Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-07 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda PacketUTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION Special Meeting Tuesday, January 07, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Utilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,   a n d   s t r e a m e d   t o   M i d p e n   M e d i a Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246) Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reason intended to facilitate the meeting. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM – 6:05 PM AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05 PM – 6:10 PM The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10 PM – 6:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  6:25 PM – 6:30 PM  1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 4, 2024 UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30 PM – 6:45 PM NEW BUSINESS 2.Purpose & Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) with Key Staff Roles & Responsibilities (Discussion 6:45 PM – 7:45 PM) Staff: Kiely Nose and Alan Kurotori 3.Discussion on the Progress of the Grid Modernization Project (Discussion 7:45 PM – 8:15 PM) Staff: Mohammad Fattah 4.Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan (Action 8:15 PM – 9:15 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND 12 – MONTH ROLLING CALENDAR February 5, 2025 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS ADJOURNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(3)). INFORMATIONAL REPORTS 12‐Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o UACPublicMeetings@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  1 Regular Meeting January 07, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.   UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingTuesday, January 07, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,   a n d   s t r e a m e d   t o   M i d p e n   M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Oncereceived, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To upholdstrong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devicesare not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reason intended to facilitate the meeting. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM – 6:05 PM AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05 PM – 6:10 PM The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10 PM – 6:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  6:25 PM – 6:30 PM  1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 4, 2024 UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30 PM – 6:45 PM NEW BUSINESS 2.Purpose & Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) with Key Staff Roles & Responsibilities (Discussion 6:45 PM – 7:45 PM) Staff: Kiely Nose and Alan Kurotori 3.Discussion on the Progress of the Grid Modernization Project (Discussion 7:45 PM – 8:15 PM) Staff: Mohammad Fattah 4.Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan (Action 8:15 PM – 9:15 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND 12 – MONTH ROLLING CALENDAR February 5, 2025 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS ADJOURNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(3)). INFORMATIONAL REPORTS 12‐Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o UACPublicMeetings@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  2 Regular Meeting January 07, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.   UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingTuesday, January 07, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,   a n d   s t r e a m e d   t o   M i d p e n   M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Oncereceived, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To upholdstrong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devicesare not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reasonintended to facilitate the meeting.CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM – 6:05 PMAGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05 PM – 6:10 PMThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10 PM – 6:25 PMMembers of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.APPROVAL OF MINUTES  6:25 PM – 6:30 PM 1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December4, 2024UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30 PM – 6:45 PMNEW BUSINESS2.Purpose & Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) with Key Staff Roles &Responsibilities (Discussion 6:45 PM – 7:45 PM) Staff: Kiely Nose and Alan Kurotori3.Discussion on the Progress of the Grid Modernization Project (Discussion 7:45 PM – 8:15PM) Staff: Mohammad Fattah4.Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan (Action 8:15PM – 9:15 PM) Staff: Karla DaileyFUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND 12 – MONTH ROLLING CALENDARFebruary 5, 2025COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTSADJOURNMENTSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONThe materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(3)). INFORMATIONAL REPORTS 12‐Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o UACPublicMeetings@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 Regular Meeting January 07, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.   UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONSpecial MeetingTuesday, January 07, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto,   a n d   s t r e a m e d   t o   M i d p e n   M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Oncereceived, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To upholdstrong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devicesare not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reasonintended to facilitate the meeting.CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM – 6:05 PMAGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05 PM – 6:10 PMThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10 PM – 6:25 PMMembers of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.APPROVAL OF MINUTES  6:25 PM – 6:30 PM 1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December4, 2024UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30 PM – 6:45 PMNEW BUSINESS2.Purpose & Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) with Key Staff Roles &Responsibilities (Discussion 6:45 PM – 7:45 PM) Staff: Kiely Nose and Alan Kurotori3.Discussion on the Progress of the Grid Modernization Project (Discussion 7:45 PM – 8:15PM) Staff: Mohammad Fattah4.Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan (Action 8:15PM – 9:15 PM) Staff: Karla DaileyFUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND 12 – MONTH ROLLING CALENDARFebruary 5, 2025COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTSADJOURNMENTSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONThe materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. CodeSection 54954.2(a)(3)). INFORMATIONAL REPORTS 12‐Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o UACPublicMeetings@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  4 Regular Meeting January 07, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.   Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: January 7, 2025 Report #: 2412-3956 TITLE Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 4, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the UAC consider the following motion: Commissioner ______ moved to approve the draft minutes of the December 4, 2024 meeting as submitted/amended. Commissioner ______ seconded the motion. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 12-04-2024 UAC Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Kaylee Burton Item #1     Packet Pg. 5     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 22 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2024 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Mauter called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 6:02 PM. Present: Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Gupta, Metz, and Tucher Absent: Chair Scharff and Commissioner Phillips AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dave Warner encouraged the Commission to read his letter to the UAC that contained data on the design drought and how it might relate to rates. 2. David Coale sent information to the UAC regarding grid modernization and electrification, including an attachment from the CPUC that outlined two helpful ideas. Mr. Coale suggested that the billing system show the maximum amount of current each month or the total for the year, which would help customers make historical capacity calculations and reduce unnecessary service panel upgrades. Most electrification of homes could be done with a 100-amp panel and using the Watt Diet to make judicious choices on appliances. It was costly and disruptive to upgrade underground areas and place underground transformers aboveground. The whole-home electrification pilot program could be set up to test these ideas and other advanced technologies. Commissioner Tucher saw Mr. Coale’s letter in the packet and asked staff to comment. Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, stated they were looking at panel sizes as they were working on the first phase. To perform capacity calculations, customers in those areas were being asked if they planned to add EV chargers, a heat pump water heater, or whole home. Aboveground 75 kVA transformers will probably be needed for the underground sections. Commissioner Tucher wondered if there had been an increase of people upsizing their panels in Palo Alto, and if it was because they needed to or if they were building overcapacity too soon. Mr. Batchelor noted an uptick in 400-amp panels because customers wanted to put in dual chargers with fast Item #1     Packet Pg. 6     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 22 charge in their homes and wanted to add solar. Mr. Batchelor had seen an increase in people who had 200-amp panels going to 400-amp panels. Mr. Batchelor had not seen many first adopters wanting to change their 100-amp panel. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES ITEM 1: ACTION: Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on November 6, 2024 ACTION: Commissioner Gupta moved to approve the UAC draft meeting minutes of November 6, 2024, as amended by Commissioners Croft and Tucher. Item #1     Packet Pg. 7     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 22 The motion carried 5-0 with Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Metz, Gupta, and Tucher voting yes. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, delivered the Director's Report. Hanover Substation Upgrades: Over the past year, CPAU partnered with Tesla to upgrade electrical equipment at the Hanover Substation. The City and Tesla agreed to split the cost in half. The City was waiting to receive final invoices from Tesla. Substation upgrades were needed to replace aging infrastructure and increase electrical capacity to facilitate the City’s electrification initiatives, benefitting all utility users as well as meeting Tesla’s energy needs. The project was completed on schedule. The Hanover Substation was commissioned and ready for service in October 2024. Hydroelectric Update: Last month, the atmospheric river event brought a large amount of precipitation. Reservoir levels remain mostly above average. The City’s hydroelectric resources were projected to produce slightly more than the long-term average. New BAWSCA CEO: Tom Smegal was appointed on December 1 as Chief Executive Officer/General Manager of Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Mr. Smegal had 27 years of experience at California Water Service (Cal Water), including roles of Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) Update: In 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to approve amendments to the LCFS program. Changes to the LCFS regulations were expected to have a neutral impact on CPAU because while it would reduce the total distribution of credits among recipients, the anticipated increase of EV adoption for CPAU’s service area would increase the overall volume of credits we receive. Cap-and-Trade Update: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was expected to release draft amendments to the Cap-and-Trade program in 2024 but was now expected to do so in the first quarter of 2025. CPAU’s Cap-and-Trade allowances were expected to decrease in 2026 through 2030 but the impact on revenue is unknown until the draft language is released. The general consensus was that the Legislature would reauthorize the Cap-and-Trade program past 2030. Smart Energy Provider Award: Earlier this year, CPAU was honored with the American Public Power Association’s (APPA) Smart Energy Provider Award. Mr. Batchelor showed the award plaque and expressed his pride in CPAU for winning this distinguished award. Video Shorts about CPAU’s Work: Mr. Batchelor played three videos that were part of an ongoing endeavor to highlight CPAU's work in the community to deliver safe and reliable Item #1     Packet Pg. 8     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 22 utilities services. The videos were titled Electric Grid Modernization, Water Main Replacement Project #29, and Gas Main Replacement Project #24B. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 2: DISCUSSION: Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24); Karla Dailey and Dave Yuan ACTION: None Item #1     Packet Pg. 9     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 22 ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: The Time-of-Use Electric Rates; Micah Babbitt There were no public comments on this agenda item. Micah Babbitt, Senior Resource Planner, explained that time-of-use (TOU) rates were a pricing structure for electricity that varied based on the time of day. Typically, TOU rates sent price signals to customers when energy was lower during off-peak times and higher during peak demand times when you want to reduce usage to reduce stress on the grid. For over 20 years, CPAU had voluntary TOU rates for E-4 and E-7 customer classes but only one E-7 customer was enrolled. CPAU did not market TOU rates to E-4 or E-7 customers. CPAU never offered TOU rates to E-1 or E-2 customer classes because customers did not have smart meters to monitor energy usage on an hourly or more frequent basis. CPAU had over 26,000 residential meters, accounting for approximately 20 percent of Palo Alto’s energy usage. Over 80 percent of Palo Alto’s energy usage was from E-4 and E-7 rate classes. Approximately 150 residential customers enrolled in TOU rates during the smart grid pilot and TOU pilot between 2013 and 2017. CPAU saw a small shift of customers moving their usage from on-peak to off-peak hours. Palo Alto’s moderate, stable climate is reflected in the way our customers use electricity. The billing system needed to be upgraded to reflect TOU rates on monthly statements to customers. The MyCPAU customer portal was upgraded to enable customers who have smart meters to see their hourly usage data. MyCPAU was undergoing further testing and improvements. Additional upgrades to MyCPAU were anticipated to be completed by the middle of 2025. Next steps include TOU rate design and Council adoption. During the last rate cycle, a cost-of-service study was completed that included 50-80 percent of the analysis to support a TOU rate. Since then, more analysis has been completed on TOU rates. By December 2024, completion of AMI installation for 90 percent of residential customers was expected. It was expected that the remaining 10 percent that had obstructions or meter problems would be addressed by December 2025. Commercial meters were expected to be completed by May 2025, pending delivery of some meters. MyCPAU Phase I imported hourly usage data from the meter data management system. Phase II would include improvements for Net Energy Metering (NEM) and non-solar customers. Last fiscal year, TOU rates were updated for E-4 and E-7 customer classes, which included new time periods as well as the addition of a peak demand charge and customer charge to reflect the cost of service. In July 1, 2026, an optional early-adopter TOU rate will be offered. The draft rate schedule and supporting analysis will be available at the March 2025 UAC meeting. In FY 2027, TOU rates would be implemented for all residential customers. Staff may consider Item #1     Packet Pg. 10     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 22 offering TOU rates to the E-2 customer class. A table of Draft E-1 (Residential) Time-of-Use Periods was shown with peak hours 4 PM to 9 PM, off peak 9 PM to 4 PM. Item #1     Packet Pg. 11     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 22 their energy needs internally but SMUD had to go to the market during the peak summer months. Solar was mostly available when the sun was shining, so there were higher costs in the evening. Palo Alto had deep hydro resources, so less variation in TOU rates was expected. Commissioner Croft suggested incentivizing some parts of the off-peak period to provide a price signal to encourage people to use cleaner energy. Commissioner Croft wanted to see a graph of the price of energy to the City of Palo Alto by hour, by season. Mr. Babbitt expected to have an attachment in the March financial plan that would address Commissioner Croft’s request. Item #1     Packet Pg. 12     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 22 Members, and the UAC wanting TOU. Part of the motivation for installing AMI was offering more advanced rate designs. Voluntary TOU rates allowed commercial customers to control their costs by shifting their energy. Commercial rates were a combination of kilowatt hours, demand charges, and customer charges, which varied based on the customer usage profile. During the pilot, the cost difference between the peak and off-peak periods was about $0.055. Based on the current analysis, the preliminary difference could potentially be as much as $0.07. Item #1     Packet Pg. 13     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 22 because it would send better price signals; however, since it was a more advanced rate design, it would not happen next fiscal year and probably not the following fiscal year. Vice Chair Mauter suggested presenting data on peak demand now so people could familiarize themselves with this alternative set of metrics for consumption. Mr. Yuan stated that staff had discussed internally whether to show peak demand on the bill because it could cause confusion for customers since it was not being billed, and the pricing had not been planned or designed yet, which would result in more calls to the call center. Staff planned to start showing peak demand next year on the portal. Mr. Babbitt said that customers could see their hourly data and approximate their peak demand over a 24-hour period. Vice Chair Mauter encouraged staff to not ask customers to approximate anything. The bill could contain definitions of billing terms. Vice Chair Mauter saw it as an opportunity to do our best to educate customers not only about electric utility rates but also on the goals of S/CAP and the benefits to the affordability goals we have as a utility. Item #1     Packet Pg. 14     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 22 Commissioner Croft wondered why people had not signed up for TOU rates and how or who communicated our programs especially to larger commercial customers. Mr. Babbitt replied that key account reps were assigned to the largest customers. One of the primary reasons that voluntary TOU rates were not marketed was because both standard and TOU rates were cost based. Staff was more focused on setting rates to recover the revenue needed to run the business and less focused on marketing a specific rate. Staff had conversations with some key accounts that had expressed interest in TOU rates but those accounts ultimately did not adopt TOU. You need to control your energy usage to benefit from TOU rates and many businesses were not interested in making those changes. Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, stated the main reason why staff was not marketing TOU rates was because of the billing system. CSRs go through a long process to manually generate monthly bills for TOU customers, so staff had not been asked to add more customers. After TOU billing is automated, then staff could market it to all customers. Commissioner Croft suggested that the marketing team identify compelling reasons for customers to sign up for programs, which required analysis to provide scenarios depicting the benefits for customers. A sales team could then use that information to encourage people to move to TOU as well as maybe promote S/CAP items. Item #1     Packet Pg. 15     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 11 of 22 lot of studies embedded in the Reliability and Resiliency Plan that may look at optimization, generation, storage, and vehicle to grid. Vice Chair Mauter asked staff to notify the UAC of any analysis that was planned but not yet available by next month to address the Commission’s concerns. ACTION: None ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and Rate Projections; Lisa Bilir Item #1     Packet Pg. 16     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 12 of 22 over time. Financially, it was a good FY 2024, largely driven by greater hydro generation. A lot of surplus Resource Adequacy (RA) and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) were monetized. The hydro stabilization reserve was repaid to its target level of $17½ million. In FY 2025, the Electric Special Projects Reserve will be fully repaid. Wholesale supply revenues will start to decrease over the coming years. Some surplus RA and RECs were anticipated to decrease later in the forecast period, so the rate increases were partially making up for it. Item #1     Packet Pg. 17     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 13 of 22 plan was to bond finance a lot of the grid modernization investment, Mr. Babbitt reflected the debt service as a cost in this chart as opposed to the expenditure amount of grid modernization in any given year. In 2025, the chart showed a large capital expenditure; however, it showed zero capital expenditure in 2026 because of the anticipated bond financing. Capital expenditure funded by a bond does not show up as a cost in this chart. Item #1     Packet Pg. 18     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 14 of 22 Vice Chair Mauter asked how electrification was incorporated in the revenue projections. Ms. Bilir replied that a consultant performed two forecasts, one with and one without electrification. Staff selected the electrification scenario for this forecast. The regression analysis accounted for a declining number of metered customers. The overall forecast was a declining amount of approximately 0.8 percent per year. A detailed analysis by customer class was performed. Item #1     Packet Pg. 19     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 15 of 22 and beyond. Funds from the water CIP reserve will be utilized in 2026 and then brought back up to within the guideline range. Item #1     Packet Pg. 20     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 16 of 22 rate increase from 14 percent to 10 percent represented about $4 million. Mr. Batchelor spoke with the engineering group about looking for synergies. For example, instead of replacing a water main this year, the gas main in three years, and the wastewater line in four years, replace water, gas, and wastewater mains in a neighborhood during one period of time, and coordinate with the Public Works Department when they are repaving. Maybe there were cost savings for trench fees to open up streets. Maybe when doing underground portions, some fiber conduit could be placed at the same time. Vice Chair Mauter knew of several companies that were trying to streamline this process, so she encouraged staff to consider making use of new digital tools for utility mapping and coordination if they were relevant. Item #1     Packet Pg. 21     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 17 of 22 wastewater utility, a 1 percent rate increase was $200,000, so a small change in operating cost could have a big impact on rates. For the water utility, a 1 percent rate increase was equivalent to a $450,000 increase in operating cost. Item #1     Packet Pg. 22     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 18 of 22 Utility deferred approximately half a million dollars of lateral replacement that was going to be done in the current year. To recover funds for those projects and proceed with the main replacement in 2026, rates needed to increase by 60 percent, followed by a 10 percent rate reduction the following year. Therefore, staff proposed deferring needed capital investment to mitigate the impact on rates. This forecast included grant funding awarded from Valley Water for the treatment plant. About $11.2 million of grant funding will go to Palo Alto residents and businesses to offset treatment costs. The treatment plan received low-interest loans from the State revolving fund for a secondary treatment project. Neighboring communities faced similar pressures to rebuild their treatment plants or have already rebuilt their treatment plants. Item #1     Packet Pg. 23     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 19 of 22 Permit adopted by the State this year. The City of Palo Alto was about to start Year 2 of a five- year construction on a $193 million secondary treatment project, which cost was built into the rates. The City secured a low-interest rate from the State to pay for the project. Item #1     Packet Pg. 24     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 20 of 22 Commissioner Croft was curious to see the charts going back five more years to see the trajectory before COVID. Commissioner Gupta asked how costs were apportioned between residential and commercial. Ms. Bilir replied that a detailed analysis was done with the cost-of-service study in 2021, and the consultant helped to approximate how much was for residential, commercial, and restaurant. Ms. Bilir offered to send Commissioner Gupta a link to the study if he was interested in seeing more details. Commissioner Tucher inquired if there had been consideration to the size of the house or number of residents instead of all households paying a monthly charge of $55.93. Ms. Bilir was not aware of any previous discussion on variable billing but the UAC could ask staff to consider it as part of the next cost-of-service study. Vice Chair Mauter recommended allowing ample time to address questions and concerns, maybe having multiple meetings with UAC Finance Subcommittee beginning in early 2025 if possible. ACTION: None FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETING ON JANUARY 7, 2025 AND REVIEW OF THE 12- MONTH ROLLING CALENDAR Vice Chair Mauter acknowledged that Commissioner Tucher wanted a follow-up on the water discussion from last month and to have a communications strategy update. Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management Division, confirmed a discussion on One Water was on the agenda for January of 2025. Vice Chair Mauter was concerned about the feasibility of addressing the five items scheduled for the UAC meeting in January but it could be discussed in the planning meeting and identify which items were of higher priority. Commissioner Tucher recommended sending a letter as soon as possible to the incoming president of BAWSCA to invite him to the UAC to answer questions. Commissioner Tucher wanted to ask the following questions: What data was SFPUC using to create the design drought? What were the merits of taking the eighth year out of the model for the drought scenario? Why choose this timeframe? What are the impacts on rates if water sales are less than projected? What does BAWSCA do to monitor CapEx projects at SFPUC for alt water? Vice Chair Mauter asked what would be included in the One Water discussion and if there were any action items. Vice Chair Mauter suggested giving BAWSCA President Tom Spiegel a couple of months to settle in and maybe have a meeting with Tom Spiegel and the Council-appointee to BAWSCA (Mayor Stone) and any interested Council Members. Commissioner Tucher agreed Item #1     Packet Pg. 25     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 21 of 22 with Vice Chair Mauter’s idea. Vice Chair Mauter will follow up offline and will bring it up in the planning meeting. Vice Chair Mauter thought outreach through Council was more appropriate than through the UAC. Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer, concurred with Vice Chair Mauter. Vice Chair Mauter will set up a meeting with Mayor Stone to brief him on the UAC’s questions to BAWSCA. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETINGS/EVENTS ADJOURNMENT Item #1     Packet Pg. 26     Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 22 of 22 Commissioner Tucher seconded the motion. Item #1     Packet Pg. 27     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 1 Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: January 7, 2025 Report #: 2412-3950 TITLE Purpose & Duties of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) with Key Staff Roles & Responsibilities RECOMMENDATION This is a study session with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). No action is required. BACKGROUND The Palo Alto City Council created a Utilities Advisory Commission composed of seven members who shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council, but who shall not be council members, officers or employees of the city. Each member of the commission shall be a utility customer or the authorized representative of a utility customer. Six members of the commission shall at all times be residents of the city. (Ord. 5047 § 1 (part), 2009: Ord. 4027 § 1 (part), 1991) This is a study session with the Utilities Advisory Commission about purposes, duties, core responsibilities, stewardship of Utilities Department functions, and update on Utilities Department executive leadership staff. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Presentation AUTHOR/TITLE: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Item #2     Packet Pg. 28     JANUARY 7, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org/utilities UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (UAC) STUDY SESSION: Purpose & Duties of the UAC, Key Staff Roles & Responsibilities Item #2     Packet Pg. 29     2 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.23 2.23.050 Purposes and duties. (a)The purpose of the utilities advisory commission shall be to advise the city council on present and prospective long-range planning and policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters, excluding daily operations. PURPOSE OF THE UAC Item #2     Packet Pg. 30     3 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.23 (1)Advise the city council on long-range planning and policy matters pertaining to: (A)Development of the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource; Examples: - Electric Grid Modernization Project - Fiber-to-the-Premises - One Water Plan - Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) PURPOSE OF THE UAC Item #2     Packet Pg. 31     4 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.23 (B)Joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve, affect or impact the utility; Examples: - Agreement with Valley Water for Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility - Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) programs and services master agreement (C)Environmental aspects and attributes of the utility; (D)Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side management; Examples: - Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, WaterSmart Home Water Reports PURPOSE OF THE UAC Item #2     Packet Pg. 32     5 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.23 (2)Review and make recommendations to the city council on the consistency with adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, or the recycled water resource; Examples: - Time-of-Use Rates - Carbon Neutral Energy Portfolio and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) - Tier 2 Water Allocation - Wildfire Mitigation Plan - UAC Workplan PURPOSE OF THE UAC Item #2     Packet Pg. 33     6 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.23 (3)Formulate and review legislative proposals regarding the utility; (4)Review the utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related reserves, and rates, and thereafter forward any comments and recommendations to the finance committee or its successor; Examples: - Large Capital Improvement Programs, Budget and Schedules - Utilities Financial Plans and Rates - Residential Billing Discounts - Fiber Rates and Packages (5)Provide advice upon such other matters as the city council may from time-to-time assign. PURPOSE OF THE UAC Item #2     Packet Pg. 34     7 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT STAFF PHOTO AUGUST 2024 Item #2     Packet Pg. 35     8 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Department: 268 staff, 51 FTEs or 19% vacancies Administration •25 staff, 3 vacancies (12%) Customer Support Services •23 staff, 5 vacancies (22%) Resource Management •24 staff, 2 vacancies (8%) Electric-Fiber Utility •105 staff, 31 vacancies (30%) Water-Gas-Wastewater Utility •91 staff, 10 vacancies (11%) Item #2     Packet Pg. 36     9 Utilities Department Management Utilities Director Chief Operating Officer Alan Kurotori Strategic Business Manager Dave Yuan Customer Support Services Assistant Director Tom Auzenne Resource Management Assistant Director Karla Dailey (Acting) Electric Assistant Director Jorge Silva Water-Gas-Wastewater Assistant Director Matthew Zucca Communications Manager Catherine Elvert (Acting) Fiber Optics Assistant Director Darren Numoto Item #2     Packet Pg. 37     10 Utilities Director •City Hall Governance •Financial Planning and Oversight •Contract Administration •Advocacy •Human Resources •Legislative Affairs: Northern California Power Agency, California Municipal Utilities Association UTILITIES EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP Utilities Chief Operating Officer •Engineering and Operations •Capital Planning, Budgeting, Implementation •Regulatory and Technical Compliance •Utilities Safety and Emergency Response •Legislative Affairs: California Municipal Utilities Association Item #2     Packet Pg. 38     Strategic Business Manager •Utilities Strategic Planning •Budget Management: Staffing •Technology and IT System Projects •Dark fiber optics & fiber internet services •MyCPAU online account platform •Advanced Metering Infrastructure •Outage Management System •Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Utilities Billing & SAP 11 Assistant Director, Resource Management •Electric, Gas, Water Supply and Transmission Portfolios •Carbon neutral energy, renewable energy •Water demand forecasting, One Water Plan •Financial Planning and Rates •Customer Programs for Environmental Sustainability •Demand side management, electrification •Legislative and Regulatory Affairs •Key Account Customer Relations •Electric demand load forecasting, customer support UTILITIES FINANCIAL & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Ribbon cutting for a new utility-scale solar array as part of a power purchase agreement Item #2     Packet Pg. 39     12 UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT Assistant Director, Customer Support Services •Customer Service Call Center •Primary point of contact for customers by phone, email, online •Utility Billing •Account Management •MyCPAU online bill pay •Credit and Collections •Meter Reading Communications Manager •Public & Media Relations •Customer satisfaction, education, marketing •Internal Communications •Emergency & Crisis Communications •E.g.power outages & disruptions •Regulatory Compliance •Safety, public information sharing, public records •External Partners Coordination Utilities Customer Service Call Center Staff Attending Community Earth Day Festival Item #2     Packet Pg. 40     13 Assistant Director, Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities •Engineering and Operations •Emergency Response •Water-Gas-Wastewater Collection System •Maintenance and construction •Capital improvement projects •System monitoring and operations •Customer Service (Field Visits) •Water and Gas Metering UTILITIES ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS Water-Gas- Wastewater Crew showing water leak repair at the Municipal Services Center (MSC)Open House Assistant Director, Electric Utility •Engineering and Operations •Electric System •Grid Modernization Project •Maintenance and construction •Monitoring and operations •Outage Management System (OMS) & emergency response •Customer Service (Field Visits) •Electric Metering Electric Operations Linepersons demonstrating emergency response at the MSC Open House Item #2     Packet Pg. 41     14 •Utilities Financial Forecasts and Rate Changes •Electric Grid Modernization •Fiber-to-the-Premises •Fiber Rates/Packages •Advanced Metering Infrastructure •Tier 2 Water Allocation •One Water Plan •Wildfire Mitigation Plan •Technology Enhancements •Resiliency •Workforce Recruitment, Retention •Customer Programs Updates •Legislative Initiatives •Council Priorities UAC WORK PLAN – 12 MONTH CALENDAR Shiloh Wind Farm in Solano County, one of CPAU’s early renewable energy projects Item #2     Packet Pg. 42     Questions and Answers, Discussion Item #2     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: January 7, 2025 Report #: 2412-3847 TITLE Discussion on the Progress of the Grid Modernization Project RECOMMENDATION Staff is presenting an update to the Utilities Advisory Commission on the progress of the grid modernization project. No action is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Presentation AUTHOR/TITLE: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Staff: Mohammad Fattah, Electric Engineering Manager Item #3     Packet Pg. 44     Electric Grid Modernization Project Update for the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) January 7, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org/utilities Item #3     Packet Pg. 45     2 •Pilot and Phase 1 Project Overview •Grid Modernization Project Timeline •Pilot Project Status •Pilot Lessons Learned •Next Steps Agenda A heavy crane with a tall boom lifts a 45-Foot pole to replace a Deteriorated backyard pole Item #3     Packet Pg. 46     3 •Pilot Project – A small-scale Pilot Project consisting of 908 homes to test the feasibility, time, cost, risk, and performance of various materials and processes and to identify any potential issues before a full-scale rollout. •Phase 1 Project – 6,784 homes in a City-wide project to replace power poles, transformers, and secondary wire, to increase capacity and improve reliability, and to support additional electric demand. •Project Timeline – 2026 Pilot and Phase 1 Project Overview GMOD Phase 1 6,784 Homes GMOD Pilot 908 Homes Item #3     Packet Pg. 47     1 Grid Modernization Project Timeline Phase Scope Council Approval Construction Start In Service Date 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 1 OH Distribution 2024 2025 2026 2 OH Distribution 2025 2026 2027 3 OH Distribution 2026 2027 2028 4 East Meadow Substation 2026 2027 2028 5 Colorado Substation 2026 2028 2029 6 UG Distribution 2027 2028 2029 7 UG Distribution 2028 2029 2030 8 Colorado Substation 2028 2029 2030 9 Hansen Way Substation 2030 2031 2032 10 Feeder Optimization 2030 2031 2032 City Council Approval Task Duration Item #3     Packet Pg. 48     5 •Pilot Project Status – To-date more than 400 homes (close to 50%) in the Pilot Project area have been completed. •Community Outreach – The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) communicates directly with customers both, through US mail, as well as email, in the construction area to inform them of the work and what to expect. •Estimated Pilot Project Completion Date – February/March 2025 Pilot Project Status An example of a pole before and after replacement showing tree trimming andnew fiberglass crossarms. Item #3     Packet Pg. 49     6 •Materials Procurement – Standardize and diversify supplier pool, pre-order long-lead time items in advance of construction (transformers – 2 years, wire - 1 year, poles – 6 months) •Construction Contracts – Diversify supplier pool and negotiate strong contracts. •Project Schedules – Clear goals, realistic deadlines, and active monitoring of progress. •Change Requests – Minimize change requests through detailed scopes of work, thorough documentation, and contingency planning. Pilot Lessons Learned Item #3     Packet Pg. 50     7 •Distribution System Planning – Analyze the City’s electric loads and determine optimal routes and number of customers for each of the electric distribution feeders •Design and Engineering – Finalize the scope of work for each phase and begin the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for electric distribution construction work. •Public Bid Construction Contracts – Analyze bids and award contracts with engineering and construction firms and prepare construction work order packages. •Construction Inspection – Analyze bids and award contracts with construction management firms and assign construction inspectors to oversee construction projects. Next Steps Item #3     Packet Pg. 51     7 •Project Progress – Establish annual updates on communicating capital project progress to the UAC. Next Steps Item #3     Packet Pg. 52     8 Questions & Answers Item #3     Packet Pg. 53     Item #3     Packet Pg. 54     Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Dean Batchelor, Director Utilities Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: January 7, 2025 Report #: 2407-3234 TITLE Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan RECOMMENDATION This item is for discussion and action is requested to recommend to the City Council to accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The One Water Plan (OWP) presents a vision and achievable path toward meeting the City’s long-term water supply and water conservation goals by identifying alternatives for the City that, if implemented, may mitigate the impact of future water supply uncertainties such as severe multi-year drought, changes in climate, water demand, and regulations. The OWP compares potential water supply and water conservation portfolios given the City’s weighted evaluation criteria, and provides an initial analysis of alternatives and a framework within which Council can make decisions now and in the future about which types of projects the City may want to explore further. Additionally, this work effort developed an excel-based tool that staff can use to evaluate and prioritize water supply and water conservation portfolios. Palo Alto can use these flexible planning tools now and to adjust its overall water supply strategy as the future unfolds, conditions change and uncertainties are resolved. The OWP water supply and conservation options and the resulting portfolios that scored highest given the rough cost estimates and evaluation criteria include: •Portfolio A – Baseline: Existing potable water supply from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS); •Portfolio B – Baseline with enhanced water conservation; •Portfolio C: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus desalinization; •Portfolio D: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus groundwater; Item #4     Packet Pg. 55     •Portfolio E: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus Palo Alto-operated Direct Potable Reuse (DPR); •Portfolio F: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus Palo Alto-operated Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR); and •Portfolio G: Baseline with enhanced conservation Regional DPR. The OWP scored these portfolios relative to each other, however, before Council approves any water supply or conservation project, additional studies or analysis would be necessary to determine the need for additional supplies or conservation as well as project feasibility, including more fully-developed cost estimates and funding sources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In June 2022, Council approved a contract with Carollo Engineers to develop the OWP (Staff Report 134341). City staff from the Public Works and Utilities Departments closely collaborated and worked with the consulting team to develop the attached OWP. BACKGROUND One of the City Council’s priorities for 2024 is Climate Change and Natural Environment – Protection and Adaptation. The attached OWP fulfills a key action in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and identifies possible alternatives for meeting the community’s water needs in the future. Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) was completed in 2023, and it includes two water-specific goals: 1.Reduce Palo Alto’s potable water consumption by 30% compared to a 1990 baseline (subject to refinement based on forthcoming California water efficiency standards expected in 2025. 2.Develop a water supply portfolio which is resilient to droughts, changes in climate, and water demand and regulations, that supports the City’s urban canopy. Two of the key actions supporting these goals are satisfied by the OWP: 1) Develop and implement projects that result from a “One Water” portfolio of alternative water supply and water conservation options for Palo Alto, including but not limited to: stormwater, recycled water, on-site-reuse, conservation and groundwater, and 2) develop a tool for dynamic water planning in the future. “One Water" is an integrated approach to water management that views all forms of water – imported water, groundwater, wastewater, stormwater, water conservation and efficiency and 1 Staff Report 13434 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81683 Item #4     Packet Pg. 56     more - as interconnected resources. The specific purpose of the OWP for the City of Palo Alto is to present a 20-year, adaptable roadmap of prioritized alternatives, aggregated into water supply portfolios, that establish a vision and achievable path toward meeting the City’s water supply and water conservation goals. ANALYSIS The OWP provides a comprehensive list of water supply and water conservation options (“options”) including input from stakeholders. This list of 27 options is available on the City’s website.2 The OWP analyzed this initial list of options in a high-level pre-screening process that resulted in 15 remaining options. The OWP then applied three screening criteria to the 15 options and narrowed down the number to nine. For those nine options, the OWP developed planning-level cost estimates and applied a comprehensive evaluation process using four evaluation criteria including unit cost as well as non-cost criteria. The OWP then assembled seven water supply and water conservation portfolios (“Portfolios”) named Portfolio A through Portfolio G that include groups of top scoring options. The following is a list and a brief description of the seven portfolios. Portfolio Descriptions •Portfolio A – Baseline: Portfolio A represents the baseline portfolio which is the City’s existing potable water supply from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS) and serves as the benchmark for comparing other potential portfolios. •Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2: Portfolio B builds on Portfolio A with the addition of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2, each encompassing a series of targeted water conservation measures. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 includes measures that are easier and less costly to implement while Enhanced Conservation Phase 2 consists of more challenging and more costly measures. Table 1 shows the difference between conservation measures already planned for implementation and the Enhanced Conservation measures contemplated in this OWP. 2 Comprehensive list of 27 water supply and water conservation options for Palo Alto: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=61414 Item #4     Packet Pg. 57     Table 1: Ongoing and Planned Conservation versus Enhanced Conservation Phases 1 and 2 Each portfolio C through G includes Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 measures, plus one local water supply infrastructure project, with the remainder of the water supplied by the RWS. •Portfolio C adds a Bay Water Desalination plant that would supply 4,480 acre feet per year of water during a normal year. •Portfolio D adds groundwater. Under this portfolio, the City would equip two of the existing emergency supply wells with treatment facilities and convert these from emergency supply to regular potable use. The wells would provide 2,250 acre feet (af) per year of water supply during a normal year. Notably, Valley Water’s 10-year projection anticipates that the groundwater production charge will more than double from the 2023 rate of $1,724/af to $4,147/af by 2032, reflecting approximately 9.5 percent annual escalation. Valley Water expects this increase to primarily pay for critical capital program needs including water treatment plant upgrades and dam seismic retrofit work. For reference, SFPUC’s expected rate in 2032, assumed in the OWP, is $2,630/af. •Portfolio E adds a Palo Alto Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) facility that would supply 4,723 acre feet per year of water during a normal year. •Portfolio F adds a Palo Alto Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water purification facility with groundwater injection wells. This Indirect Potable Reuse facility would supply 5,150 acre feet per year of water supply during a normal year. •Portfolio G adds a Regional DPR water purification facility constructed by Valley Water and located in Palo Alto instead of a dedicated Palo Alto DPR facility. The estimated water supply from this facility for Palo Alto is 1,769 acre feet per year during a normal year. Item #4     Packet Pg. 58     Figure 1 illustrates the water supply and demand for each portfolio during a normal year in 2045. Figure 1: Normal Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio in 2045 The OWP calculates a weighted average unit cost for each portfolio considering the volume of supply from each water supply source during a normal year. Table 1 shows the weighted average unit cost for each portfolio in 2023 dollars and 2045 dollars. The cost estimates generated for the OWP are planning- level or order-of-magnitude cost estimates with a typical estimating accuracy of -50% to +100% due to limited level of project information often coupled with significant uncertainties at this planning stage. The weighted average unit costs are calculated based upon these cost estimates and are not rounded for consistency across the OWP and appendices. Table 2 – Estimated Weighted Average Unit Cost of Water for Portfolio A through Portfolio G Estimated Weighted Average Unit Cost ($/Acre Foot) Portfolio Name 2023 Dollars 2045 Dollars Portfolio A - Baseline $2,210 $4,088 Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 $2,075 $3,093 Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination $3,854 $6,663 Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Groundwater $2,556 $5,330 Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR $2,645 $4,938 Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR $3,323 $6,440 Portfolio G – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR $2,355 $4,552 Item #4     Packet Pg. 59     Effluent Transfer Agreement In 2019 Council approved an Effluent Transfer Agreement with Valley Water and the City of Mountain View Staff Report #10627.3 This 76-year agreement enables an effluent transfer from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Valley Water to be reused in Santa Clara County, likely south of Mountain View. Valley Water has the option to exercise an effluent transfer within 13 years. A Council study session with Valley Water on September 12, 2022 provides updated information Staff Report #14650.4 The governing bodies of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water have established policy goals for long-term sustainability, including expanding use of recycled water. RWQCP is a local source of drought-proof, sustainable water. This agreement aims to promote regional collaboration to advance resilient water reuse programs in Santa Clara County. Some of the OWP portfolios depend on Valley Water not exercising the effluent transfer option, which would ensure there is sufficient treated effluent volume available for constructing local reuse facilities in Palo Alto. Those portfolios are Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR, and Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR. Portfolio G is only feasible if Valley Water exercises the effluent transfer option and also decides to build a Regional DPR facility located in Palo Alto. Figure 2 summarizes the dependencies of OWP portfolios on the effluent transfer decision. Weighted Evaluation Criteria Portfolio Scores Unit cost was not the only evaluation criteria; the OWP scored the options on a variety of characteristics including reliability, environmental benefits, and ease of implementation. Table 2 shows the rankings for each portfolio after weighting both cost and non-cost criteria. If Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most cost effective and beneficial option to add to the enhanced water conservation options is the Palo Alto DPR Facility, in Portfolio E. This portfolio’s overall weighted criteria score is 3.43, the highest score of any portfolio, as shown in Table 2. If Valley Water exercises its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most cost-effective and beneficial option to add to the enhanced water conservation options is the Regional DPR facility as combined in Portfolio G. The overall weighted criteria score of this portfolio is 3.06 as shown in Table 2. The baseline portfolio scores the lowest of all the portfolios using the weighted criteria. 3 Staff Report 10627 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2019/id-10627-mini-packet-11182019.pdf?t=60382.02 4Staff Report 14650 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82012 Item #4     Packet Pg. 60     Item #4     Packet Pg. 61     Table 3 - Evaluation Results - Weighted Criteria Scores By Portfolio Criteria Sub-Criteria Criteria Weight A. Baseline B. Enhanced Conservatio n Phase 1 and 2 C. Enhanced Conservation with Bay Water Desalination D. Enhanced Conservatio n with Groundwate r E. Enhanced Conservatio n with Palo Alto DPR F. Enhanced Conservatio n with Palo Alto IPR G. Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR Estimated Portfolio Weighted Unit Cost in 2045 ($/AF) --$4,088 $3,903 $6,663 $5,330 $4,938 $6,440 $4,552 Estimated Start Year --2025 2025 2035 2025/2030 2035 2030 2040 Unit Cost Unit Cost 20%0.95 1.00 0.20 0.59 0.70 0.26 0.81 Reliability Reliability 35%0.35 0.60 1.43 0.85 1.39 1.37 0.90 Efficient Use of Water 10%0.20 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.26 Ecological Benefit 10%0.20 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 Reliance on Tuolumne 10%0.10 0.14 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.20 Environmental Benefits Subtotal 30%0.50 0.59 0.75 0.68 0.82 0.80 0.68 Implementatio n Timeline 5%0.25 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.21 Operational Complexity 5%0.25 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.24 Public Acceptance 5%0.25 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.22 Ease of Implementation Subtotal 15%0.75 0.72 0.55 0.66 0.52 0.56 0.67 Total 100%2.55 2.91 2.91 2.78 3.43 2.99 3.06 Notes: (1) Based on estimated year 2045. Item #4     Packet Pg. 62     (2) Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) assumes that Valley Water does exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent (selected “Yes” in the Tool). All other portfolios assume that Valley Water does not exercise its option (selected “No” in the Tool). Item #4     Packet Pg. 63     Page 10 of 13 Portfolio Evaluation Summary Figure 2 compares the portfolios dependency on the Valley Water Transfer option decision. Figure 2. Portfolio Results and Dependence on Valley Water Option to Transfer Decision Sensitivity Analysis The OWP includes a sensitivity analysis to identify how or if the findings change when the evaluation criteria are weighted differently. The sensitivity analysis showed that if Valley Water does not exercise the option to transfer a portion of Treated Effluent from the RWQCP, Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 and Palo Alto DPR) remains the top scoring portfolio regardless of changes in cost or reliability criteria and usually outperforms other portfolios. The only case where Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR) is not the portfolio with the highest weighted criteria score is when unit cost has additional weighting. Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2) becomes the highest scoring portfolio and the baseline portfolio scores lower but very close to Portfolio E. In this case, the Palo Alto DPR facility is still the most favorable infrastructure investment compared with the other local supply options, however, considering affordability and the cost of the facility relative to other benefits, Palo Alto may want to continue with baseline Portfolio A or implement enhanced conservation measures instead. In the event that Valley Water exercises the option to transfer a portion of treated effluent from the RWQCP, Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) scores the highest. However, if unit cost is weighted less heavily and supply reliability is weighted more heavily, Portfolio C (Enhanced Conservation with Bay Water Desalination) scores higher than Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR). With a lower Reliability criteria weighting, Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2) is the top scoring portfolio. Additionally, if unit cost is given additional weight, Portfolio C (Enhanced Conservation with Bay Item #4     Packet Pg. 64     Page 11 of 13 Water Desalination) scores lower than all other options, including Baseline Portfolio A, while Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2) is the top scoring portfolio and Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) is the top scoring supply infrastructure portfolio. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Table 4 – Residential Monthly Bills in FY 2045 for Each OWP Portfolio Item #4     Packet Pg. 65     Page 12 of 13 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 5 6 7 8 9 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5 Staff Report 12332: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2021/07-07-2021- special/id-12332-item-1.pdf 6 Staff Report 13434: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/11/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220620/20220620pccsm-amended-final-final.pdf 7 Presentation and results from the live polling: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/water-drought/stakeholder-mtg-1-community- meeting.pdf 8 Slides: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/water-drought/stakeholder-workshop- 2_community.pdf Recording: https://youtu.be/YEguKgxzRNY 9 Staff Report 14974: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/02- 01-2023-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf 10 Staff Report 2404-2968 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes- 2024/06-jun-2024/06-03-2024-packet-v2.pdf Item #4     Packet Pg. 66     Page 13 of 13 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Upon Council acceptance of the City of Palo Alto OWP, staff will have access to the cost estimate spreadsheet (shown in OWP Appendix C) and the Tool (shown in OWP Appendix E). The OWP, cost estimates and Tool together provide a framework within which Council can make decisions now and in the future about the City’s water supply and conservation portfolio, including which types of projects the City may want to explore further or to adjust the City’s overall water supply strategy to meet potentially changing future conditions. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Presentation (will be published 1/7/2025) Attachment B: One Water Plan AUTHOR/TITLE: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Staff: Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management Division Item #4     Packet Pg. 67     January 7, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org One Water Plan Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Item #4     Packet Pg. 68     2 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1.One Water Plan Vision 2.Review One Water Portfolios 3.June 2024 UAC Meeting Follow-up 4.Currently Planned Activities 5.Important Events and Dates 6.Recommendation One Water Plan (OWP) Agenda More information at cityofpaloalto.org/water Item #4     Packet Pg. 69     3 www.cityofpaloalto.org One Water Plan (OWP) Vision One Water Plan is a framework for Council to make decisions about Palo Alto’s future water supply and water conservation portfolio, if reliability becomes a concern Time horizon is 20 years; 2045 Item #4     Packet Pg. 70     4 www.cityofpaloalto.org One Water Portfolio with Supply and Conservation Alternatives A: Baseline; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Water System Water Supply B: SFPUC + Enhanced Conservation Phases 1 &2 C: SFPUC + Enhanced Conservation + Bay Water Desalinization D: SFPUC+ Enhanced Conservation + Groundwater (with treatment) E: SFPUC + Enhanced Conservation + Palo Alto-owned Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) F: SFPUC + Enhanced Conservation + Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) G: SFPUC+ Enhanced Conservation + Regional Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Review of One Water Portfolios Item #4     Packet Pg. 71     5 www.cityofpaloalto.org June 2024 One Water Plan Follow-Up Commissioner Question: What problem are we trying to solve? •Comprehensive look at relative ease of implementation, environmental benefits, reliability, and cost of various supply augmentation and conservation alternatives •Common understanding of water supply vision amongst stakeholders •Eliminates fragmented analysis; ie “what about looking at XYZ?” •Dynamic - includes a tool that can be updated in the future •Identifies project types that are most likely to be attractive •Not intended to be a detailed feasibility analysis Item #4     Packet Pg. 72     6 www.cityofpaloalto.org June 2024 One Water Plan Follow-Up Commissioner Comment: Rate Impact Should be Considered •Illustrative future bill implications of selecting each of the OWP portfolios range from a decrease of 1% to an increase of 17% in FY 2045. •Project costs are planning level (actual capital cost is -50% to +100%) Portfolio Capital Cost ($M) FY 2045 Bill Difference from Portfolio A - Baseline Residential Monthly Bill (9 CCF) $ % Item #4     Packet Pg. 73     7 www.cityofpaloalto.org June 2024 One Water Plan Follow-Up Commissioner Comment: Consider the Intermittent Use of Groundwater During Drought City planning to modify two emergency groundwater wells to enable blending with SFPUC water Item #4     Packet Pg. 74     8 www.cityofpaloalto.org June 2024 One Water Plan Follow-Up Commissioner Question: Is the OWP Trigger-Based? Trigger-Based Implementation Roadmap Water Supply Reliability Concern Valley Water Exercised Effluent Transfer option Item #4     Packet Pg. 75     9 www.cityofpaloalto.org June 2024 One Water Plan Follow-Up Additional Commissioner Questions/Comments Response Are contaminants a concern for some of the identified water supply alternatives? Possibly and increased risk of contaminants is an important consideration. Before any project is recommended, the risk of contaminants will be evaluated. Linear weighting of the evaluation criteria is not ideal Staff will consider other methodologies in the next OWP iteration. Community is not ready for Direct Potable Reuse Outreach and education are crucial to public acceptance of new water supplies. As SFPUC and Valley Water are considering adding water reuse to their systems, Palo Alto will engage and collaborate with the rest of the region regarding water reuse education outreach. Tiered water rates should be reconsidered Yes, water rates are an important part of managing a water utility. Rate structures will be considered in the next cost of service analysis. Tree canopy and vegetation impacts of drought Agreed, this is a very important topic to consider in any discussion of water supply particularly during water scarcity. Any recommendation of a water supply or conservation alternative will include an assessment of the impact on trees and other vegetation. Item #4     Packet Pg. 76     10 www.cityofpaloalto.org Currently Planned Activities •Implement ongoing/planned conservation •Explore Enhanced Conservation measures •Monitor funding opportunities Item #4     Packet Pg. 77     11 www.cityofpaloalto.org Important Events and Dates that May Warrant Revisiting One Water Plan •2027: SFPUC updated Alternative Water Supply Plan •2032: Valley Water decision regarding option to transfer effluent from RWQCP for south Santa Clara County uses •State decision regarding Bay Delta Plan implementation •Other events or conditions affecting water supply reliability or cost •New water supply technologies or regional partnership opportunities Item #4     Packet Pg. 78     12 www.cityofpaloalto.org Action UAC Recommendation to Council to Accept the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan * Scheduled for Council March 2025 * There is no recommendation to proceed with any specific project in the OWP; there is no resource impact resulting from Council acceptance of the OWP * Future water supply and conservation recommendations will build upon the work in this OWP Item #4     Packet Pg. 79     Item #4     Packet Pg. 80     One Water Plan FINAL / October 2024 Digitally signed by Inge Wiersema Item #4     Packet Pg. 81     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Plan Purpose ES-1 ES.2 Study Area and Planning Horizon ES.6.1 Options Screening ES-3 ES.7 Portfolio Evaluation ES-8 ES.7.1 Evaluation Tool ES-8 ES-8 ES-10 ES.8 Trigger Based Implementation Roadmap ES-12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Plan Purpose 1-1 Motivations for Development of a One Water Plan 1.6.1 Community Engagement 1-7 1.7 Report Organization 1-8 CHAPTER 2 WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES 2.1 Current and Projected Demands 2-1 2.1.1 Historical and Existing Water Demands 2-1 2.2 Water Supply History 2-4 2.3.1 San Francisco RWS Supply 2-5 2.3.3 Deep Aquifer Groundwater 2-10 2.4 Conservation Programs 2-14 CITY OF PALO ALTO ii pw://Carollo/CA/Palo Alto/201363-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Final OWP/One Water Plan Item #4     Packet Pg. 82     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL OPTIONS 3.1 Evaluation Process Overview 3-1 3.3.1 Unit Cost 3-3 3.4 Screening 3-4 3.4.1 RWS Supply 3-5 3.4.2 Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 3-10 3.4.5 New Irrigation Wells 3.4.6 DPR with Palo Alto Facility 3.4.15 San Francisco Bay Desalination 3.5 Options Costs and Screening Conclusions 3-46 CHAPTER 4 OPTION EVALUATION 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2.1 Reliability 4-3 4.3 Criteria Weighting 4-8 4.4.1 RWS Supply 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-14 4-15 4-17 4-18 4-20 4.4.2 Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO iii Item #4     Packet Pg. 83     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.5 Option Evaluation Summary 4-21 4.5.1 Results without Valley Water Transfer 4-23 CHAPTER 5 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 5.1 Portfolio Approach 5-1 5.2.1 Portfolio A – Baseline 5-3 5.2.3 Portfolio C –Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination 5-4 5.2.7 Portfolio G –Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR 5.3 Evaluation Tool 5-9 5.3.1 Data Inputs 5-11 Portfolio Evaluation Results 5-13 5.4.1 Portfolio A - Baseline 5-16 5.4.3 Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination 5.5 Portfolio Evaluation Comparisons 5-19 5.5.1 Portfolio Scores 5-19 5.5.4 Valley Water Transfer Decision Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis 5-28 5.6.1 Unit Cost Criterion 5-28 5.6.6 RWS Supply Cutback and Shortage Stage Scenarios 5.7 Conclusions 5-34 5.7.1 Scoring Results 5-34 CITY OF PALO ALTO iv Item #4     Packet Pg. 84     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 6 ONE WATER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6.1 Prioritized Portfolios 6-1 6.2.1 Trigger 1: Increase Supply Reliability 6-5 6.3 Trigger-Based Implementation Roadmap 6-7 6.3.1 Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 6-9 6.3.3 Direct Potable Reuse Options 6-10 6.4 Next Steps 6-11 Appendices APPENDIX A REFERENCES SUPPLY OPTIONS PRE-SCREENING SUPPLY PORTFOLIO TOOL DOCUMENTATION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS Tables Table ES.1 Total Water Demand Projections through 2045 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 ES-7 ES-8 ES-11 2-3 2-5 2-6 2-9 2-14 3-2 Overview of Options included in each Portfolio Total Water Demand Projections through 2045 3-8 3-11 City Park Irrigation Demands 3-25 CITY OF PALO ALTO v Item #4     Packet Pg. 85     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.8 Multi-Source Storage Option Sizing and Cost Estimates 3-42 Summary of Screening Scores Efficient Use of Water Sub Criterion Scoring RWS Supply Evaluation Results Enhanced Conservation – Phase 1 Evaluation Results Options Evaluation Results Summary 5-3 Projected Yield of Enhanced Water Conservation Phase 1 and 2 5-4 5-14 5-15 5-23 5-23 5-28 5-33 Table 6.1 6-6 Figures Figure ES.1 Option Evaluation Process ES-3 Normal Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 ES-10 Figure ES.4 CITY OF PALO ALTO vi Item #4     Packet Pg. 86     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 2.1 Palo Alto Historical Water Use (1990-2020)2-1 2-2 2-4 2-11 3-1 3-5 3-9 3-12 3-14 3-17 3-20 3-26 3-29 3-31 3-33 3-35 3-39 3-40 3-43 3-45 4-1 4-23 4-24 5-1 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-22 Figure 5.13 Weighted Unit Cost by Portfolio (2023 dollars) Portfolio Evaluation Results Schematic with Valley Water Transfer trigger 5-33 viiCITY OF PALO ALTO Item #4     Packet Pg. 87     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 6.1 Comparison of Weighted Portfolio Evaluation Scores.6-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO viii Item #4     Packet Pg. 88     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ADU accessory dwelling units acre-feet af/ac acre feet per acre acre-feet per year AWPF advanced water purification facility Advanced Water Purification Facility BAWSCA Hundred Cubic Feet CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA City CoRe Plan Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan Decision Support System DWR ENR CCI GA Groundwater Assessment GAC GPC groundwater production change GSI Green Stormwater Infrastructure GUA IPR indirect potable reuse CITY OF PALO ALTO ix Item #4     Packet Pg. 89     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO ISG Individual Supply Guarantee LF LRP Landscape Rebate Program MF MFR Multi-Family Residential million gallons mgd million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding O&M Operations and Maintenance Palo Alto PAWS Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies RHNA ROC Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Recycled Water Strategic Plan SFPUC San Francisco Public Utility Commission SFWD San Francisco Water Department TM Technical Memorandum USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation UWMP Urban Water Management Plan CITY OF PALO ALTO x Item #4     Packet Pg. 90     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO WSA Water Supply Agreement $M million dollars CITY OF PALO ALTO xi Item #4     Packet Pg. 91     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “One Water" is an integrated approach to water management that views all forms of water – imported ES.1 Plan Purpose The specific purpose of the OWP for the City is to present a 20-year, adaptable roadmap of prioritized .This One Water Plan which compares potential water supply and water conservation portfolios given .An Excel-based tool that can be used to evaluate and prioritize water supply and water conservation These work products together serve as an adaptable roadmap for the City's water strategy to provide ES.2 Study Area and Planning Horizon Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County on the San Francisco Peninsula, about 15 miles north of San ES.3 Stakeholder Engagement The OWP was developed to meet the near- and long-term needs of the Palo Alto community. The City Appendix F. CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 92     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO ES.4 Water Demand Forecast This OWP uses three demand scenarios from the BAWSCA Regional Water Demand and Conservation Table ES.1 Total Water Demand Projections through 2045 Demand Projection by Planning Year(1)OWP Demand 2020(2) (afy)) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Low(3) Medium(4) High(5) 11,237 11,438 11,044 10,818 10,664 10,582 Notes: ES.5 Existing Water Supplies Since 1962, except for some very short periods, Palo Alto has solely relied on imported water from the San In addition to the City’s potable water supplied by the RWS, the City has used non-potable recycled water Palo Alto also owns five deep aquifer groundwater wells that are currently only used during emergencies. Table 1.2 lists the historical (year 2020) and projected utilization of the City’s existing water supply sources CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 93     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table ES.2 Historical and Planned Water Supply Sources through 2045 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Water Supply Sources RWS Supply Recycled Water Total 10,921 11,287 11,394 11,546 11,801 12,113 11,237 11,603 11,710 11,862 12,117 12,429 Notes: ES.6 Potential Water Conservation and Supply Options This OWP uses a multi-step process to evaluate water supply and conservation options (“options”) and Error! Reference source not found.. 1. Pre-screening of 27 options narrowed down to 15 options 2. Screening of 15 options narrowed down to 9 options 3. Option Evaluation of 9 options to inform composition of 7 portfolios Portfolio Evaluation of 7 portfolios to develop a trigger-based implementation strategy As shown in in Figure ES.1, the prescreening and screening steps are described in Chapter 3, while the Figure ES.1 Option Evaluation Process ES.6.1 Options Screening During the first step, a total of 27 options were compiled using previous studies, new ideas from City staff CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 94     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table ES.3 Pre-screening Results of 27 Initial Options Options that are Options considered not Options selected to be Ongoing/Already Planned(1)Feasible at this Time(1) IPR, Lake Lagunita Recharge Blackwater Capture and Reuse Valley Water Treated Water Interagency Transfer Agreement Tuolumne River Purchases Atmospheric Water Generators Local Storage included in the Screening Process .Ongoing/Planned Water ..RWS Supply Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 .Advanced Metering Program Distribution System Water New Irrigation Wells DPR with Palo Alto Facility Temporary Dewatering Sites Palo Alto IPR with Groundwater .NPR Phase 3 Extension to Foothills Bay Water Desalination Notes: DPR = Direct Potable Reuse; IPR = Indirect Potable Reuse; NPR = Non-Potable Reuse; RWS = Regional Water System; The 15 remaining options after the pre-screening were subjected to the screening process using the .Unit Cost, Estimated Yield Chapter 3 includes the descriptions, yield estimates, and high-level cost estimates that were prepared for As shown in Table ES.4Error! Reference source not found., the top 8 ranked new local options, .Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 (score 8) Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) with Groundwater Injection (score 7) Groundwater (score 6) CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 95     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO .DPR with Regional Facility and Small Saltwater Removal Facility (SSRF) (score 6) Table ES.4 Options Comparison Unit Cost (1) Estimated (2) Increases Supply Move to Portfolio Evaluation Category Option Imported Water RWS Supply $2,210 12,546 Neutral Yes No Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 $1,939 $4,663 $3,107 $3,594 $8,897 $4,024 $4,992 $9,685 $8,215 $58,321 $16,847 $39,679 $6,768 618 Yes Groundwater 2,250 Neutral New Irrigation Wells DPR with Palo Alto Facility 4,723 Yes No Yes 1,769 Yes Yes Neutral Onsite Water No 1 No Stormwater 30 No No 39 Yes No Desalination Bay Water Desalination 4,480 Yes Yes Notes: 1) Cost numbers are not rounded from the calculations presented in Appendix C to avoid inconsistencies in rounded values. However, these 2) Yields listed reflect normal year conditions only. Some options are subject to a dry year yield reduction as listed in Table 5.1. It should be noted that 4 of these 8 options are dependent on whether Valley Water decides to exercise Valley Water has until the end of 2032 to decide whether to exercise the Effluent Transfer Option. Valley ES.6.2 Options Evaluation The criteria used to evaluate the options in this OWP were developed to reflect a wide range of 1. Reliability CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 96     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 2. Unit Cost 3. Environmental Benefits The Environmental Benefits and Ease of Implementation criteria each have multiple sub-criteria described To account for the relative importance or priority to different criteria when making decisions, each of the Table ES.5 Evaluation Criteria Weighting Evaluation Criteria Reliability Unit Cost Sub-Criteria (Sub)Criteria Weight(1)Combined Weight1) n/a 35%35% Environmental Benefits Reduced Reliance on the Tuolumne Efficient Use of Water 10% Ease of Implementation Implementation Timeline 15% 5% Public Acceptance (1) Notes: 5% (2) A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine if, and how much the portfolio evaluation results would change if the Table ES.6 summarizes the results on the option evaluation. As shown, the following new options score .DPR with Palo Alto Facility (total score: 3.7) IPR with Groundwater Injection (total score: 3.6) Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 and Bay Water Desalination (both total score: 3.2) It can be concluded that both Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 and IPR with Groundwater CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 97     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table ES.6 Option Evaluation Results Summary Environmental Benefits Reduced Tuolumne Efficient River Use of Ecological Implementation Operational Reliability Cost Reliance Water Ease of Implementation Total Unweighted Score4 Total Weighted Score4,5 Unit Public Option Criteria Weight Benefit Timeline Complexity Acceptance 35% 1.0 1.6 1.5 2.6 4.9 2.5 1.5 5.0 4.9 20% 4.1 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.4 2.9 1.0 2.4 2.0 10% 1.0 1.6 1.5 2.7 4.7 2.4 1.5 5.0 4.5 10% 2 10% 2 5% 5 5% 5 5% 5 n/a n/a 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 1.7 3.2 RWS Supply 25.1 28.2 24.0 24.4 Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 5 4 3 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 DPR with Palo Alto Facility1 DPR with Regional Facility2 DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF IPR with Groundwater Injection1 Bay Water Desalination 4 2 1 1 2 4 2 1 5 2 4 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 Notes: (1) DPR with Palo Alto Facility and IPR with Groundwater Injection options assume that Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP effluent (4) The three highest scores of new options (excluding the benchmark RWS Supply) are shown in bold font. CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 98     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO ES.7 Portfolio Evaluation As part of this OWP, a total of seven portfolios (A through G) were of developed and evaluated based on .Environmental Benefit is scored for three sub-criteria including Reduced Reliance on the Tuolumne Unit Cost is scored based on the projected unit cost expressed in dollar per acre-foot ($/af) of each Reliability is scored based on results of the dry year supply analysis for each portfolio using the supply gap expressed in afy during a 50 percent reduction in water deliveries to Palo Alto from the .Ease of Implementation is scored based on three sub-criteria: Implementation Timeline, Operational Complexity, and Public Acceptance. Table ES.7 summarizes the options included in each portfolio. Table ES.7 Overview of Options included in each Portfolio Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 DPR with Alto Regional Palo Palo RWS Supply X Bay Water Desalination Ground- Portfolio IPR Facility A. Baseline B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X D. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X X X X X As shown in Table ES.7, Portfolios A – D can be implemented independent of the decision of Valley Water ES.7.1 Evaluation Tool The Evaluation Tool was developed to test the performance of different combinations of potential water CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 99     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO For ease of comparison, these assumptions are kept constant in the portfolio evaluations described in the The Tool is a key deliverable of this OWP and is intended to also be used to evaluate new portfolios that Appendix D provides a more detailed description of the ES.7.2 Demand and Supply Balance by Portfolio Figure ES.2 provides a graphical summary from the Tool output that compares Palo Alto’s year 2045 water Figure ES.2 Normal Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 As shown in Figure ES.2, the amount of RWS Supply varies considerably between the portfolios, ranging Figure ES.3 shows the supply and demand balance under extreme water shortage conditions with an CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 100     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure ES.3 Dry Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 with a 50% RWS Supply Cutback ES.7.3 Portfolio Evaluation Results Table ES.8 summarizes the weighted portfolio scores, yield, and unit cost by portfolio in both 2023 and It can be concluded that Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR) has the Portfolio G (Enhanced Additionally, the implementation of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 without any other large new Portfolio B, is considered a no-regret option because it is independent CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 101     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table ES.8 Portfolio Evaluation Summary Portfolio Names Valley Water Transfer Option Exercised Weighted (1) Yield (afy)Unit Supply Cost ($/af) Normal Dry year 2023 2045 dollars dollars A. Baseline not sensitive 2.55 0(2)0(2)$2,210 $4,088 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 1,342 1,342 C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 not sensitive 2.91 3.43 3.06 5,823 5,823 $3,854 $6,663 G. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 1) The weighted portfolio score in the Evaluation Tool is based on the portfolio weighted unit costs in 2045 dollars. The highest scoring portfolios with and without ES.8 Trigger Based Implementation Roadmap The major triggers that were identified for this OWP that could impact the decision on moving forward 1. Need to Increase Supply Reliability It should be noted that funding is not included as a trigger because sufficient funding is a common The trigger-based implementation roadmap shown in Figure ES.4 was developed to guide the City of Palo As shown in Figure ES.4, the trigger-based implementation roadmap follows a pathway, indicated by the orange diamonds. Each trigger is a key YES or NO. Note that in reality, the answers are not binary, and some grey areas will exist. CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 102     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure ES.4 Trigger-Based Implementation Roadmap ES.9 Next Steps The OWP recommends the following actions to enhance the City’s water supply reliability that reflect the 1. Start with the planning and exploration of the Enhanced Water Conservation measures included in .Outdoor Irrigation Efficiency for Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional (CII) Properties Non-Functional Turf Ban for CII Properties Lawn Limitation for New Development and Major Retrofits 2. Once the Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 program activities are set in motion, start with the planning .Lawn Limitation for Residential Properties upon Resale 3. Incorporate education and monitoring of the level of support for IPR, DPR, and/or Bay Water 4. Update the option cost estimates, and Excel-based Evaluation Tool assumptions as new information CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 103     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 5. Prepare a conceptual feasibility study for the DPR, IPR, Bay Water Desalination and/or Groundwater CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 104     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO -This Page Intentionally Left Blank- CITY OF PALO ALTO ES-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 105     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the Palo Alto One Water Plan (OWP or Plan), including the purpose of One Water 1.1 Plan Purpose “One Water" is an integrated approach to water management that views all forms of water – imported The specific purpose of the OWP for the City is to present a 20-year, adaptable roadmap of prioritized .This One Water Plan which compares potential water supply and water conservation portfolios given .An Excel-based tool that can be used to evaluate and prioritize water supply and water conservation These work products together serve as an adaptable roadmap for the City's water strategy to provide 1.2 Motivations for Development of a One Water Plan The City has several motivating factors for developing this OWP including: .Providing water reliability for community needs (such as drinking water, tree canopy health, recreation . CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 106     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Future water supply reliability may be affected by recent regulations. In 2018, the State Water Resources In August 2018, the Palo Alto City Council voted to support the Bay-Delta Plan Amendments and sent a The SFPUC operates the RWS, which Palo Alto is 100 percent dependent on for drinking water. Given the Moreover, the RWS crosses seismically active faults, and the water supply is subject to potential supply In contrast, the OWP focuses on new permanent water sources such as the use of groundwater in all years .There are also several factors not included in the OWP that Palo Alto is addressing as part of other .Catastrophic loss of supply due to earthquakes or other events. The OWP is not focused on development of city policies regarding expanded green building requirements CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 107     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.3 Key Previous Planning Efforts The OWP builds on previous water supply studies, plans, and efforts by the City including the following .Long Term Water Supply Study (2000): This study was prepared for the City by Carollo Engineers, .BAWSCA Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (2015): BAWSCA is a special district created .2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan: The City completed the third iteration of the Water .Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (2019): The City prepared the Northwest County »Groundwater Assessment and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation and Characterization of the underlying groundwater basin and evaluation of IPR project feasibility. This study was used to inform the groundwater and IPR options in the OWP. Evaluation of using groundwater from permanent and temporary dewatering sites within the City as an irrigation source. Assumptions made in this TM were used to inform groundwater dewatering water supply options within Palo Alto. TM for Task 6.4 – Using Groundwater to Irrigate City Parks: Evaluation of conversion of the CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 108     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO .TM for Task 6.5 – Increasing Flow to RWQCP by Redirecting Existing Permanent Dewatering Evaluation of using permanent dewatering water as an additional water source for a future recycled water project. This TM was used to inform assumptions for adding permanent dewatering flows to the water reuse projects evaluated in this OWP. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019): The City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilience Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County In 2019, the City of Palo Alto, City of Mountain View, and Valley Water reached an agreement to advance collective water reuse in Santa Clara County (Valley Water, 2019). This agreement commits an annual average of 9 mgd (i.e., approximately half) of the treated wastewater from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Valley Water for use. In return, Valley Water will financially contribute to the construction of a small salt removal facility to produce higher quality recycled water for use by Mountain View and Palo Alto. This agreement was used to inform the flow assumptions for the different forms of potable reuse projects evaluated as a part of the OWP. .Palo Alto 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: The City prepared and adopted its 2020 Urban Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (2023): The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) was completed in 2023 (Palo Alto, 2023b). The S/CAP includes two water-specific goals: 1. Reduce Palo Alto’s potable water consumption by 30 percent compared to a 1990 baseline These goals are supported by the following four key actions: 1. Maximize cost-effective water conservation and efficiency through incentives, The last two key actions, the development of a One Water Portfolio and a dynamic water planning tool, CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 109     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.4 Geographical Study Area Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County on the San Francisco Peninsula, about 15 miles north of San 1.5 Planning Period This OWP serves as a guiding document for the planning and implementation of water supply Planning uncertainties increase further into the future projections are made due to an increasing margin of 1.6 Stakeholder Engagement The OWP was developed to meet the near- and long-term needs of the Palo Alto community. The City .Community, City, and regional partner engagement meetings. Live polling throughout the engagement meetings to collect live feedback (this included the use of an .Email-based survey distributed to community members. Maintaining an OWP email distribution list to provide updates. Maintaining a dedicated OWP website posting updates and past engagement meeting materials. CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 110     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 1.1 Palo Alto City Limits CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 111     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO The following subsections describe the key elements of the community, City, and regional partner Appendix F. 1.6.1 Community Engagement The City advertised community engagement meetings through email lists, City websites, social media, .Community Meeting #1, Community Needs and Priorities: The first meeting was conducted at City Community Meeting #2, Exploring Water Supply and Water Conservation Options: This meeting Community Meeting #3, Sharing the Initial Results: This meeting was conducted on June 3, 2024, 1.6.2 City Departments The following City departments were engaged in three virtual (via Zoom) stakeholder meetings .Administrative Services Division. Public Works, including the divisions of Development Center, Environmental Control, RWQCP, Urban .Utilities, including the divisions of Customer Service, Engineering & Operations, and Resource Similar to the community engagement meetings, three engagement meetings were held throughout the .City Department Meeting #1, Community Needs and Priorities: This meeting was conducted on CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 112     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO .City Department Meeting #2, Exploring Water Supply and Water Conservation Options: This City Department Meeting #3, Sharing the Initial Results: This meeting will occur once the One Water Plan is available for participants to review. 1.6.3 Regional Partners Many regional partners were engaged in two virtual (via Zoom) stakeholder meetings throughout the .Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The City held two regional partner engagement meetings covering the following topics: .Regional Partner Meeting #1, Exploring Water Supply and Water Conservation Options: This .Regional Partner Meeting #2, Sharing the Initial Results: This meeting will be held once the One 1.7 Report Organization This report is organized in 6 chapters. A brief description of the information presented in each of the Chapter 2 – Water Demands and Supplies: This chapter describes the City’s historical, existing, and Chapter 3 – Potential Water Supply & Water Conservation Options: This chapter focuses on the City’s CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 113     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Chapter 4 – Options Evaluation: This chapter describes the evaluation criteria used to compare and Chapter 5 – Portfolio Evaluation: This chapter describes the portfolio evaluation. It outlines the Chapter 6 –Recommended Implementation Plan: This chapter provides a trigger-based 1.8 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following City staff for their assistance and oversight of this project: .Karla Dailey– Assistant Director of Utilities Resource Management. The following Carollo team members were principally involved in this project: .Anne Prudhel, PE – Principal-in-Charge. Matthew Huang, PE – Cost Estimating. Kevin Christensen – GIS Specialist and Mapping. CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 114     CHAPTER 1 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO -This Page Intentionally Left Blank- CITY OF PALO ALTO 1-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 115     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 2 WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES This chapter starts with a description of the City of Palo Alto’s (City) historical, existing, and projected 2.1 Current and Projected Demands The following subsections describe the City’s historical and projected water demands. This analysis is 2.1.1 Historical and Existing Water Demands Over the past 30 years, the City’s total water demand has ranged from under 10,000 acre-feet per year . As shown in Figure 2.1, recycled water comprises only a small percentage of the City’s total water 18,000 Fiscal Year Potable Water Recycled Water Figure 2.1 Palo Alto Historical Water Use (1990-2020) CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 116     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO The City serves a broad range of customers, with the two largest customer types being single-family Government, 3% Landscape, 12% Institutional, 4% Single Family Res percentdential, 46% Commercial, 15% Multifamily Resid percentntial, 17% Figure 2.2 Distribution of Water Use by Customer Type (2020 Data) 2.1.2 Future Demand Projections The BAWSCA Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Update (Maddaus, 2022) developed This OWP uses three scenarios for Palo Alto from the updated BAWSCA demand projections and CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 117     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO forecasts is provided below, while more detail can be found in BAWSCA’s Regional Water Demand and .Low Demand Forecast: This forecast is based on Scenario E from BAWSCA’s updated demand .Medium Demand Forecast: This forecast is based on BAWSCA’s updated baseline demand High Demand Forecast: This forecast is based on Scenario A from BAWSCA’s updated demand Table 2.1 lists the demand projections used in the OWP and Figure 2.3 graphically depicts the demand Table 2.1 Total Water Demand Projections through 2045 Demand Projection by Planning Year(3)OWP Demand Scenario BAWSCA’s Regional Demand Update(1) Scenario Name 2020(2) (afy)) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Low Scenario E 11,237 11,438 11,044 10,818 10,664 10,582 Medium Baseline with Active & Passive Conservation 11,237 High Notes: 1) BAWSCA Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Update (Maddaus, 2022). CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 118     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 2.3 Water Demand Projections Through 2045 As shown in Figure 2.3, the medium and high demand scenarios follow a similar trajectory, increasing 2.2 Water Supply History The City established the water utility in 1896, shortly after the City's incorporation, and originally used In addition to the City’s potable water supplied by the RWS, the City has used non-potable recycled water CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 119     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO began operation in 1980. The first phase of this system serves the Palo Alto Golf Course, Greer Park, the 2.3 Existing Water Supply Sources Table 2.2 lists the existing and proposed water supply sources for the City during typical years, as stated in Table 2.2 Historical and Planned Water Supply Sources through 2045 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Water Supply Sources RWS Supply Recycled Water Total 10,921 11,287 11,394 11,546 11,801 12,113 11,237 11,603 11,710 11,862 12,117 12,429 Notes: Supply Source Capacities reflect normal year conditions. 2.3.1 San Francisco RWS Supply San Francisco Regional Water System Around 85 percent of the San Francisco RWS water supply originates from the Tuolumne River in the Water Supply Agreement In July 2009, the SFPUC and its Wholesale Customers entered into the Water Supply Agreement (WSA), Tier One Plan Drought Allocations Under the Tier One Plan, the SFPUC administers drought water shortage allocations when it determines CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 120     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 2.3 Tier One Plan Drought Shortage Allocations Share of Available WaterLevel of System-Wide Reduction SFPUC Wholesale Customersin Water Use Required Total 5% or less 35.5% .0% .0% 64.5% .0% .0% 100% 6% through 10% 11% through 15% 16% through 20% The Tier One Plan is set to expire at the termination of the WSA term in 2034 unless mutually extended by Tier Two Plan Drought Allocations The Wholesale Customers have collectively negotiated and endorsed the Tier Two Plan, which distributes .Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG). As the characteristics of water usage by Wholesale Customers change over time (such as variations in Initially set to expire in 2018, the Tier Two Plan has been extended annually by the BAWSCA Board of Drought Allocations During System-Wide Shortages Greater than 20 percent If RWS shortages exceed 20 percent, San Francisco will: .Adhere to the allocations outlined in the Tier 1 Shortage Plan up to the 20 percent reduction. Engage in discussions with Wholesale Customers on how to implement additional reductions beyond .Make final determinations regarding allocations beyond the 20 percent reduction. For this OWP, Palo Alto’s cutback percentage is a user-defined input. For the portfolio analysis presented CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 121     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO potential supply gap identified by SFPUC in the Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan (SFPUC, 2024). Individual Supply Guarantee San Francisco has a perpetual obligation (known as Supply Assurance) to provide 184 mgd to the SFPUC Water Supply Alternative Evaluation Efforts In 2019, the SFPUC established the AWS Program to evaluate new and diverse water supply options to AWS Plan in .Identification of the anticipated water supply gap through the 2045 planning horizon. In assessing the potential water supply gap, SFPUC evaluated drivers, including the implementation of the The AWS Plan then describes the six AWS Projects that SFPUC is currently planning and evaluating to Water Supply Reliability Historically, the RWS has consistently met dry-year demands while limiting rationing to a maximum CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 122     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO triggering the implementation of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Plans for the first time. The drought emergency Based upon the City’s forecasted water demand presented in the City’s 2020 UWMP and projections of 2.3.2 Recycled Water Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto The City owns and operates the RWQCP, a wastewater treatment plant serving the East Palo Alto Sanitary The RWQCP is classified as an advanced secondary treatment facility and encompasses various treatment The RWQCP has a permitted average dry weather flow capacity of 39 mgd with a permitted peak wet Palo Alto Recycled Water Production The RWQCP recycled water facility can produce non-potable recycled water meeting the Title 22 CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 123     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Current and Potential Recycled Water Use Phase 1 of the RWQCP’s regional recycled water transmission system has been operational since 1980, Table 2.4 Uses of Recycled Water from the RWQCP Annual Demand(1) (afy)Recycled Water Use Landscape Irrigation 42 179 63 Golf Course Irrigation Other non-potable uses Palo Alto Recycled Water Subtotal Mountain View Customers 284 452 Total Uses of Recycled Water from the RWQCP Notes: (1) Source: Palo Alto Monthly Wastewater Flows (Palo Alto, 2023) The City evaluated the feasibility of expanding its recycled water system, most recently in the 2019 The Partnership Agreement The Partnership Agreement with Valley Water and the City of Mountain View, approved by Palo Alto’s 1. Valley Water will contribute $16 million towards a small salt removal facility's design and construction 2. Roughly half of the treated wastewater generated by the RWQCP (9 mgd) will be transferred to Valley CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 124     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO million annually, allocated among all the RWQCP Partner Agencies contributing treated effluent to the 3. Palo Alto and Mountain View will retain the option in the future to request a new potable or non- October 16, 2023, Council directed staff to secure financing and solicit bids for construction of Phase 1 of 2.3.3 Deep Aquifer Groundwater The City lies within Santa Clara County, where Valley Water serves as the authorized groundwater The Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins outlines Valley Palo Alto built five groundwater wells during the mid-1950s, and the wells remained operational until In April 2010, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) granted approval for an amendment to CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 125     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 2.4 Emergency Supply Well Locations CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 126     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO The City has identified these wells as potential emergency supply sources for use during prolonged droughts. They are permitted and classified by the State as “Standby,” and, can only be utilized for up to The pumping limitations imposed on the well system serve as mitigation measures outlined in the Intermittent use of groundwater in Palo Alto during droughts or other short-term emergencies is While groundwater may offer some advantages for the City in the long term and could prove useful In 2018, as part of the RWSP, the City completed a Groundwater Assessment (GA) in collaboration with Shallow Aquifer Groundwater The Ground Use Assessment (GUA) included in-depth research on shallow and deep aquifers, yielding CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 127     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Basement construction frequently occurs in non-residential, mixed-use, and multifamily residential buildings, particularly those incorporating underground parking. The City's high property and housing Temporary groundwater dewatering conducted from July 2019 to August 2020 resulted in the extraction The City of Palo Alto issues permits for both temporary and long-term (exceeding one year) dewatering The City has historically regulated multiple aspects of basement groundwater pumping for residential and .Mandatory installation of fill stations to facilitate water truck filling or connection of garden hoses for .Submission of usage plans demonstrating efforts to maximize utilization of pumped water and .Mandating a geotechnical study to assess potential effects and necessary avoidance measures. Requirement for Street Work/Dewatering permits, issued only after requirements #1, #2, and #3 are In November 2020, a technical memorandum was produced to assess the feasibility of reusing water CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 128     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 2.4 Conservation Programs To meet the water conservation and efficiency goals set by state and local regulations, Palo Alto For more than fifteen years, Palo Alto has collaborated with Valley Water to implement water efficiency These efforts include providing free outdoor water audits and offering rebates for landscape efficiency Palo Alto customers can access water conservation resources through the City's website and Valley Table 2.5 Existing Water Conservation Programs Targets Indoor Use Outdoor Use Targets Key ProgramExisting Water Conservation Programs Water Wise Outdoor Survey Program No Yes Free outdoor audit. Yes Free guide to help find and fix leaks. Rebates for efficient irrigation devices, turfLandscape Rebate Program No Yes WaterSmart Home Water Report Program Yes Yes Water Use Feedback to change behavior. Large Landscape Survey and Waterfluence No Yes Free audit for customers >0.5 acre lots. Landscape Workshops Free workshops on water-wise landscaping. Water Wise Survey Programs Valley Water administers the Water Wise Indoor and Outdoor Survey Programs, which assist customers in The indoor survey kit enables customers to conduct independent assessments of their homes for leaks CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 129     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO request complimentary water conservation items for their homes, such as low-flow faucet aerators, Through the outdoor survey, customers receive a complimentary and thorough consultation from a Landscape Rebate Program In collaboration with Valley Water, the City offers the Landscape Rebate Program (LRP) to residents and As a component of the LRP, the City collaborates with Valley Water to offer Stormwater Rebates. These WaterSmart Home Water Report Program Starting in November 2022, the City launched the WaterSmart Home Water Report and customer portal. Water Efficient Technology Rebate Program In collaboration with Valley Water, the City provides the Water Efficient Technology (WET) Rebate Large Landscape Survey and Waterfluence Irrigation Budget Program Through Valley Water, the City facilitates a program called “Waterfluence” that offers landscape irrigation CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 130     CHAPTER 2 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO program has been operational since 2012, and presently, it encompasses 226 large landscape sites with BAWSCA Conservation Programs The City partners with BAWSCA to offer residential landscape workshops and online resources for CITY OF PALO ALTO 2-16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 131     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL OPTIONS The One Water Plan (OWP) uses a multi-step process to evaluate water supply and conservation options 3.1 Evaluation Process Overview The options evaluation process used in this OWP consisted of four main steps, as graphically depicted in 1. Pre-screening of 27 options narrowed down to 15 options. 2. Screening of 15 options narrowed down to nine (9) options. 3. Option Evaluation of nine (9) options to inform the composition of seven (7) portfolios. Portfolio Evaluation of seven (7) portfolios to develop a trigger-based implementation strategy. This chapter described the first two steps of this process as indicated with the orange box. During the first Figure 3.1 Option Evaluation Process CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 132     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.2 Pre-Screening As shown in Figure 3.1, the option development began with 27 options that were grouped into three .Ongoing or already planned options (three). Options not feasible at this time (nine). Remaining options that moved forward to the screening process (15). Table 3.1 lists the grouping of the 27 options. The pre-screening process removed options if they were Appendix B. Table 3.1 Options Pre-screening Results Options that are Ongoing/Already Options not Feasible at this Time:Options selected to be .Ongoing/Planned Water .IPR, Lake Lagunita Recharge..RWS Supply. Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1. .Advanced Metering Program. Distribution System Water Loss Interagency Transfer Agreement. . Groundwater. Tuolumne River Purchases..New Irrigation Wells. DPR with Palo Alto Facility. DPR with Palo Alto Facility and Temporary Dewatering Sites. .DPR with Regional Facility. Palo Alto IPR with Groundwater .NPR Phase 3 Extension to Foothills. Bay Water Desalination. Notes: DPR = Direct Potable Reuse; IPR = Indirect Potable Reuse; NPR = Non-Potable Reuse; RWS = Regional Water System; Most of the options presented in this chapter are based on previous studies prepared by the City or other Appendix A provides a complete list of project references. CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 133     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.3 Screening Criteria The screening process applied the following three screening criteria to the 15 options that moved forward .Unit Cost. Estimated Yield. These screening criteria are described in more detail below. Each option was scored numerically for each 3.3.1 Unit Cost Concept-level capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed for each option from As needed, costs were escalated to present day values using the September 2023 Engineering News- Appendix C provides detailed Unit costs were scored on a scale from 1 (worst) to 3 (best) based on their cost relative to the City’s .3 (best score): < $2,000/af (less than RWS water cost). 1 (worst score): > $4,000/af (approximately double RWS water cost). 3.3.2 Estimated Yield Yield is the anticipated amount of water a given option can provide to the City per year. As described in .3 (best score): > 2,000 afy. 2 (medium score): 100 to 2,000 afy. CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 134     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.3.3 Supply Reliability The Supply Reliability screening criteria examines if the option will improve reliability in drought .3 (best score): Yes, the option increases reliability during drought years compared to the baseline 2 (medium score): Neutral, the option may or may not increase reliability during drought years 1 (worst score): No, the option does not increase reliability during drought years compared to the 3.4 Screening The following subsections describe each of the 15 options that passed the pre-screening criteria. The 1. RWS Supply. 2. Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1. 5. New Irrigation Wells. 6. DPR with Palo Alto Treatment Facility. 10. NPR Phase 3 Extension to Foothills. 15. Bay Water Desalination. The description of each option concludes with a summary of the total screening score. A comparison of CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 135     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.1 RWS Supply Description3.4.1.1 This option reflects the City's current potable supply, which is entirely provided by the RWS. Source: SFPUC 2020 UWMP Figure 3.2 San Francisco Hetch Hetchy RWS 3.4.1.2 Costs Palo Alto’s cost to purchase water from the RWS is a combination of SFPUC’s base rate and a debt service cost score of two (2). Future unit costs CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 136     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.1.3 Estimated Yield Palo Alto's Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 16.575 mgd (18,579 afy) is available in normal years. yield score of three (3). 3.4.1.4 Supply Reliability Palo Alto purchases water from the SFPUC under the terms of the 25-year Water Supply Agreement. The supply reliability score of two (2). 3.4.1.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of seven (7), the RWS supply option will move forward to the 3.4.2 Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 3.4.2.1 Description Water conservation options are any measures that the City can take to facilitate a reduction in water use. Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” (DWR, 2017) and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Baseline Conservation.” Enhanced conservation includes conservation Unlike the supply options developed in this Plan, the enhanced conservation options consist of CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 137     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 includes measures that are estimated to cost less than $1,000/af and are For each measure in Phase 1, Table 3.2 includes a brief description as well as the estimated time to .Time to Saturation: The time to saturation is defined as the estimated number of years it will take .Staffing Time: The estimated city staffing time represents the amount of time that a City staff person Estimated Yield: The estimated annual yield for each measure is presented as the number of .Unit Cost: The unit cost for each measure was calculated by dividing the total measure cost from CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 138     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.2 Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 Measures Summary Water Conservation Measure Name CityTime to Saturation (years) Unit Cost(2) ($/af) Staffing Yield(1) Time (FTE) Measure #Description (afy) Targets CII buildings that are irrigating above their provides technical guidance and landscaping Outdoor 2 5 0.6 229 $115Efficiency for used for irrigation to meet the volume calculated for technical support to the target buildings. Bans all turf in apartments, churches, commercial Non-HOAs, 90% of turf at commercial properties, and all 3 Turf Ban for landscaping. According to WaterFluence data, this 10 0.4 132 $372 Properties(3) turf in Palo Alto. It is assumed that there may be This measure would pay for low-income Residential Efficiency Toilets (HET). This program is assumed 5 10 0.05 11 $2,347 Program replaced are approximately 12.2 ccf/yr (0.028 afy). This measure would ban front lawns in new Lawn (3)) 6 0.4 139 $981 CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 139     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Water Conservation Measure Name CityTime to Saturation (years) Unit Cost(2) ($/af) Staffing Yield(1) Time (FTE) Measure #Description (afy) This measure would limit landscape irrigation to 3 3-Day (4) 8 1 0.2 212 $159 Total 724 $312 Notes: (1) Yield reflects the average annual volume of water saved in 2045 after measures reach saturation and/or based on water (3) In October 2023, the State passed AB1572 banning potable water irrigation of non-functional turf for CII properties. The ban The estimated cumulative increase of water savings from the various measures is depicted in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3 Projected Water Savings from Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 140     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.2.2 Costs As shown in Table 3.9, the unit costs for conservation measures included in Enhanced Conservation Phase As shown, this option does not include any capital or land acquisition cost. Instead, all costs are cost score of three (3). 3.4.2.3 Estimated Yield The fully saturated yields for individual conservation measures included in the Enhanced Conservation yield score of two (2). 3.4.2.4 Supply Reliability Using less water by enhancing conservation measures supports a drought-proof supply by ensuring that reliability score of three (3). Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of eight (8), this option will move forward to the portfolio 3.4.3 Enhanced Water Conservation - Phase 2 3.4.3.1 Description This option would implement the enhanced water conservation measures described in Table 3.3, while the CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 141     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.3 Enhanced Conservation Phase 2 Measures Summary CityTime to Saturation (years) Unit Cost4 ($/af) Staffing Yield(1) Time (FTE) Measure # Conservation Description (afy) HET replacement rebate program for offices, HET 1 10 0.3 21 $3,314 This measure would build on the City's existing increased technical support for single-family City 4 Ongoing 0.4 152 $4,133Support for Turf replacement incentive ($2/sf), costs for this (2) program include staff time to assist single-family Requires removal of turf front lawns upon resale replacement at about 400 residential properties Lawn Limitation per year with assumed lawn sizes of for Residential approximately 600 sf and annual turf7 Ongoing 1.5 445 $1,094Propertiesreplacement savings of 36 gal/sf (5 af/ac). Given Upon Resale3 the challenges with enforcing this measure, it's Total 618 $1,939 Notes: (1) Yield reflects the volume of water saved in 2045 after measures reach saturation and/or based on water savings of ongoing (4) Cost assumptions reflect 2023 dollars. CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 142     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.4 Projected Water Savings from Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 2 3.4.3.2 Costs The unit costs for conservation measures included in Enhanced Conservation Phase 2 range from Table 3.9 shows a cost estimate summary of the key cost components, and Appendix C provides a cost score of three (3). 3.4.3.3 Estimated Yield The fully saturated yields for individual conservation measures included in the Enhanced Conservation yield score of two (2). 3.4.3.4 Supply Reliability Using less water by enhancing conservation measures supports a drought-proof supply by ensuring that reliability score of three (3). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 143     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.3.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of eight (8), this option will move forward to the portfolio 3.4.4 Groundwater 3.4.4.1 Description This option would repurpose two of the City’s existing emergency supply groundwater wells for regular Currently, groundwater can only be disinfected with free chlorine and cannot be mixed with The Utilities Department is planning to address the inability to use emergency supply wells in conjunction All of the City’s groundwater wells are screened in the deep aquifer (screened intervals ranging from 108 CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 144     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.5 Existing Emergency Supply Wells CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 145     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.4 Emergency Supply Well Capacities Estimated Capacity Estimated CapacityWell Current Status(afy) 2,340 5,326 1,130 2,744 1,130 2,986 1,614 968 (gpm) Hale Creek 1,450 Emergency Use only. N/A Rinconada Park Peers Park 1,700 Matadero El Camino Park 1,850 Total 18,238 11,300 Data Sources: (1) 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan (Palo Alto, 2017). As shown in Table 3.4, the combined instantaneous flow rate of these eight (8) wells is estimated to be This option assumes that the El Camino Park and Eleanor Pardee Park wells would be converted such that The 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) evaluated the feasibility of this well conversion and Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (W&C, 2020b) The groundwater modeling conducted by Todd Groundwater also concluded that 2,400 afy could be CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 146     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO yield, this option assumes that the El Camino well and one additional well (Eleanor Pardee) would be Due to the higher capacity compared with the Main Library Well, the best options identified for The existing wells are currently equipped with chlorine disinfection whereas the San Francisco RWS Supply Several well water treatment options focused on the El Camino and Eleanor wells were considered as part .Option 1: Blending with RWS Water (El Camino and Eleanor Wells). Option 2: Fe and Mn Treatment at Each Well (El Camino and Eleanor Wells). Option 3: Fe and Mn Treatment at Each Well (El Camino and Eleanor Wells) plus blending with RWS .Option 4: Fe, Mn, TDS, and Ammonia Treatment at Each Well (El Camino and Eleanor Wells).1 Option 4B: Fe, Mn, TDS, and Ammonia Treatment at Each Well (El Camino Well only). It should be noted that blending (Options 1 and 1B) could be viable in the near term, whereas 1 This option is carried forward in the OWP for portfolio analysis. CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 147     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Treatment Option 4 would require the construction of treatment facilities at both the El Camino and The water produced by the El Camino and Eleanor wells would be regularly tested and evaluated to verify Figure 3.6 Groundwater Treatment Option Schematics Valley Water is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 148     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Supplies (PAWS) report developed by Valley Water (Valley Water, 2022). The PAWS report anticipates that 3.4.4.2 Costs Costs developed in the 2017 WIRP ranged from $1,400/af to $2,200/af and were initially developed in a With the selection of treatment Option 4 and corresponding unit cost of $4,663/af, this option receives a cost score of one (1). For the remainder of the One Water Plan, “Groundwater” refers to Option 4 with 3.4.4.3 Estimated Yield The estimated annual capacity of each well, as obtained from the 2017 WIRP, is summarized above in Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan estimated the City could pump 3,000 afy of groundwater estimated yield score is three (3). 3.4.4.4 Supply Reliability Because Valley Water manages the basin in Santa Clara County, and because Valley Water relies heavily supply reliability score is two (2). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 149     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.4.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of six (6), this option will move forward to the portfolio 3.4.5 New Irrigation Wells 3.4.5.1 Description This option was initially investigated as part of the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan. The Using Groundwater to Irrigate City Parks, which evaluated the installation of irrigation wells at the following City sites (W&C, 2020a): .Main Library and Garden. Eleanor Pardee Park. The 2020 TM selected these sites for evaluation because they are the locations of the existing City Figure 3.7 shows the locations of the potential new irrigation well sites. The shallow and deep aquifers are CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 150     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.7 Potential New Irrigation Well Sites CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 151     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.5.2 Costs The OWP escalates the costs developed in the 2020 TM to September 2023 values. The escalated capital Similar to the groundwater option, this option also includes an annual Valley Water groundwater A cost estimate summary of the key cost components is shown in Table 3.9, while a detailed cost estimate cost score of two (2). 