Sincerely,
Mark Turner
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin
Senator John Laird
Seth Miller, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, [email protected] Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected]

14 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Yat Cho, Senior Project Manager
APPROVED BY: City Manager

CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION TO

ESTABLISH OLD MONTEREY ROAD UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 1 – OLD MONTEREY ROAD FROM LLAGAS ROAD TO

MONTEREY ROAD

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Open/Close Public Hearing;

2. Adopt Resolution Establishing Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 - Old Monterey Road from Llagas Road to Monterey Road; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within ten (10) days after the date of the adoption of the resolution.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The purpose of this item is to start the process to underground overhead utility lines located along Old Monterey Road from Monterey Road to Llagas Road using PG&E Rule 20A funds. Rule 20A is a program by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that allocates ratepayer-funded work credits to California's communities to fund underground utility conversion projects. These work credits are paid for by customers through their monthly electric utility bill(s). In order to use these Rule 20A work credits, individual cities are required to establish an Underground Utility District (UUD) with established boundaries to include all properties affected by the undergrounding work.

By forming the UUD, this prompts the utility company to a City's intention of an underground utility project using Rule 20A allocations.

The area identified for undergrounding work is depicted on the location map as Exhibit A of the attached resolution. This area was selected for multiple reasons. The Rule 20A

14 program is coming to an end and the City has very limited funds to accomplish a project in a limited time. This section of Old Monterey Road will provide a simple undergrounding project which will assist in improving the aesthetics of an arterial roadway, which several residents utilize to enter their neighborhood. While there is a need for undergrounding across the City, most areas are too complex and costly to complete with the limited Rule 20A funds.

Through the use of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 12.12, the process for establishing a UUD requires a legally noticed public hearing with notice to all affected property owners with a project boundary (Attachment A of the resolution). If, after said public hearing, the Council adopts the UUD, all affected property owners will be notified that they shall accommodate the conversion of their individual service connections from overhead to underground. Rule 20A funding includes an option to fund the cost of the individual service conversions as well as the installation of the service conduit up to 100 feet from the street right-of-way. City staff recommends utilizing this option so that affected property owners will be fully covered. While this notification will occur, a very small number of residents will actually be impacted by the proposed work.

Within 10 days of the UUD approval, all affected utility companies and residents/business owners will be notified. Subsequently, the design process will be initiated with PG&E. It is anticipated that construction will begin sometime between 48 and 96 months after the establishment of the UUD. This long time span is primarily due to scheduling logistics for PG&E’s limited design and construction staff.

The current balance of Rule 20A work credits for the City is $489,283 and this will be spent during the design and construction phase with PG&E.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
Staff will work with PG&E on a project timeline and inform affected residence/business owners in advance of any construction activities through Citywide emails, social media posts, and routine updates on the website.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

City Council may elect to not approve or delay the approval of the UUD. However, this will delay any work with PG&E and may jeopardize the Rule 20A funds as PG&E is looking to end this allocation in the near future.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

No previous actions have occurred specifically in relation to this undergrounding project.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this project.

14 CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption
The activities described in this Staff Report are categorically exempt under CEQA, specifically pursuant to Section 15301 (Replacement or Construction), as the subject work involves the conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding work.

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL

ESTABLISHING OLD MONTEREY ROAD UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 1 – OLD MONTEREY ROAD FROM LLAGAS ROAD TO

MONTEREY ROAD
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was called for on May 15, 2024 at the hour of 6:00 P.M. or thereafter, in the Morgan Hill City Council Chambers, 17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, California, to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare required the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated services, within that certain area of the City described as follows:

That portion of Old Monterey Road between Llagas Road and Monterey Road, See Exhibit A for Detailed Map, and
WHEREAS, Notice of such hearing was given to all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to all affected utilities, in the manner and for the time required by law; and;
WHEREAS, such hearing was duly held, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined after hearing on the subject that the Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 herein created is in the general public interest reason that:

The undergrounding to be accomplished will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities; and the streets, roads or rights-of-way in the District are extensively used by the general public and carry a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill that pursuant to Section 12.12.030 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, the above-described area is hereby designated as Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 of the City of Morgan Hill. Attached, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated as part of this Resolution, is a map delineating the boundaries of said District;
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the City Council does hereby fix December 31, 2035, as the date on which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service within Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 on or before December 31, 2035.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that any electric, communication or similar or associated utility which undertakes underground installation of its facilities shall use its underground conversion funds computed pursuant to decisions of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California or franchise for the purpose of providing to each premises on Old Monterey Underground Utilities District No. 1 requiring it, a maximum of one hundred feet of individual electric service trenching and conductor (as well as

backfill, paving and conduit, if required). Each property owner in the Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 shall be responsible for providing the City and its Contractor access rights onto their property for the installation of the electric service lateral and any electric panel modifications needed to receive underground service to their property and therefore provide for the maintenance of the electric lateral, conduit, panel and termination box located on, under or within any structure on the premises served.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the utility which undertakes underground installation of its facilities shall use the decisions of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California for the purpose of providing to each premises in Old Monterey Road Underground Utilities District No. 1 requiring it a maximum of 100 feet of individual electric service trenching and conductor (as well as backfill, paving, and conduit, if required). Each other serving utility will provide service trenching and conductor in accordance with its tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission or as required by its Franchise Agreement with the City. Each property owner in Old Monterey Underground Utilities District No. 1 shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the conduit and termination box located on, under or within any structure on the premises served.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within ten (10) days after the date of such adoption. The City Clerk shall further notify said property owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such property desire to continue to receive electric, communication or other similar or associated service, they or such occupant shall, by the date fixed in this Resolution, or at the time fixed in any extension of said date or dates, provide the City or its contractor a right of entry and access to their property to make necessary facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Failure to provide the City or its contractor Right of Entry and access to their property to make the necessary changes shall obligate the property owner, rather than the City to pay for such changes. Notification to the property owners shall be made by mailing a copy of this resolution, together with a copy of said Chapter 12 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code to all affected property owners as such are shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utilities.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at its meeting held on this 15th day of May 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
APPROVED: ATTEST:
___________________________________ _______________________________ MARK TURNER, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

 CERTIFICATION 
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 24-_____ adopted by the City Council at the meeting held on the 15th day of May 2024.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, Earthstar
O
0 180 360 540 720 90
Feet
PG&E Rule 20A Program
Engineering and Utilities Department
G:\R-14\Proj\GIS\Agustin\PGER20.mxd

15 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

PROVIDE INPUT ON TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN GOALS AND

ADOPT SPEED LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH UPDATED

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Provide input and direction on Transportation Master Plan Goals and Priorities;

2. Repeal Resolution No. 15-223 based on 2015 Engineering and Traffic Survey; and

3. Adopt Resolution establishing speed limits on City Streets.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Healthy Community
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
Vision Zero
REPORT NARRATIVE:

In June 2023, the City contracted with Hexagon Transportation Consultants for creation of the City’s first comprehensive Transportation Master Plan. The Plan is intended to provide numerous components, including traffic counts, future traffic modeling, updated speed survey to set speed limits, review of existing transportation infrastructure, specific review and analysis of bike and pedestrian infrastructure, development of transportation priorities for the City, creation of a capital improvement program, and numerous other components.

15 The purpose of this item is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to receive an update on the Plan and provide input and direction on the multiple components of the Plan. These components include:
• Provide general input the Council is receiving from residents on the Plan • Provide specific direction and input on the Draft Goals and Strategies (Attachment 1)
• Provide specific direction and input on the Prioritization Criteria (Attachment 2) Additionally, as a component of the Plan, the City is updating the City's Speed Limits through conducting an Engineering and Traffic Survey, which is now ready for review and adoption by the City Council.

The initial months of the process to develop the Plan were used to gather existing data, collect current condition data, and engage with the community to understand community priorities. Known issues the Plan will review and address include: Traffic Congestion & Speeding, Regional Cut-Through Traffic, Biking & Walking Safety, Closing of Pedestrian and Bikeways Gaps, Identifying Transit Needs and Gaps, Prioritize Multi-Modal InterCity Travel, and Alignment of City Transportation Policies (LOS/VMT/Multi-Modal Travel). Additionally, through engagement with residents, stakeholders, staff, Commissions and the Council, additional priorities are being established. Significant detailed data/information is available on the project website at:
www.morganhill.ca.gov/2423/Transportation-Master-Plan-Update. This data/information includes:
• Transportation Demand Forecasting Model Update - Direct Link • Level of Service Analysis, Policy and Congestion Research - Direct Link • Cut Through Traffic Destination Study - Direct Link
• Community Survey Results - Direct Link
• Data on Intersection Traffic Counts - Direct Link
• Data on Roadway Traffic Counts - Direct Link
• All presentations, meeting notes, and handouts from Stakeholder Group Meetings
Goals and Strategies
Based on the purpose of the Plan and best practices in transportation planning combined with analysis of the City's existing data and community concerns expressed through the process, so far, draft strategies and goals have been developed for the Council's review and input. This was accomplished through work with the stakeholders group and receipt of community feedback. In addition to concern about improving roadway congestion, significant community concern related to pedestrian & bicycle safety, speeding/collisions, regional cut-through traffic, and gaps in the system exist within the community. While analysis performed as part of the Plan shows that Morgan Hill is safe in comparison to the State and other local jurisdictions, community concern highlights the need to work to address these issues further. The goals and strategies

15 outlined in Attachment 1 are intended to provide the basis for future work in this area.

Feedback from the Council is desired on the draft Goals and Strategies.

Improvement and Strategy Prioritization
Knowing that the City has limited resources to address the overall needs of the City, prioritization work is required in all areas. The City has historically operated on a lean team managing transportation and traffic for the City, which requires clear priorities to efficiently operate and provide service to the community. To support the Council and staff in future decision-making, the development of criteria for transportation projects and strategies is proposed as part of the plan. The draft criteria outlined in Attachment 2 related to transportation safety, gaps, and operations has been developed to prioritize those improvements and strategies. Feedback from the Council is desired in this area.

Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) Summary
Earlier this year, as part of the Plan update, Hexagon conducted an E&TS study for 98 roadway segment locations in Morgan Hill. The full ET&S survey is available online for download at:
www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48826/MH-2023-ETS-Report-20240506- signed
This study has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for the establishment of posted speed zones. The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for maintaining or modifying the posted speed limits on each of the study locations. Hexagon staff reviewed all newly passed legislation as it relates to setting speed limits and evaluated options for reducing speed limits throughout the City. While new legislation provided some support in reducing speed limits, there are still very specific criteria for reducing speed limits, which is based on multiple factors but still includes the survey of existing travel speeds on City roadways. This study serves as an update to the Morgan Hill 2015 E&TS. Therefore, there are components of this study that utilize information provided in the 2015 study.

In summary, the findings in the survey note that speeding is prevalent throughout the City. While the community has expressed a desire to reduce speed limits, the current law still limits the City’s ability to reduce posted speeds. In support of the City's concern about speeding, the update to the E&TS proposes reducing the posted speed limit in five locations within the City and does not propose raising the speed limit in any locations.

The locations recommended for reductions in speed limits include:
• Depot Street from E. Main Avenue to E. Dunne Avenue from 30 to 25mph • La Crosse Drive from Vineyard Boulevard to Vineyard Boulevard from 30 to 25mph
• W. Main Avenue from John Telfer Drive to Hale Avenue from 30 to 25mph • Monterey Road from San Pedro Boulevard to Dunne Avenue from 35 to 30mph

15 • San Pedro Avenue from US 101 to Railroad Avenue from 35 to 30mph Additionally, the City and Hexagon consultants took a significant look at reducing the speed limit on Monterey Road through the Downtown below 25mph. Ultimately, however, the stretch of Monterey Road between Dunne Avenue and Main Avenue is not eligible for reduction even under the updated law based on the fact there is a higher speed limit in the adjacent sections both north and south of the Downtown. The reduction of the speed limit proposed between San Pedro and Dunne Avenue on Monterey Road may help in future efforts to reduce the speed limit Downtown.

However, to reduce the speed limits in this area and others, reduced travel speeds are necessitated. Additional enforcement can support this effort in the future.

With approval, the resolution in Attachment 3 will update the City's current speed limits, reducing the posted speed limits in the 5 noted areas.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Involve
The development of the Transportation Master Plan will require significant community outreach and will include a variety of public meetings as well as the development and participation of a stakeholders group for those with an even higher level of interest. The Plan will have multiple review points by advisory commissions and the City Council to ensure there is significant opportunity for engagement as well as direction by the Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The purpose of the first recommendation in this item is to engage the Council and receive feedback. There is no formal action required, but feedback and direction on goals, strategies and prioritization will support alignment of the draft Plan with the Council's direction. For the recommendations in relation to the E&TS resolution adoption, the Council may choose to provide additional feedback on specific speed limits. Should the Council wish to further review any specific section, it is still recommended the E&TS resolution is adopted tonight and that the Council then direct staff to perform additional review on specific areas of the study.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Hexagon Transportation Consultant on June 7, 2023. The City Council provided initial feedback on the TMP work on November 15, 2023. The Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions also provided feedback on the Plan work in the Fall of 2023. The Planning Commission will review and provide input on the Goals/Strategies and Prioritization Criteria on Tuesday, May 14. The Parks and Recreation Commission will provide additional feedback at their next meeting on May 21, 2024.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this specific item. Ultimately, implementing the

15 Plan will require significant fiscal resources. Development of funding plans and mechanisms associated with the priorities and projects outlined in the Plan will be required.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption 15262:

A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors.

Draft TMP Goals, Strategies & Actions
Goal TMP-1: Safety. Eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal collisions for all modes within the City.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-1.1: Apply road design techniques that reduce excess speeding and accommodate the needs of all road users.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-1.2: Prioritize projects that are likely to reduce collisions along the City’s High Injury Network.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-1.3: Apply strategies identified in Vision Zero Morgan Hill. • Strategies & Actions TMP-1.4: Utilize grant funding for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety educational programming.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-1.5: Pursue grant funding to implement focused and effective speed reduction marketing campaigns in coordination with police department. • Strategies & Actions TMP-1.6: Provide increasing levels of traffic enforcement through the Police Department.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-1.7: Decrease emergency response times through the implementation of technology.

Goal TMP-2: Increased Transportation Options – Provide a range of high-quality and comfortable bikeways, trails, pedestrian facilities, and local transit options to create a safe, connected, balanced, and convenient transportation system for all ages, abilities, and socioeconomic groups. • Strategies & Actions TMP-2.1: Apply multimodal street design to create high-comfort and lowstress walking and biking facilities and accommodate other forms of micromobility (e.g., e-bikes). • Strategies & Actions TMP-2.2: Create well-connected networks of bikeways and trails that allow for travel across the City of Morgan Hill.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-2.3: Improve connections between the local bicycle network and regional bicycle network.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-2.4: Identify and secure long-term funding for the VTA and/or the City to provide local transit service, including MoGo.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-2.5: Advocate for VTA to provide additional bicycle facilities and close network gaps in Morgan Hill’s sphere of influence in the VTA Countywide Bike Plan.

Goal TMP-3: Access to Regional Transit Services and Local Destinations – Enhance access to regional transit services and local destinations like Downtown, schools, parks, and services through improved multimodal connections and local transit options that enable more trips to take place without relying on a private vehicle.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-3.1: Invest in complete sidewalks and frequent crossings in pedestrian priority zones.

• Strategies & Actions TMP-3.2: Improve first mile/last mile connections to the Morgan Hill Caltrain station and local bus stops.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-3.3: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements on roadways identified as ped/bike priority corridors.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-3.4: Improve access and safety to trailheads. • Strategies & Actions TMP-3.5: Proactively encourage the use of non-auto modes of travel to local destinations and schools via community educational and marketing programs.

Strategies & Actions TMP-3.6: Complete school area safety assessments to identify pedestrian/bicycle safety improvements.

Goal TMP-4: Congestion Management – Reduce travel time and improve vehicular throughput on city streets by improving intersection and corridor operations, minimizing the extent of regional cut-through traffic, and encouraging mode shift.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-4.1: Identify and procure funding for increased congestion management resources and driver education within the City. • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.2: Apply feasible physical intersection improvements or signal timing improvements and equipment upgrades to reduce delay along city streets. • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.3: Implement traffic calming measures to discourage speeding and reduce cut-through traffic.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-4.4: Design vehicular access on all future roadways to minimize adverse traffic operations and conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.5: Ensure the design of all new streets planned as part of the General Plan network and that link new development to existing roadways include bike/ped facilities.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-4.6: Participate in regional TDM programs to reduce overall traffic volume by encouraging a shift in travel modes.
• Strategies & Actions TMP-4.7: Advocate and lead efforts for the expansion of toll/Express/HOV lanes on Highway 101 to reduce congestion management services. • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.8: Implement VMT policies designed to reduce the number of vehicles on City roadways (including last mile transit service options such as MoGo). • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.9: Advocate and identify opportunities to support increases in regional transit services, including regional bus service, rail service, and other. • Strategies & Actions TMP-4.10: Coordinate with Santa Clara County on implementing roadway improvements within Morgan Hill’s sphere of influence.

Evaluation Criteria Applicable goals
#1 PRIORITY
Located along the HIN or at intersections that have a collision history Proposed measure is an identified effective safety countermeasure by FHWA Includes pre-determined set of speed management/traffic calming techniques

COMMUNITY CONSIDERATION
Improves ped safety, comfort, and/or closes network gaps in ped priority zones Improves comfort and/or provides new connections across US 101 Includes ped friendly urban design and placemaking elements like landscaping, wayfinding, lighting along the public ROW
Improves and/or provides new bicycle facilities along bike/ped priority corridors Improves comfort and/or provides new connections across US 101 Improves connections between the local bicycle network and regional bicycle network Accommodates other modes of micromobility (e.g. e-bikes) Location of the project is within 1/2 mile of an identified destination like a school, park, Downtown, or services
Improves first mile/last mile connections to the Morgan Hill Caltrain station and local bus stops.

Improves access and safety to trailheads
Reduces travel time and improves vehicle throughput along City streets for inner city trips
Improves/adds street connections based on projected growth in the city (All new street connections will be designed with bike/ped facilities)
Encourages modeshift for the purpose of reducing VMT
Includes pre-determined set of traffic calming techniques that reduce regional cutthrough traffic Signal timing adjustments on city arterials to discourage regional cut-through traffic 7 Equity Proximity to high levels of higher density housing/low-income housing Goal TMP-2: Increased Transportation Options, Goal TMP-3: Access to
Regional Transit Services and Local
Destinations

ENGINEERING/STAFF CONSIDERATION
8 Consistency with
other City Plans or
Programs
Project previously identified in local or regional plan --
9 Engineering Feasibility Project applies current design standards and design is feasible and constructible, i.e. it can be completed within existing curb lines or right of way -- 10 Operational Cost On-going expenses for the project
--
City has an available funding source for the project
Likelihood of receiving grant funding
12 Impact to Value Ratio Expected project costs will be weighed against project benefits -- 13 Implementation Project is wholly City-led versus requiring developers to lead it or requiring coordination with County --

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION & EVALUATION CRITERIA
1 Goal TMP-1: Safety, Goal TMP-2:

Increased Transportation Options, Goal
TMP-4: Congestion Management
Pedestrian Safety,
Comfort, and
Connectivity
2 Priorities
Safety Goal TMP-1: Safety
3 Bike Safety, Comfort,
and Connectivity
11 Funding --
Goal TMP-4: Congestion Management
5 Vehicle Operations
6 Regional Cut-through
Traffic
Goal TMP-4: Congestion Management
Goal TMP-1: Safety, Goal TMP-2:

Increased Transportation Options, Goal
TMP-4: Congestion Management
4 Goal TMP-1: Safety, Goal TMP-2:

Increased Transportation Options, Goal
TMP-3: Access to Regional Transit
Services and Local Destinations, Goal
TMP-4: Congestion Management
Access to Key
Destinations

RESOLUTION NO. 24-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL ADOPTING DESIGNATED SPEED
LIMITS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 15-223
WHEREAS, as required by the California Vehicle Code, the City of Morgan Hill has conducted a new Engineering and Traffic Survey (the “study”); and WHEREAS, the new limits for the hereinafter described street segments are based on information obtained as part of this study; and
WHEREAS, Section 10.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council may, by resolution, designate speed limits different from those prescribed State law; and WHEREAS, the new speed limits will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, are reasonable and safe, and should be declared the prima facie speed limit;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Morgan Hill has determined, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, that the following speed limits will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, are reasonable and safe, and shall be deemed the prima facie speed limits on the designated streets in the City of Morgan Hill as indicated below.

