HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2019 City Council - Regular Meeting Packet
October 17, 2019 9:30 AM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR
Mayor Roland Velasco
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Marie Blankley
Dion Bracco
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar
Cat Tucker
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2019
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org
AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY
THE CITY COUNCIL. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required, to
complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable
regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A minimum
of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and
Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408)
846-0204. A sound enhancement system is also available for use in the City Council Chambers.
If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this
meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at , or prior to, the public
hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final
administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances , there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of
Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials
are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to
Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a
holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or
Sunday.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
10/21/2019 Page2 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the
people and that City operations are open to the people's review.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE
OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council
on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of
any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the
Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public members for
Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be
limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.)
A. Historic Heritage Committee Annual Presentation to Council
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
10/21/2019 Page3 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate),
Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCVWD Joint
Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Joint Planning
Advisory Committee (alternate), South County Regional Wastewater Authority, South
County Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), Street Naming Committee
Council Member Tucker –CalTrain Policy Group, General Plan Advisory Committee,
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency Implementation Board, Street Naming Committee, Visit Gilroy Board
Council Member Blankley - ABAG, Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of
Directors (alternate), Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Sister Cities
Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board
Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority, VTA Board
of Directors Alternate, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South County City Group
Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency Implementation Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board
(alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility
(alternate)
Council Member Tovar –Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory
Board, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCVWD
Water Committee (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board, South County
Regional Wastewater Authority, South County United for Health, Street Naming
Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility, VTA Policy Advisory Committee
(alternate)
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG (alternate), CalTrain Policy Group (alternate),
Gilroy Youth Task Force, Historic Heritage Committee, SCVWD Water Committee,
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force
Policy Team, VTA Mobility Partnership
Mayor Velasco - Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors, Economic
Development Corporation Board, General Plan Advisory Committee, Gilroy Gardens
Board of Directors, Historic Heritage Committee (alternate), South County Joint
Planning Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority (alternate),
URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA South County City
Group (alternate)
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring
to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the
consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be
discussed in the order in which it appears.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
10/21/2019 Page4 A. Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting
B. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Releasing Specified
Unclaimed Checks to the City’s General Fund in Accordance with California
Government Code Section 50053
C. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Releasing Specified
Unclaimed Checks to the City’s General Fund in Accordance with California
Government Code Section 50055
D. Adoption of a Policy for the Establishment of a Housing Assistance
Program for Newly Appointed Charter Officers, the Deputy City
Administrator and Department Heads
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $48,250 With EPC IT
Solutions for Network and Infrastructure Improvements
1. Staff Report: Scott Golden, IT Manager
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approve a contract amendment in the amount of $48,250 with EPC IT Solutions
and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Adopting the "Reach Codes" for Building Electrification to
Support Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
1. Staff Report: Greg Larson, Interim Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
B. Consideration of Adopting the "Reach Code" for Electrical Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure in New Construction to Support Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
1. Staff Report: Greg Larson, Interim Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
C. Report on Sustainable Water Supply Management Strategies for the City of
Gilroy and the City Morgan Hill
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
10/21/2019 Page5 1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
A. Fire Department Alternative Service Model Pilot Study First Quarter Report
1. Staff Report: Jeff Clet, Interim Fire Chief
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report.
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2); Property:7780 Monterey Street, Gilroy (Downtown Business
Association Office), APN 841-04-020 ; Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City
Administrator; Other Party to Negotiations: Jose Montes; Under
Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a) (4);
Title: Deputy City Administrator
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a) (4);
Title: Community Development Director
1. Public Comment on Closed Session Items
2. Adjourn to Closed Session
ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each
Councilmember if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and Gilroy Code
Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required
under Gilroy Code Section 17A.11 (5)
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
OCTOBER, 2019
21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
28 Special Joint Meeting with Santa Clara Valley Water District. - 6:00 p.m.,
Morgan Hill Council Chambers
30* Special Joint Meeting with Gilroy Unified School District Board - 6:00 p.m.,
City Council Chambers
NOVEMBER, 2019
4* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
10/21/2019 Page6 18* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
DECEMBER, 2019
2* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
9* Special Meeting/Board & Commission Interviews - 6:00 p.m., City
Council Chambers
* meeting is webstreamed and televised
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 7, 2019
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Velasco.
2. Invocation
There was no invocation provided.
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Shawna Freels announced that the agenda had been posted on
October 2, 2019 at 3 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mayor Roland Velasco Mayor Present 5:55 PM
Marie Blankley Council Member Present 5:53 PM
Dion Bracco Council Member Present 5:50 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 5:57 PM
Carol Marques Council Member Present 5:54 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Present 5:45 PM
Cat Tucker Council Member Present 5:52 PM
B. Orders of the Day
Mayor Pro Tempore Blankley asked to move the Youth Commission
appointments up the agenda following consent calendar.
The Council agreed to move the item.
C. Employee Introductions
Human Resources Director McPhillips introduced newly hired HR Assistant
Veronica Croche.
Captain Deras introduced newly hired Police Officer Andrea Castellanos.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Presentation of Safe Routes to School Awards by Santa Clara
County Public Health
Santa Clara County Public Health staff presented the awards to Engineer 1
Nirorn Tran, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Sean Reedy, Gilroy PD Traffic Unit
and California Highway Patrol Officer Macelli
6.A
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
2. Proclamation Naming the Month of October as Planning Month
Mayor Velasco presented the proclamation to Chair Fischer.
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Bill O'Connor spoke on the topic of unfunded pension liabilities and described the
prioritization of use of reserve monies for items such as a new fire station and
other needs verses an unknown.
Ron Kirkish spoke on the use of the reserve funds for things such as disasters.
A. Planning Commission Annual Presentation to Council
B. Opportunity Zone Presentation by the Downtown Business Association
The presentation was given by Downtown Business Association Member John
Taft.
Public comment was opened.
Gary Walton spoke on the potential loss of investors if the City did not move
quickly.
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council member Tucker reported on the Habitat Agency Board meeting and
strategic planning session of the Welcome Center (sp?)
Mayor Pro Tempore Blakley spoke on the updates provided by the City
Administrator on the Sharks organization preliminary work. She then spoke on
SCRWA meeting and High Speed Rail alignment and spoke on the CalTrain
changes. She then spoke on the prioritization of keeping bus service to Gilroy.
Council Member Marques spoke on the URM building meetings.
Council Member Tovar spoke on the successful National Night Out event and
Boots for Badges fundraiser and then spoke on an event to highlight local heros
and then spoke on the upcoming Tamale Festival.
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz spoke on the Authority presentation.
Mayor Velasco announced that the central coast markting team would be
working with the EDC on opportunity zones.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Velasco asked to have planning staff look at the opportunity zone overlay
and then report back to Council.
The Council agreed.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
6.A
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar, Tucker
A. Minutes of the September 16, 2019 Regular Meeting
B. Opening of the Annual Recruitment Period for Boards, Commissions and
Committees With Member Terms Expiring December 31, 2019
C. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to
Appropriate Non-General Funds in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 in Various Non-
General Funds (Special Revenue, Capital, Debt Service, and Enterprise)
and Appropriating Proposed Expenditure Amendments
D. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget Appropriation Carryovers to Amend the
Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Amended Budget for Non-General Funds Including
Special Revenue, Capital, Internal Service, and Enterprise Funds
E. Claim of John Kalas (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote
under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
F. Claim of Alfredo Torres (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote
under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
G. Claim of Fabiola Delgado Lara (The City Administrator recommends a
“yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the
claim)
H. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Adopting
the Sewer System Management Plan for the Gilroy Sewer System in
Accordance with State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-
0003-DWQ
I. Authorization to the City Administrator to Issue One-time Personal Leave
Hours in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 for Certain City Employee Groups Due to
the Garlic Incident
J. Council Consent to the Appointment of Scott Golden as Information
Technology Director Pursuant to Charter Section 703
K. Consideration and Direction to Gilroy's Voting Delegate to Support the
2019 League of California Cities Resolutions
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS - NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Sections of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code Related to
General Plan and Zoning Relationship, Definitions, Land Use Tables and
Standards, Parking, Storage, RV Park Development, Non-Conforming Uses,
Minor Modifications and Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards (introduced
9/9/2019 with a 6-0-1 vote; Council Member Tovar voting no)
The staff report was presented by Senior Planner Tambornini.
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending
sections of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy Code related to general plan and
zoning relationship, definitions, land use tables and standards, parking,
storage, RV park development, non-conforming uses, minor modifications
and accessory dwelling unit standards.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
B. Approval of an Amendment to Property Improvement Agreement No. 2015 -
06 for Harvest Park Phase II - Tract 10276; APN 790-06-044
The staff report was presented by City Engineer Heap.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Approve an Amendment to Property Improvement Agreement No. 2015-06
for Harvest Park Phase II - Tract 10276; APN 790-06-044.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
C. Appointment of Five Members to the Youth Commission With Terms
Ending September 30, 2021
Possible Action:
Appoint five Youth Commission members to terms ending September 30,
2021.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consider Modifications to the Temporary Use Permit Provisions Under City
Code Chapter 30 Article 47 of the Zoning Ordinance Entitled "Temporary
Uses"
The staff report was presented by Senior Planner Tambornini.
Direction to staff to look at alternative 1, with additional research with options on
the amount of time not to exceed 1 year.
6.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff
RESULT: APPROVE [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Marie Blankley, Dion Bracco, Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Carol
Marques
AWAY: Mayor Roland Velasco, Fred Tovar, Cat Tucker
Adjourn to the Meeting of the Gilroy Public Facilities Financing Authority
XI. GILROY PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Roll Call of the Board of Directors
A. A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Gilroy Public Facilities
Financing Authority Establishing Regular Meetings
The staff report was presented by Finance Director Forbis.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Gilroy Public Facilities
Financing Authority establishing that meetings of the Gilroy Public
Financing Authority are to be held concurrently with the regular meetings
of the Gilroy City Council.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
Adjourn to the Meeting of the Gilroy City Council
XII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
A. Update on Community Engagement Activities and Progress on Second
Community-Wide Poll for a Potential Future Revenue Measure
Possible Action:
Receive report.
XIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIV. CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney advised Council that they were entering into closed session on
items 14 A and C as discussion in open session would unavoidably prejudice the
City's position in the cases.
Public comment was opened.
6.A
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/7/2019
Jose Montes spoke on the costs he had incurred to negotiate for the paseo
describing that he would need a firm commitment before he spent any additional
monies.
Public comment was then closed.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION; Paragraph
(1) of Subdivision (d) of 54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(3)(a);
Case Name: Alma Ramirez, an individual; H.A. and L.A., both minors, as
successors in interest to Hector Alvarez, deceased, by and through their
guardian ad litem Alma Ramirez; vs. City of Gilroy, Adam Moon and Does 1
through 10, inclusive; Santa Clara Co. Superior Court, Case No. 17-CV-
00625-HRL, Filed February 7, 2017
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2); Property: 7665 Crews Road, Gilroy (Van Dyke Ranch); APN 841-46-004;
Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator; Other Party to
Negotiations: Peter N. Van Dyke, Elizabeth A. Van Dyke, Kurt E. Van Dyke;
and Eric Van Dyke; Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision
(d) of Government Code Section 54956.9, and Gilroy City Code Section
17A.11 (3) (b) One (1) Case as Defendant
D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2); Property:7780 Monterey Street, Gilroy (Downtown Business
Association Office), APN 841-04-020 ; Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City
Administrator; Other Party to Negotiations: Jose Montes; Under
Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
E. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(2);
Employee Name/Title: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8: 21 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Minutes of the October 7, 2019 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Releasing
Specified Unclaimed Checks to the City’s General Fund in
Accordance with California Government Code Section 50053
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Rosemary Guerrero
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to release unclaimed checks
to the City's General Fund in accordance with California Government Code Section
50053.
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to release unclaimed
checks to the City’s General Fund in accordance with California Government Code
Section 50053
BACKGROUND
6.B
Packet Pg. 13
The City of Gilroy has several checks that have been outstanding and unclaimed for
more than three years. According to guidelines set forth by the California Government
Code Section 50053, any individual check for mo re than fifteen ($15) dollars, which
remains unclaimed for more than three years, may be transferred to the General Fund
by the City Council after public notification in a local newspaper. Attached is the notice
which was advertised on August 30 and September 6, 2019 in the Gilroy Dispatch.
ANALYSIS
In compliance with the above guidelines, staff recommends the adoption of a resolution
to claim these outstanding check items and transfer the total amount of $289.43 to the
City’s General Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Release of these unclaimed funds will increase General Fund revenue by $289.43
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notification to the public was made via Gilroy Dispatch advertisements on August 30
and September 6, 2019.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 50053
2. Checks over $15 & Advertisement FY19
6.B
Packet Pg. 14
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY TO RELEASE UNCLAIMED CHECKS TO
THE CITY OF GILROY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 50053
WHEREAS, the attached list of checks have been outstanding and unclaimed for more
than three years; and
WHEREAS, a Public Notice of the unclaimed funds was advertised in a newspaper of
local circulation on August 30, 2019 and September 6, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the unclaimed checks on the attached list
in the total amount of $289.43 shall be transferred to the General Fund or other fund(s) so
designated, in accordance with Section 50053 of the California Government Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2019 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
___________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Resolution 50053 (2302 : O/S Checks over $15)
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Checks over $15 & Advertisement FY19 (2302 : O/S Checks over $15)
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Checks over $15 & Advertisement FY19 (2302 : O/S Checks over $15)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Releasing
Specified Unclaimed Checks to the City’s General Fund in
Accordance with California Government Code Section 50055
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Rosemary Guerrero
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to release unclaimed checks
to the City of Gilroy pursuant to California Government Code Section 50055.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy has several checks that have been outstanding and unclaimed for
more than one year. According to guidelines set forth by the California Government
Code Section 50055, any individual check for less than fifteen ($15) dollars, or any
amount if the payee’s name is unknown, which remains unclaimed for the pe riod of one
year may be transferred to the General Fund by the City Council without the necessity
of public notification in a newspaper.