3.4.5.3 Estimated Yield It is assumed that the irrigation wells would cover the total annual irrigation demand at the five identified Table 3.5 City Park Irrigation Demands Size (acres) Irrigation Demand Main Library and Garden 2.3 19.0 12.2 9.6 9.6 12.4 6.8 Eleanor Pardee Park 10.9 54.4 4.7 Total Demand N/A Data Sources: (1) Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan, Using Groundwater to Irrigate City Parks TM (W&C, 2020). The total yield for this project is dependent on the number of wells drilled. For the purposes of this estimated yield score is one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-21 Item #4     Packet Pg. 152     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.5.4 Supply Reliability Valley Water manages the basin in Santa Clara County. Because Valley Water relies heavily on the State supply reliability score is two (2). 3.4.5.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of five (5), this option will not move forward to the portfolio As previously noted, this option was based on the 2020 Using Groundwater to Irrigate City Parks TM, 3.4.6 DPR with Palo Alto Facility 3.4.6.1 Description This DPR option would use advanced treated recycled water (purified water) to directly supplement the This option was developed as “Concept Option D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR” as part of the 2019 Recycled A storage tank is included in this option to provide an engineered storage buffer between the AWPF and This option also includes approximately 2 miles of pipe to connect the AWPF with the storage tank and CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-22 Item #4     Packet Pg. 153     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO to storage and a second pump station would be needed to pump purified water from the storage tank To augment declining wastewater flows to the RWQCP, this option could include the diversion of 3.4.6.2 Costs Costs for this option include nearly $117M in capital investments for treatment facilities, including the The RWSP unit cost estimate for this option was estimated to be $2,500/af. Escalating this cost from the cost score of two (2). 3.4.6.3 Estimated Yield Projected available flows from the RWQCP for all reuse options were prepared by City staff. In recent The flows presented in Table 3.6 are based on a low-flow scenario using 2022 flows. It should be noted CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-23 Item #4     Packet Pg. 154     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.6 2022 RWQCP Flows by Partner and Flow Available for Reuse Influent Available Flow for Reuse including Dewatering Flow (mgd) Internal Plant Process Flow Available2022 RWQCP 2022 Environmental (2)Needed for Existing NPR (mgd) Partner Agency Influent Flow Influent (1)(mgd))(mgd)(mgd) Mountain View 39%5.87 5.68 1.73 0.78 0.78 0.36 15.20 3.00 3.31 0.58 1.50 0.19 0.50 2.10 9.88 2.1 5.62 1.5Los Altos EPASD 0.67 0.68 0.31 10.88 Stanford 5% Los Altos Hills 2% Total Notes: (1) Flows estimated from RWQCP Reports database, not based on billings. Consistent with the RWSP, the treatment yield is estimated at 75 percent, resulting in a net production It is important to note that the yield for this option assumes that Valley Water will not construct a regional Based on the maximum possible yield of 4,723 afy, this option receives a yield score of three (3). If Valley 3.4.6.4 Supply Reliability Implementing DPR would significantly increase the City’s water supply reliability during drought years, as supply reliability score of three (3). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-24 Item #4     Packet Pg. 155     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.7 RWQCP Flows Available for Regional Purification Facility and Local Reuse Available Flow for Local Reuse including Dewatering Flow (mgd) Flow to Regional Purification Facility (mgd)(2) Available Flow forAvailable Flow for (1)Partner Agency (mgd) Mountain View 2.10 9.88 2.10 9.00 0.88 1.88 Los Altos EPASD Stanford Los Altos Hills Total 0.88 1.88 Notes: (1) See Table 3.6 for calculation of estimated flows available for reuse. (2) Total flow to Valley Water’s Regional Purification Facility would be 9 mgd, per the 2019 Partnership Agreement to Advance a trilateral agreement between Valley Water, the City of Palo Alto, and the City of Mountain View. Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos have agreed to send their proportion of effluent from the RWQCP to Valley Water’s Regional Purification Facility. EPASD, Stanford, and Los Altos Hills have not yet entered into such an agreement, but it is assumed for the purposes of this plan that these entities would also send their proportion of effluent to the Regional Purification Facility. 3.4.6.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of eight (8), this option will move forward to the portfolio 3.4.7 DPR with Palo Alto Facility and the SSRF 3.4.7.1 Description Similar to the DPR with the Palo Alto Facility, this option would use advanced treated recycled water As shown in Figure 3.8, the SSRF pretreatment (green dashed line) would consist of ozone treatment CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-25 Item #4     Packet Pg. 156     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.8 DPR with Palo Alto Treatment Facility and SSRF Option Schematic CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-26 Item #4     Packet Pg. 157     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO This option assumes construction of the full SSRF to produce 2.25 mgd of permeate, providing Palo Alto It should be noted that the ozone and BAF processes must be sized to treat the entire flow (assumed to To deliver the purified water to Palo Alto’s customers, this option also includes a conveyance pipeline to 3.4.7.2 Costs Costs for this option include a capital cost of nearly $49M for the ozone and BAF treatment based on the cost score of one (1). It should be noted that the pretreatment and SSRF would need to be sized to treat up to half of the 3.4.7.3 Estimated Yield This option assumes a 2.25 mgd SSRF will be constructed; this flow is split between the Cities of Palo Alto yield score of two (2). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-27 Item #4     Packet Pg. 158     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.7.4 Supply Reliability Implementing DPR would significantly increase the City’s water supply reliability during drought years, as supply reliability score of three (3). 3.4.7.5 Total Screening Scores Receiving a total screening score of six (6), this option will move forward to the portfolio evaluation 3.4.8 DPR with Regional Facility 3.4.8.1 Description This option would consist of contracting with Valley Water to treat tertiary-treated wastewater (effluent) Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan) that evaluates several potential options for In 2017, Palo Alto, along with other RWQCP partner agencies, agreed to provide Valley Water with an This option assumes that Palo Alto could negotiate a cost-based fee for Valley Water to produce purified CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-28 Item #4     Packet Pg. 159     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.9 DPR with Regional Treatment Facility Option Schematic To augment declining wastewater flows to the RWQCP, this option could include the diversion of It should be noted that if Valley Water exercises its option to transfer treated effluent from the RWQCP to 3.4.8.2 Costs The CoRe Plan includes cost estimates for three (3) DPR options that would produce purified water for cost score of two (2). 3.4.8.3 Estimated Yield Projected available flows from the RWQCP for all reuse options were prepared by City staff. Despite a CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-29 Item #4     Packet Pg. 160     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO production efficiency of 80 percent to align with losses from advanced treatment assumed in the CoRe yield score of two (2). 3.4.8.4 Supply Reliability Purchasing water from a DPR program would significantly increase the City’s water supply reliability supply reliability score of three (3). 3.4.8.5 Total Screening Scores Receiving a total screening score of seven (7), this option will move forward to the portfolio evaluation 3.4.9 IPR with Groundwater Injection 3.4.9.1 Description The IPR option would utilize purified water for groundwater injection followed by extraction from the IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd Groundwater, 2018). Similar to the A new pump station would need to be constructed to pump purified water to injection wells that would CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-30 Item #4     Packet Pg. 161     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.10 IPR with Groundwater Injection Schematic This option assumes the same wellhead treatment as the conversion of emergency groundwater wells 3.4.9.2 Costs Costs for this option include nearly $189M in capital costs, including the AWPF, pump station, pipelines cost score of one (1). 3.4.9.3 Estimated Yield Based on the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, it is estimated that injecting 2,900 afy of purified water into the CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-31 Item #4     Packet Pg. 162     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO It is important to note that the yield for this option assumes that Valley Water does not construct a regional purification facility. Should a regional facility be constructed, Palo Alto has agreed to send a Based on the maximum possible yield of 5,150 afy, this option receives a yield score of three (3). If Valley 3.4.9.4 Supply Reliability Implementing IPR would significantly increase the City’s water supply reliability during drought years, as supply reliability score of three (3). 3.4.9.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of seven (7), this option will move forward to the portfolio , which may make it less 3.4.10 NPR with Phase 3 Extension to Foothills 3.4.10.1 Description This option would extend the City’s existing non-potable reuse (NPR) system by constructing the Phase 3 . This option was first recommended The NPR system expansion would consist of approximately 15 miles of pipeline built off the existing CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-32 Item #4     Packet Pg. 163     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO To serve non-potable recycled water to additional customers, it is assumed that the proposed 2.25 mgd City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in 2015 includes mitigation measures for the Phase 3 pipeline that require A schematic illustrating the major components of this option is shown in Figure 3.11, while the NPR Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (W&C, 2020b). Figure 3.11 NPR with Phase 3 Extension to Foothills Schematic 3.4.10.2 Costs The cost estimate for this option includes a capital cost of $148.5M for the construction of Phase 2 of the cost score of one (1). 3.4.10.3 Estimated Yield This option would serve non-potable water to approximately 115 new customers with an estimated yield score of two (2). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-33 Item #4     Packet Pg. 164     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.10.4 Supply Reliability This option does not substantially increase water supply reliability for the City. While recycled water is a reliability score of two (2). 3.4.10.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening score of five (5), this option will not move forward to the portfolio 3.4.11 Graywater Capture and Reuse 3.4.11.1 Description Graywater is defined as water from residential indoor water use collected from washing machines, The City, in conjunction with Valley Water, administers an existing graywater rebate program known as Laundry-to-Landscape.” This program provides a rebate of up to $400 to incentivize single-family This option seeks to expand the implementation of the City’s existing graywater capture and reuse For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that 1 percent of single-family homes would adopt a CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-34 Item #4     Packet Pg. 165     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Source: Valley Water News (Valley Water, 2024) Figure 3.12 Graywater System “Laundry-to-Landscape” Schematic 3.4.11.2 Costs Costs were developed for graywater system installation in both single-family homes and at City sites. As Laundry-to-Landscape” cost score of one (1). 3.4.11.3 Estimated Yield Yield was calculated using assumptions from the San Francisco Graywater Design Manual for Outdoor CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-35 Item #4     Packet Pg. 166     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO roughly 40 gpd. Moreover, it was assumed that each non-SFR City site would produce double the yield for yield score of one (1). 3.4.11.4 Supply Reliability While this water supply would provide irrigation for single-family homes and select City sites, this option supply reliability score of two (2). 3.4.11.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total score of four (4), this option will not move forward to the portfolio evaluation process 3.4.12 Residential Rainwater Capture 3.4.12.1 Description The City, in conjunction with Valley Water, administers a This option seeks to expand the implementation of the Source: City of Palo Alto Rain Barrel Rebateassociated with them, such as City owned facilities, multi- CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-36 Item #4     Packet Pg. 167     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.12.2 Costs Costs were developed for rain barrel installation in single-family homes. As this plan only considers costs With an assumed useful life of 15-years for each rain barrel, the unit cost is estimated at $58,300/af, which cost score of one (1). Similar to the enhanced water conservation programs, 3.4.12.3 Estimated Yield Available, historical rainfall data was collected for Palo Alto from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Using the NOAA data, there are approximately 5 inches of qualifying rainfall per year. It was assumed that yield score of one (1). It should be noted that the average yield 3.4.12.4 Supply Reliability This option would not increase water supply reliability for the City because there will be inherently fewer supply reliability score of one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-37 Item #4     Packet Pg. 168     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.12.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of three (3), this option will not move forward to the portfolio 3.4.13 Green Stormwater Infrastructure 3.4.13.1 Description This option would involve the installation of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) throughout Palo Alto at .Bioretention areas installed between the curb and sidewalk or as curb extensions to slow traffic. In general, for the purposes of this Plan, GSI utilizes stormwater runoff to irrigate aesthetic landscape 3.4.13.2 Costs The OWP developed estimated unit costs using green street project concepts developed for the One (Carollo, 2018). The planning level costs presented in this plan were escalated to present day dollars using the ENR regional index ratio. Costs were developed based on a comparison of the cost estimating methods presented in the Enhanced Watershed Management Plans (EWMPs) for the Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Marina del Rey, Santa Monica Bay, and Upper Los Angeles River watershed. Parameters considered include the green streets footprint, static capture volume, volume of fill media, and underdrain volume. In addition, the annual O&M cost for green street projects was estimated as 6 percent of the project capital cost. Unit costs, on average, are $1,000/linear feet of green street or $17,000/af stormwater captured (Carollo, 2018). Unit costs for below-ground facilities in parking lots and City facility sites could be less costly due to possibly easier construction with fewer potential utility conflicts and traffic control needs, however the unit cost is still expected to exceed $4,000/af due to the limited yield these GSI projects generate with California hydrology. Hence, the corresponding cost score is one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-38 Item #4     Packet Pg. 169     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.13 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Schematic 3.4.13.3 Estimated Yield The green stormwater infrastructure projects included in the estimated yield include the high and medium Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan as depicted in Figure 3.14. estimated yield score is one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-39 Item #4     Packet Pg. 170     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.14 Planned Green Stormwater Infrastructure Projects 3.4.13.4 Supply Reliability This option would not increase water supply reliability for the City, because the availability of stormwater supply reliability score of one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-40 Item #4     Packet Pg. 171     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.13.5 Total Screening Scores Receiving a total screening criteria score of three (3), this option will not move forward to the portfolio 3.4.14 Multi-Source Storage 3.4.14.1 Description This option would consist of the construction of large, below-grade storage tanks at City parks to store The permanent dewatering sites are areas where the groundwater levels are shallow and must frequently The following parks were selected to site potential storage tanks based on their proximity to either the .Peers Park. Heritage Park. The selected parks, dewatering sites, and existing recycled water pipelines are shown on Figure 3.15. The Each multi-source storage site would require that a Title 22 Engineering Report be prepared, which would CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-41 Item #4     Packet Pg. 172     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.14.2 Costs Capital costs were developed using a typical planning level unit cost for small concrete tank storage of cost score of one (1). Table 3.8 Multi-Source Storage Option Sizing and Cost Estimates Unit Cost (capital and O&M cost) ($/af) Estimated Conveyance Total Capital Irrigation Demand(2) (afy) Backup | Water Supply Source(3) Park Name Pipeline Cost(1) ($M)Length (LF) Peers 68,000 45,000 63,000 40,000 28,000 245,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 1,500 15,500 $4.7 $5.5 $5.8 $4.3 $2.3 $22.6 $30,900 $39,700 10.3 Dewatering water N/A Ramos 10.7 4.8 Total 38.6 Notes: (1) All capital costs include a 2.25 multiplier of the estimated construction cost to account for construction cost contingencies, CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-42 Item #4     Packet Pg. 173     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.15 City Parks Selected for Multi-Source Storage Tank CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-43 Item #4     Packet Pg. 174     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.14.3 Estimated Yield Total yield is dependent on-site selection, and the number of sites implemented. It is assumed that the full estimated yield score of one (1). 3.4.14.4 Supply Reliability This option would increase water supply reliability for the City. The proposed water sources (dewatering supply reliability score of three (3). 3.4.14.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening criteria score of five (5), this option will not move forward to the portfolio 3.4.15 San Francisco Bay Desalination 3.4.15.1 Description Several studies have been completed to evaluate desalination as a new water supply using either the San Long-Term Reliability Water Supply Strategy Phase II Report This option would consist of the construction of a local small-scale desalination plant owned and CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-44 Item #4     Packet Pg. 175     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3.16 Small scale Bay Water Desalination for Palo Alto Schematic Per the 2015 BAWSCA Strategy, it is assumed that the desalination facility would have a 50 percent 3.4.15.2 Costs Cost estimates from the BAWSCA Strategy for construction of a 15-mgd regional desalination facility form cost score of one (1). CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-45 Item #4     Packet Pg. 176     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3.4.15.3 Estimated Yield The estimated yield for a Palo Alto-owned desalination facility is assumed to have a treatment capacity of Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Final Report (CDM yield score of three (3). 