Twenty Five Miles Per Hour
Cosmo Avenue Del Monte Avenue to Monterey Road
Del Monte Avenue Cosmo Avenue to West Dunne Avenue
Depot Street East Main Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
East Dunne Avenue Holiday Drive to Anderson Lake
Fountain Oaks Drive Hill Road to Saddleback Drive
Fountain Oaks Drive Saddleback Drive to Trail Drive
Jarvis Drive Sutter Boulevard to Monterey Road
Jarvis Drive Sutter Boulevard to Butterfield Boulevard
La Alameda Watsonville Road to La Crosse Drive
La Crosse Drive Vineyard Boulevard to Vineyard Boulevard Llagas Road Woodland Avenue to Castle Lake Drive
West Main Avenue John Telfer Drive to Hale Avenue
Monterey Road Main Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Native Dancer Drive West Middle Avenue to Santa Teresa Boulevard Saddleback Drive East Dunne Avenue to Fountain Oaks Drive Thirty Miles Per Hour
Barrett Avenue Railroad Avenue to Butterfield Boulevard Barrett Avenue Butterfield Boulevard to US 101

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 24-xxx

Barrett Avenue Trail Drive to Hill Road
East Central Avenue Butterfield Boulevard to Serene Drive Church Street Tennant Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Diana Avenue Butterfield Boulevard to US 101
Llagas Road Castle Lake Drive to Teresa Lane
West Main Avenue Hale Avenue to Monterey Road
East Main Avenue Monterey Road to Butterfield Boulevard West Middle Avenue Amberwood Lane to Walnut Drive
Monterey Road San Pedro Avenue to Dunne Avenue
Monterey Road Wright Avenue to Main Avenue
Old Monterey Road Llagas Road to Monterey Road
Peak Avenue Wright Avenue to West Main Avenue
Peak Avenue West Main Avenue to West Dunne Avenue
Peet Road Morning Star Drive to Cochrane Road
San Pedro Avenue US 101 to Railroad Avenue
Spring Avenue Dewitt Avenue to Monterey Road
Vineyard Boulevard La Crosse Drive to Monterey Road
Wright Avenue Peak Avenue to Hale Avenue
Wright Avenue Hale Avenue to Monterey Road
Thirty Five Miles Per Hour
Burnett Avenue Monterey Road to City Limit
Dewitt Avenue West Dunne Avenue to Spring Avenue
Diana Avenue Murphy Avenue to Hill Road
West Dunne Avenue Peak Avenue to Monterey Road
East Dunne Avenue Monterey Road to Butterfield Boulevard East Dunne Avenue Rustling Oak Court to Holiday Drive
West Edmundson Avenue Olympic Drive to Monterey Road
Hale Avenue Wright Avenue to West Main Avenue
Half Road Mission View Drive to Elm Road
Juan Hernandez Drive Barrett Avenue to Tennant Avenue
Madrone Parkway Monterey Road to Cochrane Road
Monterey Road San Pedro Avenue to Vineyard Boulevard
Monterey Road Cochrane Road to Wright Avenue
Murphy Avenue Diana Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Peebles Avenue Monterey Road to City Limit
Peet Road Cochrane Road to Avenida De Los Padres
Sutter Boulevard Cochrane Road to Butterfield Boulevard Tennant Avenue Monterey Road to Vineyard Boulevard
Tennant Avenue Vineyard Avenue to US 101
Tilton Avenue Hale Avenue to Monterey Road
Vineyard Boulevard Mast Street to Tennant Avenue
Vineyard Boulevard Tennant Avenue to Monterey Road
Walnut Grove Drive East Dunne Avenue to San Pedro Avenue

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 24-xxx

Forty Miles Per Hour
Cochrane Road US 101 to Mission View Drive
Cochrane Road Mission View Drive to Malaguerra Avenue
Condit Road East Dunne Avenue to Tennant Avenue
Condit Road Diana Avenue to City Limit
East Dunne Avenue Butterfield Boulevard to Condit Road
East Dunne Avenue Condit Road to Hill Road
East Dunne Avenue Hill Road to Thomas Grade
East Dunne Avenue Thomas Grade to Rustling Oak Court
Hale Avenue Llagas Road to Wright Avenue
Hale Avenue Via Loma to Llagas Road
Hill Road East Main Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Hill Road East Dunne Avenue to Barrett Avenue
Llagas Road Teresa Lane to Llagas Court
Llagas Road Llagas Court to Hale Avenue
Llagas Road Hale Avenue to Old Monterey Road
East Main Avenue Butterfield Avenue to Serene Drive
East Main Avenue Serene Drive to Condit Road
East Main Avenue Live Oak High School to Elm Road
Mission View Drive Cochrane Road to Avenida De Los Padres Mission View Drive Avenida De Los Padres to Half Road
Murphy Avenue Barrett Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Railroad Avenue San Pedro Avenue to Tennant Avenue
Sunnyside Avenue Edmundson Avenue to Watsonville Road
Forty Five Miles Per Hour
Butterfield Boulevard Cochrane Road to East Central Avenue Butterfield Boulevard East Central Avenue to East Dunne Avenue Butterfield Boulevard East Dunne Avenue to San Pedro Avenue Butterfield Boulevard San Pedro Avenue to Barrett Avenue Butterfield Boulevard Barrett Avenue to Tennant Avenue
Butterfield Boulevard Tennant Avenue to Monterey Road
Cochrane Road Monterey Road to US 101
Cochrane Road Malaguerra Avenue to City Limit
Condit Road Diana Avenue to East Dunne Avenue
Foothill Avenue Maple Avenue to City Limit
Hale Avenue Tilton Avenue to Via Loma
Monterey Road Peebles Avenue to Cochrane Road
Monterey Road Vineyard Boulevard to Watsonville Road
Santa Teresa Boulevard Watsonville Road to City Limit
Watsonville Road Santa Teresa Boulevard to Monterey Road Fifty Miles Per Hour
Monterey Road City Limit to Peebles Avenue
Monterey Road Watsonville Road to East Middle Avenue

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 24-xxx

Section 2. These speed limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street.

Section 3. Resolution No. 15-223 is hereby repealed.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at its meeting held on this 15th day of May 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
APPROVED: ATTEST:
___________________________________ _______________________________ MARK TURNER, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATION 
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 24-xxx adopted by the City Council at the meeting held on the 15th day of May 2024.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

16 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE SOUTH COUNTY RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION

MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Review and approve final draft of the South County Recycled Water Distribution Master Plan.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Healthy Community
Guiding Documents
Water System Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Since 1999, the City of Morgan has collaborated with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and the City of Gilroy to ensure the utilization and expansion of non-potable water reuse in South Santa Clara County (South County). The City of Morgan Hill has 41.9 percent interest in the South County Regional Wastewater Authority's Treatment Plant, with Gilroy owning the remaining percentage. At the Plant, Valley Water has constructed and expanded non-potable recycled water treatment and distribution facilities. These facilities serve the south end of the County with customers in Gilroy and adjacent county agricultural users.

The recycled water treatment facility relies on the wastewater, which is received via the wastewater utility collection systems owned by the City of Morgan Hill and the City of Gilroy. However, the flows at the plant have remained flat for the last 8 years, with exceptions of years with significantly wet winters. This flat line of wastewater flows is directly tied to local water conservation efforts and State plumbing code changes. This situation significantly limits the wastewater available for recycling.

16 In 2017, the Joint Water Resources Committee (Committee) was established by the Valley Water Board of Directors to advance water reuse interests in South County, which includes identifying future demand for purified and recycled water in South County and funding sources to implement South County recycled water master plans.

This committee is comprised of two Council members from each City and two representatives from the Valley Water Board of Directors. The group is advisory to the Cities and Valley Water. The group also has a technical/staff level working group that meets regularly to collaboratively discuss water reuse issues. In April, the Committee received an update on recycled water planning activities and the draft South County Recycled Water Distribution Master Plan (Attachment 1), which was prepared by Akel Engineering in coordination with the Technical Working Group.

The purpose of this report is to provide the draft plan for review by the full City Council for discussion and potential approval. The Plan is an update to the original reuse master plan developed by the three agencies in 2004 and updated in 2015. The Plan takes into account the flatlining of wastewater flows at the plant and additionally reviews the feasibility of emerging technologies including indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR). The key attributes of the plan include:
• Revisions to South County water reuse infrastructure (new pipeline) • Recycled water customer updates and their reuse potential • Recommendations for new users along the distribution system • Priorities of planned future system expansion and upgrades • Discussion of the opportunities and challenges to future expansion of water reuse in Morgan Hill
For Morgan Hill, the highlighted discussion for the City will undoubtedly focus on bringing recycled water opportunities into the City of Morgan Hill. However, continued recycling at the Plant for non-potable reuse should also be a focus of the City for multiple reasons, including:

1. Water sustainability is a regional and statewide effort. A city the size of Morgan Hill cannot manage its water sustainability in a bubble and must rely on Valley Water as the groundwater management agency and water wholesaler to ensure sustainability of the overall water supply.

2. The recycled water used outside the plant near Gilroy offsets and reduces the need for the extraction of groundwater in the Llagas subbasin, which is shared by Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and unincorporated south Santa Clara County.

3. Improvements to the existing recycled water facilities at the treatment plant are the most cost-effective way to increase recycled water use for the South County.

This is important to note as costs for new facilities are passed on by Valley Water to the City water utilities (and ultimately City residents) through groundwater extraction fees.

Separate from the proposed expansion of existing facilities, the Plan does evaluate

16 specific options for recycled water to reach Morgan Hill. Seven different scenarios were evaluated for this purpose. All seven options have been reviewed in the past through numerous planning documents produced by Valley Water and the City of Morgan Hill (Table 5 of Attachment 1). The purpose of the evaluation is to identify the most realistic opportunities for future potential recycled water to reach Morgan Hill. By narrowing down options, Valley Water and the City can continue to focus on those opportunities.

The top three most feasible options identified include:
• Option 1a: Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water Augmentation into water system (via satellite treatment facility) - This option consists of the development of a satellite wastewater treatment facility in combination with an Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) that utilizes the City’s wastewater. • Option 1b: Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water Augmentation into water system (via purified water pumped from SCRWA) - This option would include an AWPF at SCRWA, approximately 12 miles of 24-inch pipeline, and a pump station.
• Option 2 NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling - This option includes importing recycled water supplies from South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) via 16 miles of 16-inch pipeline. A transmission main from SBWR would connect to a future recycled water distribution system in Morgan Hill.

Detailed information on these projects and the feasibility and limitations associated with them is available within the Plan.

City staff are requesting the City Council approve the draft plan or at minimum provide feedback on the proposed options to support future work with Valley Water and the City of Gilroy in this area. This is important as Valley Water has received a planning grant from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to develop a South County Recycled Water System Feasibility Study. This study will expand the analysis of future opportunities in South County, including purified water implementation. A USBR adopted feasibility study is a prerequisite toward seeking many sources of federal funding assistance for capital projects.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
The Joint Water Resources Committee previously published and took public comment on this Plan on April 3, 2024. The updated draft plan was posted on the City's website on May 1, 2024 and shared through the City's email newsletter, the 411.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could choose not to approve the draft plan and provide comments to the staff on the proposed plan. The Council could also choose to provide further direction to staff on recycled water.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

16 The City approved the 2021 Water System Master Plan and the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, which both included information on potential recycled water for Morgan Hill.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact with this planning item. Implementation of recycled water projects would be significantly expensive from both a capital and operations perspective and will continue to be evaluated as planning and analysis continues in the future.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption 15262:

A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors.

SOUTH COUNTY

RECYCLED WATER

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

MASTER PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
March 2024
South County Regional
Wastewater Authority
Attachment 2

63 7433 N. First St, S uite 10 3 • Fresno, CA 93720 • T el (559) 436 - 0600 • F ax (559) 436 - 0622 www.akeleng.com
March 1, 2024
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3686
Attention: Mr. David Tucker, P.E.

Associate Engineer, Project Manager
Subject: South County Recycled Water - Distribution System Master Plan Dear David:

We are pleased to submit this 2023 South County Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan. The report includes the following major tasks:
• Performing a capacity analysis and evaluation of the existing distribution system and improvement alternatives.
• Provide recommendations for mitigating existing distribution system capacity deficiencies and servicing the short-term users.
• Summarizing the Morgan Hill recycled water options.
• Developing mapping of the existing distribution system, customers, and proposed improvements.
• Developing an updated distribution system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a short-term horizon (5-yr).

We are extending our thanks to you and your staff, and to Saeid Vaziry, South County Regional Wastewater Authority; Chris Ghione, City of Morgan Hill Public Services Director; Karl Bjarke, City of Gilroy Interim Public Works Director; whose courtesy and cooperation were valuable components in completing this study and producing this report.

Sincerely,
AKEL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Tony Akel, P.E., D.WRE
President
Smart Planning Our Water Resources
Attachment 2

Acknowledgements
Valley Water Board of Directors
John L. Varela, District 1
Barbara Keegan, District 2
Richard Santos, District 3
Jim Beall, District 4
Nai Hsueh, District 5
Tony Estremera, District 6
Rebecca Eisenberg, District 7
Valley Water Management Personnel
Hossein Ashktorab, Ph.D,, Recycled & Purified Water Manager David Tucker, Associate Engineer
Kirsten Struve, Assistant Officer for Water Supply
South County Regional Wastewater Authority
Saeid Vaziry, Environmental Programs Manager
Jimmy Forbis, General Manager
City of Morgan Hill
Chris Ghione, Public Services Director, City of Morgan Hill James Sylvain, Deputy Director of Utilities
Tanya Carothers, Environmental Programs Administrator
City of Gilroy
Karl Bjarke, Interim Public Works Director
Jeff Castro, Operations Supervisor
Attachment 2

63 March 2024 i South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Valley Water
South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Table of Contents Page No.

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.................................... 2

3.1 EXISTING SYSTEM............................................................................................................................... 3

3.1.1 North System Distribution Pipelines ......................................................................................... 3

3.1.2 South System Distribution Pipelines (Pajaro River Pipeline) ................................................... 4

3.1.3 Distribution System Pump Stations .......................................................................................... 4

3.1.4 Storage Tanks/Reservoirs ........................................................................................................ 5

3.2 PLANNED RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM (BASELINE SYSTEM) .................................................................. 5

4.0 OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................ 6

4.1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS.................................................................................................. 6

4.2 SCRWA WWTP ON-SITE OPERATIONAL STORAGE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................... 7

5.0 SUPPLY ANALYSIS AND RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS............................................................. 7

5.1 SUPPLY VS. DEMAND ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 7

5.2 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER USER DEMANDS...................................................................................... 8

5.3 POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER USERS AND DEMANDS .......................................................................... 8

6.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE AND CALIBRATION........................................................................ 9

6.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE................................................................................................................ 9

6.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION ........................................................................................................ 9

7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND USER OPTIMIZATION ...................................................................... 9

7.1 DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 10

7.2 EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION......................................................................................................... 10

7.3 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER USER OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................. 11

7.4 BASELINE SYSTEM EVALUATION WITH OPTIMIZED OPERATIONS........................................................... 11

7.5 NEAR-TERM USERS EVALUATION WITH OPTIMIZED OPERATIONS......................................................... 12

7.6 CONCEPTUAL BASELINE SYSTEM BUILDOUT....................................................................................... 12

8.0 RECYCLED WATER OPTIONS FOR MORGAN HILL ..................................................................... 13

8.1 MORGAN HILL REUSE OPTIONS RELEVANT STUDIES........................................................................... 13

8.2 UPDATED MORGAN HILL REUSE OPTIONS.......................................................................................... 14

8.2.1 Option 1a and 1b – Direct Potable Reuse.............................................................................. 14

8.2.2 Option 2 – NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling ............................................................... 15

8.2.3 Option 3 – Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility for Groundwater Recharge (GWR) 16 Attachment 2

63 March 2024 ii South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

8.2.4 Option 4 – Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility for Surface Water Augmentation (SWA) 16

8.2.5 Option 5 – Pumping Recycled Water from SCRWA to a Morgan Hill Recycled Water System 17 8.2.6 Option 6 – SCRWA Advanced Water Purification Facility for Groundwater Recharge in Morgan Hill.............................................................................................................................................. 17

8.3 MORGAN HILL RECYCLED WATER OPTIONS COMPARISON .................................................................. 18

9.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEM OPERATIONS............................................... 18

9.1 CONSTRUCTED BUT INACTIVE IMPROVEMENTS.................................................................................... 18

9.2 RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................ 19

9.3 NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................................. 19

9.4 LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS (CONCEPTUAL) ..................................................................................... 19

9.5 OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 20

10.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (5-YR)................................................................................. 20

10.1 COST ESTIMATE ACCURACY.............................................................................................................. 20

10.2 COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 21

10.2.1 Unit Costs ............................................................................................................................... 21

10.2.2 Construction Cost Index ......................................................................................................... 22

10.2.3 Estimating Contingency Allowance ........................................................................................ 22

10.3.1 Project Related Costs............................................................................................................. 22

10.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 22

10.4.1 Capital Improvement Costs .................................................................................................... 22 Attachment 2

63 March 2024 ii South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Valley Water
South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Figures
Figure 1 – Study Area
Figure 2 – Existing System
Figure 3 – Planned/Future Pipeline Improvements
Figure 4 – Existing Customer Connections
Figure 5 – Historical WWTP Influent and RW Production
Figure 6 – North System Demands
Figure 7 – South System Demands
Figure 8 – Existing Users Monthly Demands
Figure 9 – Existing User Hourly Demands, MDD
Figure 10 – Potential Future Users
Figure 11 – Hydraulic Model Calibration
Figure 12 – Existing System Evaluation
Figure 13 – Existing MDD Operations
Figure 14 – Optimized MDD Operations
Figure 15 – Baseline Improvements plus Optimization Evaluation Figure 16 – Optimized MDD Operations + Near Term Users
Figure 17 – Near-Term Users Evaluation with Optimized Operations Figure 18 – Conceptual Baseline Buildout
Figure 19 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 1 - Direct Reuse Figure 20 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 2 - NPR+
Figure 21 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 3 - GWR
Figure 22 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 4 - SWA
Figure 23 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 5 - RW from SCRWA Figure 24 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Option 6 - AWPF Water from SCRWA for GWR Attachment 2

63 March 2024 iii South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Tables
Table 1 – Existing System Inventory
Table 2 – Existing Recycled Water System Demands
Table 3 – Potential Recycled Water Users
Table 4 – Recycled Water System Criteria
Table 5 – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Options
Table 6 – Baseline System Improvement Summary
Table 7 – Cost Estimating Criteria
Table 8 – Capital Improvement Program
Attachment 2

63 March 2024 1 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Valley Water
South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This 2023 Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan provides an update of the distribution system capacity
evaluation component of the previous 2015 South County
Recycled Water Master Plan (2015 Master Plan) prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) in
May of 2016. Since the completion of the 2015 Master Plan, new pipelines have been constructed, customer demands
have increased, and operation at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has become increasingly challenging during peak usage and the high demand season.

This project, located in South Santa Clara County in the City of Gilroy (Figure 1), consisted of updating and evaluating the short-term capacity requirements for the South County Recycled Water Distribution System. It is intended as an update superseding the capacity analysis from the 2015 Master Plan.

Purpose
This study provides an
updated 2023 Distribution
System capacity evaluation
to the 2015 South County
Recycled Water Master plan,
with a 5-year short-term
planning horizon. It also
provides a summary for the
Morgan Hill potential RW
options.

Scope
This report documents the following scope of work tasks:
• Updating the inventory of the existing South County recycled water pipelines. • Documenting the existing and short-term users recycled water demands. • Updating the short-term recycled water demand projections. • Performing a capacity analysis and evaluation of the existing distribution system and improvement alternatives.
• Providing recommendations for mitigating existing distribution system capacity deficiencies and servicing the short-term users.
• Summarizing the Morgan Hill recycled water options.
• Developing detailed mapping of the existing distribution system, customers, and proposed improvements.
• Developing an updated distribution system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a short-term horizon (5-yr).

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 2 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

2.0 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
The 2015 South County Recycled Water System Master Plan is the primary document that was updated in this effort. This section lists other relevant reports that were referenced during the completion of this distribution system capacity master plan update to the 2015 Master Plan, along with a brief description of each document.
• 2020 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (2020 CoRe Plan). This document was developed to identify opportunities for Santa Clara County to expand water reuse and improve water supply reliability. This plan included water reuse options for the North County (San Jose, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale) and the South County (Morgan Hill, Gilroy) • 2019 Sustainable Water Management Plan (2019 SWMP). This document presents water supply alternatives available for the Llagas and Coyote Valley Groundwater Subbasins and included a qualitative analysis and ranking system to prioritize impacts for each project and the benefits for each alternative.
• 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update (2015 Master Plan). This report was an update to the 2004 Master Plan and updated the existing recycled water demands, identified and prioritized future users, performed a hydraulic analysis, and prepared a capital improvement program to mitigate existing system deficiencies and serve future users.
• 2010 South County Recycled Water Pipeline Short-Term Phase 1, Planning Study Report (2010 Planning Study). This document includes information for the updated potential future users list and contains updates to the 2004 Master Plan short term facilities.
• 2004 South County Recycled Water Master Plan (2004 Master Plan). This report included the development of potential recycled water users and a hydraulic model of Valley Water’s recycled water system. The hydraulic model was used to evaluate the existing recycled water system and recommended improvements to accommodate future growth.
• 2000 South Bay Water Recycling, Phase 2 Concept Design Report (2000 Design Criteria). This document includes Valley Water’s design criteria for the recycled water system facilities.