6.C
Packet Pg. 18
ANALYSIS
In compliance with the above guidelines, staff recommends the adoption of a resolution
to claim these outstanding check items and transfer the total amount of $12.43 to the
City’s General Fund
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Release of these unclaimed funds will increase General Fund revenue by $12.43.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 50055
2. Checks under $15 FY19
6.C
Packet Pg. 19
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY TO RELEASE UNCLAIMED CHECKS TO
THE CITY OF GILROY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 50055
WHEREAS, the attached list of checks have been outstanding and unclaimed for more
than one year; and
WHEREAS, each of the checks listed on the attached summary is less than fifteen (15)
dollars or any amount if the payee’s name is unknown.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the unclaimed checks on the attached list
in the total amount of $12.43 shall be transferred to the General Fund or other fund(s) so
designated, in accordance with Section 50055 of the California Government Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October, 2019 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
___________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Resolution 50055 (2299 : Unclaimed Checks Less than $15)
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Checks under $15 FY19 (2299 : Unclaimed Checks Less than $15)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of a Policy for the Establishment of a Housing Assistance
Program for Newly Appointed Charter Officers, the Deputy City
Administrator and Department Heads
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
LeeAnn McPhillips
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting a policy for the
provision of housing loans to newly appointed charter officers, the deputy city
administrator and department heads.
BACKGROUND
Santa Clara County has one of the most expensive housing markets in the United
States with the average median home price at over $1.1 million. In Gilroy, the average
home price is approximately $800,000 making relocation from a lower-cost housing
market a significant challenge when recruiting executive positions.
6.D
Packet Pg. 22
Housing costs, the relative unavailability of new housing and current financing
conditions in the area continue to be a significant disincentive to persons relocating to
this area and an obstacle to the recruitment and hiring of top quality personnel.
When recruiting at the executive management level, the applicant pool and outreach is
nationwide. Using the assistance of an executive search firm, recruiters are often
reaching out beyond California state lines where housing is often less expensive.
Recently, Gilroy has been unable to recruit some qualified candidates for department
head positions due to the cost of housing in the Gilroy region. While excited for the job
opportunity Gilroy has to offer, candidates have communicated they are just unable to
make the transition due to the high cost of housing and what would be needed for a
down payment.
Many cities in the San Francisco Bay area including Morgan Hill, Hayward, Stockton,
Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara have created programs to assist with recruitment of
executive-level positions by offering housing down payment and/or mortgage
assistance.
Morgan Hill provided a $1.3 million housing loan to encourage its’ new City Manager to
relocate within the Morgan Hill City limits. This was a 30-year loan with interest-only
payments applied to half ($650,000) of the loan and principal + interest loan on the
other $650,000 for an annual payment of $47,058.
Sunnyvale provides housing loans up to 10 times the employee’s annual salary at the
time of employment and is based on a 45-year term with interest calculated at the
Federal Home Loan Bank (11th District) cost of funds.
Cupertino provides housing loans up to five time the employee’s maximum base salary
at time of the loan and is based on a 3-year term with interest calculated at the 11th
District cost of funds.
ANALYSIS
Staff proposes to establish an executive recruiting housing program to attract
candidates and incentivize them to re-locate to Gilroy.
The basics of the housing program include:
1. Eligible employees include Council-appointed and deputy city
administrator/department head positions.
2. Up to $800,000 loan (adjusted annually for inflation) for either down payment
assistance or purchase of a home in the Gilroy city limits.
3. 30-year repayment term.
4. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) interest rate as of the month prior to
execution of the loan documents plus .25%. The rate as of this Council meeting
would be 2.56% and would be fixed for the term of the loan.
6.D
Packet Pg. 23
5. Loans shall be secured to the satisfaction of the City Administrator, City Attorney,
and Finance Director evidenced by a promissory note secured by a Deed of
Trust.
6. Employee will have 12 months to re-pay the loan should the executive manager
separate City employment for any reason.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The City regularly invests its funds in a variety of financial securities at varying earning
rates, some of which may be below current mortgage rates. As loans will be set to the
City’s current rate of return in LAIF, there should be no fiscal impact. Should the open
mortgage market offer interest rates lower than LAIF, the employee will be required to
re-finance the loan to take advantage of the lower interest rates.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends implementation of the Executive Management Housing Assistance
Program as a vital tool for recruiting qualified candidates to executive management
positions. Currently, the City is actively recruiting for a Community Development
Director, Deputy City Administrator for Economic Development, and a Fire Chief. The
ability to offer a housing assistance program to a finalist who needs to relocate to Gilroy
will assist the city in hiring the best-qualified candidates.
NEXT STEPS
Should Council approve the staff recommendation, the City Administrator will include
this program in recruitment materials for the aforementioned positions.
All loan documents agreed upon between the City and employee will be submitted to
Council for approval.
Attachments:
1. Reso Housing Program
6.D
Packet Pg. 24
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF HOUSING LOANS
TO NEWLY APPOINTED CHARTER OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT
HEADS
WHEREAS, the recruitment and hiring of top quality high level management employees is
essential to the efficient operation of the government of the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, housing costs, the relative unavailability of new housing, and current housing
financing conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area, and particularly in the City of Gilroy and
adjacent cities, continue to be a significant disincentive to persons relocating to this area and an
obstacle to the recruitment and hiring of top quality personnel; and
WHEREAS, these conditions are not only an obstacle to recruiting and hiring qualified
employees, but also tend to discourage those employees from living in the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the interests of the City of Gilroy would be best
served by encouraging new Council appointed officers and department directors to live in
Gilroy to ensure their ready availability and familiarity with the Community; and
WHEREAS, the City regularly invests its funds in a variety of financial securities are varying
earning rates, some of which may be below current mortgage rates; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the City's reserves may be utilized to accomplish the intent of the
City Council to promote the recruitment and hiring of the best available personnel and to encourage
those employees to live in the City of Gilroy and still produce equivalent investment income; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved policy guidelines to provide financing assistance in
appropriate cases to newly appointed City Council appointees and department directors to assist
those employees in purchasing a residence within the City of Gilroy for the provision of housing; and
WHEREAS, in order to continue to promote the objectives described in this resolution, the
City Council desires to create the Executive Recruitment Housing Program to provide housing
assistance policy to accommodate changing market conditions and hiring needs; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gilroy
that:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the recruitment and hiring of personnel to fill the
positions of Council appointed officers and deputy city administrators/department directors is of
key importance to the functioning of the City government, that it is in the interest of the City to
encourage such officers to live within the corporate boundaries of the City of Gilroy, that the
provision of housing assistance may, in certain cases, enhance the ability to accomplish these
purposes, and that housing assistance can be provided without significantly affecting the
financial status of the City.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Reso Housing Program [Revision 1] (2397 : Executive Recruitment Housing Program)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby declares that it is the policy of the City, in appropriate
cases, to assist newly appointed Council appointed officers and deputy city
administrators/department directors to reside within the City of Gilroy by making available, as an
additional benefit of employment, a secured loan of City finds to acquire local housing when
necessary to secure service. The need for housing assistance shall be reviewed on an individual
basis and shall not be available as a matter of right to any newly appointed employee. In
addition, the terms of any loan offered pursuant to this policy shall be negotiated based upon the
individual circumstances surrounding the appointment of each employee, provided that the loan
terms are consistent with the provisions of this resolution.
SECTION 3. Loans made pursuant to this policy shall be available only upon the following
terms and conditions, and any consistent terms and conditions deemed reasonable by the City:
a) Eligible Positions. Newly hired Council appointed officers and the deputy city
administrator/department directors, are eligible for housing loans under this program.
b) Employment Agreement Required. Loans shall be a benefit of employment in
consideration for a new employee’s services, documented in a separate written agreement
entered into at or near the time of initial appointment. Employees offered housing loans
must purchase housing within the first twelve (12) months of the employment start date
or shall be ineligible to receive a housing loan under this program.
c) Loan Amount. Loans shall not exceed $800,000 as of October 1, 2019 and may be
adjusted annually according to the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) as
of October 1 of each subsequent year.
d) General Loan Requirements. Loans offered pursuant to this program shall be available
only under all of the following conditions:
(i) The loan is solely for purchase of residential property within the City of
Gilroy;
(ii) The new home is, in fact, used as the principal residence of the employee;
(iii) Loans are conditioned on future performance of substantial service by the
employee and shall be due and payable in full upon sale or transfer of the property
by the employee and within twelve (12) months of either the termination for any
reason of the employee’s employment with the City or termination of the use of
the property as the principal residence of the employee, whichever occurs first. If
the employee should retire on disability or die during the period of the loan, the
loan shall be due and payable in full within twelve (12) months of the date of
disability or death.
(iv) Loans shall not be assignable or transferrable.
e) Tax Treatment of Loans. Housing loans provided under this program shall comply with
Internal Revenue Service regulations (including but not limited to 26 U.S.C. §217 and
Temp. Treas. Reg. §1.7872-5T), as may be amended from time to time. Employees are
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Reso Housing Program [Revision 1] (2397 : Executive Recruitment Housing Program)
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
strongly encouraged to seek advice from their own tax professional regarding loans
issued pursuant to this policy.
(1) Tax Exempt Loans. Employees who meet the following criteria may be eligible
for a tax-exempt employee relocation loan pursuant to IRS rules:
(i) The loan is a demand loan or a term loan with non-transferable interest
benefits, and is conditioned on the future performance of substantial
services by the employee.
(ii) The employee’s new principal place of work must be at least 50 miles
farther from his/her former residence than was his/her former principal
place of work, or, if he/she had no former principal place of work, is at
least 50 miles from his/her former residence.
(iii) The employee certifies that he /she reasonably expects to be entitled to and
will itemize deductions for each year the loan is outstanding.
(iv) The loan proceeds must be used only to purchase the new “principal
residence” of the employee as defined by the IRS.
(2) Taxable Loans. Employees who do not meet the criteria for tax-exempt employee
relocation loans may receive mortgage assistance loans with the imputed interest
considered taxable compensation and reported on the employee’s W-2 and 1098-
INT forms with any interest paid.
(f) Loan Security. Loans shall be secured to the satisfaction of the City Administrator, City
Attorney, and Director of Finance and evidenced by a promissory note secured by a Deed
of Trust.
(g) Interest Rate. Loans shall have a fixed interest rate and shall be established in accordance
with the rate of return of the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
administered by the California State Treasurer and will be based on the prevailing LAIF
rate of return on the last valued date prior to making the loan. In no event shall any loan
be for a term exceeding 30 years.
(h) Refinance Requirements. If at any time during the term of a loan, commercial or other
applicable financing becomes available at or below the interest rate applicable to the
City loan, the employee shall refinance and retire the City loan.
(i) Source of Loan Funding. Loans shall only be made from City funds which would
otherwise be available and invested in financial securities with varying rates of return.
SECTION 4. In hiring and appointing the deputy city administrator and department
directors, the City Manager is authorized to act in accordance with the policy described in this
resolution as necessary to fulfill recruitment and hiring needs for those positions. The City
Manager is authorized to determine in each case whether to offer housing assistance as an
element of compensation and the terms of any assistance provided. Any loan shall be consistent
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Reso Housing Program [Revision 1] (2397 : Executive Recruitment Housing Program)
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
with the provisions of Section 3 of this resolution, however, the City Manager may impose
additional and/or more restrictive conditions than those in Sections 3.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2019 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Reso Housing Program [Revision 1] (2397 : Executive Recruitment Housing Program)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $48,250 With
EPC IT Solutions for Network and Infrastructure Improvements
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Information Technology
Submitted By: Scott Golden
Prepared By: Scott Golden
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a contract amendment in the amount of $48,250 with EPC IT Solutions and
authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement.
BACKGROUND
The previous contract amendment with EPC included an amount of $106,000 for
external wireless network (Wi-Fi) replacement. During the course of work in FY19, it
was determined that replacing the City’s existing wired network infrastructure was a
greater need than replacing the external wireless network. T he City’s current network
infrastructure consists of Cisco Catalyst Switches. These switches were implemented
more than a decade ago. The connection capacity they provide is much slower than
current generation equipment. They do not have modern features or allow for efficient
management of the network. Most importantly they are a security risk as the operating
7.A
Packet Pg. 29
system software of the switches is no longer secure and the switches cannot be
upgraded to the latest versions of the software.
This project is related to the 2020-2021 Strategic Plan objective #1 Ensure Financial
Stability under sub-objective #1.6 Explore options for service delivery mechanism to
reduce costs. This action is also a part of the Information Technology Strategic Plan
(ITSP). Hosting a more robust network means a faster network for City Hall computers
and systems. So improving network capacity also improves staff efficiency by reducing
task-hours for all tasks requiring a network or internet connection. This also means
enhanced customer service capabilities to our residents.
The network core equipment cost was $70,842 and the network edge equipment cost
was $83,407. Both of these put together exceed the $106,000 for wireless network
equipment that was approved in the previous amendment. The network core
infrastructure replacement project is in progress. The equipment has been installed in
City Hall, the Police Department and the City Hall Annex. Connectivity between the
devices has been established and configuration work is progressing. Tes ting and device
conversion to the new network will take place in October. The network edge
infrastructure replacement project will begin later this fall.
The EPC IT Solutions contract and amendment history is as follows (the amounts
shown are a cumulative total):
Original Contract $32,500
First Amendment $104,820
Second Amendment $194,400
Third Amendment $374,240
Fourth Amendment $781,240
Fifth Amendment $829,490
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Staff recommends an increase to the scope of the existing contract to include (Items #1
and #2 are unchanged, items #3 and #4 are modified items):
1. Tier 2 Onsite Managed Network Services (2 days per week), Network
Assessment
2. Tier 2 Onsite Managed Network Services (2 days per week), Network
Assessment, Tier 3 Network Configuration Services (3 days per month) ($135,000
annually)
7.A
Packet Pg. 30
a. Network equipment and port audit
b. Network design and security review
c. Network equipment configuration and replacement across all sites
3. Cabling services for City facilities ($15,000 annually) – provide for cabling
installation services as needed.
4. Procurement of City core wired network infrastructure. Proof of concept testing for
Cisco and Meraki infrastructure, and development of Cisco/Meraki approved Bill
of Materials ($70,842).
5. Procurement of City edge wired network infrastructure. Proof of concept testing
for Cisco and Meraki infrastructure, and development of Cisco/Meraki approved
Bill of Materials ($83,407).
The new amendment will not change the term of the agreement, currently through June
2020.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has two options:
1. Council may approve the contract amendment with EPC IT Solutions. STAFF
RECOMMENDS THIS OPTION because it will improve network capacity, which
will increase staff efficiency, enhance customer service, and allow for necessary
network security upgrades. This will provide for enough funding for the network
infrastructure replacement project to be completed as designed by EPC staff.
2. Council could choose to not authorize the contract amendment. STAFF DOES
NOT RECOMMEND THIS OPTION. Based on the current project estimates there
would not be enough hours available for EPC staff to complete the project as
currently designed. Additional staffing would need to be attained either through
selection of an alternate vendor or additional involvement of Information
Technology staff. Selecting an alternative vendor would cause significant delays
in this project as they would need to come up to speed on the network
environment and design, and current project status.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is sufficient funding in the Information Technology FY20 budget for the cost of
staffing provided by EPC.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the recommendation to increase the City’s contract with EPC will enable the
Information Technology Department to continue to invest in the City’s IT infrastructure,
increasing network capacity for city staff which ultimately provides for enhanced
customer service capabilities to our residents.
7.A
Packet Pg. 31
Attachments:
1. Fifth Amendment to Agreement for Services between City and EPC v1 (Final)
2. Exhibit B Scope of Services (2019)
7.A
Packet Pg. 32
-1- 4829-4654-6345v1
CCHU\04706083
Fifth AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation (“City”), and EPC IT Solutions Inc.
entered into that certain agreement entitled AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES, effective on July 13,
2015, hereinafter referred to as “Original Agreement”; and
WHEREAS, City and EPC IT Solutions Inc. entered into the first amendment to the Original
Agreement, effective on December 14, 2015;
WHEREAS, City and EPC IT Solutions Inc. entered into the second amendment to the Original
Agreement, effective on May 24, 2016;
WHEREAS, City and EPC IT Solutions Inc. entered into the third amendment to the Original
Agreement, effective on February 7, 2017;
WHEREAS, City and EPC IT Solutions Inc. entered into the fourth amendment to the Original
Agreement, effective on August 8, 2018;
WHEREAS, City and EPC IT Solutions Inc. have determined it is in their mutual interest to
amend certain terms of the Original Agreement, consistent with the Statement of Work enclosed
herewith providing for additional work and services totaling $48,250.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT, of the Original Agreement shall be amended to read
as follows: “This agreement will continue in effect through June 30, 2020 unless terminated in
accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement.”
2. ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION, Section A. Consideration, of the Original Agreement shall be
amended to read as follows: “In no event however shall the total compensation paid to
CONSULTANT exceed $829,490.00.”
3. Exhibit “B” (“Scope of Services”) of the Original Agreement, shall be removed and replaced
with the attached Exhibit “B”.
4. This Amendment shall be effective on October 23, 2019.
5. Except as expressly modified herein, all of the provisions of the Original Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. In the case of any inconsistencies between the Original Agreement and
this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control.
6. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
dates set forth besides their signatures below.
CITY OF GILROY EPC IT Solutions Inc.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Fifth Amendment to Agreement for Services between City and EPC v1 (Final) (2445 : Contract Amendment for EPC IT Solutions -
-2- 4829-4654-6345v1
CCHU\04706083
By: By:
[signature] [signature]
Gabriel A. Gonzalez
[employee name] [name]
City Administrator
[title/department] [title]
Date: Date:
Approved as to Form
ATTEST:
City Attorney City Clerk
Scott Cornell
Director of Sales
10.9.19
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Fifth Amendment to Agreement for Services between City and EPC v1 (Final) (2445 : Contract Amendment for EPC IT Solutions -
1324 El Camino Real ● Belmont, CA 94002 ● 650-592-4372
Professional Services Statement of Work
October 9, 2019
Prepared for: Scott Golden – IT Director
City of Gilroy
Prepared By
Scott Cornell
Sales Manager
cornell@epcits.com/408-300-4983
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Exhibit B Scope of Services (2019) (2445 : Contract Amendment for EPC IT Solutions - 2019)
ePC IT Solutions-Confidential Page 2 of 3 October 9, 2019
STATEMENT OF WORK
Description of Work
1. EPC will provide Network Engineer expertise - Onsite Managed Network
Services (16 hours per week), Network Assessment, Network Administrator expertise
Network Configuration Services (24 hours per month) ($135,000 annually):
a. Network equipment and port audit. In the current environment essentially
every network connection (port in the wall) is plugged into a switch. A considerable
number of those connections are not in use. This work will validate physical port usage
across the agency to prepare for equipment replacement. There will also be an overall
evaluation of the equipment to determine if it is appropriately matched for the
environment. This audit will help ensure that Gilroy is not overspending on equipment,
buying greater capacity or more ports than what is actually needed.
b. Network design and security review. The network design review will identify
areas that could be simplified for better network organization. The security review will
help Gilroy to continue to improve its overall security posture. Advancing Gilroy’s
network security protection is an ongoing initiative.
c. Network equipment configuration and replacement. Fully refresh the aging
network equipment throughout all City facilities with improved procurement d ecision
making from the information derived in the above work.
2. Cabling services for City facilities ($15,000 annually) – provide for cabling
installation services as needed. In many work areas City facilities do not currently have
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Exhibit B Scope of Services (2019) (2445 : Contract Amendment for EPC IT Solutions - 2019)
ePC IT Solutions-Confidential Page 3 of 3 October 9, 2019
the necessary network cable infrastructure for optimum performance in a modern
organization.
3. Procurement of City core wired network infrastructure. Proof of concept testing
for Cisco and Meraki infrastructure, and development of Cisco/Meraki approved Bill of
Materials ($70,841.91)
4. Procurement of City edge wired network infrastructure. Proof of concept
testing for Cisco and Meraki infrastructure, and development of Cisco/Meraki approved
Bill of Materials ($83,407.12)
***End of document
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Exhibit B Scope of Services (2019) (2445 : Contract Amendment for EPC IT Solutions - 2019)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of Adopting the "Reach Codes" for Building
Electrification to Support Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Goals
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Greg Larson
Prepared By: Greg Larson
Hipolito Olmos
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This purpose of this agenda item is to discuss and provide policy direction from Council
on whether to adopt the building electrification “Reach” code amendments in new
construction.
Every three years every local government in California is required to consider and adopt
the California Title 24 Code of Regulations which sets the standard building code for all
jurisdictions statewide. The Reach Codes are more stringent code requirements that
10.A
Packet Pg. 38
local governments can choose to adopt that support local and/or statewide energy and
greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Adoption of Reach Codes is optional. If Council directs staff to proceed with this Reach
Code amendment, then staff will include these amendments with the complete Title 24
Building Code amendments scheduled for the November 4th City Council meeting.
POLICY DISCUSSION
Should the City Council direct staff to consider the addition of Reach Codes to include
building electrification in new construction?
BACKGROUND
Reach Code Adoption Process
Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards organized in
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building
Standards Code (or Building Code). This regular update is referred to as a code cycle.
The last code cycle was completed in late 2016 and took effect on January 1, 2017. The
next code adoption cycle will take place in late 2019 and will take effect on January 1,
2020.
As part of the triennial building code update process, cities and counties can choose to
adopt Reach Code amendments that exceed the minimum state code requirements.
These Reach Codes must be filed with the State and a cost-effectiveness study is
required for amendments to the Energy Building Code (Title 24, Part 6).
The following developments from the past two years have precipitated this report:
A growing body of evidence that the climate crisis is real and demands action;
Limited federal government action to address the climate crisis necessitates that
state and local governments play a leading role in steering societal changes that
may lead to climate stability; and
The successful de-carbonization of the region’s electricity supply, via Silicon
Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), makes electricity the cleanest fuel for building
energy. Natural gas combustion in dual-fuel buildings is now the second largest
source (after transportation) of climate-changing emissions in our community.
What is the Problem?
Emissions from natural gas combustion have become the largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions associated with buildings. These emissions make up about one -third of
the greenhouse gas emissions in our region. Of these emissions in a typical dwelling,
about 49% comes from water heating, 37% from space heating, and 7% from cooking,
with the remainder being pool heating, clothes drying, etc. While the exact numbers for
nonresidential buildings vary widely with the type of occupancy, the aggregate
10.A
Packet Pg. 39
nonresidential numbers are 32% for water heating, 36% for space heating, 23% for
cooking, and 9% for miscellaneous.
Advantages of Electrification (Using electricity to heat and cook)
In terms of developers construction costs, eliminating installation of gas pipelines into a
single family residential development can save approximately $7,000 per unit. While the
increased cost of installing larger electrical transformers will reduce the net savings,
depending on the location, all-electric construction is expected to be less expensive on
average. Any resulting cost-savings may or may not be passed on to the consumer (i.e.
new homeowner).
From the operational or user-cost side, it is difficult to definitively determine whether an
all-electric building will cost more or less to operate because the relative costs of
electricity and natural gas fluctuate over time. However, property owners have the
opportunity to purchase and install a solar energy system, which may offset some or all
of their electricity use. The same cannot be said for natural gas use.
Lastly, all-electric homes are considered substantially safer than their dual-fuel
counterparts because there are no emissions within the home from gas combustion and
there are no gas pipes that can leak due to wear, age, or earthquake.
ANALYSIS
The greatest opportunities for electrifying buildings are present when the building is
being designed and constructed. With this in mind, there have been significant efforts to
develop policies encouraging and/or requiring electrification in the past year.
Chief among these efforts is the Reach Code project of SVCE and Peninsula Clean
Energy. The consultants hired by these clean energy authorities analyzed the new 2019
Building Code and developed a model strategy for all jurisdictions in the region to
consider. The strategy’s basic approach is to:
“Allow all-electric buildings to be constructed without any
additional requirements beyond the State Energy Code since
they already will not generate operational greenhouse gas
emissions; and require dual-fuel buildings to meet a higher
energy standard that will substantially increase their efficiency.”
The net impact of this approach is that the all-electric buildings become relatively less
expensive to construct due to higher standards imposed on dual-fuel buildings. In
addition, all-electric buildings involve less infrastructure and the cost associated with
such design and construction is respectively lower. It is expected that this cost
difference will drive more developers to choose the all-electric pathway. As a result, the
carbon footprint in new dual-fuel buildings will be reduced because of the enhanced
efficiency.
To be enforceable, Reach Codes need to be cost -effective according to State-
10.A
Packet Pg. 40
sanctioned models. As tested, the proposed Reach Code could require exceeding the
Energy Code by 14-25% in single-family buildings, 8-15% in multifamily buildings, and
5-14% for nonresidential buildings depending on the specific use. In general, the hi gher
the increased efficiency requirement is, the larger the incentive is for the developer to
construct the building with all-electric equipment. Please note, even the maximum
efficiency requirements proposed have been determined to be cost-effective when both
the construction and operational costs are considered.
Gas Ban
A second concept under consideration by some communities is an outright ban on
natural gas installations in some types of new construction. Rather than adopting a
Reach Code which relies on economic incentives, the gas ban simply requires all-
electric construction for new buildings, like low-rise residential buildings, that have been
proven cost-effective. By relying on a community’s police power, the gas ban approach
is administratively efficient and, unlike the Reach Code, will not require updating in three
years.
Options
While various options are possible, the following are presented to the Council for
consideration:
During the next regular Title 24 Building Code update:
No Reach Codes. Adopt the 2019 California, Title 24 Code of Regulations which
sets the standard building code for all jurisdictions statewide without the
proposed Reach Code – Building Electrification amendments.
Minimal Reach Code. Adopt a minimal Reach Code (requirements on the low-
end of the scales as described above in the body of Analysis; dual-fuel energy
efficiency requirements of 14% for single-family buildings, 8% for multifamily
buildings, and 5% for non-residential buildings)
Maximum Reach Code. Adopt a maximum Reach Code (requirements on the
high-end of the scales as described above in the body of Analysis; dual-fuel
energy efficiency requirements of 25% for single-family buildings, 15% for
multifamily buildings, and 14% for non-residential buildings)
Gas Ban. Implement a Gas Ban for eligible buildings and Maximum Reach Code
(above) for others.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Prioritize the above options (or other ideas) for staff,
2. Direct staff to convene one or more engagement sessions with co mmunity
stakeholders to further refine the ideas, and
3. Direct staff to return to the Council this fall with an implementation ordinance
10.A
Packet Pg. 41
reflecting the Council’s priorities
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no fiscal impacts from this item and no budget adjustment is requested.
Evaluating program options is included in the work program of the Community
Development Department.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On September 23, 2019, Staff hosted a discussion on this topic at the Developers
Roundtable meeting. Subsequent meetings may take place to inform and consult with
the development community depending on Councils direction.
10.A
Packet Pg. 42
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of Adopting the "Reach Code" for Electrical Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure in New Construction to Support Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Greg Larson
Prepared By: Greg Larson
Hipolito Olmos
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss and receive policy directi on from Council
on whether to adopt the electrical vehicle charging infrastructure Reach Code
amendments in new construction.
Every three years every local government in California is required to consider and adopt
the California Title 24 Code of Regulations which sets the standard building code for all
jurisdictions statewide. The Reach Codes are more stringent code requirements that
10.B
Packet Pg. 43
local governments can choose to adopt that support local and/or statewide energy and
greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Adoption of Reach Codes is optional. If Council directs staff to proceed with this reach
code amendment, then staff will include those amendments with the complete Title 24
Building Code amendments scheduled for the City Council meeting on November 4,
2019.
POLICY DISCUSSION
Should the City Council direct staff to consider the addition of Reach Codes to address
electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new construction?
BACKGROUND
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Registered plug-in vehicles in Santa Clara County increased by 31% in 2018, while the
increase in registrations for vehicles powered by fossil fuels shrank during that same
time period. For EV users, the availability of EV charging infrastructure is a critical
component to incorporating this climate-friendly alternative into one’s lifestyle. It is
significantly more expensive to install charging infrastructure as a retrofit than it is
during new construction. Ensuring that newly constructed residential and non -residential
parking has ample EV charging capability will reduce long-term costs of EV
infrastructure installation, while helping to increase EV adoption and decrease
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. While California’s new minimum
requirements are a step forward, it is unlikely that the requirements for multi-family
dwellings and non-residential buildings are enough to keep pace with expected EV
growth towards 2030.