3.0 EXISTING AND PLANNED RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
This section documents the existing recycled water infrastructure including the distribution system pressure zones, pump stations, storage tanks and includes a brief description for the planned baseline system.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 3 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

3.1 Existing System
The existing recycled water distribution system is comprised of two separate delivery systems: the North System and the South System (Pajaro River Pipeline). The system consists of approximately 91,300 linear feet (17.3 miles) of 8-inch to 36-inch diameter pipelines, a 4 million gallons per day (mgd) booster pump station, and a 1.5 million gallons (MG) off-site storage tank, and is supported by a 3 MG on-site reservoir, a 6.9 mgd pump station, and a 6.0 mgd pump station at the SCRWA WWTP shown graphically on Figure 2 and documented in Table 1.

3.1.1 North System Distribution Pipelines
The North System is comprised of two pressure zones and serves the existing recycled water customers north of the SCRWA WWTP. The North System Pressure Zones are documented on Figure 2.
• Pressure Zone 1: This zone is pressurized by the Area 93 Pump Station at the WWTP and includes a 200 cubic feet (ft3) pressurized surge tank.

The existing pipeline alignment heads north from the WWTP along Engle Way with parallel 12-inch and 36-inch mains and east with a 12-inch main along Southside Drive to supply the Gilroy Shooting Range. The 12-inch main then follows the Miller Slough north to the Princevalle Drain flood control maintenance road. A 12-inch spur from this intersection supplies the Calpine Energy Center to the east.

From the Calpine Energy Center spur, the 12-inch main continues west along the Princevalle Drain to supply the McCarthy Business Park and United Natural Food. The 12- inch pipeline continues west to supply water to B&T Farms and then crosses under Highway 101. At Monterey Road and the Princevalle Drain, a 12-inch extension supplies water south to the Gilroy Sports Park. The 12-inch pipeline then continues west along the Princevalle Drain and crosses through Gilroy High School to supply water to Christmas Hill Park and ending at the Zone 2 Pump Station.

Construction of a 30-inch main from Southside Drive in Luchessa Avenue (and through the Glen Loma development) to Christmas Hill Pump Station is nearing completion. There is one section of pipeline in the Glen Loma Development along Luchessa Avenue between Miller Avenue and Vintner Court that is not constructed. Once this last section is constructed, the southern loop will be complete which will enhance the existing system operations.
• Pressure Zone 2: This zone is supplied by the Zone 2 Pump Station (Christmas Hill Park) located just west of Christmas Hill Park which pumps water to the 1.5 MG Hoylake Tank.

From the Zone 2 Pump Station a 14-inch pipeline parallels the Uvas Creek Preserve along Grenache Way. At Club Drive there is an 8-inch spur which has been used to temporarily Attachment 2

63 March 2024 4 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
supply the Glen Loma Ranch Development with recycled water for grading and other construction activities. From Club Drive the 14-inch continues north-west to Santa Teresa Boulevard where the turnout is located for the Eagle Ridge Golf Course. From Santa Teresa Boulevard the 14-inch continues west where the pipeline splits to the north and west. The 12-inch north branch supplies water to the Gilroy Golf Course, a couple of HOA’s, and City of Gilroy parks. The 14-inch west branch continues southwest along Club Drive and connects to the 1.5 MG Hoylake Tank.

3.1.2 South System Distribution Pipelines (Pajaro River Pipeline) The majority of the South System is owned and maintained by SCRWA under joint operations since it primarily serves agricultural customers that pay Valley Water. The pipeline was installed for discharge to the river in case of an emergency (e.g. high inflow conditions and low recycled water demands), but SCRWA has never used it for such a purpose, and instead distributes recycled water year-round to agricultural customers south of the WWTP.

This system is pressurized by the Area 94 Pump Station which pumps into a 20-inch pipeline that heads south-west then south-east from the WWTP (Figure 2). The pipeline goes through a rightof-way in the SCRWA Farms Agriculture lands to the intersection of Bloomfield Avenue and Sheldon Avenue. A 22-inch, inner diameter main continues south-east for 700 feet and decreases in diameter to a 20-inch main which continues south-east to a discharge turnout located on the Pajaro River near the railroad tracks. Turnouts along this pipeline serve the San Felipe Farms.

3.1.3 Distribution System Pump Stations
The existing recycled water distribution system has three pump stations, documented on Table 1, and summarized as follows:
• Area 93 Pump Station (North System, Pressure Zone 1). The Area 93 Pump Station is located at the SCRWA WWTP at an elevation of 154 feet and is comprised of five pumps.

Each of the five pumps has a variable frequency drive that provides up to 1,530 gallons per minute (gpm). Thus, the total existing capacity is 7,650 gpm and the firm capacity is 6,120 gpm. During peak months the pumps are generally operated to maintain approximately 95 pounds per square inch (psi) in the North System Pressure Zone 1. • Zone 2 Christmas Hill Pump Station (North System Pressure Zone 2). The Zone 2 Christmas Hill Pump Station is located west of Christmas Hill Park at an elevation of 222 feet and is comprised of three pumps. Each of the three pumps has a variable frequency drive that provides up to 1,375 gpm. Thus, the total existing capacity is 4,125 gpm and the firm capacity is 2,750 gpm. The pumps are generally operated by water levels in the Hoylake Tank that is located west of Santa Teresa Boulevard within the Eagle Ridge Golf Community.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 5 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
The existing distribution system currently experiences high headlosses in the pipelines due to high water demands, resulting in low pressures near the Christmas Hill Pump Station.

Due to the restrictions in the existing system (causing low pressures) this pump station’s speed is operated between 65% to 85% in order to maintain a suction pressure of 20 psi. • Area 94 Pump Station (South System). The Area 94 Pump Station is located at the SCRWA WWTP at an elevation of 154 feet and is comprised of three pumps. Each of the three pumps has a variable frequency drive that provides up to 2,100 gpm. Thus, the total existing capacity is 6,300 gpm and the firm capacity is 4,200 gpm. When serving customers in the South System the pumps are generally operated with high head to maintain approximately 80-85 psi in the South System. During river discharge pumping, which generally does not occur, the pumps are operated with low head as high pressures are not required for river discharges.

3.1.4 Storage Tanks/Reservoirs
The existing distribution system has two storage tanks/reservoirs with a combined volume of 4.5 MG.
• 3.0 MG Reservoir at the SCRWA WWTP. The 3.0
MG reservoir located at the SCRWA WWTP has a
base elevation of 160 feet. This reservoir also has a
return pump station with a capacity of 3 mgd, and
which is used to drain the 3.0 MG reservoir.

The same pipeline that is used to drain this reservoir is also used to fill it. Therefore, this critical reservoir operates by alternating between fill and drain mode
but cannot do both at the same time. This reservoir is
used to support the distribution system during peak demands, provides equalization of treatment flows at the WWTP, and the Area 93 and Area 94 Pump Stations both pump from this reservoir.
• 1.5 MG Reservoir in Pressure Zone 2 (North System). The Hoylake Tank is the second storage reservoir, and it is located in Zone 2 (North System). This tank is located at the end of Hoylake Court, has a capacity of 1.5 MG, and a base elevation of 385 feet. The Zone 2 Christmas Hill Pump Station is set to fill this tank based on the water levels.

3.2 Planned Recycled Water System (Baseline System)
The planned recycled water system (baseline) from the 2015 Recycled Water Master Plan was developed to mitigate the existing system deficiencies and to expand service to the most viable customers based on the market assessment that was performed. These planned and future alignments included in this distribution system capacity master plan are documented on Figure 3.

This critical reservoir operates
by alternating between fill-anddrain cycles but cannot do both at the same time.

Operational enhancements are
recommended at this critical
facility.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 6 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
The hydraulic analysis will focus on these pipelines and identify the potential customers in close proximity that could connect with minimal required infrastructure.

4.0 OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS
The South County recycled water system is operated by the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, and at the Wastewater Treatment Facility located in the City of Gilroy. Jacobs Solutions Inc. have been providing management and staffing assistance at the SCRWA Wastewater Treatment Facility for many years, and they were consulted during this study. This section documents the operational constraints observed by the system operators, and they include distribution constraints that are being mitigated by the large distribution main projects constructed by Valley Water, and on-site storage constraints experienced during peak season usage.

4.1 Distribution System Constraints
The distribution main constraints were identified in previous studies including the 2004 and 2015 South County Master Plans. The existing 12-inch main in the North System,
Pressure Zone 1 experiences high headlosses during peak recycled water usage resulting in low pressures and
restricted operations at the Christmas Hill Booster Station. Valley Water has been diligently working on resolving the distribution bottle necks and is planning on completing several large diameter pipeline projects in the near-term. SCRWA operational staff commented on the constraints as follows:
“The SCRWA recycled water system has evolved over the years. In the past 7 years, constraints on the system have also evolved. Early on the main constraint was being able to get water offsite. With the upgrades to SCRWA’s 93 pumpstation and flow meters, this constraint has been alleviated to some degree”. (SCRWA operations staff, 2022).

It should be noted that since Valley Water has been actively resolving the distribution system bottlenecks, staff will further experience enhanced operations.

Valley Water is addressing the
distribution constraints by
completing several large
diameter conveyance pipeline
segments in the North System.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 7 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

4.2 SCRWA WWTP On-site Operational Storage Constraints
The SCRWA WWTP on-site operational storage constraints were identified in the 2015 South County Master Plan. These current constraints are related to recycled water delivery scheduling, chances of overlapping delivery hours, and the unpredictable nature of the users. Additional storage and pumping will alleviate the current on-site operational constraints. The projects to address these constraints have not been initiated, and they include on-site storage as well as updates to the booster station. SCRWA operations staff commented on this constraint as follows: “Our main current constraints are storage and pumping capacity”.

Operations staff currently schedule all planned equipment maintenance activities during the low recycled water usage season (wet months). However, when issues arise during the dry season, and which require immediate repairs, they work harder to resolve the operational issue, and mitigate service interruptions. “If an issue arises prior to refilling the reservoir, we work with the users to reduce their demand. This includes but is not limited to having farmers switch from recycled water to their well systems, shutting off Eagle Ridge Golf course (if their pond is full), reducing onsite usage, and working with other users as necessary to lower usage". (SCRWA operations staff, 2022).

Additional storage and pumping capacity add resilience to the Recycled Water system and provide SCRWA operations staff more leverage to better serve existing and anticipated future customers.

5.0 SUPPLY ANALYSIS AND RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS
This section documents the recycled supply versus demand analysis, the existing and potential recycled water users, usage types, and diurnal patterns.

5.1 Supply vs. Demand Analysis
The recycled water system relies on water from the SCRWA Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant, which collects and treats wastewater flows from the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Approximately 73% of the influent flows are from residential customers, 17% from commercial/institutional customers, and 10% are from industrial customers. Figure 5 documents the monthly historical WWTP influent flow versus the recycled water production. Since 2017, the WWTP influent water has been trending down due to conservation measures and plumbing code changes, while the recycled water production has been trending higher.

Additional storage and
pumping capacity add
resilience to the Recycled
Water system operation and
provide SCRWA operations
staff with leverage to better
serve existing and anticipated
future customers.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 8 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
The monthly recycled water usage is documented on Figure 6 which identifies the recycled water use type (landscape irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I), agriculture water (crop irrigation), and utility) by month (June 2021 to May 2022) as compared to the wastewater annual treatment plant influent flow. The WWTP influent average is approximately 6.1 mgd and the annual recycled water usage is 2.09 mgd, however during peak usage recycled water demands increase up to 5.7 mgd. The maximum day demands by hour are documented on Figure 7, which shows peak recycled water use above the WWTP influent flows during high use periods. These peak flows have to be supplied by the existing 1.5 MG tank in Zone 2 and the 3.0 MG recycled water tank at the WWTP. There is approximately 0.4 mgd of surplus capacity for future users during peak summer months.

5.2 Existing Recycled Water User Demands
The existing recycled water users (meter locations) are identified on Figure 4. The historical recycled water use has been generally consistent as documented on Figure 5, with only a slight upward trend. Based on the historical recycled water production analysis, the existing recycled water demands for these users are based on the most recent monthly billing records from June 2021 to May 2022 and adjusted to the total recycled water production. These recent demands and allocation will provide the most up to date and accurate results for the hydraulic analysis. The annual recycled water use (including utility water) was approximately 2,338 AFY as documented on Table 2.

The maximum day demands were developed based on peak month SCADA from the Area 93 and 94 pump stations and is estimated at 3,945 gpm as documented on Table 2 (North System: 1,912 gpm and South System: 1,404 gpm). The peak hour demands were developed based on the reported hours of operation extracted from the yearly recycled water use permits that are submitted to SCRWA. Figure 8 and Figure 9 document the north and south system user demands diurnals.

5.3 Potential Recycled Water Users and Demands
The 2015 Recycled Water Master Plan included a thorough market assessment and customer ranking system for potential recycled water users. This capacity analysis focused on these high ranking and potential customers near the baseline system as identified on Figure 10 and documented on Table 3. The annual demands for each user were extracted from the 2015 Master Plan and the peaking factors developed from the updated existing system demand analysis were applied to determine the projected maximum day demands. The projected demand of the baseline potential users is approximately 4,529 gpm. Two potential long-term users were also included in this analysis, Gilroy Gardens and Western Tree and Nursery.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 9 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

6.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE AND CALIBRATION
The South County’s recycled water distribution system hydraulic model combines information on the physical characteristics of the recycled water system (pipelines, pump, storage reservoirs) and operational characteristics (how they operate). The hydraulic model then performs calculations and solves a series of equations to simulate flows in pipes and calculate pressures at nodes or junctions. The recycled water model was developed using the water modeling software, InfoWater Pro by Autodesk, which offers an intuitive graphical interface and robust integration with ESRI’s ArcGIS.

6.1 Hydraulic Model Update
The hydraulic model was updated to reflect current facility improvements and pipeline alignments based on recent construction. The existing water demands were also updated in the hydraulic model to reflect the most recent billing records and spatial allocation.

6.2 Hydraulic Model Calibration
Calibration is intended to instill a level of confidence in the pressures and flows that are simulated, and it generally consists of comparing model predictions to field measured results, and making necessary adjustments. The calibrated hydraulic model was updated with system operational controls, and was verified with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system data obtained for July 2021.

The model calibration consisted of comparing the pump flows from the Area 93 and Area 94 pump stations to SCADA for the summer months. Figure 11 documents multiple peak use days from July 2021 (SCADA) as compared to the hydraulic model outputs. The demand allocation and diurnal patterns developed in the demand analysis resulted in an acceptable match between the SCADA and model outputs. The hydraulic model is now an established benchmark and can be used for system evaluations.

7.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND USER OPTIMIZATION
The section documents the evaluation criteria utilized in the hydraulic analysis for the existing and planned baseline system and includes recommendations for system operations to optimize and maximize the capacity of the existing facilities and limited supply. The scenarios included in this analysis are as follows:
• Existing System Evaluation: This scenario evaluates the existing system and recycled water usage to identify the deficiencies in the distribution system. • Existing Recycled Water User Optimization: This scenario evaluates the existing system with optimized use of recycled water usage.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 10 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
• Baseline System Evaluation with Optimized Operations: This scenario evaluates the existing system plus the currently under-construction baseline system improvements with optimized operations.
• Near-Term Users Evaluation with Optimized Operations: This scenario evaluates the baseline system with additional users to maximize the available recycled water. • Conceptual Baseline System Buildout: This scenario evaluates the conceptual buildout of the baseline system (included for long-range planning purposes only).

7.1 Design Criteria
Velocity, headlosses and pressures are important factors in the design of a recycled water distribution system. To properly serve customers, the velocities and headlosses need to be a reasonable and provide adequate pressure for customers.

The criterion used in the analysis of the recycled water system was originally obtained from the South Bay Water Recycling, Phase 2 Concept Design Report, dated February 2000. The criterion is intended for maintaining efficient system
operation while providing a reliable service
to the recycled water system customers.

Table 4 documents the criterion used for
evaluating the capacity adequacy of the
distribution system during peak day
demands and peak hour demands.

7.2 Existing System Evaluation
The hydraulic analysis for the existing system identified numerous pipelines and pressures under the SCRWA criteria. The existing 12-inch main will experience headlosses up to 17 ft/1000ft (criteria is < 4 ft/1000ft). These high headlosses result with service pressures below the 35 psi minimum criteria (preferred 60-120 psi). As a result, the Christmas Hill booster station has to operate at a lower speed in order to maintain a suction pressure above 20 psi. The hydraulic analysis results are documented on Figure 12.

The existing system operations are documented on Figure 13. This figure documents the recycled water flow as compared to the system demands and the high peak demands that must be supplied by the existing tanks in order to meet the demands. The peak demands in the system are 9.2 mgd while peak flows from the WWTP are 7.5 mgd. Additionally, due to the low pressures at Christmas Hill booster station, the pump runs at a reduced capacity resulting with near constant flow during high demand periods to maintain the Hoylake Tank.

Design Criteria
• Velocities less than 5 feet per second (fps).
• Headlosses less than 4 feet per 1,000 feet
(ft/kft).
• Minimum Pressures at 35 pounds per square
inch (psi).
• Operating pressures ranging between 60 and
120 psi (ideal).

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 11 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

7.3 Existing Recycled Water User Optimization
During summer months the recycled water system experiences high peak usage due to the agricultural and irrigation uses. Being able to shift some of the water usage during peak hours to off-peak will ease the operations and depletion of the storage tanks.

Stantec was retained by SCRWA during this distribution system master plan update to perform a high-level analysis to identify opportunities for shifting demands during peak usage, and thus optimize the system operations. The approach of this optimization is summarized as follows:
• Step 1. Identify which users’ “hours of use” can be shifted. Which users are not flexible, which are flexible.
• Step 2. Work with the “flexible” users to optimize the daily water use.

The existing user demands, and their current hours of operations are inventories on Table 2. This information was provided to Stantec to review the permitted hours of operation, and the results of the high-level analysis provided by Stantec are summarized as follows:
“We have reviewed the data for each user and …
There are a lot of limitations with the users and
why their hours cannot change. For the few users
that have flexibility, the changes are very minor
and therefore would not help to optimize the
existing recycled water usage. We have talked
about this with Valley Water staff as well and they
agree any changes would be minor and not help to
optimize the recycled water usage. There is potential to take the data … provided into consideration when new users come online and set their hours of operation accordingly”.

Stantec, 2023.

Based on the results of this analysis the users’ hours of operation will remain the same for the future system analyses.

7.4 Baseline System Evaluation with Optimized Operations Valley Water is actively constructing several segments along the distribution system, and which intended to resolve existing bottlenecks and for future system expansion. The construction of the segments in the North System (baseline system) are occurring in difference phases, with some segments constructed but are currently inactive while others are under construction as documented on Figure 3. The baseline improvements in this scenario include the 30-inch main from Southside Drive to the Christmas Hill booster station (P-1, P-2, P-4, plus the constructed but inactive mains) and the 18-inch main that links the new 30-inch main to the existing 12-inch main in Cameron Boulevard (P-3). Please note this segment (P-3) has not been constructed and may not since Valley Water has been unable to secure an easement.

Operation limitations on the
users’ side indicate no flexibility in
shifting the desired deliveries.

Thus, the recycled water
system’s current operation is
considered running at, or near,
an optimized level.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 12 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
With the construction and activation of the Baseline system improvements, pipeline headlosses are reduced resulting in higher and more adequate pressures experienced in
Zone 1. These higher pressures allow the Christmas Hill booster station to operate at a higher capacity and allow for more optimized operations. With the higher suction
pressures, Christmas Hill pumping capacity can be
increased back to full capacity allowing for filling the Hoylake Tank during off-peak hours. Figure 14 documents Baseline system with existing demands but with optimized operations. The peak hour flows are reduced from 7.5 mgd to 6.4 mgd which eases the stress on the WWTP operations and tank depletion.

The hydraulic analysis results for the Baseline system with optimized operations are documented on Figure 15. The 14-inch discharge pipeline in Zone 2 had pipeline headlosses over criteria (up to 6.6 ft/kft), but system pressures and operations are not impacted.

7.5 Near-Term Users Evaluation with Optimized Operations The near-term scenario includes two new potential users (Glen Loma and the Data Center) to maximize the use of the available recycled water. The selection of users presented here is speculative and actual potential customers will vary depending on their projected demands and interest in using recycled water. There is approximately 0.4 mgd of surplus capacity for future near-term users during peak summer months.

The hydraulic analysis utilized the optimized operations at Christmas Hill and is documented on Figure 16. The hydraulic analysis results are documented on Figure 17. The addition of these new users causes minor impacts to the baseline system but will increase the stress on the WWTP operations and reliance on WWTP on-site reservoir.

7.6 Conceptual Baseline System Buildout
The conceptual baseline buildout (long-term) scenario includes each of the potential future users from Table 3. This scenario will require the following improvements:
• Zone 2 pipeline improvements (P-5, P-6)
• Pipe improvements to service the large users of
Gilroy Gardens and Western Tree and Nursery on the
west side of the system (LT-P-8, LT-P-9).
• A new booster station from Zone 2 to the new Zone 3.
• Booster station capacity upgrades at Area 93 and Christmas Hill. • Additional storage in Zone 2.

Completing the imminent and
near-term improvements will
result with more adequate
pressures in Zone 1, and more
efficient and reliable operations at
the Christmas Hill Booster
Station.

System expansion for the
baseline long-term users will
require additional
improvements to the existing
distribution system.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 13 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
The hydraulic analysis results are documented on Figure 18. The Zone 2 pipeline improvements P5, and P-6 mitigate the high headlosses observed in the previous scenarios and the planned baseline improvements are adequate for the potential long-term demands.

Please note, this scenario is conceptual and is highly dependent on wastewater influent flow increases plus additional treatment capacity. The existing WWTP influent flow is approximately

6.1 mgd and the buildout demands in this scenario is 11.6 mgd. This buildout scenario is conceptual and included for long-range planning purposes only.

8.0 RECYCLED WATER OPTIONS FOR MORGAN HILL
There is currently no recycled water delivered within the City of Morgan Hill’s service area, though delivering
recycled water to Morgan Hill from the SCRWA WWTP
and other sources has been considered in the 2015
Master Plan and in other feasibility studies. Morgan Hill has been consistently interested in exploring potential feasible opportunities where recycled water can be
implemented in the future and added to their water supply portfolio. This section is intended to provide an updated summary of the currently considered six feasible reuse options.

8.1 Morgan Hill Reuse Options Relevant Studies
This section lists previous relevant reports and studies which explored the opportunities and potential costs of adding recycled water to the water supply portfolio in Morgan Hill. • 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update. The Santa Clara Valley Water District, the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, the City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill), and the City of Gilroy (Gilroy) partnered to explore the continued use, promotion, and expansion of the recycled water in the region. The agencies retained the services of Stantec and Akel Engineering Group to complete the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update and which included a market assessment and developed project alternatives for expanding the existing recycled water system currently serving the City of Gilroy and adjacent County users. One of the considered alternatives included extending a recycled water pipeline from the SCRWA wastewater plant northward to service the City of Morgan Hill.
• 2016 Recycled Water Feasibility Evaluation. With intent to provide more focus on the City of Morgan Hill recycled water needs, Morgan Hill retained the services of Akel Engineering Group and Stantec to further explore opportunities in recycled water for Morgan Hill, and to prepare the 2016 Recycled Water Feasibility Evaluation. This study identified potential recycled water users through a market assessment and included high Morgan Hill has been consistently
interested in exploring potential
opportunities to add water reuse
to their supply portfolio. This
section provides an update on six
potentially feasible options.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 14 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
level costs for the potential alternatives. As identified in the market assessment, the potential future users of recycled water in the City include landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, and indirect potable reuse. As part of the 2016 RWFE, infrastructure required to convey recycled water from the South County Regional Wastewater Authority Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Gilroy to the potential users was identified.
• 2019 Sustainable Water Management Plan. The 2019 Sustainable Water Management Plan, by Akel Engineering Group, Inc. was finalized in September 2019 for the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. This plan documents the water supply alternatives analysis and project rankings for the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin and Coyote Valley. This report is intended to identify on-going and potential projects impacting the water supplies for the groundwater aquifers and includes a quantitative analysis to rank each alternative. • 2020 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (2020 CoRe Plan). This Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) by Brown and Caldwell was finalized in June 2021. This countywide plan explores opportunities for reliable local water, imported water, and recycled water within Valley Water’s service area. This report is intended to identify opportunities to expand water reuse throughout Valley Water’s service area, including the City of Morgan Hill. The report identified three alternatives (options) with potential costs and risk levels, which are documented in this section.

8.2 Updated Morgan Hill Reuse Options
This section summarizes six potential recycled water options for the City of Morgan Hill. These six options were extracted from the following relevant studies, which were referenced in the previous section: 2020 Valley Water’s Countywide Reuse Master Plan, 2016 Recycled Water Feasibility Evaluation, 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update, and the 2019 Sustainable Water Management Plan.

The six Morgan Hill reuse options were further refined and developed during discussions between Valley Water, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. It should be noted that during peak recycled water usage there is no additional wastewater available for treatment. For this scenario, either reductions to existing users or additional storage would be required to supply recycled water.

8.2.1 Option 1a and 1b – Direct Potable Reuse
In December of 2023 the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted new regulations for direct potable reuse (DPR). While not explored in-depth in the CoRe Plan, direct potable reuse or the planned introduction of recycled water either directly into a public drinking water system, or into a raw water supply immediately upstream of a drinking water treatment plant may provide opportunity for a secure water source that can supply recycled water directly into the City of Morgan Hill’s water system. Once the new regulations are finalized in 2024, water systems Attachment 2

63 March 2024 15 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
will be able to submit plans for DPR for approval. Should DPR projects prove to be a feasible path in the future, the City of Morgan Hill could consider moving in that direction.

There are two likely options to deliver purified water to the Morgan Hill Water System (Figure 19):

The 1a option consists of the development of a satellite wastewater treatment facility in combination with an Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) that utilizes the City’s wastewater. The 1b option consists of the construction of the AWPF at the South County Regional Wastewater Authority and pumping the treated water back to Morgan Hill.

Option 1a: Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water Augmentation into water system (via Satellite WWTP and AWPF). This option would include a satellite WWTP and an AWPF.

Option 1b: Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water Augmentation into water system (via purified water pumped from SCRWA). This option would include an AWPF at SCRWA, approximately 12 miles of 24-inch pipeline, and a pump station.

These options were not included in the CoRe Plan but a brief summary of benefits and limitations is provided as follows:

Benefits. These options would require less pipeline infrastructure and have less operations and maintenance (O&M) costs than a satellite WWTP and AWPF. Provides a drought-resilient water supply for the City of Morgan Hill.

Limitations. There is a high cost of infrastructure which would be borne by Llagas subbasin unless there is grant funding, high O&M costs, and additional solids loading and reduced recycled water availability at SCRWA.

8.2.2 Option 2 – NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling
This option includes importing recycled water supplies from South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) via 16 miles of 16-inch pipeline. A transmission main from SBWR would connect to a future recycled water distribution system in Morgan Hill. This option is documented on Figure 20.

Benefits. According the 2020 CoRe Plan, this option would improve groundwater management (water supply reliability) for Morgan Hill by importing NPR+ supply from SBWR to serve non-potable demands in place of groundwater, which is currently the sole water source of Morgan Hill.

Limitations. According to the 2020 CoRe Plan, an agreement to establish terms of exporting SBWR NPR+ supply from San Jose and neighboring areas to Morgan Hill would be needed, as the existing Silver Creek Agreement between Valley Water and San José expires in 2027.

Long-term supply reliability is unconfirmed. Operational impacts to the SBWR system have not been evaluated, and a new reservoir may be needed to supply reliable summertime flows.

Valley Water may need to reassess the potential impacts of recycled water on the Llagas Subbasin prior to moving forward as there is potential for groundwater quality degradation Attachment 2

63 March 2024 16 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
from using recycled water for irrigation. Given shifting development trends in Morgan Hill, an updated NPR market assessment is needed. Additionally, without grant funding the cost would be borne entirely by Llagas subbasin for the operations and maintenance.

8.2.3 Option 3 – Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility for Groundwater Recharge (GWR)
This option includes recharging the Llagas subbasin in the San Pedro Ponds with purified water, which would be produced at a satellite WWTP treating the City’s wastewater and an AWPF. This purified water would be conveyed to San Pedro Ponds through 3 miles of 16-inch pipelines along Maple Avenue and Hill Road. This option is shown on Figure 21.

Benefits. According to the 2020 CoRe Plan, this option would improve water supply reliability and drought resilience for Morgan Hill by recharging the Llagas Subbasin with purified water.

Limitations. According to the 2020 CoRe Plan, high unit costs with uncertain value to improving South County water supply reliability. Limited wastewater available for satellite treatment in Morgan Hill and relied upon for meeting existing South County Recycled Water System (RWS) demands. A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial. If implemented in Morgan Hill, solids handling requires further study and may increase costs significantly. Density and proximity of active private wells limit GWR locations in South County. San Pedro Ponds recharge facility is assumed the delivery point; which currently have significant recharge restrictions due to groundwater level issues/septic interference. Valley Water has recently finished a high-level feasibility study to identify alternatives to restore the capacity of these ponds, however conditions and reliability of increasing raw water delivery to Llagas Subbasin and specific recharge facility still need to be confirmed. A drought-resilient source of water would be ideal to combat droughts as Valley Water delivers raw water to all recharge facilities in Llagas Subbasin when supplies are available. Prolonged droughts impact the deliveries, albeit Valley Water does prioritize Morgan Hill facilities. Additionally, the assumed location for the evaporation pond for reverse osmosis concentrate management (ROC) in Gilroy gets inundated with stormwater (unsuitable for evaporation pond). New permits from Regional Board(s) and/or State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water are also needed for discharging purified water.

8.2.4 Option 4 – Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility for Surface Water Augmentation (SWA)
This option includes supplementing recharge of the Llagas Subbasin with water supplies provided by Valley Water, which would be delivered to ponds within the City’s service area. In exchange for these water supplies, the City would deliver purified water delivered to Valley Water’s Anderson Reservoir northeast of the City’s service area. This option would include a satellite WWTP, an AWPF, and approximately 6 miles of 16-inch pipeline. This option is shown on Figure 22.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 17 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Benefits. According to the 2020 CoRe Plan, this option would improve water supply reliability and drought resilience for Morgan Hill by recharging the Llagas Subbasin with raw water supplied from Valley Water via the Santa Clara Conduit in exchange for an equivalent amount of purified water delivered to Anderson Reservoir for SWA.

Limitations. According to the 2020 CoRe Plan, high unit costs with uncertain value to improving South County water supply reliability. Limited wastewater available for satellite treatment in Morgan Hill and relied upon for meeting existing South County RWS demands.

Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial. If implemented in Morgan Hill, solids handling requires further study and may increase costs significantly. New permits from Regional Board(s) and/or State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water needed for discharging purified water to Anderson Reservoir. Conditions and reliability of increasing raw water delivery to Llagas Subbasin and specific recharge facility need to be confirmed.

8.2.5 Option 5 – Pumping Recycled Water from SCRWA to a Morgan Hill Recycled Water System
This recycled water option was extracted from the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update and was also a high-ranking project in the 2019 Sustainable Water Management Planning study. This is identified as Alternative 1 or 2 in the 2015 SCRWMP Update and includes 9 miles of 24-inch transmission mains, 4 miles of distribution mains, and a pump station. This option would deliver recycled water from SCRWA to a recycled water system in the City of Morgan Hill. This option is shown on Figure 23.

This option was not included in the CoRe Plan but a brief summary of benefits and limitations is provided as follows:

Benefits. This option would provide recycled water services to Morgan Hill and require less O&M costs than a satellite plant.

Limitations. This option has a high cost of infrastructure and there is currently no recycled water availability during peak usage periods. As with Option 2, Valley Water may need to reassess potential impacts of recycled water in the Llagas Subbasin prior to moving forward.

8.2.6 Option 6 – SCRWA Advanced Water Purification Facility for Groundwater Recharge in Morgan Hill
This recycled water option was also extracted from the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan Update and was one of the highest high-ranking projects in the 2019 Sustainable Water Management Planning study. This option includes an AWPF at the SCRWA, 12-miles of 24-inch pipeline, and a pump station. This option would deliver purified water from SCRWA for groundwater recharge in the City of Morgan Hill. This option is shown on Figure 24.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 18 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
This option was not included in the CoRe Plan but a brief summary of benefits and limitations is provided as follows:

Benefits. This option would provide recycled water for groundwater recharge in Morgan Hill.

Limitations. This option has a high cost of infrastructure which would be borne by Morgan Hill and Gilroy/Llagas subbasin if there is no grant funding.

8.3 Morgan Hill Recycled Water Options Comparison
The six Morgan Hill reuse options are summarized on Table 5, with a brief description, the amount of reuse augmentation added to the Morgan hill portfolio, the major infrastructure requirements, high-level opinion of conceptual project costs, likelihood of implementation, feasibility of implementation, advantages, and disadvantages.

It should be noted that the costs presented on Table 5 were extracted from the relevant reports and may include varying levels of assumptions, cost estimate classification, cost accuracy, and contingencies. This study recommends these costs be further revisited and scrutinized for a more accurate and fair comparison of costs between the presented options.

When comparing the high-level opinion of conceptual costs, Option 2 (NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling) seems to have one of the lowest
implementation costs and highest feasibility ratings,
however actual implementation requires negotiations and an agreement with the City of San José.

Newer technologies and recently adopted DPR regulations may unlock new options for the City of Morgan Hill in the future leading to Options 1a and 1b becoming more
feasible. The City of Morgan Hill intends to continue to work in partnership with Valley Water to determine the best path forward to enhance its water supply and resiliency portfolio.

9.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEM OPERATIONS
This section provides a summary of the recommended recycled water distribution system improvements to mitigate existing capacity deficiencies and accommodate future system expansion within the City of Gilroy. The recommended improvements are shown on Figure 3 and summarized on Table 6. They are also described in this section.

9.1 Constructed but Inactive Improvements
These pipelines have been constructed but are currently inactive. There is approximately 13,650 feet of 30-inch main that can be activated once the remaining baseline system improvements in Zone 1 are constructed. These pipelines are highlighted in gray on Figure 3.

Morgan Hill intends to continue to
work in partnership with Valley
Water to determine the best path
forward to enhance its water
supply and resiliency portfolio.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 19 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

9.2 Recently Constructed Improvements
• P-1. This 30-inch pipeline starts at Southside Drive, continues north through an agriculture right of way, and ends at Luchessa Avenue. This pipe is approximately 3,380 feet in length.
• P-2. This 30-inch pipeline starts at Luchessa Avenue and an agricultural right of way, continues west on Luchessa Avenue and ends at Greenfield Drive. This pipeline is approximately 10,270 feet in length.

9.3 Near-Term Improvements
• P-3. This 18-inch pipeline starts at Luchessa Avenue and an agricultural right of way, continues east on Luchessa Avenue turns north at Cameron Boulevard and ends at the Princevalle Drain. This pipeline is approximately 2,450 feet in length. • P-4. This 30-inch pipeline starts at West 10th Steet, continues west on Luchessa Avenue, and ends at Miller Avenue. This pipeline is approximately 960 feet in length. • P-4a. This improvement is a 42-inch pipe casing for the 30-inch crossing at the Reservoir Canyon Creek. This casing is approximately 100 feet in length. • WWTP-1. This improvement is a 3 MG recycled water reservoir expansion at the WWTP. • WWTP-2. This improvement is a recycled water pump station at the WWTP to aid in filling/draining of the on-site storage reservoir.
• WWTP-3. This improvement is for the on-site pipelines (approximately 1,500 feet) for the reservoir expansion and proposed pump station improvements.

9.4 Long-Term Improvements (Conceptual)
• P-5. This 24-inch pipeline starts at the Zone 2 pump station, continues west through the Home Ranch development, and ends at Uvas Creek. This pipeline is approximately 4,250 feet in length.
• P-6. This 24-inch pipeline starts at Uvas Creek, continues west on Santa Teresa Boulevard, and ends at Cobblestone Court. This pipeline is approximately 1,620 feet in length.
• LT-P-8. This 18-inch pipeline starts at the Meritage development, continues west in the Uvas Creek right of way and then south in the Gilroy Gardens Service Road, and ends at the new Zone 2 Tank/Zone 3 Booster Station. This pipeline is approximately 3,700 feet in length.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 20 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
• LT-P-9. This 18-inch pipeline starts at the new Zone 2 Tank Site/Zone 3 Booster Station, continues west in the Gilroy Gardens right of way, and ends at Lake Kathryne. This pipeline is approximately 3,230 feet in length.
• LT-T1. This improvement is a new 1.5 MG storage reservoir in Zone 2. • LT-BS1. This improvement is for a new 2,250 gpm total capacity Zone 3 booster pump station.
• LT-BS2. This improvement is for a Christmas Hill pump station capacity upgrade to 5.5 mgd (total).
• LT-BS3. This improvement is for an Area 93 pump station capacity upgrade to 9.3 mgd (total).

Please note that this Long-Term scenario is conceptual and is highly dependent on wastewater influent flow increases plus additional treatment capacity. The existing WWTP influent flow is approximately 6.1 mgd and the buildout demands in this scenario is 11.6 mgd.

9.5 Operational Improvements
Due to the existing system restrictions and storage constraints, the Christmas Hill pump station operates at a reduced flow to maintain adequate suctions pressures and needs to operate almost 24/7 during high use periods (Figure 13). With the activation and construction of the recently constructed and Near-Term pipelines, the Christmas Hill pump station will be able to pump at its design capacity. This will allow operations to pump during off-peak hour to fill the Hoylake tank and ease the storage constraints at the WWTP (Figure 14).

10.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (5-YR)
This section provides a summary of the recommended domestic water system improvements costs. The section also presents the cost criteria and methodologies for developing the Capital Improvement Program.

10.1 Cost Estimate Accuracy
Cost estimates presented in the capital improvement program were prepared for general master planning purposes and, where relevant, for further project evaluations. The final costs of a project will depend on several factors including the specific project scope of work, costs of labor and material, and market conditions during construction.

AACE International (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, International) has defined five estimate classes for general construction based on the maturity level of the project scope definition. These estimate classes are extracted from the AACE International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08, Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Attachment 2

63 March 2024 21 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Building and General Construction Industries (Rev. August 2020) and briefly summarized on the following matrix.

Costs developed in this study should be considered “Class 5” and have an expected accuracy range of -30 percent and +50 percent.

Class Description Data Availability and Percent
Accuracy
Class
5 This classification is also known as an order
of magnitude estimate and is generally
intended for long-range capital planning
and master plans. This estimate is not
supported with detailed engineering data
about the specific project, and its accuracy is
dependent on historical data and cost indices.

The data is 0% to 2% complete and includes
the location and proposed project.

It is generally expected that this estimate
would be accurate within -30 percent
to +50 percent.

10.2 Cost Estimate Methodology
Cost estimates presented in this section are opinions of probable construction and other relevant costs developed from several sources including cost curves, Akel experience on other master planning projects, and input from City staff. Where appropriate, costs were escalated to reflect the more current ENR (formerly Engineering News Record) Construction Cost Index (CCI). The ENR CCI is a cost estimating tool updated weekly, used by engineers to gage the current cost for new construction.

This section documents the unit costs used in developing the opinion of probable construction costs, the Construction Cost Index, and markups to account for construction contingency and other project related costs.

10.2.1 Unit Costs
The unit cost estimates used in developing the CIP are summarized in Table 7. The unit costs are intended for developing the Class 5, Order of Magnitude estimates, and do not account for site specific conditions, changes in labor or material costs during the time of construction, final project scope, implementation schedule, detailed utility and topography surveys, investigation of alternative routings for pipes, and other various factors. The CIP included in this report accounts for construction and project-related contingencies as described in this section.

Attachment 2

63 March 2024 22 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

10.2.2 Construction Cost Index
Costs estimated in this study are adjusted utilizing the ENR CCI, which is widely used in the engineering and construction industries.

The costs in this Water System Master Plan were calculated using a 20-City national average ENR CCI of 13,171, reflecting a date of August of 2022.

10.2.3 Estimating Contingency Allowance
Knowledge about site-specific conditions for each proposed project is limited at the master planning stage; therefore construction contingencies were used. In the absence of bid tabulations, the estimated construction cost includes a 20 percent contingency allowance to account for unforeseen events and unknown field conditions.

10.3.1 Project Related Costs
The capital improvement costs also account for project-related costs, comprised of construction and administration. The construction costs contingency is comprised of engineering design, construction management, and inspection. In the absence of bid tabulations, the construction related costs were estimated by applying an additional 20 percent to the baseline costs. The administration contingency costs are comprised of project administration (developer and City staff) and legal costs and are estimated by applying an additional 30 Percent to the baseline.

10.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This section documents the capital improvement program, including estimated costs.

10.4.1 Capital Improvement Costs
The Capital Improvement Program costs for the projects identified in this master plan for mitigating existing deficiencies and for servicing anticipated future growth throughout the City are summarized on Table 8. The Capital Improvement Program lists the type of improvement, location, and cost.

Each improvement was assigned a unique coded identifier associated with the improvement type and is summarized graphically on Figure 3.