Electric Vehicle (EV) charging requirements in California can generally be broken into
three categories:
EV Charging Installed: all supply equipment is installed at a parking space, such
that an EV can charge without additional equipment.
EV Ready: Parking space is provided with all power supply and associated
outlet, such that a charging station can be plugged in and a vehicle can charge.
EV Capable: Conduit is installed at a parking space, and building electrical
system has ample capacity to serve future load. An electrician would be required
to complete the circuit before charging is possible.
There are three levels of service that pertain to EV charging capacity and speed, as
follows:
Level 1: Charges at 120 Volts, 20 Amps. This is equivalent to a standard home
outlet.
10.B
Packet Pg. 44
Level 2: Charges at 240 Volts, 30-40 Amps. This is the service capacity typically
used for larger appliance loads in homes such as a dryer.
Level 3: (Direct Current Fast Charging): Charges at 20-400 kilowatts. This is the
type of charger used for Tesla Superchargers and Direct Current Fast Chargers
at some supermarkets.
Electric Vehicle Changes in 2019 Code
The categories and levels described above are helpful to understand pending legislative
changes. The 2019 California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11) increases
requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new construction; including:
New one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages
must be Level 2 EV Capable. (Again “Capable” this means the conduit is
installed but an electrician would still be required later)
Multi-family dwellings: 10% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV Capable.
Non-residential: 6% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV Capable.
Reach Code Adoption Process
Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards organized in
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building
Standards Code (or Building Code). This regular update is referred to as a code cycle.
The last code cycle was completed in late 2016 and took effect on January 1, 2017.
Adoption of the 2019 code cycle will occur before the end of calendar year 2019 will
take effect on January 1, 2020.
Cities and counties can adopt Reach Codes above the minimum state mandated code
requirements. These Reach Codes must be filed with the State and a cost-effectiveness
study is not required for amendments to the Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11).
ANALYSIS
Unlike amendments to the Energy Code, a cost-effectiveness study is not required for
amendments to Title 24, Part 11, or the Green Building Code “CALGreen” which covers
items such as electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
However, to evaluate the financial impact on first costs, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE)
and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) commissioned an analysis of the total cost of
implementing various EV infrastructure measures. Staff worked closely with PCE,
SVCE, and the Statewide Program’s team to establish new construction EV
requirements which are more in-line with local EV adoption trends, and keeping
construction costs as low as possible.
Options
10.B
Packet Pg. 45
While numerous Reach Code amendment options can be generated, staff’s
recommendations are based on the cost analysis commissioned by Peninsula Clean
Energy (PCE) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). The basis of that analysis
considers the total implementation cost of various EV infrastructure measures along
with the financial impact on first costs. Staff worked closely with PCE, SVCE, and the
Statewide Program’s team to present, new construction EV charging infrastructure
Reach Code amendments that are prudent and cost-effective to the Gilroy community.
The following Reach Code EV charging infrastructure amendments are presented to the
Council for consideration:
Residential
One and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages:
One dedicated “EV Ready” Level 1 circuit, and one dedicated EV Capable Level
2 EV raceway.
Affordable one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private
garages: One dedicated EV Ready Level 1 circuit.
Multi-unit housing with covered parking: Per unit, a single EV Ready Level 1 EV
circuit and 25% of the units shall have one dedicated EV Capable Level 2 EV
raceway installed.
o Exception: Not required for units without parking
Affordable multi-unit housing with covered parking: Per unit, a single EV Ready
Level 1 circuit shall be installed in 20% of the dwelling units with covered parking
space(s). The remaining dwelling units with covered parking space(s) shall be
provided with at least a Level 1 EV Capable raceway.
Non-Residential Office & Non-Office
10 or more new parking spaces: 6% of the parking spaces, shall be equipped
with a Level 2 Electrical Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) and an additional 10%
of the parking spaces, shall be at least Level 2 EV Capable.
New parking lots with over 100 spaces:
o The first hundred spaces must adhere to the Level 2 requirements noted.
o All additional sets of 100 parking spaces can substitute the Level 2 EVCS
requirement with 1 80kW minimum rated DC fast charger.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no fiscal impacts from this item and no budget adjustment is requested.
Evaluating program options is included in the current work plan of the Community
Development Department.
10.B
Packet Pg. 46
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On September 23, 2019, Staff hosted a discussion on this topic at the Developers
Roundtable meeting. Subsequent meetings may take place to inform and consult with
the development community depending on Councils direction.
10.B
Packet Pg. 47
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on Sustainable Water Supply Management Strategies for
the City of Gilroy and the City Morgan Hill
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Damian Skinner
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy supplies water to more than 14,800 residential, commercial, and
industrial customers. The City manages the distribution system relying solely on ground
water extracted from the Llagas Subbasin groundwater aquifer. While the City is
responsible for providing clean and safe drinking water to its residents, the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (Valley Water) is responsible for maintaining the ground water
aquifers and the overall water supply for the County. In addition to ensuring
groundwater recharge through the use of dams, reservoirs and large conduits in South
County, Valley Water actively brings imported water that travels through the
10.C
Packet Pg. 48
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Luis Reservoir into South County specifically
for groundwater recharge purposes.
Valley water is currently in the process of updating several planning documents and has
continually requested input from the City of Morgan Hill and the other wat er retailers for
its planning efforts. The most impactful of these plans are the updates to the Water
Supply Master Plan and the Countywide Recycled Water Master Plan. These plans call
for numerous projects that could positively or negatively impact the Ci ty’s water supply
from both a sustainability and financial perspective.
Valley Water’s Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CWRUMP) project aims to
advance water reuse and improve water supply reliability for Santa Clara County in
collaboration with recycled water producers (e.g. South County Regional Wastewater
Authority - SCRWA), wholesalers, retailers (e.g. City of Gilroy water system), users, and
other interested parties. The Master Plan will identify how much water will be available
for potential potable reuse and non-potable reuse expansion, options for system
integration, recommendations for building upon non-potable reuse projects and creating
new potable reuse projects, and proposals for governance model alternatives including
roles and responsibilities.
In addition, in its 2012 Water Supply Master Plan, Valley Water lays out a vision for
meeting future water demands through 2035. The Water Supply Master Plan includes
recycled water projections for the county through 2035, which will be revised as pa rt of
the 2018 Water Supply Master Plan which identifies a need for 24,000 AFY (acre -feet
per year) of Potable reuse supply, in addition to the projected 28,500 AFY supply of
Non-potable reuse, to meet county water supply demands by 2028. This combined tot al
of 52,500 AFY reuse water is expected to meet or exceed VW minimum goal of 10
percent recycled water within the county by 2028.
Valley Water and SCRWA (the Joint Powers Authority between Morgan Hill and Gilroy
established primarily for managing wastewater treatment for the two cities) have long
standing relationship that dates back to the early 1990s, mainly focused on recycled
water production, distribution, operation and maintenance. The governing bodies of the
two agencies hold quarterly meetings to d iscuss recycled water projects and initiatives.
In the past, Valley Water has expressed interest in higher level of involvement in the
operations and governance of SCRWA.
The water supply for the City of Gilroy is linked with the City of Morgan Hill through the
sharing of the Llagas Subbasin groundwater aquifer and the generation of recycled
water from wastewater at the South County Regional Wastewater Facility (SCRWA),
which is jointly owned by the Cities. The City of Morgan Hill operates its water utilit y
similarly to the City of Gilroy and has common interest in the operations and planning
efforts of Valley Water. After considering the timing of planning and the alignment of
interest, the cities have partnered to consult with Akel Engineering to develop a
technical memo (Memorandum) on sustainable water management planning
(Attachment 1) specifically for the two cities.
The purpose of this report and presentation is to aid both staff and elected officials in
identifying which projects are the most beneficial to the cities and to provide a
10.C
Packet Pg. 49
framework upon which decision makers can adopt policies that support a sustainable
water future. It is important to note that while both cities are located in South County,
the study (and attached Memorandum) considers the needs of the cities specifically in
their role to provide water to urban customers. It is important to note that, while the
Cities make up the majority of the population in South County, they account for less
than 40% of the water extracted from the Llagas Subbasin.
ANALYSIS
Water Supply Planning
The Memorandum identified 18 projects for analysis. The ranking of projects within the
Memorandum utilizes a variety of criteria and ultimately assigns each project a ranking
based on its benefits to the water supply for the cities. This analysis provides the cities
with additional data to inform their comments on Valley Water’s current plans and on
their future planning work. The top 4 projects include:
1. Agricultural and Other Users Offset - This alternative scored the highest based
on the criteria. This is largely due to the potential significant reduction in
groundwater pumping that could be achieved and the negligible need for any
new infrastructure. This project would initiate a program to provide a policy a nd
regulatory framework to reduce agricultural pumping within the South County
specifically during droughts or imported water supply curtailments. The project
would conceptually provide agricultural water users with incentives to reduce
groundwater pumping in order to preserve groundwater levels.
2. (Tie) Butterfield Channel Recharge - This project would construct pipelines that
would extend the Madrone Pipeline, which currently ends at 101, to allow Valley
Water to bring imported water or Anderson water into the Butterfield Channel for
groundwater recharge. It is anticipated to have an annual yield of 2,000 Acre
Feet per Year (AFY) in the Llagas Subbasin. While this project does rely on the
availability of imported water or Anderson water, it scores well in terms of
location of benefit and overall increases to the Llagas Subbasin. Its lower cost as
compared to other projects also supports its high scoring.
2. (Tie) South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) to
Butterfield Channel - This project would alter alternatives currently outlined in
Valley Water’s Recycled Water Master Plan and would deliver IPR water to the
Butterfield Channel from the SBWR Plant in San Jose. This project scores well in
terms of location of benefit and overall increases to the Llagas Basin. It also
scores highly due to it increasing resiliency as it does not rely on the availability
of imported water.
4. South County Water Treatment Plant (with Increased Deliveries) - This
project would construct a surface water treatment plant in the South County area
to receive raw water from the Santa Clara Conduit. This project scores well with
10.C
Packet Pg. 50
the provision that a substantial increase in yield is possible (up to approximately
11,000 AFY). Should deliveries be supported at this higher level, there is
significant potential to rest groundwater wells within the cities.
It should also be noted that many long-discussed potential projects have not scored as
highly in this analysis. These include the Morgan Hill scalping plant and the pumpin g of
recycled water from SCRWA to Morgan Hill for non-potable reuse.
Policy Implications
It is believed that this analysis can help support the ongoing policy decisions for the
decision makers at both cities. To conduct the analysis, some basic assumptio ns were
used to support the work. These assumptions include:
If imported water were unavailable for an extended period, groundwater aquifers
would suffer dramatically.
The water supplies for both Cities are isolated single -source systems with no
potential interties or other infrastructure to improve resiliency.
The Llagas Subbasin does not have formal allocation limits, and no
corresponding water supply agreements exist between the cities and Valley
Water, thus the status of the supplies is difficult to determine.
The respective municipal water systems have benefitted from the managed
recharge programs implemented by Valley Water.
The amount and reliability of imported water supplies is likely to diminish in the
future due to climate change, biological restrictions that limit pumping in the
Delta, and physical disruptions, e.g., levee failures, to the Delta infrastructure.
City staff is recommending that Gilroy and Morgan Hill continue to explore and expand
their joint groundwater planning, policies and objectives. Staff are recommending that
the cities begin to work together to take an increasingly active approach in ensuring
water supplies in partnership with Valley Water. Some specific actions include:
1. Explore joint role in regional water supply planning.
2. Define a minimum level of service for water supply.
3. Define risk levels for water supply.
4. Identify reasonable recycled water investments benefitting both Morgan Hill and
Gilroy.
5. Develop water supply agreements with Valley Water.
It is important to recognize that this more active approach is different than the past
approach. Morgan Hill staff believes that their City can continue to construct the needed
infrastructure to support the increased demand on the water system that will be required
by growth if appropriate development impact fees are collected. However, as previously
noted, the Cities are completely reliant on Valley Water for the ground water recharge
that is required to maintain water levels within the groundwater aquifers. Historically,
10.C
Packet Pg. 51
Valley Water has been an excellent partner in ensuring this recharge has occurred, but
there are significant changes ahead. Factors that are necessitating this change in
approach include:
1. Climate change is real and future droughts may be longer and more severe.
2. State and Federal policies may likely lead to reductions in the amount of
imported water that is available in the future.
3. Recent housing legislation intended to increase housing production may increase
water demand significantly locally, regionally and across the State resulting in an
increase in water demand.
4. Valley Water is responsible for the water supply of the metropolitan areas in
Northern Santa Clara County. The elected representation for South County is
limited to one of seven board members.
5. The City of Morgan Hill is extremely vulnerable, being at the “top of the hill” for
both of the aquifers it draws water from, and therefore is much more vulnerable
during severe drought events.
The proposed more active approach may require additional work with Vall ey Water in a
formal setting. The two cities and Valley Water established a Joint Water Resources
Committee in 2017 in order to facilitate policy discussions and the sharing of information
among the three jurisdictions. Recently, Valley Water has expressed an interest in
expanding its role in the governance of wastewater resources in South County –
particularly as it relates to the development of additional recycled water infrastructure.
Staff agrees that it is important that Valley Water representatives h ave a formal role in
these decisions and recommends that the Council direct staff to explore developing a
new agreement, committee, and/or organization in cooperation with Valley Water that
will roughly equate to the agreements and institutions that Valley Water has with the
cities in Northern Santa Clara County.
Should the City Council agree with the actions outlined in the Memorandum, staff intend
to partner with the City of Morgan Hill and utilize opportunities to work with Valley Water
on moving these actions forward. In conjunction with this work, City staff will continue to
evaluate and update the City Council on future actions that may be appropriate for the
City - especially as it relates to new growth and associated water supply needs.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill jointly funded the review of currently available
literature, analysis and comparison of the various alternatives and preparation of the
Technical Memorandum. Gilroy’s share of the cost is approximately $18,000.
To the extent any of the alternatives discussed in the previous sections are pursued
further by Valley Water (directly or indirectly), there will likely be fiscal impacts to the
10.C
Packet Pg. 52
cost of wholesale price the cities pay for ground water. These additional costs are not
known at this time.
Attachments:
1. Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group
10.C
Packet Pg. 53
CITY OF GILROY
AND
CITY OF MORGAN HILL
SUSTAINABLE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
FINAL
September 2019
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
7433 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 103 • FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720 • (559) 436-0600 • FAX (559) 436-0622
www.akeleng.com
September 26, 2019
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
City of Morgan Hill,
17575 Peak Avenue,
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Attention: Mr. Girum Awoke, P.E. Mr. Chris Ghione
Director of Public Works, City of
Gilroy
Public Services Director, City of Morgan Hill
Subject: Technical Memorandum – Sustainable Water Management Planning
Dear Girum and Chris:
We are pleased to submit this letter report documenting the water supply alternatives analysis
and project ranking for the Llagas and Coyote Valley Groundwater Subbasins. This analysis
documents on-going and potential projects impacting the water supplies in the local
groundwater aquifers, and provides a qualitative analysis and ranking system in an effort to
prioritize the impact of each project and the benefits to the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill.
We are extending our thanks to you and your staff, SCRWA staff, and other staff, whose
courtesy and cooperation were valuable components in completing this study and producing
this report.
Sincerely,
AKEL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Tony Akel, P.E.
Principal
Enclosure: Report
Cc: Mr. Saeid Vaziry, PE, Environmental Programs Manager, South County Regional
Wastewater Authority
Smart Planning Our Water Resources
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Acknowledgements
City of Gilroy
Girum Awoke, Director of Public Works
Gary Heap, City Engineer
City of Morgan Hill
Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
Anthony Eulo, Program Administrator
Dan Repp, Deputy Director of Utility Services
South County Regional Wastewater Authority
Saeid Vaziry, Environmental Programs Manager
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Sustainable Water Management Planning
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
September 2019 i City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................. 2
3.0 GROUNDWATER BASINS ......................................................................................... 2
3.1 Llagas and Coyote Valley Groundwater Basins ................................................ 2
3.2 Existing and Projected Water Supply Balance .................................................. 3
4.0 EXISTING VALLEY WATER BASIN RECHARGE PROGRAM .................................. 4
5.0 CITY OF GILROY AND MORGAN HILL CURRENT POLICY OBJECTIVES ............. 4
6.0 POTENTIAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS ................................................... 5
6.1 Currently Considered Projects .......................................................................... 5
6.2 New Projects Added for Consideration ............................................................. 6
7.0 PROJECT EVALUATION AND RANKING .................................................................. 7
7.1 Criteria............................................................................................................... 7
7.2 Project Evaluation and Ranking ........................................................................ 8
8.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 9
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 10
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Groundwater Subbasins
Figure 3 Creeks and Water Bodies
Figure 4 Groundwater Wells
Figure 5 Gilroy – Morgan Hill Recycled Water Alternatives
Figure 6 Santa Clara Conduit
TABLES
Table 1 Existing and Projected Supply vs Demand Comparison (Coyote Valley Subarea)
Table 2 Existing and Projected Supply vs Demand Comparison (Llagas Subbasin)
Table 3 Evaluation Criteria – Categories and Scores
Table 4 Project Ranking
APPENDIX
Llagas Groundwater Subbasin 2035 Water Budget
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 1 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
2019
Sustainable Water Management Planning
1.0 BACKGROUND
The cities of Gilroy (G) and Morgan Hill (MH) are located approximately 25 miles south of San Jose
along the State Route 101 corridor (Figure 1). The cities are located in the southern portion of County
of Santa Clara, within the Santa Clara Valley. Both areas are located within the Llagas Subbasin
groundwater aquifer, with the northern-most portion of Morgan Hill located in the Coyote Valley
Subbasin groundwater aquifer (Figure 2). The cities completed a 2015 Urban Water Management
Plan, which provides a groundwater balance for the respective aquifers, and which documents
objectives to meet the groundwater supply and demand needs for a 20-year planning horizon.
As part of continued management efforts to provide a sustainable groundwater resource, Valley Water
(VW) is in the process of updating the Water Supply Master Plan and County-Wide Recycled Water
Master Plan for their service area. Other relevant studies and reports include:
1. Zone of Benefit Study (VW) – In Progress
2. South County Recycled Water Master Plan (G/MH/VW) – 2015
3. Morgan Hill Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) - 2015
4. Gilroy Urban Water Management Plan - 2015
5. Morgan Hill Water System Master Plan - 2017
Several projects have been recommended in each report that impact the Llagas and Coyote Valley
Subbasins. This report evaluates the impact of these projects, while suggesting enhancements or
alternate projects, that may be beneficial to the cities and the groundwater basin. Accordingly, the
cities have retained the services of Akel Engineering Group to perform a qualitative analysis of the
water supply projects, their benefits to the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, and to provide a ranking of
the projects as a useful tool for guiding water supply discussions.
This memorandum includes the following sections:
• Groundwater Basins
• Existing VW Basin Recharge Program
• City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill Policy Objectives
• Potential Water Management Projects
• Project Evaluation and Ranking
• Summary
• Recommendations
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 2 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
2.0 DEFINITIONS
Since some of the terms used in this memorandum are not commonplace, it is important to
understand the following basic definitions:
Sustainable
Water supplies are available in sufficient volume to maintain a positive annual water budget in the
Llagas and Coyote subbasins where water supplies include: imported water, surface water storage,
recycled water, and precipitation capture.
Resiliency
Water emanates from a source that is in some ways different than existing sources and less
interruptible due to climate change, imported water restrictions, or physical failures in the imported
water delivery system.
Non-Potable Reuse (NPR) Water
Common “purple pipe” recycled water resulting from additional treatment processes as a wastewater
treatment plan that is typically used solely for irrigation and some industrial processes.
Potable Reuse (PR) Water
Wastewater that has been subject to advanced treatment processes at a wastewater treatment plant
that render the water safe for human consumption. Uses for potable reuse can be either indirect or
direct.
• Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) – There are 2 types of IPR, and both require an environmental
buffer. These items are as follows:
Groundwater Recharge – requires 6 months retention time before reaching nearest well
Surface Water Augmentation – requires time in a reservoir before entering a treatment
plant
• Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) – 2 types
Raw Water Augmentation (send directly to a drinking water treatment plant)
Direct Connection to a public water system
3.0 GROUNDWATER BASINS
This section provides a description of the groundwater basin characteristics and documents the water
supply balance for the Llagas Subbasin and Coyote Valley Subarea in accordance with the cities’
respective 2015 UWMPs.
3.1 Llagas and Coyote Valley Groundwater Basins
The City of Morgan Hill is located above the boundary between two groundwater basins: The Coyote
Valley Subarea of the Santa Clara groundwater subbasin in the north and the Llagas groundwater
subbasin in the south, with Cochrane Road generally serving as the boundary line. The City of Gilroy
is located entirely within the Llagas Subbasin. Neither the Coyote Valley Subarea nor the Llagas
Subbasin are adjudicated groundwater basins and overdraft has not been a historical problem.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 3 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
The VW prepared a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) in November 2016. This 2016 GMP
provides a comprehensive overview of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and recommends
various management strategies for the basin. The plan specifies two Basin Management Objectives,
which summarize the overall management objectives for the VW and are summarized as follows:
• Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land
subsidence
• Groundwater is protected from contamination
The VW GMP and the Cities 2015 UWMPs include detailed discussions on the groundwater basins
and on the collaborative efforts currently underway to manage the groundwater supplies. This
includes management of the upstream watersheds, which are a significant source of natural
groundwater recharge. The watersheds are shown on Figure 3.
The supply reliability is considered for the near-term needs (2020) and the long-term needs (2020-
2040). There are two aspects of supply reliability to be considered. The first relates to immediate
service needs and is primarily a function of the availability and adequacy of the supply facilities. This
aspect is considered for emergency reliability. The second aspect is climate-related, and involves the
availability of water during mild or severe drought periods.
3.2 Existing and Projected Water Supply Balance
As part of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (2015 UWMP), each City prepared a supply
versus demand comparison that evaluated the Llagas Subbasin and Coyote Valley Subarea. Figure
4 documents the location of each City’s groundwater wells with respect to the groundwater aquifers.
The groundwater wells indicate which groundwater aquifers impact the City’s overall production. A
discussion of the groundwater supply balance for each aquifer is included in the following, and an
infographic explaining the water supply balance concept is included in the Appendix:
• Coyote Valley Subarea. Table 1 documents the water supply balance for the Coyote Valley
Subarea. In accordance with the City of Morgan Hill’s 2015 UWMP, the Coyote Valley
Subarea was projected to have an 1,168 acre-feet per year (AFY) deficiency in 2020, with the
deficiency expanding to 1,982 AFY by the year 2040.
• Llagas Subbasin. Table 2 documents the water supply balance for the Llagas Subbasin, and
in accordance with the Gilroy 2015 UWMP. The Llagas Subbasin is currently projected to have
a surplus of 900 AFY in 2020, and a 1,400 AFY deficiency by 2035. However, accounting for
recycled water from the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA), the 2020
surplus increases to 3,700 AFY and the deficiency is offset and becomes a 2,300 AFY surplus
by 2035.
Recycled water was addressed as part of a joint effort between VW, the City of Morgan Hill,
the City of Gilroy, and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority. Alternatives for
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 4 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
servicing the City of Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill with recycled water are shown on
Figure 5.
4.0 EXISTING VALLEY WATER BASIN RECHARGE PROGRAM
VW imports Central Valley Project water from San Luis Reservoir via the Pacheco Tunnel, the
Pacheco Conduit, and the Santa Clara Conduit. The Santa Clara Conduit traverses the east side of
the City of Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill, with connections supplying raw water for recharge
purposes in the City of Morgan Hill. The Santa Clara Conduit is shown on Figure 6.
Valley Water manages several groundwater recharge projects that receive deliveries from the Santa
Clara Conduit, and discussed as follows:
• San Pedro Ponds: These ponds are located in the City of Morgan Hill and recharge the
Llagas Subbasin. However, due to septic tanks in the area, the full capacity of this recharge
basin is not utilized.
• Main Avenue Ponds: These ponds are on the east side of the City of Morgan Hill and
recharge the Llagas Subbasin.
• Madrone Channel: This channel is used for stormwater runoff management in the wet
season, and receives raw recharge water via the Madrone Pipeline during the summer
months. While the northern end of the Channel recharges the Coyote Valley Subarea when
stormwater is present, the Channel primarily recharges the Llagas Subbasin.
• Llagas In-Stream Recharge: This managed recharge occurs using natural runoff in Llagas
Creek to recharge the Llagas Subbasin.
These projects are part of the managed groundwater recharge program administrated by VW. The
2016 Groundwater Management Plan for VW indicates that there is a recharge capacity of 19,000
AFY.
5.0 CITY OF GILROY AND MORGAN HILL CURRENT POLICY
OBJECTIVES
The cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy currently acknowledge that:
• If imported water were unavailable for an extended period, groundwater aquifers would suffer
dramatically.
• Their water supplies are isolated single source systems, with no potential interties
(connections to other systems) or other infrastructure to improve resiliency.
• The Llagas Subbasin does not have formal allocation limits, and no corresponding water
supply agreements exist between the cities and VW, thus the status of the supplies is difficult
to determine.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 5 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
• The respective municipal water systems have benefitted from the managed recharge
programs implemented by VW.
• The amount and reliability of imported water supplies is likely to diminish in the future due to
climate change, biological restrictions that limit pumping in the Delta, and physical disruptions,
(e.g., levee failures), to the Delta infrastructure.
6.0 POTENTIAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
This section documents projects that are currently being considered by VW, as well as other projects
that have been added based on feedback during planning workshops held jointly with City of Gilroy
and City of Morgan Hill staff.
6.1 Currently Considered Projects
VW is currently in the process of updating their Water Supply Master Plan, and which includes
projects intended to balance and promote sustainability of the Llagas and Coyote Valley aquifers. The
projects include the following:
Groundwater Recharge Projects
• GW-1 Butterfield Channel Recharge. This project is anticipated to have an annual yield of
2,000 AFY in the Llagas Subbasin, and would extend the Madrone Pipeline to the Butterfield
Channel.
• GW-2 Anderson Dam Reconstruction. This project includes retrofits to Anderson Dam, and
raising the spillway. This project is anticipated to increase annual yields to Coyote Creek by
10,000 AFY, and benefits the Coyote Valley Subarea. Valley Water recently completed a
project that enables Anderson water to now flow into the Madrone Channel and recharge the
Llagas aquifer as well.
• GW-3 San Pedro Ponds. This project would extend sewer services to nearby homes currently
relying on septic tanks in order to allow the full capacity of the San Pedro Ponds to be utilized.
This project has an anticipated yield of approximately 1,000 AFY.
• GW-4 Uvas Pipeline. This project would install a pipeline from Uvas Reservoir to Llagas
Creek. This project has an anticipated yield of approximately 1,000 AFY.
• GW-5 Church Avenue Pipeline. This project would install a new pipeline off of the Santa
Clara Conduit and to the Church Ponds. This project has an anticipated yield of approximately
1,000 AFY.
• GW-6 Uvas Reservoir Expansion. This project would expand the Uvas Reservoir holding
capacity. This project has an anticipated yield of approximately 1,000 AFY.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 6 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
Other Water Supply Projects
• OS-1 South County Water Treatment Plant. This project would construction a surface water
treatment plant in the South County area, and receive raw water from the Santa Clara Conduit.
This project has an anticipated yield of approximately 2,000 AFY (OS-1a).
As an alternative (OS-1b), a secondary scenario was included to increase the yield of the
South County Water Treatment Plant to 11,000 AFY. This was done in an effort to substantiate
the Water Treatment Plant option, should supplies be available.
In addition to the projects list above, Valley Water is currently working on a County-Wide Recycled
Water Master Plan. This master plan evaluated four scenarios to deliver recycled water to the South
County area, and discussed as follows:
Recycled Water Projects
• RW-1 South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR). This project is considered as Alternatives 1 and
2 in the Recycled Water Master Plan, and would deliver enhanced non-potable reuse (NPR)
water to Morgan Hill for the purposes of reuse.
• RW-2 Scalping Plant. This project is considered as Alternatives 3 and 4 in the Recycled
Water Master Plan, and would construct a recycled water scalping plant in Morgan Hill, and
treat and deliver advance purified water to the Church Ponds for indirect potable reuse (IPR)
groundwater recharge.