Attachment 2

63 March 2023 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Valley Water
South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan

FIGURES
Attachment 2

63 .²
Morgan Hill
Gilroy
Leavesley
Day
Dunlap
Buena Vista
Masten
Church
San Martin
Middle
Coolidge
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
Maple
Tennant
San Pedro
Watsonville
Edmundson
Hale
Monterey
Bloomfield
New

SCRWA WWTP
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
012 0.5 Updated: January 24, 2023 Mile 5
GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig1_StudyArea_012423.mxd Legend
Morgan Hill to Gilroy System
Future Relief Trunk
Existing Relief Trunk
Joint Trunk
Existing Major Sewer Trunks
Recycled Water Distribution System
.² SCRWA WWTP
Distribution Pipelines
Existing Features
City Limits Boundary
City Limits Area
Roads
Recycled Water Distribution System
Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Figure 1
Study Area
Attachment 2

63 .²
#õ6""
#õ6""#õ6"" TU
TU
ST152 ST152 ST152
ST152
ST152 ST152
Santa
Teresa
Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25 Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside Dr Engle Way
Mesa Rd
Monterey
Rd
Santa Teresa Blvd
8th St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey
Rd
Gilman Rd
6th St
1st St
3rd St
12 1st St
Kern AveMantelli Dr Mantelli Dr Mantelli Dr Murray Ave Welburn AveChurch St Santa Teresa Blvd Arroyo Cir
10TH St
Church
St
Princevalle
St
6th St
6th St
5th St
4th St
2nd St
3rd St
Hanna
St
7th St
Uvas Park Dr Old Gilroy St Chestnut
St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 14 14
14 14
1 2
12 12 12 12
12 Davidson Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier Lake 12 12
12 12 12 12 12
Hoylake Tank

1.5 MG
30 20
20 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24 24
24 12
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
PS 93 N
PS 94 S
3MG Tank
1 2
North System
Zone 1
North System
Zone 2
South System
LegendExisting System
.² WWTP
#õ6"" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
PipesPressure Zone Boundary
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: January 24, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile 5
Figure 2
Existing System
GIS
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig2_ExistingSystem_012423.mxd Attachment 2

63 UTU
.²UTU
#õ6""
#õ6""#õ6"" TU
TU
È6"## õ"
ST152 ST152 ST152
ST152
ST152 ST152
Santa
Teresa
Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25 Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside Dr Engle Way
Mesa Rd
Monterey
Rd
Santa Teresa Blvd
8th St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey
Rd
Gilman Rd
6th St
1st St
3rd St
12 Sunflower Cir Hollyhock Ln
1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave Welburn Ave Church St Santa Teres
a
B
l
v
d
Arroyo
Cir
10TH St
Church
St
Princevalle
St
6th St
6th St
5th St
4th St
2nd St
3rd St
Hanna
St
7th St
Orchard Dr
Uvas Park Dr Old Gilroy St Chestnut
St
£¤101
Bolsa Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 14 14
14 14
1 2
12 12
12 Davidson Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier Lake 12
12 12 12 12 12
30 20
20 22
20 20
20 20
20 30
12 12
24 3P0-1
24 P-5
2P 4-5
30 P
-
6 2
4 24
24 18
P-3
12 P-3 18
30 30 30 P-2 P-2 P-2 P-4
12 1
2 30
12 30
24 18
LT-P-8
Hoylake Tank

1.5 MG
18 1
8 LTP
-
8 LT-P-9
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
30 WWTP-1WWTP-2WWTP-3
LT-BS3
LT-BS2
LT-BS1 LT-T1
LegendBaseline System Improvements
TU Tanks
È6"## õ" Booster Stations
PipelinesConstructed but InactiveRecent ConstructionNear-Term ImprovementsLong-Term Improvements Existing System
.² WWTP
È6"## õ" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipelines
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: December 4, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile 5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig3_FutImp_120423.mxd Figure 3
Planned / Future Pipeline
Improvements
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 .²
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
TU
TU
!C!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
Santa Teresa Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25
Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside
Dr Engle Way
Mesa
Rd
Monterey Rd
Santa
Teresa
Blvd
8th
St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey Rd
Gilman
Rd
6th
St
1st St 3rd St
12 1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave
Welburn
Ave
Church St
Santa Teresa Blvd
Arroyo Cir
10TH
St
Church St
Princevalle St
6th
St
6th St
5th
St
4th
St
2nd
St
3rd
St
Hanna St
7th
St
Uvas
Park Dr Old Gilroy St
Chestnut St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa
Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 1
4 14
14 14
12 12 12 12 12
12 Davidson
Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier Lake
12 12
12 12 12 12 12
Hoylake Tank

1.5 MG
30 20
20 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24
2 4
24 Gilroy Police Dept. Shooting Range
User No. 10
Calpine Power Plant - Cogen
User No. 3
Calpine Power Plant - Peaker
User No. 4
United Natural Food - SW
User No. 7B
McCarthy Business Park - NW
User No. 6
McCarthy Business Park - NE
User No. 5
City of Gilroy Sports Park
User No. 11
Christmas Hill Park - (Ranch)
User No. 2
Christmas Hill Park - (North)
User No. 1
City of Gilroy #2
User No. 25
City of Gilroy #4
User No. 23
City of Gilroy #3
User No. 24
Eagle Ridge Golf Course
User No. 12
Santa Teresa & Third Street Park (City of Gilroy #6)
User No. 21
City of Gilroy #9
User No. 19
City of Gilroy #5
User No. 22
City of Gilroy #10
User No. 18
Heartland Owners Association (HOA) #1
User No. 14
Heartland West #8
User No. 15
Gilroy Golf Course
User No. 13
City of Gilroy #12
User No. 17
Heartland Gardens #11
User No. 16
B&T Farms
User No. 8
B&T Farms (West)
User No. 9
San Felipe Farms
User No. 37
San Felipe Farms
- Henry #1
User No. 31
San Felipe Farms
- Henry #2
User No. 32
San Felipe Farms
- Henry #3
User No. 33
San Felipe Farms
- Limos #2
User No. 35
San Felipe Farms
- Limos #1
User No. 34
San Felipe Farms
- Limos #3
User No. 36
San Felipe Farms - Sheldon Turnout
User No. 30
12 City of Gilroy #7
User No. 20
United Natural Food - SE
User No. 7A
12 Christmas Hill
Pump Station
LegendExisting System
.² WWTP
#õ6
"" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
!C Recycled Water Meters
Pipes
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: June 16, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig4_ExistingUsers_061623.mxd Figure 4
Existing Customer
Connections
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 73%
10%
17%
WWTP Influent Type
Residential
Industiral
Commerical/Institutional
Figure 5
Historical WWTP Influent
and RW Production
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
February 28, 2024
Season
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
WWTP
Influent
Recycled
Water
Production
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Summer 5.7 2.9 6.1 2.6 6.3 2.7 5.9 2.8 6.1 2.7 6.2 3.3 6.0 3.4 Shoulder 5.9 2.2 6.3 1.9 8.1 1.6 6.4 1.7 7.2 1.6 6.5 2.0 6.1 2.2 Winter 6.0 1.5 6.2 1.2 8.3 1.1 6.1 1.2 6.7 1.4 6.2 1.4 6.3 1.3 Total 5.9 2.2 6.2 1.9 7.6 1.8 6.1 1.9 6.7 1.9 6.3 2.2 6.1 2.3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Jan '15
Mar '15
May '15
Jul '15
Sep '15
Nov '15
Jan '16
Mar '16
May '16
Jul '16
Sep '16
Nov '16
Jan '17
Mar '17
May '17
Jul '17
Sep '17
Nov '17
Jan '18
Mar '18
May '18
Jul '18
Sep '18
Nov '18
Jan '19
Mar '19
May '19
Jul '19
Sep '19
Nov '19
Jan '20
Mar '20
May '20
Jul '20
Sep '20
Nov '20
Jan '21
Mar '21
May '21
Jul '21
Sep '21
Nov '21
Flow (mgd)
Month, Year
Historical WWTP Influent and Recycled Water Production WWTP Influent Recycled Water Production
Attachment 2

63 0.0

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0

6.5 7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Recycled Water Demand (mgd)
Month
WWTP Utility Water
M&I
Irrigation
Agriculture
Average Monthly Demand (Billing Records)
Figure 6
Existing Users
Monthly Demands
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
January 4, 2022
WWTP Influent Average= 6.1 mgd
Annual Demand (2.09 mgd)
Maximum Day Demands = 5.7 mgd
Attachment 2

63 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Recycled Water Demand (gpm)
Hour
Utility
M&I
Irrigation
Agriculture
Average Recycled Water Use
Maximum Day Demand
(5.7 mgd, 3,945 gpm)
Figure 7
Existing User Hourly
Demands, MDD
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
January 4, 2022
WWTP Influent = 6.1 MGD
Attachment 2

63 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Demand (gpm)
Time (hr)
North System Demands
Christmas Hill Park - (North) Christmas Hill Park - (Ranch) Calpine Power Plant - Cogen Calpine Power Plant - Peaker McCarthy Business Park - NE McCarthy Business Park - NW United Natural Food B&T Farms
B&T Farms (West) Gilroy Police Dept. Shooting Range
Tri Pointe (North) Tri Pointe (South)
City of Gilroy Sports Park Eagle Ridge Golf Course
Gilroy Golf Course Heartland Owners Association (HOA) #1 Heartland Owners Association (HOA) #8 Heartland Owners Association (HOA) #11 Trinchero Construction Company City of Gilroy #12
City of Gilroy #10 City of Gilroy #9
City of Gilroy #7 Santa Teresa & Third Street Park (City of Gilroy #6) January 12, 2023
Figure 8
North System
Demands
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
North System (93) Pump Station Flows
Attachment 2

63 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Demand (gpm)
Time (hr)
South System Demands
San Felipe Farms - Sheldon Turnout
San Felipe Farms #135116
San Felipe Farms #135115
San Felipe Farms #135711
January 12, 2023
Figure 9
South System
Demands
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
South System (94) Pump Station Flows
Attachment 2

63 .²
#õ6""
#õ6""
#õ6""
#õ6""#õ6"" TU
TU
ST152 ST152 ST152
ST152
ST152 ST152
Santa
Teresa
Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25 Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside Dr Engle Way
Mesa Rd
Monterey
Rd
Santa Teresa Blvd
8th St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey
Rd
Gilman Rd
6th St
1st St
3rd St
12 Sunflower Cir
1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave Welburn Ave Church St Santa Teres
a
B
l
v
d
Arroyo
Cir
10TH St
Church
St
Princevalle
St
6th St
6th St
5th St
4th St
2nd St
3rd St
Hanna
St
7th St
Orchard Dr
Uvas Park Dr Old Gilroy St Chestnut
St
£¤101
Bolsa Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 14 14
14 14
1 2
12 12
12 Davidson Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier Lake 12
12 12 12 12 12
Hoylake Tank

1.5 MG
30 20
20 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24 24
24 12
Gilroy
Gardens
Western Tree
Nursery
Glen Loma Ranch
Development
Las Animas
Elementary
Syngenta
City Park
(Hecker Pass)
12 Ascension Solórzano
Middle School
City Park (Santa Teressa Blvd
and Club Drive)
Sydney Casper
Park
Gilroy
High School
Gilroy Sports
Park Expansion
International
Paper
Cintas
Corporation
Gilroy Sports
Park (Agriculture)
Bonfante
Nurseries
Gilroy Data Center
Pacheco Pass
Shopping Center
1 2
Vineyard Christian
School
Santa Teresa and
Third St Park
Christopher
Ranch
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
LegendFuture System
Planned Baseline SystemImmediate Potential Users
Existing System
.² WWTP
#õ6"" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipelines
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: January 24, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile 5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig6_PotentialUsers_012423.mxd Figure 10
Potential Future Users
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
06 12 18 24
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
North System (93) 7/9/2021
7/10/2021
7/13/2021
7/20/2021
7/23/2021
Model
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
06 12 18 24
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
South System (94) 7/2/2021
7/7/2021
7/10/2021
7/14/2021
7/15/2021
Model
January 9, 2023
Figure 11
Hydraulic Model
Calibration
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
Attachment 2

63 .²
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
TU
TU
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
Santa Teresa Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25
Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside
Dr Engle Way
Mesa
Rd
Monterey Rd
Santa
Teresa Blvd
8th
St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey Rd
Gilman Rd
6th
St
1st St 3rd St
12 1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli
Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave
Welburn Ave
Church St
Santa Teresa Blvd
Arroyo Cir
10TH
St
Church St
Princevalle St
6th
St
6th St
5th
St
4th
St
2nd
St
3rd
St
Hanna St
7th
St
Uvas
Park Dr Old Gilroy St
Chestnut St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa
Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 14
14 14
1 4
14 14
14 12
12 12 12 12
12 Davidson
Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier La
12 ke
12 12
12 Hoylake Tank 12 12

1.5 MG
30 20
20 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24
2 4
24 12
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
PS 93 N
PS 94 S
3MG Tank
12 56.9 psi

56.9 psi 54.8 psi

62.4 psi 62.4 psi

61.3 psi 61.1 psi

61.1 psi

34.6 psi

37.8 psi

49.8 psi

49.8 psi

57.2 psi

64.1 psi

66.2 psi

66.8 psi

74.2 psi

94.6 psi
105.5 psi

82.8 psi

83.9 psi

90.8 psi

85.2 psi
1,924 gpm

5.5 ft/kft
1,318 gpm

5.8 ft/kft
1,310 gpm

2.7 ft/kft
1,318 gpm

5.8 ft/kft
78 gpm
0 ft k/ ft
146 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
1,359 gpm

6.1 ft/kft 2,366 gpm
17 ft/kft
821 gpm

0.2 ft/kft
1,987 gpm
1 ft/kft
1,988 gpm

5.8 ft/kft
61 g
p
m
0 ft/kft

26.8 psi
12 LegendPeak Hour Pressures
!( Greater than 100 psi!( 80 - 100 psi!( 60 - 80 psi!( 40 - 60 psi!( Less than 40 psi Existing System
.² WWTP
È
6"
## õ" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipes
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: January 24, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig10_ExistingSystemEval_012423.mxd Notes:• Christmas Hill Pump Station flow
limited due to low suction pressurescaused by high pipeline headlosses • Maximum Day Demand: 5.7 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.2 mgd• Pipe flows and system pressures documented are during peak hourdemands
Figure 1
2 Existing System Evaluation
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Existing System:• Maximum Day Demand: 5.7 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.2 mgd Attachment 2

63 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Existing Operations
Zone 2 Demands
South Demands
Zone 1 Demands
WWTP Utility Water
X-Mas Hill PS Flow
WWTP Influent (Avg.)
Recycled Effluent
North PS (Area 93) Flow
South PS (Area 94) Flow January 4, 2023
Figure 13
Existing MDD
Operations
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
Peak flow from the WWTP: 7.5 mgd
Christmas Hill Pump Station
flow is limited due to suction
pressures and needs to run
near 24/7
Recycled Water:

5.7 mgd (Avg.)
Influent 6.1 mgd
Peak Demands: 9.2 mgd
Supplied from WWTP on-site
storage
Supplied from Hoylake Tank
Attachment 2

63 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Optimized Operations with Pipeline Improvements
Zone 2 Demands
South Demands
Zone 1 Demands
WWTP Utility Water
X-Mas Hill PS Flow
WWTP Influent (Avg.)
Recycled Water Effluent
North PS (Area 93) Flow
South PS (Area 94) Flow
Existing Recycled Effluent January 4, 2023
Figure 14
Optimized MDD
Operations
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND
With the planned pipelines
improvements completed,
Christmas Hill PS can
increase pumping capacity
and pump primarily during
off-peak hours.

Peak hour pumping demands
at the WWTP are lowered by
off-peak pumping at X-mas
Hill PS

5.7 mgd (Avg.)
Influent 6.1 mgd
Peak flow from the WWTP: 6.4 mgd
Peak Demands: 9.2 mgd
Notes:

1. Pipeline improvements include the Under Construction, Constructed but Inactive, and Imminent pipelines
Attachment 2

63 .²
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
TU
TU
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
Santa Teresa Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25
Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside
Dr Engle Way
Mesa
Rd
Monterey Rd
Santa
Teresa Blvd
8th
St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey Rd
Gilman Rd
6th
St
1st St 3rd St
12 1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli
Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave
Welburn Ave
Church St
Santa Teresa Blvd
Arroyo Cir
10TH
St
Church St
Princevalle St
6th
St
6th St
5th
St
4th
St
2nd
St
3rd
St
Hanna St
7th
St
Uvas
Park Dr Old Gilroy St
Chestnut St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa
Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 1
4 14
14 14
12 12 12 12 12
12 Davidson
Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier La
12 ke
12 12
12 12 12 Hoylake Tank 1.5 MG
30 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24
2 4
24 12
PS 93 N
PS 94 S
3MG Tank
12 53.1 psi

53.1 psi 51 psi

58.6 psi 58.6 psi

57.5 psi 57.3 psi

57.3 psi

73.9 psi

74.2 psi

81.3 psi

81.3 psi

85.7 psi
88 psi

86.4 psi
89 psi

92.1 psi

90.5 psi

82.8 psi

83.9 psi

90.8 psi

85.2 psi
1,924 gpm

5.5 ft/kft
264 gpm

0.3 ft/kft
2,132 gpm

6.6 ft/kft
264 gpm

0.3 ft/kft
86 gpm
0 ft k/ ft
123 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
158 gpm

0.1 ft/kft 469 gpm

0.9 ft/kft
821 gpm

0.2 ft/kft
1,987 gpm
1 ft/kft
1,988 gpm

5.8 ft/kft
68 g
p
m
0 ft/kft
2,208 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
1,875 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
1,875 gpm

0.1 ft/kft

38.3 psi

33.6 psi

45.6 psi

70.4 psi

88.1 psi
30 3
3 0
0 18
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
3067.3 psi
20 20
30 LegendPeak Hour Pressures
!( Greater than 100 psi!( 80 - 100 psi!( 60 - 80 psi!( 40 - 60 psi!( Less than 40 psi Baseline System Improvements
PipelinesConstructed but InactiveRecent ConstructionNear-Term Improvements Existing System
.² WWTP
È
6"
## õ" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipes
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: December 4, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig13_ImminentConst_061623.mxd Notes:• Christmas Hill Pump Station
operates during off-peak hours
• Maximum Day Demand: 5.7 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.2 mgd• Pipe flows and system pressures documented are during peak hourdemands
Figure 1
5 Baseline Improvements plus
Optimization Evaluation
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Imminent Improvements:• Maximum Day Demand: 5.7 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.2 mgd Attachment 2

63 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Optimized with Near Term Users
Zone 2 Demands
South Demands
Zone 1 Demands
WWTP Utility Water
X-Mas Hill PS Flow
WWTP Influent (Avg.)
Recycled Effluent
North PS (Area 93) Flow
South PS (Area 94) Flow January 4, 2023
Figure 16
Optimized MDD Operations
+ Near Term Users
Recycled Water Distribution
System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
LEGEND

6.1 mgd (Avg.)
Influent 6.1 mgd
Peak Demands: 9.9 mgd
Peak flow from the WWTP: 7.0 mgd
Notes:

1. Pipeline improvements include the Under Construction, Constructed but Inactive, and Imminent pipelines

2. Near-Term users include Gilroy Data Center and Glen Loma Attachment 2

63 !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
UTUTU
TU
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
Santa Teresa Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25
Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside
Dr Engle Way
Mesa
Rd
Monterey Rd
Santa
Teresa Blvd
8th
St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey Rd
Gilman Rd
6th
St
1st St 3rd St
12 1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli
Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave
Welburn Ave
Church St
Santa Teresa Blvd
Arroyo Cir
10TH
St
Church St
Princevalle St
6th
St
6th St
5th
St
4th
St
2nd
St
3rd
St
Hanna St
7th
St
Uvas
Park Dr
Old Gilroy St
Chestnut St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa
Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 1
4 14
14 14
12 12 12 12 12
12 Davidson
Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier La
12 ke
12 12
12 Hoylake Tank 12 12

1.5 MG
30 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24
2 4
24 12
PS 93 N
PS 94 S
3MG Tank
12 53.1 psi

53.1 psi 50.9 psi

58.5 psi

57.4 psi 57.2 psi

57.2 psi

73.6 psi

73.9 psi
81 psi

81.2 psi

85.3 psi

87.3 psi

86.2 psi

88.9 psi
92 psi

90.4 psi

82.8 psi

83.9 psi

90.8 psi

85.2 psi
1,925 gpm

5.5 ft/kft
253 gpm

0.3 ft/kft
2,130 gpm

6.6 ft/kft
253 gpm

0.3 ft/kft
87 gpm
0 1. ft k/ ft
170 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
91 gpm

0.04 ft/kft 490 gpm

0.9 ft/kft
821 gpm

0.2 ft/kft
1,987 gpm
1 ft/kft
1,988 gpm

5.8 ft/kft
68 g
p
m

0.02 ft/kft
2,607 gpm

0.2 ft/kft
1,888 gpm

0.1 ft/kft
1,888 gpm

0.1 ft/kft

38.1 psi

33.4 psi

45.5 psi

70.3 psi
88 psi
30 3
30 3
0 0
18 84.2 psi

79.9 psi
306 gpm

0.4 ft/kft
12 12
Christmas Hill
Pump Station
3067.1 psi
3MG Tank
20 20
LegendPeak Hour Pressures
!( Greater than 100 psi!( 80 - 100 psi!( 60 - 80 psi!( 40 - 60 psi!( Less than 40 psi Baseline System Improvements
TU Tanks
PipelinesConstructed but InactiveRecent ConstructionNear-Term Improvements Existing System
.² WWTP
È
6"
## õ" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipes
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: December 4, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig15_NearTermConst_120423.mxd Figure 1
7 NearTerm Users Evaluation
with Optimized Operations
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Notes:• Christmas Hill Pump Station
operates during off-peak hours
• Maximum Day Demand: 6.1 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.9 mgd• Pipe flows and system pressures documented are during peak hourdemands
• Near-Term users included are the
Gilroy Data Center and Glen Loma
Near-Term System:• Maximum Day Demand: 6.1 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 9.9 mgd Attachment 2

63 UTU
.²
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
UTU
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
#õ6
""
TU
TU
TUÈ
6"
## õ"
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
ST152
Santa Teresa Blvd
Thomas Rd
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
£¤101
ST25
Bloomfield Ave
Carnadero Ave
Southside
Dr Engle Way
Mesa
Rd
Monterey Rd
Santa
Teresa Blvd
8th
St
Miller Ave
Wren Ave
Monterey Rd
Gilman Rd
6th
St
1st St 3rd St
12 1st St
Kern Ave
Mantelli
Dr
Mantelli Dr
Mantelli Dr
Murray Ave
Welburn Ave
Church St
Santa Teresa Blvd
Arroyo Cir
10TH
St
Church St
Princevalle St
6th
St
6th St
5th
St
4th
St
2nd
St
3rd
St
Hanna St
7th
St
Uvas
Park Dr
Old Gilroy St
Chestnut St
Luchessa Ave
£¤101
Bolsa
Rd
WWTP
36/12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
14 14
14 1
4 14
14 14
12 12 12 12 12
12 Davidson
Sheldon
ST25
Dunlap
Ferguson
Frazier La
12 ke
12 12
12 Hoylake Tank 12 12

1.5 MG
30 22
20 20
20 20
20 12
12 24
2 4
24 12
PS 93 N
PS 94 S
3MG Tank
12 60.5 psi

60.6 psi 58.4 psi

61.5 psi

65.3 psi 71.1 psi

71.1 psi

73.4 psi

73.7 psi

82.1 psi

83.6 psi

86.4 psi

88.1 psi

89.1 psi
92 psi

95.8 psi

94.4 psi

74.6 psi

71.3 psi

77.6 psi

74.2 psi
771 gpm
1 ft/kft
467 gpm

0.8 ft/kft
720 gpm

0.9 ft/kft
625 gpm

1.4 ft/kft
339 gpm
0 5. ft k/ ft
452 gpm

0.8 ft/kft
347 gpm

0.5 ft/kft 652 gpm

1.6 ft/kft
4,275 gpm

4.2 ft/kft
5,442 gpm

6.6 ft/kft
1,279 gpm

2.6 ft/kft
339
g
p
m

0.5 ft/kft
2,948 gpm

0.2 ft/kft
3,812 gpm

0.4 ft/kft
3,688 gpm

0.3 ft/kft
38 psi

33.5 psi

47.5 psi

72.5 psi

91.2 psi
30 3
30 3
0 0
18 44.3 psi

85.2 psi

80.8 psi
306 gpm

0.4 ft/kft 24 3,129 gpm 0.7 ft/kft
24 3,336 gpm

0.8 ft/kft

65.8 psi
12 12
2,897 gp
m

2.5 ft/kft
2,897 gpm

2.5 ft/kft
18 18
Christmas Hill
Pump Station

66.8 psi
3MG Tank
30 20
20 LegendPeak Hour Pressures
!( Greater than 100 psi!( 80 - 100 psi!( 60 - 80 psi!( 40 - 60 psi!( Less than 40 psi Baseline System Improvements
TU Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
PipelinesConstructed but InactiveUnder ConstructionImminent ImprovementsNear-Term ImprovementsLong-Term Improvements Existing System
.² WWTP
È
6"
## õ" Booster Station
TU Storage Tank
Pipes
Existing Features
RiversCity Limits
Updated: June 16, 2023
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig16_LongTermConst_061623.mxd Notes:• Maximum Day Demand: 11.6 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 19.4 mgd• Pipe flows and system pressures documented are during peak hourdemands
Figure 1
8 Conceptual Baseline
Buildout
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Conceptual Buildout System:• Maximum Day Demand: 11.6 mgd• Peak Hour Demand: 19.4 mgd Attachment 2

63 È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ
.²"
TU
TU
È
6"
## õ"
.Ȳ
6"
## õ"
.²
Watsonville
Tennant
Spring
Dunne
Diana
Hill
Monterey
Peet
Lakeview
Oakwood
£¤101
£¤101
Highland
San Martin
Fitzgerald
Leavesley
Las Animas
Buena Vista
Wren
Southside
Monterey
4th
Middle
Foothill
UV152
£¤101
UV152
California
Harding

MORGAN HILL
GILROY
Day
Burchell
Miller
Ferguson
New
Gilman
Bloomfield
Santa Teresa
Bolsa
Rucker
Church
Center
Maple
Edmundson
Main
Hale
Kirby
Sycamore
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
20 20
20 20
20 20
12/36
22 30/ 24
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
12 12 12
12 14
14 14 14
12 12 12
Marcella
24 24
24 24
24 24
24 24
24 24
24 AWPF
AWPF
Legend
Option 1a
.² Water Purification Facility
Option 1b
.² Water Purification Facility
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
Recycled Water Recharge Pipeline
SCVWD Improvements
Baseline Improvements
Existing
.² WWTP
TUStorage Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
Recycled Water Pipelines
Morgan Hill Water System
City Limits
Roads
Lakes
0 0.5 1 0.25 Updated: June 16, 2023 Mile5
GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig17-Option1_061623.mxd Figure 19
Morgan Hill Recycled Water
Option 1 - Direct Reuse
Recycled Water Distribution System
Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Note:
• Option 1a: Direct Potable Reuse via
Raw Water Augmentation into water
system (via Satellite WWTP and AWPF)
• Option 1b: Direct Potable Reuse via
Raw Water Augmentation into water
system (via purified water pumped from
SCRWA)

PRELIMINARY
Attachment 2

63 Tennant
Maple
Middle
San Martin
Hill
Foothill
Murphy
Sycamore
Center
Monterey
Llagas
Railroad
Columbet Edmundson
Oak Glen
Paseo Robles
Hal Pe f ebles
Llagas
Dunne
Diana
Hill
Wright
Del Monte
Elm
Main
Burnett Coch
ran
e
Monterey
Hale
Dougherty
Madrone
Miramonte
Willow Springs
Holiday
Dunne
£¤101
£¤101
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Barrett
Fisher
San Pedro
£¤101
Connection to
Future MH-NPR
Connection to
SBWR
PL-35 Calero Reservoir
LegendRaw Water System
Existing SBWR PipelineProposed RW PipelineMorgan Hill RW SystemLakesCity Limits Source:Countywide Water ReuseMaster Plan (CoRe Plan),October 2020Note:• NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling
Updated: June 16, 2023
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles 5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig18-Option2_061623.mxd Figure 20
Morgan Hill Recycled
Water Option 2 - NPR +
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 Source:

Countywide Water ReuseMaster Plan (CoRe Plan),October 2020Note:• Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF)for Groundwater Recharge(GWR) *#
.²
Tennant
Maple
Hill
Foothill
Murphy Center
Railroad
Paseo Robles
Diana
Hill
Elm
Main
Dunne
£¤101
Anderson
Lake
Barrett
Fisher
San Pedro
16 16
16 16
16 1 San Pedro 6
Ponds
San Pedro Ponds
Delivery Point
LegendWater Purification System
.² Water Purification Facility
*# San Pedro Ponds
Purified Water PipelilneLakesCity Limits
Updated: June 16, 2023
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles 5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig19-Option3_061623v2.mxd Figure 21
Morgan Hill Recycled Water
Option 3 - GWR
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 Source:

Countywide Water ReuseMaster Plan (CoRe Plan),October 2020Note:• Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF)for Surface Water
Augmentation (SWA)
.²
È6"## õ"
*#
*#
*#
Tennant
Maple
Hill
Foothill
Murphy Center
Railroad
Paseo Robles
Diana
Hill
Elm
Main
Dunne
£¤101
Anderson
Lake
Barrett
Fisher
San Pedro
Butterfield Channel
Butterfield
Detention Basin
San Pedro
Ponds
Main Avenue
Ponds
Reservoir Augmentation
Point
LegendWater Purification System
.² Water Purification Facility
È6"## õ" Booster Station
*# Detention Basin*# Recharge Ponds
Purified Water PipelilneButterfield ChannelLakesCity Limits Updated: June 16, 2023
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Mile 5GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig20-Option4_061623.mxd Figure 22
Morgan Hill Recycled
Water Option 4 - SWA
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attachment 2

63 È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ
.²"
TU
TU
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
Watsonville
Tennant
Spring
Dunne
Diana
Hill
Monterey
Peet
Lakeview
Oakwood
£¤101
£¤101
Highland
San Martin
Fitzgerald
Leavesley
Las Animas
Buena Vista
Wren
Southside
Monterey
4th
Middle
Foothill
UV152
£¤101
UV152
California
Harding

MORGAN HILL
GILROY
Day
Burchell
Miller
Ferguson
New
Gilman
Bloomfield
Santa Teresa
Bolsa
Rucker
Church
Center
Maple
Edmundson
Main
Hale
Kirby
Sycamore
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
20 20
20 20
20 20
12/36
22 30 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
12 14
14 14 14
12 12 12
Marcella
24 24
24 24
24 24
Proposed Pump
24 24
Legend
Option 5
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
Recycled Water Recharge Pipeline
Morgan Hill's Proposed
RW System
Proposed
TUStorage Tanks
È
6"
#
"
õ Booster Stations
Baseline Improvements
Existing
.² WWTP
TUStorage Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
Recycled Water Pipelines
Recharge Ponds
City Limits
Roads
Lakes
0 0.5 1 0.25 Updated: June 16, 2023 Mile5
GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig21-Option5_061623.mxd Figure 23
Morgan Hill Recycled Water
Option 5 - RW from SCRWA
Recycled Water Distribution System
Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Note:
• Pumping Recycled Water from
SCRWA to a Morgan Hill
Recycled Water System
(RW Master Plan - Alt 1 or 2)
Attachment 2

63 È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ
.²"
TU
TU
È
6"
## õ"
.Ȳ
6"
## õ"
Watsonville
Tennant
Spring
Dunne
Diana
Hill
Monterey
Peet
Lakeview
Oakwood
£¤101
£¤101
Highland
San Martin
Fitzgerald
Leavesley
Las Animas
Buena Vista
Wren
Southside
Monterey
4th
Middle
Foothill
UV152
£¤101
UV152
California
Harding

MORGAN HILL
GILROY
Day
Burchell
Miller
Ferguson
New
Gilman
Bloomfield
Santa Teresa
Bolsa
Rucker
Church
Center
Maple
Edmundson
Main
Hale
Kirby
Sycamore
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
20 20
20 20
20 20
12/36
22 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
12 14
14 14 14
12 12 12
Marcella
24 24
24 24
24 24
24 24
AWPF
30/24
24 24
24 Madrone Channel
Main Avenue
Pond
San Pedro
Pond
Church Avenue
Ponds
Legend
Proposed
.² Water Purification Facility
Recharge Pipeline Project Alternative 6
SCVWD Improvements
Baseline Improvements
Existing
.² WWTP
TU Storage Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Stations
Recycled Water Pipelines
Recharge Ponds
City Limits
Roads
Lakes
0 0.5 1 0.25 Updated: June 16, 2023 Mile5
GIS
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\SCVWD\220714-RWSystem\Final\SCVWD_Fig22-Option6_061623.mxd Figure 24
Morgan Hill Recycled Water
Option 6 - AWPF Water
from SCRWA for GWR
Recycled Water Distribution System
Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Note:
• Pumping Recycled Water from
SCRWA to Morgan Hill for
Groundwater Recharge
(RW Master Plan - SCVWA
IPR to Butterfield)
Attachment 2

63 March 2023 South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
Valley Water
South County Recycled Water
Distribution System Master Plan
TABLES

Attachment 2

63 Table 1 Existing System Inventory
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Pipes
Length
(ft) (mi)
North System
8 750 0.1
12 9.6
14 2.2
24 1.2
30 1,400 0.3
36 0.6
Sub-Total 73,950 14.0
South System
10 350 0.1
12 400 0.1
20 3.0
22 750 0.1
30 200 0.0
Sub-Total 17,350 3.3
Total 17.3
Booster Stations
Head Flow
(ft) (gpm)
North System
1 295 1,200
2 295 1,200
3 295 1,200
4 295 1,200
5 295 1,200
Total Capacity 6,000 gpm / 8.6 mgd
Firm Capacity 4,800 gpm / 6.9 mgd
1 276 1,375
2 276 1,375
3 276 1,375
Total Capacity 4,125 gpm / 5.9 mgd
Firm Capacity 2,750 gpm / 4.0 mgd
South System
1 170 2,100
2 170 2,100
3 170 2,100
Total Capacity 6,300 gpm / 9.0 mgd
Firm Capacity 4,200 gpm / 6.0 mgd
Tanks
Tank ID Height Diameter Volume Base Elevation
(ft) (ft) (MG) (ft)
WWTP Reservoir 22.5 150 3.0 160
North System Tank
(Hoylake) 22.5 105 1.5 385
1/12/2023
Pipe Diameter
(in)
91,300
Booster Station
ID Pump No.

Zone 2 Pump Station
(Christmas Hill)
South Zone Pump Station
(Area 94)
3,100
50,600
11,750
6,350
15,650
Zone 1 Pump Station
(Area 93)
Attachment 2

63 Table 2 Existing Recycled Water System Demands
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
User
No. Customer Name Meter Number Usage Type System Zone 1 Maximum Month Demand 2
Maximum Day
Demand 3
Peak Hour Demand
4,5
(period) (hrs) (AFY) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
Existing Users - North System
1 Christmas Hill Park - (North) 893178 Irrigation North 1 10pm - 7am 9 19.2 11.9 25.3 31.5 83.9 2 Christmas Hill Park - (Ranch) 70020157 Irrigation North 1 10pm - 7am 9 10.6 6.6 12.4 15.4 41.2 3 Calpine Power Plant - Cogen 64897928 M&I North 1 24hr 24 97.9 60.7 153.0 190.4 190.4 4 Calpine Power Plant - Peaker 61767407 M&I North 1 24hr 24 4.6 2.9 9.7 12.1 12.1 5 McCarthy Business Park - NE 65660171 Irrigation North 1 9pm - 7am 10 11.8 7.3 10.3 12.9 30.9 6 McCarthy Business Park - NW 64308108 Irrigation North 1 9pm - 7am 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 United Natural Food SW 66435006 Irrigation North 1 10pm - 7am 9 8.4 5.2 7.9 9.8 26.2 7a United Natural Food SE 66435007 Irrigation North 1 - - - - - - - 8 B&T Farms 904393 Agricultural North 1 6am - 12pm and 4pm to 10pm 12 164.2 101.8 390.7 486.4 972.7 9 B&T Farms (West) 994024-8 Agricultural North 1 6am - 12pm and 4pm to 10pm 12 67.3 41.8 116.9 145.5 291.0 10 Gilroy Police Dept. Shooting Range 60852362 Irrigation North 1 7am - 11pm 16 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 11 City of Gilroy Sports Park 77132138 Irrigation North 1 10pm - 7am 9 38.1 23.7 44.0 54.8 146.2 12 Eagle Ridge Golf Course 892545 Irrigation North 2 6am - 2pm 8 532.3 330.0 515.4 641.5 1,924.5 13 Gilroy Golf Course 84633020 Irrigation North 2 9pm - 6am 9 82.4 51.1 158.0 196.6 524.3 14 Heartland Owners Association (HOA) #1 78846906 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 2.2 1.3 5.2 6.5 19.4 15 Heartland West #8 64926314 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 7.3 4.5 6.7 8.4 25.1 16 Heartland Gardens #11 65939514 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 13.3 8.3 18.2 22.7 68.1 17 City of Gilroy #12 63267486 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 7am 9 5.3 3.3 11.6 14.4 38.5 18 City of Gilroy #10 65939449 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 9.3 5.8 13.0 16.2 48.5 19 City of Gilroy #9 63267477 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 15.7 9.7 12.0 14.9 44.7 20 City of Gilroy #7 81877686 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 5.3 3.3 7.0 8.7 26.2 21 Santa Teresa & Third Street Park (City of Gilroy #6) 81877638 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 5.2 3.2 5.8 7.2 21.5 22 City of Gilroy #5 79448993 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 4.5 2.8 5.1 6.3 19.0 23 City of Gilroy #4 78255939 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 City of Gilroy #3 78846903 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 6am 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 City of Gilroy #2 78293084 Irrigation North 2 10pm - 7am 9 5.5 3.4 7.5 9.3 24.8 Existing Users - North Subtotal 1,111 689 1,536 1,912 3,782 Temporary Construction Users - North System
26 Overaa Construction - Construction North 1 7am - 3:30pm 8.5 - - - - - 27 Tri Pointe (North) 1567721 Construction North 1 7:30am - 5pm 9.5 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.4 3.5 28 Tri Pointe (South) 1590955 Construction North 1 7:30am - 5pm 9.5 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 4.1 29 Trinchero Construction Company A1068 Construction North 2 7am - 3:30pm 8.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.1 Existing Users - South System
30 San Felipe Farms - Sheldon Turnout 135164 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 108.0 67.0 171.5 410.5 820.9 31 San Felipe Farms - Henry #1 134051 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 San Felipe Farms - Henry #2 78334101 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 San Felipe Farms - Henry #3 20091455-08 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 San Felipe Farms - Limos #1 135116 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 59.0 36.6 202.0 483.4 966.8 35 San Felipe Farms - Limos #2 135115 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 96.6 59.9 208.7 499.6 999.2 36 San Felipe Farms - Limos #3 135711 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 2.1 1.3 4.4 10.6 21.2 37 San Felipe Farms 862840 Agricultural South - 6am - 12pm and 6pm - 12am 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Existing Users - South Subtotal 266 165 587 1,404 1,988 WWTP Utility Water 6 - M&I WWTP - 24hr 24 961.2 597.0 716.0 629.0 786.3 Total 2,338 1,450 2,838 3,945 6,557
3/1/2024
Notes:

1. Annual demands are based on monthly billing records from June 2021 to May 2022 and adjusted to production

2. Billing records from June 2021 to May 2022 were used to develop peak month factors for each user.

3. Maximum Day Demands were derived using SCADA from peak month of July to develop a MDD to MMD peaking factor for north and south users.

4. Peak hour demand was estimated using the formula PHD=(24/hours of permitted usage) x MDD

5. User peak hour demands are not additive, peak hour demand sub-totals and totals based on hours of operation

6. WWTP utility water historically peaks in the winter months, the MDD and PHD documented is based on max usage observed in SCADA from July 2021 (recycled water system maximum month).