6.2 New Projects Added for Consideration
Finally, other projects were consider that altered, or expanded on, the currently considered projects.
Some additional projects were considered by the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy that are not yet
included in the VW planning documents. These alternatives are as follows:
Groundwater Recharge Projects
• GW-7 Stormwater Capture. This project would increase stormwater retention basin capture in
an effort to enhance groundwater recharge during rainfall events.
Recycled Water Projects
• RW-3 Scalping Plant for NPR. This project would treat wastewater for delivery as NPR to a
recycled water system in the City of Morgan Hill.
• RW-4 SCRWA Pump Station to Morgan Hill. This project would construct a pump station at
the SCRWA treatment plant and pump recycled water to Morgan Hill for NPR.
• RW-5 SCRWA IPR Upgrade and Pump Station to Morgan Hill. This project would upgrade
the SCRWA treatment plant to Advanced Water Treatment. A pump station would be
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 7 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
constructed at the SCRWA treatment plant and pump recycled water to Morgan Hill for IPR in
the Butterfield Channel.
• RW-6 Scalping Plant to IPR. This project alters Alternatives 3 and 4 in the Recycled Water
Master Plan, and would construct a recycled water scalping plant in Morgan Hill, and treat and
deliver advance purified water to the Butterfield Channel for indirect potable reuse (IPR)
groundwater recharge.
• RW-7 SBWR IPR to Butterfield Channel. This project would alter Alternatives 1 and 2 in the
Recycled Water Master Plan, and would deliver IPR water to the Butterfield Channel from the
South Bay Water Recycling Plant.
Other Water Supply Projects
• OS-2 Buy and Wheel Water. This alternative would involve purchasing water from other
potential agencies and municipalities, and “wheeling” the water to the cities of Morgan Hill and
Gilroy via a transfer agreement.
• OS-3 Agricultural and Other Users Offset. This project would initiate a program to provide a
policy and regulatory framework to reduce agricultural pumping within the South County
specifically during droughts or imported water supply curtailments.
7.0 PROJECT EVALUATION AND RANKING
This section discusses the criteria used in the evaluation, and the results of the evaluation.
7.1 Criteria
Water supply projects should be evaluated and selected within a water supply policy framework.
These policies should address items such as risk, resiliency, sustainability, cost, and source of water
supplies. The following are a series of ranking criteria used in this report to evaluate water supply
projects. There were seven individual criteria evaluated for each project, and the project was ranked
from 0, meaning no benefit, to a 5, which would have a great benefit (Table 3). Additionally, the
seven criteria receive an independent weighting, which provided the importance of each criteria to the
cities. The criteria and their weight are discussed as follows:
• Criteria 1 - Increase in Yield to the Llagas Subbasin. The increase in yield is defined as
additional water to the basin, and does not account for inter-basin transfers. This criteria
received an overall weight of 20%.
• Criteria 2 - Increase in Yield to the Coyote Valley Subarea. The increase in yield is defined
as additional water to the basin, and does not account for inter-basin transfers. This criteria
received an overall weight of 5%.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 8 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
• Criteria 3 - Cost per Acre Foot. This is qualitative analysis of the cost per acre foot of each
project based on reported values from VW, and scaled appropriately for projects with cost not
yet established. This criteria received an overall weight of 15%.
• Criteria 4 - Location of Benefit. This is defined based on the geographical location of the
benefit for the project. For example, areas of recharge in the northern most portion of the
Llagas Subbasin have the highest benefit to the cities. This criteria received an overall weight
of 20%.
• Criteria 5 - Cost within Cities. This is a qualitative analysis of the foreseeable cost within the
cities related to the project. This can be related to road work, expected operations and
maintenance, easement acquisition, new pipeline networks, and other costs related to the
project. This criteria received an overall weight of 20%.
• Criteria 6 - Implementation and Regulatory. This criteria provides a basis for the feasibility
of construction, the likelihood of the project, and whether the current regulatory framework
supports the project. This criteria received an overall weight of 5%.
• Criteria 7 - Resiliency. This criteria evaluates the susceptibility of a project to the impacts of
climate change, as well as the potential for an interruptible Delta supply. Delta supply
interruptions could be related to earthquakes, biological concerns, or other factors that may
result in a limited water supply availability. This criteria received an overall weight of 15%.
7.2 Project Evaluation and Ranking
Based on the criteria listed above, each project was evaluated by City of Gilroy and City of Morgan
Hill staff and scored based on the benefits to the cities and their respective groundwater aquifers. The
evaluation was an iterative effort that involved multiple joint workshops with City of Gilroy and City of
Morgan Hill staff. Each workshop was intended as a stakeholder coordination meeting, in which
feedback on the criteria, criteria weighting, and project scoring were discussed and edited. Each time
changes were made, a new workshop was conducted to review the results and to provide team
discussions on the results of the evaluation.
The overall scoring matrix is documented on Table 4. The top 5 projects are documented in the
following:
• Rank 1: Agricultural and Other Users Offset. This alternative scored the highest, based on
the criteria, and largely due to the potential large offset in groundwater pumping, and the
negligible need for infrastructure.
• Tie – Rank 2: Butterfield Channel Recharge and SBWR IPR to Butterfield Channel. Both
of these projects score well in terms of location of benefit and overall increases to the Llagas
Basin. Butterfield Channel scores well in terms of cost, while SBWR scores well in resiliency.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 9 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
• Rank 4: South County Water Treatment Plant (Increased Deliveries). This project scores
well with the provision that a substantial increase in yield is possible. Should deliveries be
increased, there is significant potential to rest groundwater wells within the cities.
• Rank 5: South Bay Water Recycling. This project scores well in terms of benefits to the
groundwater aquifers and resiliency, however, this project will be very costly to implement.
8.0 SUMMARY
As part of continued management efforts to provide a sustainable groundwater resource, Valley Water
(VW) is in the process of updating the Water Supply Master Plan and County-Wide Recycled Water
Master Plan for their service area. Several projects have been recommended in each report that
impact the Llagas and Coyote Valley Subbasins. This report evaluates the impact of these projects,
while suggesting enhancements or alternate projects, that may be beneficial to the cities and the
groundwater basin. Accordingly, the City of Gilroy has retained the services of Akel Engineering
Group to perform a qualitative analysis of the water supply projects, their benefits to the Cities of
Gilroy and Morgan Hill, and to provide a ranking of the projects as a useful tool for guiding water
supply discussions.
There were seven individual criteria evaluated for each project, and the project was ranked from 0,
meaning no benefit, to a 5, which would have a great benefit (Table 3). Additionally, the seven criteria
receive an independent weighting, which provided the importance of each criteria to the cities.
Eighteen overall projects were evaluated in accordance with this criteria and are documented on
Table 4.
The top 5 projects are documented in the following:
• Rank 1: Agricultural and Other Users Offset. This alternative scored the highest, based on
the criteria, and largely due to the potential large offset in groundwater pumping, and the
negligible need for infrastructure.
• Tie – Rank 2: Butterfield Channel Recharge and SBWR IPR to Butterfield Channel. Both
of these projects score well in terms of location of benefit and overall increases to the Llagas
Basin. Butterfield Channel scores well in terms of cost, while SBWR scores well in resiliency.
• Rank 4: South County Water Treatment Plant (Increased Deliveries). This project scores
well with the provision that a substantial increase in yield is possible. Should deliveries be
increased, there is significant potential to rest groundwater wells within the cities.
• Rank 5: South Bay Water Recycling. This project scores well in terms of benefits to the
groundwater aquifers and resiliency, however, this project will be very costly to implement.
These 5 potential projects are likely to have significant benefits to the overall sustainability of the
groundwater aquifers beneath the City of Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill. These benefits include
potable water offsets, diversification of potable water supply, additional managed recharge of the
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 10 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
groundwater aquifer, and policy implementation for offsetting aquifer pumping. It is recommended that
these identified projects continue to be explored in more-detailed reviews and to establish equitable
and sustainable water use and conservation within the South County.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends that Morgan Hill and Gilroy continue to explore and expand their joint
groundwater policies and objectives. Suggestions for future policy discussions between Gilroy and
Morgan Hill may include:
• Explore joint role in regional water supply planning.
• Define minimum level of service for water supply.
• Define risk levels for water supply.
• Identify reasonable recycled water investments benefitting both Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
• Define water supply agreements with Valley Water.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
Figures
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
!(
!(
!(
Morgan Hill
£¤101
£¤101
UV152UV152
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Coyote
Lake
Uvas
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
San Jose
UV85
Almaden
Reservoir
UV87
Gilroy
·|}þ1
Watsonville
Ogier
Ponds
Church Avenue
Ponds
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
50120.5
Miles
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig1_RLM_030419.mxd
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
GIS
Legend
City Limits Urban Growth Boundary
Updated: March 4, 2019
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
!(
!(Morgan Hill
£¤101
£¤101
UV152UV152
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Coyote
Lake
Uvas
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
Gilroy
Watsonville
Ogier
Ponds
Church Avenue
Ponds
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Figure 2
Groundwater Subbasins
50120.5
Miles
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig2_GW-Basins_011119.mxd
GIS
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary
Groundwater Subbasins
DWR Subbasins
Santa Clara (2-9.02)
Llagas (3-3.01)
Hydrographic Units
Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area
Coyote Valley Recharge Area
Llagas Recharge Area
Llagas Confined Area
Approximate Extent of Confined Area
Updated: January 11, 2019
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
!(
!(Morgan Hill
£¤101
£¤101
UV152UV152
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Coyote
Lake
Uvas
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
Gilroy
Watsonville
Uvas Creek
Watershed
Llagas Creek
Watershed
Coyote Creek
Watershed
Ogier
Ponds
Church Avenue
Ponds
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Figure 3
Creeks and Water Bodies
50120.5
Miles
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig3_WaterBodies_011119.mxd
GIS
Legend
Santa Clara County Watershed Boundaries
Coyote
Guadalupe River
Llagas
Uvas
Urban Growth Boundary
Creeks
Water Bodies
Updated: January 11, 2019
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
!(
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Morgan Hill
£¤101
£¤101
UV152UV152
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Coyote
Lake
Uvas
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
Gilroy
Watsonville
Ogier
Ponds
Church Avenue
Ponds
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Figure 4
Groundwater Wells
50120.5
Miles
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig4_GW-Wells_011119.mxd
GIS
Legend
#*Groundwater Wells
Urban Growth Boundary
Groundwater Subbasins
DWR Subbasins
Santa Clara (2-9.02)
Llagas (3-3.01)
Hydrographic Units
Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area
Coyote Valley Recharge Area
Llagas Recharge Area
Llagas Confined Area
Approximate Extent of Confined Area
Updated: January 11, 2019
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
È
6"#"ıÈ
6"#"ı
².UT
UT È
6"#"ı
UT
UT
È
6"#"ı
È
6"#"ı
È
6"#"ı
"9¾È
6"
##"ı È
6"
##"ı
W atsonvilleT e n n a n tS p rin gDunne DianaHi
l
lMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Peet L
a
k
e
vie
w
Oakwood£¤101
£¤101
H ig h la n d
S a n M a rtin
F i t z g e r a l d
L e a v e s le yLas A n im as
B u e n a V is t a
WrenS o u t h s id eMonterey4th
M id d le
Foot
hi
l
l
UV152
£¤101
UV152
C a lifo rn ia
Har
di
ngMORGAN HILL
GILROY
Day
Burchell
MillerFer
gusonNewG ilm a n
Bloom fieldSant
a Ter
esaB
ols
a
R u c k e r
C h ur ch Cent
er
M a p le
EdmundsonM ainH
ale KirbySycamor
eWastewater
Treatment Plant
S -1 8
S-21S-21S-24S-24S-27S-24S-27S-33S-30S -3 3
S-33S-
3
3
S-
3
3
S-
3
32
0202
0
2
0
2
0201
2
/
3
6
2
2
3 0 1 2
12
1
2
12121212
121212
12
1
4
14
1414121212
S -3 0
S-24S-24S-24S-24S-24S -2 4 S -2 4
S-24S-27S-
2
7
S-
3
3
S-
3
3
S-42S-42Transmission Main
Alternative 1
Transmission Main
Alternative 2
Scalping Plant
Mar
cel
l
a2424242424242424242 424242424
Proposed Pumps:
5,200 gpm
242424Potential Recharge
Facilities
2
4
Figure 5
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Recycled Water Alternatives
Legend
Proposed
UT Storage Tanks
È
6"#"ı Booster Stations
"9¾Scalping Plant
Baseline Improvements for all Alternatives
Recycled Water Recharge Pipeline
Recharge Pipeline Project Alternative 1
Recharge Pipeline Project Alternative 2
Sewer Relief Trunk
Morgan Hill Recycled Water Conceptual Buildout
Existing
².WWTP
UT Storage Tanks
È
6"#"ı Booster Stations
Recharge Ponds
Recycled Water Pipelines
Existing Users
In Progress Users
Baseline Users
Potential Users
Sewer Joint Trunk
City Limits
Roads
Lakes
00.510.25 MileUpdated: January 11, 2019 5GIS
File Name & Location: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig5_MHGL-RWalts_011119.mxd
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies for the City of Gilroy)
!(
!(Morgan Hill
£¤101
£¤101
UV152UV152
Anderson
Lake
Chesbro
Reservoir
Coyote
Lake
Uvas
Reservoir
Calero
Reservoir
Gilroy
Watsonville
Ogier
Ponds
Church Avenue
Ponds
Madrone
Ponds
Main Avenue
Ponds
San Pedro
Ponds
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Figure 6
Santa Clara Conduit
50120.5
Miles
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy_MorganHill\190110 - Supply Strategy\Final\MHGL_Fig6_CentralValleyProject_011119.mxd
GIS
Legend
Raw Water Pipeline
Urban Growth Boundary
Creeks
Water Bodies
Updated: January 11, 2019
Gilroy - Morgan Hill
Supply Strategy
DISCLAIMER: The Raw Water Pipeline is based
on a representation of Figure 2 from the DRAFT
CVPIA Water Management Plan 2017.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
Tables
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Table 1 Existing and Projected Supply vs Demand Comparison (Coyote Valley Subarea)
Gilroy ‐ Morgan Hill Supply Analysis
City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
1 23456
Projected Water Supply of the Coyote Valley Subarea1
Natural Groundwater recharge 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Local Surface Water 6,200 6,400 6,300 6,200 6,200
SCVWD CVP Deliveries 3,500 4,400 5,600 6,600 6,800
Total 12,100 13,200 14,300 15,200 15,400
Projected Average Daily Water Demand
City of Morgan Hill2 1,282 1,373 1,464 1,555 1,646
Other Users3 11,986 13,063 14,295 15,474 15,736
Total 13,268 14,436 15,759 17,029 17,382
Supply vs Demand Comparison
Difference (Supply ‐ Demand)‐1,168 ‐1,236 ‐1,459 ‐1,829 ‐1,982
Percent of Total Supply 110% 109% 110% 112% 113%
Notes:
7/26/2018
1. Projected supply per South County Supply document received from SCVWD staff May 27, 2016.
2. City of Morgan Hill demand includes pumping from the Boys Ranch wells, which are located in the Coyote
Valley subarea.