Hours of Usage Annual Demand 1
Attachment 2

63 Table 3 Potential Recycled Water Users
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Customer Name1 Usage Type System Zone Hours of Usage Hours Site Area Average Demand 2 Maximum Month Demand 3
Maximum Day
Demand 3
Peak Hour Demand
4 (acres) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
Baseline System - Potential Users
Gilroy Data Center M&I North 1 12am-12am 24 56.3 13.0 37.7 305.6 305.6 Glen Loma Ranch Development Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 318.7 18.0 41.4 52.2 139.2 International Paper M&I North 1 8am-5pm 9 20.0 10.2 29.6 37.7 100.6 Vineyard Christian School Irrigation North 2 10pm-7am 9 3.3 4.0 9.2 11.6 30.9 Ascension Solorsano Middle School Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 17.0 17.0 39.1 49.3 131.5 Gilroy Sports Park Expansion Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 10.6 10.0 23.0 29.0 77.3 Gilroy Sports Park (Agriculture) Agricultural North 1 6am-5pm 11 5.7 21.0 75.6 113.4 247.4 Pacheco Pass Shopping Center Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 67.0 3.4 7.7 9.7 25.9 Sydney Casper Park Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 3.3 8.0 18.4 23.2 61.9 Syngenta Irrigation North 2 8am-5pm 9 29.1 12.0 27.6 34.8 92.8 Santa Teresa & Third Street Park Irrigation North 2 10pm-7am 9 2.2 8.0 18.4 23.2 61.9 City Park (Hecker Pass) Irrigation North 2 10pm-7am 9 2.0 8.0 18.4 23.2 61.9 Las Animas Elementary Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 8.1 8.0 18.4 23.2 61.9 City Park (Santa Teressa Blvd and Club Drive) Irrigation North 2 10pm-7am 9 4.8 8.0 18.4 23.2 61.9 Cintas Corporation M&I North 1 24hr 24 2.2 74.0 214.6 273.8 273.8 Gilroy Gardens Irrigation North 2 10pm-7am 9 136.8 105.0 241.5 304.5 812.0 Western Tree Nursery Irrigation North 2 24hr 24 160.4 371.0 853.3 1,075.9 1,075.9 Gilroy High School Irrigation North 1 10pm-7am 9 55.4 48.0 110.4 139.2 371.2 Bonfante Nurseries Agricultural South - 6am-5pm 11 44.9 133.0 478.8 718.2 1,567.0 Christopher Ranch Agricultural South - 6am-5pm 16 149.4 233.0 838.8 1,258.2 1,887.3 Sub-Total 1,113 3,120 4,529 7,448
Long-Term Potential Users
Gilroy Gardens Irrigation North 3 10pm-7am 9 136.8 105.0 241.5 304.5 812.0 Western Tree Nursery Irrigation North 3 24hr 24 160.4 371.0 853.3 1,075.9 1,075.9 Sub-Total 476 1,095 1,380 1,888
Total 1,589 4,215 5,910 9,336
3/1/2024
Notes:

1. This table represents users within close proximity to existing recycled water pipelines and planned baseline system that have a potential for using recycled water

2. Average day demands were obtained from the 2015 South County Recycled Water Master Plan.

3. Maximum month and day peaking factors are based on billing records from June 2021 to May 2022 for similar use types (Ag, M&I, and Irrigation).

4. Peak hour demand was estimated using the formula PHD=(24/hours of permitted usage) x MDD Attachment 2

63 Table 4 Recycled Water System Criteria
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Pipe Headloss < 4 ft/kft
Pipe Velocity < 5 fps
Minimum Pressure 35 psi
Normal Pressure Range 60 to 120 psi
Pressure Zone with Storage Meet maximum day demand with largest unit out of service.

Pressure Zones without Storage Meet peak hour demands with largest unit out of service.

Demand Peaking Factors
Maximum Day Demand
Agricultural Users 5.4 x ADD
M&I Users 3.7 x ADD
Irrigation Users 2.9 x ADD
3/1/2024
Distribution System Performance Criteria
Pump Station Performance Criteria
Attachment 2

63 Table 5 Morgan Hill Recycled Water Options
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Option 1a:

Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water
Augmentation into water system
(via Satellite WWTP and AWPF)
1,100 - 2,900 AFY Satellite WWTP and AWPF
Facility $120M Med./Low Med./Low - Less pipeline infrastructure required - DPR recycled water regulations have not
been adopted
- High Cost of Infrastructure (satellite
WWTP and AWPF)
- Additional solids loading and reduced
recycled water availability at SCRWA
- High O&M Costs
Option 1b:

Direct Potable Reuse via Treated Water
Augmentation into water system
(via purified water pumped from SCRWA)
1,100 - 2,900 AFY
AWPF at SCRWA,
12 miles of 24-inch pipeline,
pump station
$150M Med./Low Med./Low - Less O&M costs than a satellite

WWTP/AWPF
- Current recycled water regulations
- High Cost of Infrastructure (AWPF,
pipelines, and pump station)
- Additional solids loading and reduced
recycled water availability at SCRWA
Option 2 NPR+ from South Bay Water Recycling
Delivers 2,900 AFY of NPR+ from SBWR
to a new Morgan Hill recycled water
system
16 miles of
16-inch pipeline $80M Med./Low Med.
- Availability of Water
- Less O&M costs that a satellite
plant and AWPF
- Lowest cost opportunity
- Requires agreement with San Jose
- High Cost of Infrastructure
- Potentially high cost of water due to long
distance pumping
Option 3 Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) for Groundwater Recharge (GWR)
Delivers 1,900 AFY from a Morgan Hill

2.5-mgd satellite WWTP and 2.1-mgd
AWPF to recharge facilities in Morgan
Hill for GWR
Satellite WWTP and
AWPF Facility
3 miles of
16-inch pipeline
$140M Low Low Groundwater recharge in Morgan
Hill
- High Cost of Infrastructure (satellite
plant, AWPF, and pipelines)
- Inability to meet existing Customer
demands during peak demand periods
- Inadequate flow in sewer collection
system could create odor and clogging
problems
- Resulting sludge loading and reduced
flow could substantially change
composition of WWTP influent potentially
leading to compliance issues
- High O&M Costs
Option 4
Satellite Advanced Water Purification Facility
(AWPF) for Surface Water Augmentation
(SWA)
Delivers 1,900 AFY from a Morgan Hill

2.5-mgd satellite WWTP and 2.1-mgd
AWPF to Anderson Reservoir for SWA
Satellite WWTP and
AWPF Facility
6 miles of
16-inch pipeline
$160M Low Low Surface Water Augmentation in
Anderson Reservoir
- High Cost of Infrastructure (satellite
plant, AWPF, and pipelines)
- Inability to meet existing Customer
demands during peak demand periods
- Inadequate flow in sewer collection
system could create odor and clogging
problems
- Resulting sludge loading and reduced
flow could substantially change
composition of WWTP influent potentially
leading to compliance issues
- High O&M Costs
Option 5
Pumping Recycled Water from SCRWA to a
Morgan Hill Recycled Water System
(RW Master Plan - Alt 1 or 2)
Delivers 3,000 AFY NPR water from
SCRWA to Morgan Hill
9 miles of 24-inch pipeline,
4 miles of distribution pipelines,
pump station
$75M Low Med./Low
- RW Service to Morgan Hill
- Less O&M costs than a satellite
plant
- High Cost of Infrastructure
(Pipelines, and Pump Station)
- Availability of RW during peak usage
Option 6
Pumping Recycled Water from SCRWA to
Morgan Hill for Groundwater Recharge
(RW Master Plan - SCVWA IPR to Butterfield)
Delivers 3,000 AFY of AWPF water
from SCRWA for IPR in Butterfield
Channel
AWPF at SCRWA,
12 miles of 24-inch pipeline,
pump station
$146M Low Med./Low RW Groundwater recharge in
Morgan Hill
- High Cost of Infrastructure
(AWPF, Pipelines, EIR, CalTrans Permits for
crossing Hwy 101, and a Pump Station)
Notes: 2/28/2024

1. Option 1a and 1b are potential future options depending on changes in the recycled water regulations

2. Options 2, 3, 4 were extracted from the 2020 Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan)

3. Options 5 and 6 were extracted from the 2019 Sustainable Water Management Plan

4. Costs documented have been escalated to April 2023 (ENR 13230)

5. Costs for each option and are order of magnitude. Cost information for Options 1a, 2, 3, and 4 are based on the CoRe Plan and Options 1b, 5, and 6 are based on the 2015 Recycled Water Master Plan Disadvantages
Option 1
Major Infrastructure Costs4,5 Options Likelihood Feasibility Advantages 1,2,3 Brief Description Portfolio Attachment 2

63 Table 6 Baseline System Improvement Summary
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Demands
Maximum
Day
(mgd)
Existing 5.7 mgd -
Baseline System:

Imminent -Term 5.7 mgd
Imminent Term Distribution System Improvements:
• Recent Construction: 13,650 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline • Constructed but Inactive: 6,120 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline 770 feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline
640 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline
• Near-Term: 2,450 feet of 18-inch diameter pipeline
Baseline System:

Near - Term 6.1 mgd
Near-Term Distribution System Improvements:
• 960 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline (plus 100' pipe casing) Planned WWTP Recycled Water Projects:
• Reservoir Expansion (Additional 3 MG)
• New Reservoir Pump Station
• 1,500 feet of on-site piping
Conceptual Baseline
Buildout:

Long - Term 1

11.7 mgd
Long-Term Distribution System Improvements:
• 5,870 feet of 24-inch diameter pipeline
• 6,930 feet of 18-inch diameter pipeline
• New 1.5 MG Zone 2 Tank
• New 1,500 gpm (Firm) Zone 3 Pump Station
• Christmas Hill Pump Station Capacity Upgrade to 5.5 mgd • Area 93 Pump Station Firm Capacity Upgrade to 9.3 mgd Notes: 12/1/2023

1. Long-Term recycled water usage dependent on wastewater influent flow increase plus treatment capacity Scenario Distribution System Improvement Summary
Attachment 2

63 Table 7 Cost Estimating Criteria
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Pipe Size
(Inner Diameter) Unit Costs1
(in) ($/lineal foot)
8 187
10 211
12 253
14 283
16 304
18 312
24 400
30 500
36 560
Pump Stations
Pump Station Within WWTP or Upgraded Capacity at Existing Site New Pump Station Outside WWTP
Storage Reservoirs ($/gal)
Earthwork, Lined and Covered
Storage Pond $0.25
Steel Tank - Above Ground
≤ 1.0 MG $2.69

1.1 MG - 3.0 MG $2.15

3.1 MG - 5.0 MG $1.55
> 5.0 MG $1.16
Costs Estimating Contingencies2
Estimating 20%
Construction 20%
Administration 30%
Notes:
12/22/2023

1. Construction costs estimated using August 2022 ENR CCI of 13,171.

2. Contingencies:
• Estimating contingency of 20% to account for unforeseen events and unknown conditions. • Construction contingency of 20% to account for engineering design and construction management and inspection.
• Administration contingency of 30% to account for administration and legal costs.

Estimated Pumping Station Project Cost = 1.2 * 10^(0.7583*log(Q)+3.1951); where Q is in gpm
Estimated Pumping Station Project Cost = 2.4 * 10^(0.7583*log(Q)+3.1951); where Q is in gpm
Attachment 2

63 Table 8 Capital Improvement Program
Recycled Water Distribution System Master Plan
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Itemized Cost Estimate
Improvement Pressure Type of Unit Pipe
Number Zone Improv. Street Limits Diam. Length Cost2 Cost Cost Cost3 Cost4 Cost5 Cost (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Recent Construction Improvements
Distribution System
P-1 North - Zone 1 Pipe Through Agriculture Fields ROW Southside Dr. to Luchessa Ave.

P-2 North - Zone 1 Pipe Luchessa Avenue Agriculture ROW to Greenfield Dr Recent Construction Subtotal 21,300,000
Near-Term Improvements
Distribution System
P-3 North - Zone 1 Pipe Luchessa Avenue/Cameron Boulevard Luchessa Ave to Princevalle Drain 1,700,000 P-4 North - Zone 1 Pipe Luchessa Avenue W 10th St to Miller Ave 30 960 500 480,000 480,000 96,000 96,000 144,000 820,000 P-4a North - Zone 1 Casing Luchessa Avenue Reservoir Canyon Creek Crossing 42 100 705 70,500 70,500 14,100 14,100 21,150 120,000 Distribution System Subtotal 2,640,000
Other On-Site WWTP Recycled Water Projects
WWTP-1 WWTP Lined Reservoir1 Recycled Water Reservoir Expansion (Additional 3 MG) 3.0 MG 2,060,000 412,000 412,000 618,000 3,500,000 WWTP-2 WWTP Pump Station1 New Reservoir Pump Station 815,000 163,000 163,000 244,500 1,390,000 WWTP-3 WWTP Pipe On-Site Pipelines 500,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 850,000 WWTP On-Site Subtotal 5,740,000
Near-Term Subtotal 8,380,000
Long-Term Improvements
Distribution System
P-5 North - Zone 2 Pipe ROW through Home Ranch Development Zone 2 Pump Station Outlet to Uvas Creek 24 4,250 400 1,700,000 1,700,000 340,000 340,000 510,000 2,890,000 P-6 North - Zone 2 Pipe Santa Teresa Boulevard Uvas Creek to Cobblestone Ct 24 1,620 400 648,000 648,000 129,600 129,600 194,400 1,100,000 LT-P-8 North - Zone 2 Pipe Uvas Creek ROW/Gilroy Gardens Service Rd Meritage Loop to New Zone 2 Tank Site/Zone 3 PS (Elev. 383) 18 3,700 312 1,154,400 1,154,400 230,880 230,880 346,320 1,960,000 LT-P-9 North - Zone 2 Pipe Gilroy Gardens ROW New Zone 2 Tank Site/Zone 3 PS to Lake Kathryne 18 3,230 312 1,007,760 1,007,760 201,552 201,552 302,328 1,710,000 LT-T1 North - Zone 2 Tank1 Gilroy Gardens Zone 2 Storage Expansion 1.5 MG 3,225,551 3,225,551 645,110 645,110 967,665 5,480,000 LT-BS1 North - Zone 3 Pump Station1 2 x 750 gpm Duty + 750 gpm Standby 2,250 gpm (total) 1,310,000 1,310,000 262,000 262,000 393,000 2,230,000 LT-BS2 North - Zone 2 Pump Station1 Christmas Hill Capacity Upgrade 5.5 mgd (total) 978,390 978,390 195,678 195,678 293,517 1,660,000 LT-BS3 North - Zone 1 Pump Station1 North (Area 93) Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrade 9.3 mgd (total) 1,457,121 1,457,121 291,424 291,424 437,136 2,480,000 Long-Term Subtotal 19,510,000
Capital Improvement Summary
21,300,000
8,380,000
49,190,000
1/11/2024
Pipeline and Appurtenances Costs Baseline
Construction
Estimating
Contingency
Construction
Contingency
Administration
Contingency
Total Estimated
Capital
Note:

1. Tank and pump station pricing can vary widely with site conditions.

2. Cost estimates are based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index (CCI) of 13171 for the 20 cities for August 2022.

3. Baseline construction cost plus 20% to account for unforeseen events and unknown conditions (Estimating Contingency).

4. Baseline construction cost plus 20% to cover other costs including: engineering design, construction management, and inspection (Construction Contingency),

5. Baseline construction cost plus 30% to account for project administration (developer and City staff) and legal costs (Administration Contingency).

Recent Construction:

Immediate and Near-Term Subtotal:

Estimated Total:

Cost extraced from bid tabs - Phase 1C
Cost extraced from bid tabs - Phase 1B, 2A, 2B 21,300,000 Attachment 2

63 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

From: D. Muirhead
To: CC Public Comment
Cc: Chris Ghione; Dave Tucker
Subject: [EXTERNAL] comment Morgan Hill City Council May 15 2024 # South County Water Reuse Master Plan Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 11:56:22 AM
Greetings Morgan Hill City Council and City Staff,
A comment for your May 15 2024 meeting
# South County Water Reuse Master Plan
For your edification, this comment is approximately
the one I presented at the last South County Joint
Water Resources Committee meeting in April 2024.

As you consider if and how you are willing to prepare
for climate cycles of extreme drought and extreme heat, I suggest that you keep in mind what Governor Newsom
said at his press conference during the April snow survey:
"The water system in California was designed
for a world that no longer exists."
And I would add:
"Conservation fails if you have no water to conserve."
In my ideal world, Morgan Hill would capture and reuse
our wastewaters to recharge our groundwater basin to
provide Local Resilience Under Local Control.

The South County Recycled Water Distribution System
Master Plan of March 2024 is much the same as the Master Plan from 2015. Although the new plan is named "South County", both 2015 and 2024 are mostly Gilroy. "Existing System" (3.1) and "5-year Capital Improvement Program" (10.0) are Gilroy only.

While the 2015 report concluded that recycled water was not justified for Morgan Hill, the 2024 report summarizes a set of six reuse options considered feasible for Morgan Hill but with no plan.

One constraint that I consider a violation of the 1997
Joint Powers Agreement that created the South County Regional Wastewater Authority is that the design of the newly-expanded SCRWA facility requires all Morgan Hill wastewater be
delivered to SCRWA for the plant to function properly.

I have reminded elected officials that the MOU that created SCRWA explicitly authorized our City to build its own facilities.

The impacts to SCRWA operations are explicitly mentioned in Morgan Hill Recycled Option 2 (8.2.3) and Option 3 (8.2.4):
"Wastewater available for satellite treatment in Morgan Hill [is] relied upon for meeting existing South County Recycled Water System (RWS) demands."
"A Morgan Hill satellite facility would increase solids loads to SCRWA, posing operational issues that may be substantial." Wastewater is a precious and limited resource. It is needed

to continue to manufacture purified water for the Gilroy system. The 2024 report includes an analysis "Existing
Recycled Water User Optimization" (7.3) which concludes:
"There are a lot of limitations with the [Gilroy] users and why their hours cannot change. For the few users that have flexibility, the changes are very minor and therefore would not help to optimize the existing recycled water usage." "Updated Morgan Hill Reuse Options" (8.2) notes that during peak recycled water usage there is no additional wastewater available for treatment. For this scenario, either reductions to existing users or additional storage would be required to supply recycled water.

Now to the long-awaited "Recycled Water Options for Morgan Hill" (8.0). We all know that there is currently no recycled water delivered within the City of Morgan Hill's service area.

It is helpful to know what are considered limitations for the "Updated Morgan Hill Reuse Options" (8.2).

One action common to these options is:
"Valley Water may need to reassess the potential impacts of recycled water on the Llagas Subbasin prior to moving forward as there is potential for groundwater quality
degradation from using recycled water for irrigation."
Who and when will this reassessment occur?
"Option 2" (8.2.2) is 16 miles of 16-inch pipeline from South Bay Water Recycling. Exporting supply from San Jose and neighboring areas to Morgan Hill would need a new
agreement as the existing Silver Creek Agreement between Valley Water and San José expires in 2027.

Long-term supply reliability is unconfirmed.

Operational impacts to the SBWR system have not been evaluated.

A new reservoir may be needed to supply reliable summertime flows.

Without grant funding the cost would be borne entirely by Llagas subbasin for the operations and maintenance.

Going forward, I continue to see no sense of urgency.

The closing section "Morgan Hill Recycled Water Options Comparison" (8.3) of the Morgan Hill focus has no Who or When or Why:
"Newer technologies and recently adopted DPR regulations may unlock new options for the City of Morgan Hill in the future leading to Options 1a and 1b becoming more
feasible. The City of Morgan Hill intends to continue to work in partnership with Valley Water to determine the best path forward to enhance its water supply and resiliency portfolio."
---
I will repeat that I strongly support a solution that does not depend on other jurisdictions. Local Resilience Under Local Control.

Where the conversation has always stopped in the past (never really started) is that without grant funding the cost for a local Morgan Hill facility would be borne entirely by Llagas subbasin for the operations and maintenance.

Conservation fails if you have no water to conserve.

Doug Muirhead, Morgan Hill reident
WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.

17 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Monica Delgado, Budget Manager
APPROVED BY: City Manager
INTRODUCE THE RECOMMENDED FY 2024-25 AND FY 2025-26
BIENNIAL OPERATING AND FY 2024-25 THROUGH FY 2029-30

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGETS

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Receive the Introduction to the Recommended Budget Presentation.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Preserving our Community History
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Community Engagement
Economic Development and Tourism
Transportation
Healthy Community
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
Climate Action Plan
Communications, Outreach, and Engagement Plan
Economic Blueprint
Fire Services Standards of Coverage
GIS Strategic Plan
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
Public Safety Master Plan

17 Storm Drain Master Plan
Vision Zero
Water System Master Plan
Wastewater System Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On Friday, May 3, the Recommended FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 Biennial Operating and FY 2024-25 through FY 2029-30 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budgets were distributed to the City Council and made available for public review.

The total Recommended Budget is $205.9 million in FY 24-25 and $254.4 million in FY 25-26. The FY 24-25 budget includes $62.0 million for General Fund expenditures, $60.7 million for CIP, and $83.2 million for non-General Fund expenditures. For FY 25- 26, the recommended budget includes $63.2 million for General Fund expenditures, $108.5 million for CIP, and $82.7 million for non-General Fund expenditures. Details of each Division’s budget, project descriptions, and funding requirements can be found in the accompanying operating departments and CIP sections of the budget document.

These recommended budgets are the product of many teammates working in a collaborative manner to align resources that are consistent with the City Council’s and Community’s priorities, while continuing to maintain fiscal responsibility.

Recommended FY 2024-25 and 2025-26 Operating and FY 2024-25 through FY 2029- 30 Capital Improvement Program Budgets
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Involve
May 11, 2024 - Open Streets Budget Engagement with the Community In addition to introducing the recommended budget on May 15, the Community is invited to participate in the City Council Budget Workshop which is scheduled for May 22 at 5:00 pm.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Not Applicable
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City Council received the last recommended biennial operating and CIP budgets in May 2022 which was subsequently adopted in June 2022.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The budget documents are the product of many employees working in a collaborative manner to strive to attain the Council's and Community's priorities in a cost-effective manner while maintaining the City's goal of fiscal sustainability.