3. Demand for other users calculated from document received from SCVWD staff May 27, 2016.
Demand Condition
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Table 2 Existing and Projected Supply vs Demand Comparison (Llagas Subbasin)
Gilroy ‐ Morgan Hill Supply Analysis
City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Demand Condition 2020 2025 2030 2035
(AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY)
1 2345
Existing and Projected Water Supply of the Llagas Subbasin
Natural Groundwater Recharge 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400
Local Surface Water 16,000 18,100 20,300 21,500
SCVWD CVP Deliveries 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,400
Recycled Water Supply 2,800 3,100 3,700 3,700
Total without Recycled Water 49,100 51,300 53,400 54,300
Total with Recycled Water 51,900 54,300 57,100 58,000
Existing and Projected Average Daily Water Demands for the Llagas Subbasin
City of Gilroy 9,200 10,300 11,600 12,900
City of Morgan Hill 7,000 7,600 8,200 8,700
Other Groundwater Users 32,000 33,000 33,800 34,100
Total 48,200 50,900 53,600 55,700
Supply vs Demand Comparison ‐ Excluding Recycled Water
Difference (Supply ‐ Demand)900 400 ‐200 ‐1,400
Percent of Total Supply 98% 99% 100% 103%
Supply vs Demand Comparison ‐ Including Recycled Water
Difference (Supply ‐ Demand)3,700 3,400 3,500 2,300
Percent of Total Supply 93% 94% 94% 96%
Notes:3/4/2019
1. Source: 2015 Gilroy UWMP
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Table 3 Evaluation Criteria ‐ Categories and Scores
Gilroy ‐ Morgan Hill Supply Analysis
City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
4/18/2019
The scores in this category range from 1 to 5:
1. Cost expected over $5,000 per AF
2. Cost expected up to $2,500 per AF
3. Cost expected up to $1,500 per AF
4. Cost expected up to $1,000 per AF
5. Cost expected up to $500 per AF
Criteria 1 ‐ Increase in Yield (Llagas)
The scores in this category range from 0 to 5:
0. No additional water added into the Basin
1. Less than 1,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
2. Potential for over 1,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
3. Potential for over 2,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
4. Potential for over 3,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
5. Potential for over 4,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
Note: New projects that move water already available within the basin are given a 0, as they do not provide additional yield, but transfer the yield
from one area to another.
Criteria 2 ‐ Increase in Yield (Coyote)
The scores in this category range from 0 to 5:
0. No additional water added into the Basin
1. Less than 1,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
2. Potential for over 1,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
3. Potential for up to 2,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
4. Potential for up to 3,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
5. Potential for up to 4,000 AFY additional Basin Supply
Note: New projects that move water already available within the basin are given a 0, as they do not provide additional yield, but transfer the yield
from one area to another.
Criteria 3 ‐ Cost per AF
Criteria 7 ‐ Resiliency
The scores in this category range from 1 to 5:
1. Project is highly susceptible to climate change and/or interruptiple Delta supply impacts.
2. Project is susceptible to climate change and/or catastrophic event impacts.
3. Project is somewhat susceptible to climate change and/or catastrophic event impacts.
4. Project is resistant to climate changeand/or catastrophic event impacts.
5. Project is not noticeably impacted by climate change and/or catastrophic event impacts.
Note: Interruptiple Delta supply events can be related to earthquakes, biological concerns, and other factors resulting in limited water supply
from the Delta.
Category 4 ‐ Location of Benefit
The scores in this category range from 1 to 5:
1. Located outside of the Llagas Unconfined or Coyote Valley Aquifer
2. Located on the periphery of the Llagas Unconfined Aquifer or in Coyote
3. Located in the mid to southern portion of the Llagas Unconfined Aquifer
4. Located in the southern portion of Morgan Hill in the Llagas Unconfined Aquifer
5. Located in the northern portion of Morgan Hill in the top of the Llagas Unconfined Aquifer
Category 5 ‐ Cost within Cities
The scores in this category range from 1 to 5:
1. Very high cost expected to cities, including O&M, easements, roadwork, etc
2. High cost expected to cities, including O&M, easements, roadwork, etc
3. Moderate cost expected to cities, including O&M, easements, roadwork, etc
4. Low cost expected to cities, including O&M, easements, roadwork, etc
5. Very low cost expected to cities, including O&M, easements, roadwork, etc
Criteria 6 ‐ Implementation / Regulatory
The scores in this category range from 1 to 5:
1. Project is not feasible based on construction, regulatory, and/or desirability.
2. Project will need to overcome significant construction, regulatory, and/or desirability difficulties.
3. Project will need to overcome some construction, regulatory, and/or desirability difficulties.
4. Project has very few construction, regulatory, and/or desirability difficulties.
5. Project is advantageous from a construction, regulatory, and/or desirability position.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Table 4 Project Ranking SummaryGilroy ‐ Morgan Hill Supply AnalysisCity of Gilroy and City of Morgan HillCostsScoring and Weights (5=Highest Benefit. 0=No Benefit)Project RankingCriteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6Criteria 7No.ProjectDescriptionPresent Value Cost to District Average Annual YieldIncrease to BasinCost/AFIncrease in Yield (Llagas)Increase in Yield (Coyote)Cost Per AFLocation of BenefitCost within CitiesImplementation / RegulatoryResiliencyWeight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight20% 5% 15% 20% 20% 5% 15%100%Million ($)(AFY)2(AFY) ($)ScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreScoreWeighted ScoreAggregate ScoreRankGroundwater Recharge ProjectsGW‐1 Butterfield Channel RechargeDeliver water from the SCP to Butterfield Channel. $20 2,000 2,000$40030.600.050.851.051.050.310.23.752(14, 15, 16)This project increases in benefit and potential yield if connected north to the Fisher Pond in Morgan Hill.GW‐2 Anderson Dam ReconstructionIncrease the capacity of Anderson Dam and increase yield to Coyote Creek.$1,200 10,000 10,000 $5,00030.650.310.220.451.030.230.53.00‐Benefit to the basin is limited to Coyote Valley unless additional infrastructure is added.GW‐3 San Pedro PondsRetrofit the San Pedro Ponds to reduce impact to local septics.$10 1,000 1,000 $40020.400.050.851.051.040.210.23.50‐Benefit limited to 1,000 AFY and dependent on availabilityGW‐4 Uvas PipelineConstruct pipeline from Uvas Reservoir to Llagas Creek.$80 1,000 1,000 $2,50020.400.020.340.851.020.120.32.90‐GW‐5 Church Avenue PipelineDeliver water from the SCP to the Church Ponds. $30 1,000 1,000 $90020.400.040.630.651.020.110.22.85(10)GW‐6 Uvas Reservoir ExpansionExpand the Uvas Reservoir capacity and increase yields to Uvas Creek.$330 1,000 1,000 $21,20020.400.050.810.251.020.130.52.90‐GW‐7 Stormwater CaptureImplement an aggressive stormwater capture program as a means of recharge.30.630.220.351.020.440.230.53.10‐Requires land acquisition, development code consistency, and revised storm drainage infrastructure planning.Recycled Water ProjectsRW‐1RW Master Plan (Alt. 1 and 2)1Deliver AWTF enhanced NPR water from SBWR to NPR in Morgan Hill.$80 3,000 3,000 $1,10040.840.230.551.010.230.250.83.555(4, 11)Requires distribution network in City.RW‐2RW Master Plan (Alt. 3 and 4)1Divert flow from the Joint Trunk and recycle the water for IPR in the Church Ponds.$80 3,000 0 $1,10020.400.030.530.610.220.150.82.50(6)Requires distribution network in City.RW‐3 Morgan Hill Scalping Plant (NPR)Divert flow from the Joint Trunk and recycle the water for NPR in Morgan Hill.$80 3,000 0 $1,10000.000.030.551.010.220.150.82.50(9, 11)RW‐4SCRWA Pump Station to Morgan HillDeliver NPR water from SCRWA to Morgan Hill. 3,000 000.000.010.251.010.220.150.82.20(4, 9)Requires distribution network in City.RW‐5SCRWA IPR Upgrade and Pump Station to Morgan HillDeliver IPR water from SCRWA to Butterfield Channel.3,000 020.400.010.251.020.420.150.82.80(1, 15, 16)RW‐6RW Master Plan ‐ AWTF IPR to ButterfieldDivert flow from the Joint Trunk and recycle the water for IPR in the Butterfield Channel.3,000 020.400.030.551.030.630.250.83.35(1, 14, 16)RW‐7RW Master Plan ‐ SBWR IPR to ButterfieldDeliver AWTF water from SBWR to IPR in Butterfield Channel.3,000 3,00040.800.030.551.030.630.250.83.752(1, 14, 15)Other Water Supply ProjectsOS‐1aSouth County Water Treatment PlantConstruct a new Potable Water Treatment Plant with SCP deliveries.$110 2,000 2,000 $2,30030.610.110.251.040.830.210.22.90‐Yield of 2,000 AFY is too low. Request range of available yield from SCP.OS‐1bSouth County Water Treatment PlantConstruct a new Potable Water Treatment Plant with SCP deliveries.11,00051.050.320.351.040.830.210.23.654‐The yield has been updated to be realistic of the current water supply needs.OS‐2 Buy and Wheel WaterPurchase and wheel water to the cities.51.050.310.251.010.210.120.32.95‐OS‐3 Agricultural and Other Users OffsetPolicy and regulatory guidance to reduce agricultural and other users pumping.51.050.310.230.651.030.250.83.901‐9/25/2019Definitions of AcronymsNPR: Non‐Potable ReuseIPR: Indirect Potable ReuseSCP: Santa Clara PipelineSBWR: South Bay Water RecyclingAWTF: Advanced Water Treatment FacilitySCRWA: South County Regional Wastewater AuthorityDefinitions of CriteriaIncrease in Yield: This criteria scores whether there is a net positive yield to the basins (ie Scalping in Morgan Hill transfers an existing yield, it does not increase it).Cost Per AF: Cost per AF of water as provided by SCVWD in the Water Supply Master Plan update December 2018Location of Benefit: Based on input from SCVWD staff, it is more beneficial for groundwater recharge in the upper Llagas Basin in Morgan Hill, thus scores are based on proximity to that area.Cost within Cities: Based on additional cost within the City (road work, expected O&M, easements, new pipeline networks, etc)Implementation / Regulatory: This criteria is based on the feasibility of construction for the project, and the likelihood of the project. This also addresses regulatory feasibility.Resiliency: This criteria is intended to address whether long term effects of climate change or an interruptible Delta supply will have a negative impact on the project.Notes:1. RW Master Plan Costs and Yields Consistent with the Scalping Plant Alternative.Conflict with Other AlternativeNotes10.C.aPacket Pg. 79Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
September 2019 City of Gilroy and City of Morgan Hill
Sustainable Water Management Planning
Appendix
Llagas Groundwater Subbasin 2035 Budget
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
Llagas Groundwater Subbasin 2035 Water Budget
Supply WellsMorgan HIll
Withdrawal- 8,700 AFY
SCVWDPlanned RechargeProjects
Deposit+ 10,400AFY
NaturalGroundwaterRecharge
Deposit+ 43,900AFY
04/26/19
Morgan Hill-Gilroy Joint Sewers
Groundwater Flow
Morgan Hill Other Users Gilroy Ag Users
SCRWA Reuse+ 3,700
AFY
Supply WellsOther Users
Withdrawal- 34,100AFY
Supply Wells
Gilroy
Withdrawal- 12,900AFY
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Sustainable Water Management Planning Sep 2019 Akel Engineering Group (2241 : Report on Sustainable Water Supply Strategies
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Fire Department Alternative Service Model Pilot Study First Quarter
Report
Meeting Date: October 21, 2019
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Fire Department
Submitted By: Jeff Clet
Prepared By: Jeff Clet
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glen Loma/Santa Teresa response district was not receiving the same level of
service provided in the City’s other fire station districts as funding for a permanent fire
station and full-time staffing is currently unavailable. As a result, the City Council
approved a Fire Department recommended Alternative Service Model (ASM) Pilot Study
intended to:
1) Improve response time in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district during peak
demand periods, and
2) Add capacity citywide for significant incidents.
11.A
Packet Pg. 82
On July 1, 2019, the Fire Department implemented the ASM Pilot Study to evaluate the
efficacy of staffing a two-person emergency response vehicle like an ambulance or a
brush patrol to respond to EMS and/or vegetation fire-related emergencies in the Glen
Loma/Santa Teresa response district
Staff designed the study to evaluate the effectiveness of a part-time service model to
align resource availability with service demand. The ASM has been responding from a
temporary facility on the Ranch side of Christmas Hill Park. However, in the spring of
2020, the ASM will relocate to a temporary modular fire station located at or near the
proposed Glen Loma Ranch Fire Station site at W. Luchessa and Miller Ave.
The pilot study demonstrated that the ASM reliably meets or exceeds the response time
in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa response district when compared to the response times
of the 3 existing fire stations in their home districts.
BACKGROUND
At the April 8, 2019 City Council Study Session, Interim Fire Chief Jeff Clet provided an
overview of the Citygate Standard of Coverage (SOC) process and preliminary findings
including response data for the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa response district. Staff
informed the City Council that there was significant response time performance and
service levels disparity in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa area.
Specifically, the response time was over two minutes longer in this area than in other
areas of the City. The Fire Chief recommended the addition of a two -person Alternative
Service Model (ASM) Pilot Study using a smaller vehicle instead of a full fire engine
located in the Glen Loma/ Santa Teresa area that would respond to emergency
incidents to improve response time in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district and to add
additional capacity citywide.
The ASM Pilot Study uses existing apparatus and personnel working overtime shifts
allowing the department to test different deployment strategies. Staff uses the
performance and operational data collected from the study to analyze and further refine
alternative deployment strategies to maximize the ASM capabilities.
During the City Council Study Session, Fire Department staff recommended that the
Fire Department provide quarterly updates to the Council regarding the ASM Pilot Study
to determine the effectiveness of the ASM to meet the studies objectives. This report is
the first-quarter report covering the period of July 1 thru September 30, 2019.
ANALYSIS
The department implemented the Alternative Service Model (ASM) Pilot Study
beginning on July 1, 2019 with operational hours of 8:00AM to 8:00PM daily based on
the Standards of Coverage (SOC) time-of-day analysis that identified this as the peak
demand period. This timeframe provides ASM availability during the period when the
majority of emergency calls for service occur in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district.
11.A
Packet Pg. 83
The original ASM Pilot Study operational plan was to deploy the ASM on a varied
schedule and/or timeframe based on historic demand analysis, which estimated an
average need of approximately 8-hours of operation each day.
However, the SOC report demonstrated that the current and future demand analysis
indicates a longer period of typical demand, beginning earlier in the day and extending
later into the evening. The SOC report identified an even distribution of call volume
throughout the week, which reflects a more normal deployment pattern than expected.
In other words, to cover the expected demand, it is necessary to deploy the ASM for a
minimum of 12-hours each day rather than the varied schedule the department
originally anticipated.
In addition, even with the 12-hour operational period there were 20 calls for service in
the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district outside of the 12-hour period when the ASM was
not in service, thus a second-due engine company was required to respond to the
incident resulting in an extended response time. The department anticipates that as
additional homes are constructed and occupied in the Glen Loma /Santa Teresa area,
the occurrence of emergency calls for service outside the ASM deployment timeframe
will steadily increase resulting in additional calls for service that do not meet response
times.
Figure 1: Average Number of Calls in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa District By
Day-of-Week
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
3 4 4 3 2 6 4
The department determined that an extension of the ASM operational period would be
required to respond to the additional incidents that occur outs ide the ASM 8AM-8PM
operational period. The data suggests that the operational hours would need to be from
6AM-10PM. However, this would result in a 16-hour work shift, which is not feasible
long-term for fire personnel to consistently work on overtime. In the future, if Council
approves the extension of the ASM operational period, the department recommends
moving from the use of overtime to cover the ASM to permanent staffing prior to
extending the operational hours.
The Department recommends that the ASM continue to be staffed using personnel on
overtime during the second quarter (October-December). As part of the second quarter
staff report to Council, staff will report the estimated costs and operational
considerations related to any proposed changes to the current staffing model. This
would allow the incorporation of any City Council decisions regarding additional
deployment hours during the City’s mid-year budget review process.
11.A
Packet Pg. 84
In October, the department finally reached its authorized line-personnel staffing level of
34. Staff accomplished this by working with the Firefighter’s Local 2805 and Human
Resources to create a new Firefighter Trainee Classification. Similar to the Police
Officer Trainee position, this new position allowed for a greater number of qualified
applicants. As such, we were able to hire four new firefighters who all began in October
2019. This increased our total hiring to five new firefighters hired since the ASM Pilot
program began and a total of seven new hires in 2019.
Eventually, the new firefighters will be able to reduce the overtime necessary to staff the
ASM as they finish the fire academy and their emergency medical services (EMS) field
training. The new firefighters will then be able to fill department positions, which will in
turn reduce the overtime necessary to staff the ASM. Staff anticipates the new
firefighters will begin to fill positions in the third quarter of the ASM Pilot Study.
Although the Citygate SOC preliminary report findings recommends City Council adopt
formal response time performance measures, at this time, staff has not brought forward
its specific recommendations. Citygate completed the Regional SOC report on October
4, 2019 but City staff has not yet reviewed the report in its entirety. City representatives
will meet with Citygate in the near future to discuss the reports collective findings and
recommendations. We anticipate this review and discussion will occur in the next
several weeks. Staff anticipates coming back to the City Council at the November 25,
2019 Study Session with performance measure recommendations. Staff will then
present formal recommendations to adopt the proposed performance measures at the
December 2, 2019 City Council meeting.
Staff has compared the response time performance of the ASM to the performance of
the three existing fire station response districts. This allows the City Council to compare
the pre-ASM district and citywide response times included in the Citygate report with the
current district and citywide performance during the first quarter of the ASM Pilot Study.
During the first quarter of the pilot study, the ASM significantly improved response time
performance in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district, reducing total response time from
the pre-ASM time of 10:51 at the 90th percentile to the current total response time of
7:32 at the 90th percentile. This reflects a reduction in response time of over three
minutes in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa District. In addition, citywide total response
time performance also improved from a pre-ASM citywide total response time
performance of 8:43 at the 90th percentile to the current total response time
performance of 8:07 at the 90th percentile, an almost 30 second improvement. This
improvement clearly demonstrates as we increase resources, added capacity not only
improves the performance in the district where the resource is added, it also improves
the performance of the system as a whole. When we add resources to the system, it
reduces or spreads the workload amongst the entire system, resulting in improved
availability and overall performance throughout the sys tem.
Figure 2: Response Time Performance Pre and Post ASM Implementation
11.A
Packet Pg. 85
Performance Component
Best-
Practice
Goal
90th Percentile Performance
Overall Chestnut Las
Animas Sunrise Santa
Teresa
Call Processing/Dispatch 1:30 2:35 2:41 2:33 2:20 2:37
Crew Turnout 2:00 1:59 2:00 1:58 1:57 2:00
First-Due Travel 4:00 5:30 5:37 5:06 5:09 7:39
First-Due Call to Arrival 7:30 8:43 8:56 8:11 8:33 *10:51
Post-ASM Performance 7:30 8:07 8:32 8:07 8:08 **7:32
*Pre-ASM response time performance ** Post-ASM response time performance
However, it is important to point out that the ASM does not have the same staffing or
capability of a full fire engine company like the other three response districts, therefore
the ASM cannot perform all of the services as a stand-alone resource. As a result, we
attach a second-due fire engine with each ASM first-due response to ensure that the full
capabilities are responding to the incident. In many cases, the ASM is able to cancel the
second-due resource, however this is not the case for a significant number of incidents
due to the limited capabilities of the ASM. This reduces the overall benefit of the ASM
for the portion of the incidents where the second-due resource is continued and is
therefore out of their first-due area, and is delayed or unavailable for incidents in their
home district. This issue will be resolved in the future when the ASM is transitioned to a
full fire engine company consistent with the other three stations.
Samples of Incidents within the Glen Loma/ Santa Teresa District
Listed below are a couple of the significant incidents that the ASM responded to within
the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district during the first quarter of the ASM operation:
On July 1, 2019, the first day of the ASM Pilot Study, the two-person ASM, along
with the Las Animas, Chestnut and Sunrise fire engines, responded to a
vegetation fire at Christmas Hill Park above the amphitheater. The ASM was the
first to arrive on scene and arrived almost three minutes faster than the other
three stations. The ASM quickly made access to the fire and was able to keep
the fire contained and prevented it from spreading into the nearby brush and
trees.
On July 28, 2019, the ASM responded to the Garlic Incident at Christmas Hill
Park during the annual Gilroy Garlic Festival. The ASM was posted inside the
festival all three days to provide medical and fire suppression within the festival
area. Because the ASM was located at the festival near the incident, they were
able to provide immediate medical care to multiple victims. We believe that the
almost immediate response of the ASM personnel saved the lives of many of the
trauma victims by providing immediate triage and treatment to several critical
patients who would have otherwise bled out as a result of their injuries.
Sample of Incidents Outside of the Santa Teresa District (Added Capacity)
11.A
Packet Pg. 86
Listed below are a few of the incidents that the ASM responded to outside of the Glen
Loma/Santa Teresa district during the first quarter of the ASM operation:
On July 4, 2019, at 11:40PM the Chestnut, Las Animas and Sunrise fire engines
responded within 4 minutes 24 seconds to a structure fire near Mantelli and
Hirisaki. This quick response time permitted the crews to make a fast attack to
stop a fireplace fire that quickly spread and began entering into the houses
attic. The first-due fire officer indicated that if they had arrived just a few minutes
later, this fire would have erupted into the attic and burned through the roof
before they could have brought it under control. The resulting damage to the
home would have been a significant major loss. Confining the fire to the two-story
chimney box that surrounded the fireplace insert saved the interior home from
flame, smoke and water damage.
During this fire, the ASM apparatus was placed back in service to cover the city
while the other three City fire stations were responding to the chimney fire. While
the ASM was covering the City, an EMS call came in at 12:22AM in the Chestnut
district. Since the Chestnut engine was responding to the fire on Mantelli, the
ASM was able to respond to the EMS call within 6 minutes 46 seconds.
On July 17, 2019, the ASM arrived at the scene of a vegetation fire near Walmart
and assisted with fire attack and overhaul operations.
On August 19, 2019, the ASM responded into the Chestnut district to assist on a
call for a vehicle rollover. The ASM stabilized the vehicle allowing the Chestnut
crew to focus on patient treatment and extrication.
On September 24, 2019, the ASM responded into the Las Animas D istrict on a
single-family structure fire. They arrived second and were able to fill the critical 2 -
out (OSHA requirement) which allowed the Las Animas crew to perform interior
fire attack reducing the fire spread and property damage. After extinguishment,
the ASM assisted with getting all resources back in service more quickly to
provide city coverage.
On September 24, 2019, the ASM responded to a vehicle accident at the Verizon
store. The ASM arrived on scene to assist the Chestnut engine with patient care
and extrication of a female patient who drove her vehicle into the front of the
Verizon store. The ASM packaged and loaded the patient into the ambulance.
The ASM also assisted with placing the tools and equipment back on the
Chestnut engine so they were able to get back in service more quickly.
On September 29, 2019, the ASM was moved-up to the Las Animas district to
provide city coverage while the other stations were at a working structure fire in
the Chestnut district.
Sample of Incidents Located in the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa District While the
ASM Was Not in Service (between 8PM and 8AM)
11.A
Packet Pg. 87
On July 9, 2019 an EMS call came in at 11:20PM in Eagle Ridge. The ASM was
not on duty, the Chestnut Station was on another call, therefore the Las Animas
engine responded to this call. The response time to this EMS incident was 10
minutes 37 seconds.
On August 12, 2019, the Chestnut engine responded to an EMS call at 6:10AM.
The response time was 10 minutes 49 seconds.
NOTE: There were 20 calls in the 12-hour period between 8pm and 8am during
the first quarter
Sample of ASM Move-ups and Calls While Moved-up
On September 12, 2019, the ASM responded from the Las Animas station to a
vehicle accident with injuries.
On September 12, 2019, the ASM responded to an EMS call t o assist with
patient care in the Las Animas district. During this call a second 911 EMS call
came in for the Las Animas district. The ASM retained patient care on the first
EMS call, which allowed the Las Animas engine to respond to the sec ond EMS
incident in their first-due area avoiding an extended response time.
NOTE: The ASM moved into the Las Animas district 12 times to cover the City while the
other three stations where responding to other calls
ASM Temporary Location
Overall, the pilot study data demonstrates that whenever the ASM is located within their
response district, it reliably meets or exceeds the response times of the 3 permanent
fire stations. However, because of a delay in locating a temporary trailer on the Glen
Loma permanent fire station site, or in close proximity of it, the ASM has been located in
less-than desirable locations during the first-quarter reporting period. In addition,
because there has not been a single location available throughout the entire first
quarter, the ASM location moved multiple times to different locations within the Glen
Loma/Santa Teresa district. This movement of the ASM during the first quarter makes
the measurement of performance more difficult as the starting point for response
performance changed multiple times during the performance period making consistent
measurement more difficult.
However, we now have a short-term solution that will provide a consistent location. The
department recently leased a temporary modular trailer that is located on the Ranch
side of Christmas Hill Park in the parking lot near the Red Barn. Although not an
optimum location, this is an acceptable option for the short-term until one of two
alternate sites on or near the Glen Loma permanent fire station site becomes available.
Once an alternate site is available, we will place a doublewide modular trailer on the site
to house the ASM until the conclusion of the pilot study, or the permanent fire station is
completed. An update on the permanent fire station design, project timeline and
11.A
Packet Pg. 88
estimated costs will be presented to the City Council at the November 25, 2019 City
Council Study Session.
FISCAL IMP ACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None
CONCLUSION
The ASM meets or exceeds both of the pilot study primary objectives. First, the ASM
has significantly improved the response time performance in the Glen Loma/Santa
Teresa district by over 3 minutes. In addition, the ASM performance consistently meets
or exceeds the performance of the other three fire station response districts. Second,
the ASM increased citywide response capacity and added value to emergencies outside
the Glen Loma/Santa Teresa district on multiple occasions.
In addition to the primary objectives, the ASM also provided move -up coverage in the
department’s two busiest fire stations, Chestnut and Las Animas, on multiple occasions
providing coverage to areas of the city where coverage would not have otherwise been
available. Finally, now that the ASM has a consistent location to respond from, we
believe the response data will become even mo re consistent and reliable providing a
better overall picture of the ASM operation in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The ASM Pilot Study operational period should remain at the current 12-hours
per day staffing during the second quarter of the ASM Pilot Study.
2) Transition ASM staffing from overtime to permanent staffing if the City Council
approves the increase of the operational period from 12 -hours per day to 16-
hours per day.
3) The department should include ASM overtime usage as part of the second
quarter ASM Staff Report.
4) The department should locate the ASM at or near the future permanent Glen
Loma Fire station location ASAP.
5) The department shall present the status of the ASM performance and other
outstanding recommendations in the second quarter report to the City Council in
January 2020.
11.A
Packet Pg. 89