17 CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

18 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager

PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT

CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Provide direction to staff regarding the allowance of remote public comment on Zoom.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Community Engagement
Guiding Documents
Communications, Outreach, and Engagement Plan
Economic Blueprint
REPORT NARRATIVE:

This item was initially presented at the City Council meeting on December 6, 2023 as a Future Council Initiated Agenda Item. The City Council directed staff to explore options to allow for public comment on Zoom requiring registration/authentication. A conversation about remote public comment was held during the City Council's Goal setting workshop on Friday, February 1, 2024, at which there was not a majority consensus to allow remote public comment. This item is returning after direction from City Council at the March 6, 2024 meeting to be heard by all members of the City Council.

Background
At the October 4, 2023, City Council meeting, hateful and hostile comments were made by people participating on Zoom for public comment. This occurred in Morgan Hill and throughout the nation. In response, public comment on Zoom was no longer allowed.

18 Several factors contributed to this decision:
• Promoting a safe and inclusive space: The City works to create an environment where everyone feels safe and respected during public meetings. Hate speech can create a hostile atmosphere that hinders meaningful public participation and disrupts the purpose of the meetings.
• Protection of vulnerable communities: Hate speech often targets specific communities based on their characteristics, such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Taking steps to prevent hate speech protects these communities from harm and harassment. Further, as an employer, the City must take reasonable steps to prevent exposure to verbal conduct based on protected classifications (including race, religion, gender, and/or sexual orientation) that are objectively and subjectively offensive.
• Ensuring efficient meetings: The City's goal is to conduct productive and efficient meetings that allow for the exchange of diverse opinions and ideas. Hate speech can disrupt these meetings, making maintaining a respectful and constructive environment challenging.

Through this change, the City of Morgan Hill aimed to strike a balance between promoting free speech and protecting the safety and dignity of all participants in its public meetings.

The State's Brown Act, which governs public access to government meetings, only requires cities to offer the public a chance to comment in person at public sessions.

Since the pandemic, many cities have allowed the public to comment by Zoom or phone. However, a growing number of cities in the Bay Area, including Morgan Hill, have moved to prohibit remote comments because of the increasing incidents of antisemitic and/or hate speech callers.

Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether to allow public comments. If not, no further discussion is needed.

If the City Council wants to consider allowing public comments, staff seeks directions on whether the City Council wishes to put a registration and/or verification in place to help protect employees and the Community from hostile verbal conduct. Some options are as follows:
• Option 1: Require both registration and authentication on Zoom (Staff recommendation if the Council wishes to allow remote public comment) o Uses an existing available tool requiring no additional expenditures or staff management of another program during City Council meetings o Authentication allows the host (the City) to restrict webinar attendees to sign-in users only, confirming that they have a legitimate email account o Registration allows the host to view and manage the registrants, be aware of how many will potentially join, and it ensures that attendees do not share their attendance link with others, ensuring that each person joining

18 has to register with a unique email address
o Scheduling a webinar with registration requires registrants to complete a brief form before receiving the link to join the webinar. This allows the agency to collect the names, email addresses, and other information from the registrants
o It can be set not to allow attendees to change their name • Option 2: Require registration through an online form o Requires speakers to sign up via an online form on the City website o Requires a cutoff time to allow staff review
o Requires more staff time to manage speakers/requests
o No added cost, as the form would be created through the City's website o Registration allows the host to view and manage the registrants and be aware of how many will potentially join
• Option 3: CivicBell Virtual Speaker Card
o This product is still in the beta testing phase and has no current agencies using it
o Ensures the speaker is a real person and not a "bot"
o Prevents participant from changing name
o Cost $2,000 annually
o Requires an additional tool and additional staff time * Important note: We cannot prohibit speakers from using assumed or false names.

None of the options listed above stop workarounds, and we may still experience hate speech and use of vulgar names.

Staff believes the Council should consider the continuation of our existing practice, which permits public comments exclusively in person or in writing. This approach is not only a pragmatic response to the escalating threats we face but also a commitment to prioritizing the safety and integrity of our meetings.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This report serves to inform the community of the Council's discussion regarding whether to allow remote public comment at City Council and Planning Commission meetings.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Not applicable.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

This item was initially presented at the City Council meeting on December 6, 2023 as a

18 Future Council Initiated Agenda Item. The City Council directed staff to explore options to allow for public comment on Zoom requiring registration/authentication. A conversation about remote public comment was held during the City Council's Goal setting workshop on Friday, February 1, 2024, at which there was not a majority consensus to allow remote public comment.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Seeking direction from the Council on this item has no fiscal impact. However, if the City Council chooses to implement the CivicBell product, there would be an annual cost of $2,000 for the product as well as additional staff time.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project.

Organizational or administrative activities of governments will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

19 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Edith Ramirez, Assistant City Manager
APPROVED BY: City Manager

PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC ART

FUNDING

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Receive report and provide direction on policy for public art funding.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving our Community History
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Community Engagement
Economic Development and Tourism
Healthy Community
Guiding Documents
Economic Blueprint
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:

Should the City develop a dedicated art fund (Percent for Art) to enhance the City's Art Program and further the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan goals? BACKGROUND:

On November 3, 2023, Mayor Mark Turner submitted a request to discuss the feasibility of creating a fee-based revenue stream for public art to advance the City's goals of community development, tourism, and economic development. The City of Morgan Hill established art goals in the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan to enhance the visibility of art and elevate creative culture. The City currently has an art program guided by the Library, Culture and Arts Commission (LCAC) but does not have

19 a sustainable art fund to support the ongoing installation and maintenance of art. The LCAC's Art Program is codified in Chapter 2.68 of the City's Municipal Code and aims to grow new projects, art installations, preserve city public art collection, art maintenance, support Morgan Hill Public Art, and Adopt an Art Program.

The current inventory of public art contains over 40 pieces (see attached “Inventory of Public Art”). In recent years, the City has seen several new art installations, which include the “Morgan Hill Peace Monument” (2022) and the “Never Forgotten” memorial bronze sculpture (2021), with both projects being partially funded with public and private dollars. In addition to the sculptures, the City has successfully integrated artwork into numerous City Park projects through grant funding and fundraising. These exhibits include the Taylor Gallegos Mural at the Magical Bridge as well as the soon-to-be installed Mural at the Galvan Park Restrooms by Abigail Dunnivan. Additionally, the City and the LCAC have been highly successful at working with various groups to partner on artwork opportunities. Leadership Morgan Hill recently created and funded an enormous mural at Community Park created by local artist Lina Velasquez (2023) and the City partnered with the Beautiful Day organization to install a large mural on the Friendly Inn Building at Galvan Park (2022).

Another thriving program under the LCAC program is the Utility Box Art Program. The original program completed by Leadership Morgan Hill funded the installation of 11 utility box art murals (2018). In continuance of this effort, the LCAC has partnered with artists to create 5 additional utility art murals in the last 4 years, with the murals coming from a variety of artists (including youth). The City is well on its way to having artwork on every City-owned traffic signal utility box within the City.

The LCAC's volunteer efforts have not ended with permanent public art. The Commission has also started a youth art show at the Art à la carte event, supported local artists in hosting art shows at City facilities, has restarted the rotating art displays at the Community and Cultural Center, and has partnered with the Morgan Hill Community Foundation to host the Morgan Hill Open Studios Event annually for the last several years.

Despite this significant work being completed, the City does not have a dedicated funding source for art. All efforts are based on fundraising, grants, and individual funding opportunities. The City’s Art Fund (260) is primarily used by LCAC, which raises funds for artwork maintenance and installation. Additionally, the City received a onetime development contribution that has $48,000 remaining for use on a one-time art project, which the LCAC is currently reviewing. Per LCAC Policy LCAC-08-02, funding resources include gifts and donations, grants, fund-raising, fees, levies, assessments, and other funds allocated by the City through the budgetary process that are used to support LCAC services and resources, not designated solely for public art. The 260 Fund currently has very limited funds and there is no ongoing revenue source. The City has been able to secure art installations through the City's former Residential Control Growth System (RDCS) contributions, and donations. Additionally, the Commission partners with the Community Foundation in managing the Foundation's arts component to support the arts. This fund is limited and relies on contributions from donors or art

19 event revenue to collect funds. The public art inventory is listed in Exhibit A.

ANALYSIS
One of the ways municipalities can advance public art is by mandating public art be included in public and private projects and/or imposing an art fee that can fund public art. Municipalities that have an adopted art program often have a mandatory fee for public and private development codified in the City’s Municipal Code (see attached Exhibit B “Art Funding City Comparison Table”). Recent research that examined 23 California cities that have a Percent for Art Program showed that the majority of cities impose a public art fee on public projects (approximately 91%) and 69% of these cities impose an art fee on both public and private development.

Details for imposing the art fee policy vary across cities. Based on the study, assessment measures vary by project development type, project size, and project construction cost. Assessment fees for public developments can range from 0.5% of total capital improvement cost to 2% of total capital improvement OR 1% to 1.5% in-lieu fees. Assessment fees for private developments range from 0.5% to 1.75% OR 0.5% to 1% in-lieu fees. Alternatively, the art percent policy could be applicable only to developments exceeding $1 million, developments exceeding a set size, or type of development, i.e., residential projects over 20 units, or commercial projects over 2,000 SF.

As noted, the City has a significant public art collection and a highly successful arts commission. However, the City is limited in its ability to fully implement an arts program due to resource constraints. While public art has many benefits, including supporting the City's identity, community inclusiveness and supporting placemaking, tourism, and economic development, imposing a fee for public art is a significant request for both public and private projects. The current economic conditions coupled with the high costs of construction have impacted all construction projects. Many residential and commercial projects are on hold, being value-engineered or experiencing delays as they try to secure financing. Public projects may have to seek discretionary revenues for art programming (General Fund). The City is currently focused on core city services, such as public safety. Utilization of the General Fund for art programming purposes is not realistic at this point. Equally, privately funded projects may be further set back with an additional fee. It is important to note that the City can require art and art-like features of public projects that may not strain the project's budget if integrated within the design of the facility. Examples include the Downtown Parking Garage that obtained the glass staircase and Tarantula as part of the design-built project. The Downtown parks have also integrated design features that enhance the facility such as murals, signage and fencing.

Should the Council wish for staff to continue to explore this topic, below are some of the policy considerations:

Should a Public Art requirement be applied to both public and private developments? Should certain projects be exempt from the Public Art requirement? By size or type? If public art is not feasible or desired on site, would the City accept an in-lieu fee?

19 What amount should the in-lieu fee be? And should the fee be the same for both public and private projects?
A sample policy may require that only private projects dedicate one percent of construction costs to public art or pay a one percent in-lieu fee. Projects that may be exempt from this policy may include projects smaller than 10,000 SF, very low-income projects, or very small housing projects of 25 units or less.

Should the City Council wish to explore a Public Art Policy that mandates the incorporation of art into projects, staff would recommend engaging the Community for feedback and working with LCAC to develop a recommendation.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform. The noticing and public hearing for this Council meeting serves as the public outreach for this item.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The Council may wish to delay the exploration of a Public Art Fee.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City of Morgan Hill’s Art Program was incorporated in 1998.

In 2008, City Council approved two policies relating to the LCAC:
• LCAC-08-01, approved on 10/16/2008, states that the City of Morgan Hill encourage arts and cultural activities to enhance, enliven, and enrich the city. • LCAC-08-02, approved on 10/16/2008, states that Arts and Culture in Morgan Hill can thrive and invigorate the community with consistent attention from a combination of public and private sources. It is the policy of the Library, Culture, and Arts Commission to pursue funding for the arts through a variety of options.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated at this time. If City Council chooses to adopt a dedicated Art Fund (Percent for Art) and impose art fees on public projects, the cost of these projects would likely increase.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment and the organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are exempt activities pursuant to CEQA.

19

Inventory of Public Art in Morgan Hill
Item
No. Title Artist Year Dedicated Materials - Format Maintenance Date Inspected Notes Location Location Detail 1 Morgan Hill's City Rock,
Poppy Jasper n/a 2001 Encased Rock Sample Dusting of Case. 10/9/2018 Morgan Hill Community and Cultrual Center Inside CCC 2 A View of El Toro in October Dave Sellers Framed Painting Dusting. 10/9/2018 Morgan Hill Community and Cultrual Center Inside CCC
3 Our Inspiration (Flower) Helen M. Nauss 2006 Framed Painting Dusting. 10/9/2018 Morgan Hill Community and Cultrual Center Inside CCC
4 Clay Model of "Waiting For
The Train Marlene Amerian 2007 Clay model Dusting of Case. 10/9/2018 Commissioned. Morgan Hill Community and Cultrual Center Inside CCC 5 Encompass Blessing Hancock 2015 Powder Coated Metal Cleaning/ repainting - as needed 10/16/2018 Commissioned. Morgan Hill Community and Cultrual Center
Monterey Road - entrance
to Community Center
6 Framed 3-D Vase Sister City Gift 2008 Matting, metal Dusting. Morgan Hill Civic Center Inside City Council Chamber Bldg
7 2 Mexican Paintings Unknown NS Oil Painting Dusting. Morgan Hill Civic Center Inside City Council Chamber Bldg
8 Leadership Morgan Hill
Photo Collage Leadership MH 2014 2014 Large photo collage Dusting: as needed 10/16/2018 Donated by Leadership MH. Morgan Hill Civic Center Inside City Council Chamber Bldg 9 Never Forgotten Tara
Romero Sculpture 2021 Bronze Scultpure Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. Installed Morgan Hill Civic Center Grounds outside Council Chambers entrance 10 Harmony Tree Saori Ide & Jonathan
Russell 2018 Metal Sculpture Routine Stainless steel cleaning, lighting replacement. 10/16/2018 Commissioned. Morgan Hill Civic Center Between City Hall & Council Chambers Bldg 13 Liberty Evelyn Davis 2006 Bronze Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 11/5/2018 Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the Masonic Temple. Commissioned.

Centennial Recreation Center
& Community Park
Behind CRC on walking
path
14 Skate Park Art Tanya Golphin 2008 Metal Sculpture Remove debris & graffiti as needed Commissioned. Centennial Recreation Center & Community Park On fence at skate park
15 Loki Owl Sculpture Evelyn Davis 2019 Bronze Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing.

Centennial Recreation Center
& Community Park
Adjacent to CRC Parking
Lot on Trail
16 Waiting for the Train Marlene Amerian 2007 Bronze Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 10/16/2018 Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the Masonic Temple. Commissioned. Downtown Morgan hill Morgan Hill Train Station 17 Bicycle and Town View Joan Harkness, Art Decker,
Steve Harkness 2015 Mural Inspection and Graffiti Abatement 1/16/2019 Aquatics Center Aquatics Center Mini Golf Area 18 Family of Deer Eveylyn Davis 2015 Bronze Sculptures Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 10/16/2018 Commissioned. Downtown Morgan hill Median on Monterey Road between 3rd & 4th Streets 19 Tarantula Gordon Huether 2015 Metal Construction Clean as needed, replace lighting. 10/9/2018 Commissioned. Downtown Morgan hill South side of Parking Structure on 4th Street
20 Poppy Jasper Gordon Huether 2015 Plastic Wall Bi-annual inspection & clean as needed (bimonthly) 10/9/2018 Commissioned. Downtown Morgan hill 3rd St. entrance to Parking Structure
21 Railroad Park Mural Pam Mossing 2017 Mural Remove graffiti and wipe down as needed, 10/9/2018 Commissioned. Downtown Morgan hill Railroad Park 22 Small Steps (Fox Sculpture) Evelyn Davis 2017 Bronze Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 1/5/2019
Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the
Masonic Temple. Bronze patina starting to
turn green. Needs attention. Commissioned.

Downtown Morgan hill Downtown Creek Park
Art Inventory Currently in update process. Library, Culture and Arts Commission 5/8/2024

Inventory of Public Art in Morgan Hill
Item
No. Title Artist Year Dedicated Materials - Format Maintenance Date Inspected Notes Location Location Detail 23 Once Upon a Mushroom Evelyn Davis 2007 Bronze Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 9/18/2018 Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the Masonic Temple. Commissioned. Morgan Hill Library Front of library 24 Story Time Purchased Leadership
Morgan Hill Class 0f 2007 2007 Bronze Plated Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 9/18/2018 Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the Masonic Temple. Donated by LMH. Morgan Hill Library Front of library 25 Knowledge is Power Purchased Leadership
Morgan Hill Class 0f 2007 2007 Bronze Plated Sculpture Bronze Care: Monthly Inspections/Cleaning. Annual Waxing. 9/18/2018 Cleaned bi-annually by volunteers from the Masonic Temple. Donated by LMH. Morgan Hill Library Front of library 26 Be Your Own Hero Vanessa Davidson LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 1 Downtown Morgan hill Railroad Park 27 Courage Does Not Always
Roar Lina Velasquez LMH Class of 2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 2 Downtown Morgan hill Monterey Rd. & Main St. 28 Inspire Change Danielle DeRome LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 3 Downtown Morgan hill Monterey Rd. & Dunne Ave. 29 Inspire Others Patty Cutis LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 4 City Steets Tennant Ave.& Vineyard Ave. 30 Kindness First - Words
Matter Teresa Anguiano LMH Class of 2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 5 City Steets Dunne Ave.& Peppertree Ave. 31 Never Give Up Teresa Anguiano LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 6 City Steets Dunne Ave. & Peppertree Ave. 32 Let Nature Sing Jann Griffiths LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 7 City Steets Dunne Ave. & Hill Road 33 Love Everyone Shawna Gonzales LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 8 City Steets Main St. & Calle Mazatan 34 Never Stop Learning Pamela Mossing LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 9 City Steets Monterey Rd. & Tennant Ave. 35 Welcome Home Lina Velasquez LMH Class of
2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 10 City Steets Main St. & Butterfield Blvd. 36 What You Think You
Become Noah Chin LMH Class of 2018 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Funded by 2018 Leadership MH Class Project Box 11 City Steets Hale Ave & Llagas Road 37 The Eagle Louis Latronica 2020 Poppy Jasper None
Donated by Louis Latronica Council Chambers Lobby
38 28 At Pieces of Louis
Latronica Louis Latronica 2021 Various Sculptures in Cabinet None Donated by Louis Latronica Council Chambers Council Chambers 39 Magical Bridge Playground
Restroom Mural Taylor Gallegos 2022 Mural on Restroom Building Graffiti abatement Community Park Community Park
40 2 Utility Box Art Pieces Lina Velasquez 2022 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Community Park Community Park
41 Utility Box Art Community
Park Stage Area Lina Velasquez 2022 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Community Park Community Park
42 Community Park Stage
Mural Lina Velasquez 2023 Mural on Building Graffiti abatement Community Park Community Park
Art Inventory Currently in update process. Library, Culture and Arts Commission 5/8/2024

Inventory of Public Art in Morgan Hill
Item
No. Title Artist Year Dedicated Materials - Format Maintenance Date Inspected Notes Location Location Detail 43 Galvan Park Building Mural Mural on Building Graffiti abatement Galvan Park Galvan Park
44 Galvan Park Restroom Mural Abigail Dunnivan 2024 Mural on Restroom Building Graffiti abatement
Galvan Park Galvan Park
45 It is Forever as Mothers… Crystal Riley 2022 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Artist donated City Streets Dunne and Murphy Ave
46 Love the Planet Lina Velasquez 2021 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Artist donated City Streets Butterfield and West Dunne
47 Utility Box Art Rehat Sra 2022 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Artist donated City Streets John Wilson Way and
Monterey Road
48 Utility Box Art Patty Curtis Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement City Streets
49 Utility Box Art Amanda Santiago 2024 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement City Streets
50 Salmon Statue Evelyn Davis 2023 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement West Little Lllagas Creek Trail
51 Morgan Hill Pieace
Monument David Middlebrook 2022 Mural on Utility Box Graffiti abatement Civic Center
Art Inventory Currently in update process. Library, Culture and Arts Commission 5/8/2024

Exhibit B
Art Funding City Comparison Table

CITY FUNDING STRUCTURES
Cupertino 1% of the first $100 million construction
valuation and 0.9% in excess of $100
million.

1.25% in-lieu fee.

Los Altos 1% of construction costs. 1% in-lieu fee.

Los Gatos 1% of construction valuation. In-lieu fee equivalent to public art cost.

Milpitas 0.5% of building development costs for
nonresidential building developments
over 2,000 square feet.

0.5% in-lieu fee.

Palo Alto 1% of construction valuation for first
$100 million and 0.9% in excess of $100
million (valuation adjusted with CPI).
1% in-lieu fee.

Redwood City 1% of new commercial development
over 50,000 square feet.
1% in-lieu fee. If the
developer does not spend
all 1%, the remaining
amount can go into the fee.

San Mateo 1.19% of building permit fee for
commercial/multi-family projects over
$3 million construction valuation.

1.19% in-lieu fee.

Sunnyvale 2% of construction valuation. If the
developer does not spend the entire 2%,
remaining amount contributed to the
public arts fund.

1.1% in-lieu fee.