3.4.15.4 Supply Reliability Desalination would increase water supply reliability for the City as the proposed water source (San supply reliability score of three (3). 3.4.15.5 Total Screening Score Receiving a total screening score of seven (7), this option will move forward to the portfolio process as 3.5 Options Costs and Screening Conclusions Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 summarize the unit cost estimates for each of the options that made it to the CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-46 Item #4     Packet Pg. 177     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.9 Unit Cost Estimate of all Screened Options - 1 Emergency Emergency (1) (Option 1)(1) DPR with Palo Alto Treatment Facility(1) DPR with Regional Treatment Facility(1) Enhanced Conservation Conservation Phase 1(1) 3.4.2 Enhanced Supply Option Supply Wells(1)Phase 2(1) 3.4.3Section3.4.1 3.4.4 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.7 Total Capital Cost Capital Cost ($)$0 $0 $0 $49,760,760 $1,532,363 $993,011 $105,257,000 $16,410,000 Land Acquisition Cost ($) Amortized Capital and Land Cost ($/yr) Total O&M Cost $0 $0 $11,463,000 $0 $3,408,068 $92,395 $64,597 $1,067,494 GPC ($/yr)N/A $27,726,660 $0 N/A $188,176 N/A N/A $639,142 N/A $5,172,000 $5,172,000 $93,096 $0 $0 O&M Cost ($/yr)$1,811,749 $212,010 $9,305,267 $6,049,640 Energy Cost ($/yr) Total Unit Cost(1) Total Annual Cost ($/yr)$27,726,660 (2) $188,176 (3) $639,142 $10,491,781 $5,576,369 $167,791 $16,972,804 $7,117,134 330(4) $0 2,250 $1,515 $2,299 $805 3,000 4,723 $1,608 $0 1,769 Capital Cost Unit Cost ($/af)$1,196 $0 $0 $0 $1,724 $2,210 $312 $1,939 $1,970 $3,420 $4,024 $44 $33 $61 Total Unit Cost ($/af)$2,210 $312(2)$1,939(3)$4,663 $1,859 $3,107 $3,594 Notes: (1) Supply Options Cost Estimating Details (see Appendix C). Cost Estimates generally reflect 2023 dollars and construction cost estimates are adjusted to ENR Index for the CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-47 Item #4     Packet Pg. 178     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.10 Unit Cost Estimate of all Screened Options - 2 DPR with Palo Alto Facility and the SSRF NPR with Phase 3 Extension to Foothills(1) San Francisco Bay IPR with Groundwater Injection(1) Graywater Capture and Rainwater Reuse(1) 3.4.11 Residential Green Stormwater Multi-Source (1)Supply Option Capture(1) Infrastructure(1)Desalination(1) Section 3.4.8 3.4.9 3.4.10 3.4.12 3.4.13 3.4.14 3.4.15 Total Capital Cost Capital Cost ($) Land Acquisition Cost ($) $48,900,000 $188,900,000 $148,510,000 $0 $0 $4,080,000 $22,630,000 $251,832,599 Amortized Capital and Land Cost ($/yr) $3,662,396 $12,769,597 $9,660,789 $265,410 Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge ($/yr)$0 $5,671,960 $0 $0 $46,650 $0 $0 $43,251 $0 $0 $240,000 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $1,897,644 $992,271 $9,827,073 Energy Cost ($/yr) Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost ($/yr)$5,605,085 $25,709,597 $10,653,060 $46,650 $43,251 $505,410 $1,532,114 $30,324,272 630 $5,813 $0 5,150 $2,480 $1,101 $1,206 $205 1,100 $8,783 $0 39 $38,125 $0 4,480 $4,289 $0 Capital Cost Unit Cost ($/af)$0 $0 $8,847 $0 $0 $3,012 $902 $8,215 $58,321 $8,000 $1,554 $2,193 Total Unit Cost ($/af)$8,897 $4,992 $9,685 $8,215 $58,321 $16,847 $39,679 $6,768 Notes: (1) Supply Options Cost Estimating Details (see Appendix C).Cost Estimates generally reflect 2023 dollars and construction cost estimates are adjusted to ENR Index for the CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-48 Item #4     Packet Pg. 179     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO The information presented for each of the potential options discussed in this chapter to support the Table 3.11 Options Comparison Unit Cost in 2023 dollars(1) ($/af) Estimated Yield Increases Supply ? Category Option (afy) Imported Water RWS Supply $2,210 12,546 Neutral Conservation Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 $1,939 $4,663 $3,107 $3,594 $8,897 $4,024 $4,992 $9,685 $8,215 $58,321 $16,847 $39,679 $6,768 618 Yes 2,250 Neutral New Irrigation Wells DPR with Palo Alto Facility 4,723 Yes 1,769 Yes Yes Neutral Onsite Water 1.4 Stormwater 30 No 39 Yes Desalination Notes: Bay Water Desalination 4,480 Yes (1) Cost numbers are not rounded from the calculations presented in Appendix C to avoid inconsistencies in rounded values. However, these +100% due to limited CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-49 Item #4     Packet Pg. 180     CHAPTER 3 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 3.12 Summary of Screening Scores Supply Reliability in Drought Estimated Total Move toCostsCategoryOptionScreening Portfolio ?(afy)Years Imported Water RWS Supply 2 3 2 7 Yes es es es No Conservation Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 New Irrigation Wells DPR with Palo Alto Facility Yes es es es No Onsite Water No No Stormwater No No Desalination Notes: Bay Water Desalination Yes (1) Cost numbers are not rounded from the calculations presented in Appendix C to avoid inconsistencies in rounded values. +100% due to limited level of project information often coupled with significant uncertainties at this planning Table 3.12, the top 8 ranked new local options, excluding the existing RWS Supply, are: .Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 (score 8). Groundwater (score 6). DPR with Regional Facility and SSRF (score 6). The options that passed both the pre-screening and screening process were developed in more detail as CITY OF PALO ALTO 3-50 Item #4     Packet Pg. 181     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 4 OPTION EVALUATION This chapter starts with a brief introduction, followed by a description of the evaluation criteria, 4.1 Introduction As described in Chapter 3 and depicted on Figure 4.1, the development of the recommended strategy 1. Regional Water Supply (RWS) Supply. 5. Palo Alto Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR). 8. DPR with Regional Facility and the Small Salt Removal Facility (SSRF). Figure 4.1 Options Evaluation Process CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 182     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Detailed cost estimates were prepared for each of the nine (9) options using a variety of source documents and planning-level sizing of the key components. The cost estimating method used for each .Cost Escalation Method: Costs are based on previous studies and are updated to account for .Programmatic Cost Estimate: Cost estimate for options that are gradually implemented over time, Bottom-Up Calculation: Full conceptual level cost estimate for projects that have not been evaluated prior to this OWP and/ or options that do not have a previous cost estimate. The detailed cost estimates for each option are presented in Appendix C, along with the general cost 4.2 Evaluation Criteria The criteria used to evaluate the options in this OWP were developed to reflect a wide range of 1. Reliability. 2. Unit Cost. 3. Environmental Benefits. The Environmental Benefits and Ease of Implementation criteria each have multiple sub-criteria described CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 183     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO An excel-based portfolio evaluation tool (Evaluation Tool or Tool) was developed to compare options that Appendix D. 4.2.1 Reliability This criterion assesses an option’s dry year yield and, thus, its ability to alleviate a supply shortage due to Options were evaluated solely based on dry year yield, which is calculated by multiplying the option’s 4.2.2 Unit Cost This criterion measures the capital and operating cost of each option, expressed as a Unit Cost in dollar Similar to the Reliability criterion, other options are scored proportionally based on unit cost. For example, These scores reflect the comparative costs based on the specified cost year in the Evaluation Tool; they CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 184     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.2.3 Environmental Benefits The Environmental Benefits criterion is separated into the following three (3) sub-criteria to reflect a range 1. Reduced Reliance on the Tuolumne River. 3. Ecological Benefits. These three sub-criteria are further described in more detail in the sections below. 4.2.3.1 Reliance on Tuolumne In 2018, Palo Alto’s City Council adopted a position in support of the Bay-Delta Plan, reflecting the The Reliance on Tuolumne sub-criterion is differentiated from the Reliability criterion in that Reliance on 4.2.3.2 Efficient Use of Water This sub-criterion scores options based on using water efficiently to elevate options that increase water CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 185     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.1 Efficient Use of Water Sub-Criterion Scoring Definition Overall Rating – Very Efficient Reduces water use5 (best) Overall Rating – Efficient Uses recycled water that would otherwise be discharged as treated effluent4 Overall Rating – Neutral3Uses water from a non-potable (e.g., saline) water source or uses a blend of recycled water and freshwater Overall Rating – Not Efficient Uses freshwater or brackish water from an existing source of water supply Overall Rating – Not Efficient with Known Negative Environmental Impact Uses freshwater from an untapped source of water supply1 (worst) 4.2.3.3 Ecological Benefits This sub-criterion considers the potential benefits and impacts to ecosystem and watershed health, as well Table 4.2 Ecological Benefits Criterion Score Definitions Definition Overall Rating – Significant Benefits 5 (best).Significantly restores ecosystems and/or improves watershed health Overall Rating – Moderate Benefits 4 .Moderately restores ecosystems and/or improves watershed health Overall Rating – Neutral 3 .Limited benefit or negative impact to ecosystems and/or watershed health Overall Rating – Moderate Negative Impacts .Moderate negative impact to ecosystems and/or watershed health Overall Rating – Significant Negative Impacts 1 (worst).Significant negative impact on ecosystems and/or watershed health CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 186     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.2.4 Ease of Implementation The Ease of Implementation criterion is separated into the following three (3) sub-criteria to capture 1. Implementation Timeline. These three sub-criteria are further described in the sections below. 4.2.4.1 Implementation Timeline This sub-criterion captures a qualitative assessment of potential implementation timelines and feasibility A score of 5 suggests readiness for immediate implementation within a year, while a score of 1 indicates Table 4.3 Implementation Timeline Sub-Criterion Score Definitions Definition Ready for immediate implementation (< 1 year) .Feasibility studies performed (or not needed) 5 (best) No regulatory constraints Fast Implementation possible (< 2 years) .Few new studies and/or preparations are needed 4 Typical Implementation Timeline (2-5 years) .Some new studies and/or preparation needed 2-5 years design and construction duration anticipated CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 187     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Score Definition Moderate Implementation Timeline (5-10 years) .Moderate studies and/or preparation needed Multi-year design, CEQA analysis, and permitting process anticipated Likely requires some level of public engagement Long Implementation Timeline (>10 years) .No or only limited feasibility studies performed 1 (worst)Long design, CEQA analysis, and permitting process anticipated (5-10 years) Extensive public engagement efforts required 4.2.4.2 Operational Complexity The qualitative Operational Complexity sub-criterion evaluates the operational ease and staffing Table 4.4Operational Complexity Sub-Criterion Score Definitions Score Definition Very straightforward .Little to no operation required5 (best) Straightforward 4 .Some additional staff may be needed Typical3.Some additional staff and training needed Difficult .More staff and training needed Very difficult .Extensive, 24/7 operation needed1 (worst)Significant staff needed Significant training and/or certifications needed CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 188     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.2.4.3 Public Acceptance The qualitative Public Acceptance sub-criterion evaluates the anticipated public reception and community Table 4.5 Public Acceptance Sub-Criterion Score Definitions Highly Favorable 5 (best).Expect the public and other stakeholders to perceive the project very positively Expect the public and other stakeholders to embrace the project quickly as being good for the City Favorable4.Expect the public and other stakeholders to perceive the project positively Neutral/ Mixed .Expect the public and other stakeholders to have a mixed opinion of the project, with some support Less Favorable 2 1 (worst) 4.3 .Expect the public and other stakeholders to perceive the project negatively Not Favorable .Expect the public and other stakeholders to perceive the project very negatively Criteria Weighting Criteria weighting refers to assigning the relative importance or priority to different criteria or factors The results of the weighting exercises for each group are shown in Table 4.6, along with an average CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 189     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.6 Evaluation Criteria Weighting Community Community Online Survey Weight AverageCriteriaCity Weight Selected Weight Reliability.41%32%29%34%35% Environmental Benefits. Ease of Implementation. All three respondent groups indicated the same order of priorities for decision-making. For example, Similarly, Unit Cost and Ease of Implementation received lower weights by all respondent groups, with 4.4 Option Evaluation This section describes how the option evaluation scores were assigned or calculated for each criterion for 4.4.1 RWS Supply The evaluation of the RWS Supply option against the evaluation criteria is summarized in Table 4.7. While CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 190     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.7 RWS Supply Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Score Explanation Reliability 1.0 This option inherently does not mitigate shortages in RWS supplies. 4.1 RWS Supply has an estimated unit cost of $2,210/af in 2023 dollars and $4,088/af in 2045. This is relatively low compared to other options. Environmental Benefits 5.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 1 RWS Supply does not reduce Palo Alto’s dependence on supplies from the Efficient Use of Water 2 RWS Supply is not considered to be an efficient use of water in the context of 2 Per the City’s stance on the Bay-Delta Plan implementation, it is acknowledged Ease of Implementation Implementation Timeline Operational Complexity 15.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) 5 RWS Supply is the City’s existing supply, so it is already implemented. RWS Supply is the City’s existing supply, so operation is very straightforward, Public Acceptance 5 RWS Supply is perceived as highly favorable by the general public, given its Total Unweighted Score 25.1 Out of a maximum score of 40. 4.4.2 Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 Table 4.8 shows the evaluation of the Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 option against the Note that there is no expected change in dry year yield relative to normal year yield; although dry CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 191     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.8 Enhanced Conservation – Phase 1 Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Score 1.6 Score Explanation Reliability This option has a relatively low dry year usage offset yield of 724 afy in 2045. 5.0 This option has an estimated unit cost of $312/af in 2023 dollars and $690/af in Environmental Benefits 10.6 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 1.6 This option has a relatively low normal year usage offset yield of 724 afy in 2045 Efficient Use of Water 5 This option is considered very efficient in its use of water as it promotes water Through its reduction in overall water use, this option moderately benefits Ease of Implementation 11.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 3 Implementing different measures within this option have different timelines with Operational Complexity 4 This option is somewhat straightforward with minor training and some additional This option is likely to be favorable to the public and other stakeholders as the Total Unweighted Score 28.2 Out of a maximum score of 40. 4.4.3 Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 2 The evaluation of the Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 2 option against the evaluation criteria is CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 192     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Overall, while offering notable benefits in Unit Cost and Environmental Benefits criteria, this option’s Table 4.9 Enhanced Conservation – Phase 2 Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Score Explanation Reliability 1.5 This option has a relatively low dry year usage offset yield of 618 afy in 2045. 4.0 This option has an estimated unit cost of $1,939/af in 2023 dollars and $4,313/af Environmental Benefits 10.5 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 1.5 This option has a relatively low normal year usage offset yield of 618 afy in 2045 and thus does not significantly decrease Palo Alto's dependence on supplies from Efficient Use of Water 5 This option is considered very efficient in its use of water as it promotes water use Through its reduction in overall water use, this option moderately benefits Ease of Implementation 8.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 2 The measures included in this option are expected to take up to 10 years to reach Operational Complexity 3 This option is moderately straightforward with some training and some additional Mixed opinions are expected, given the range of measures included in this option. Total Unweighted Score 24.0 Out of a maximum score of 40. 4.4.4 Groundwater Table 4.10 shows the evaluation of the Groundwater option against the evaluation criteria. With a dry year Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan analysis of the groundwater that could be CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 193     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO The dry year yield for this option is expected to be approximately 20 percent lower than the normal year Table 4.10 Groundwater Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Reliability Score Score Explanation 2.6 With a dry year yield of 1,800 afy, this option falls slightly lower than the middle of Unit Cost 2.0 This option has an estimated unit cost of $4,663/af in 2023 dollars and $12,045/af Environmental Benefits 7.7 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 2.7 With a normal year yield of 2,250 afy, this option moderately reduces Palo Alto's Efficient Use of Water 2 This option is not considered to be an efficient use of water because it uses This option has limited benefits or negative impacts on ecosystems and Ease of Implementation 9.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 3 Many studies have been completed already. Permitting efforts would be needed, infrastructure. This option has a typical implementation timeline of 2-5 years Operational Complexity 3 This option would require some additional staff and training. Neutral or mixed opinions are expected, with some in support and others in Total Unweighted Score 21.3 Out of a maximum score of 40. The Unit Cost for this option is the second highest of all options that passed the screening criteria, CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 194     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Environmental Benefits and Ease of Implementation criteria score moderately well for this option, as it is Overall, Groundwater received moderate scores across most criteria but low scores for Unit Cost and 4.4.5 DPR with Palo Alto Facility The evaluation of the DPR with Palo Alto Facility option against the evaluation criteria is shown in The Unit Cost for this option falls near the middle of all options considered in this OWP, resulting in a Moreover, it is operationally complex, requiring additional training and staff. In terms of Public As shown in Table 4.11, the combined, unweighted score of the DPR with Palo Alto Facility option is 22.9 CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 195     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.11 DPR with Palo Alto Facility Evaluation Results Reliability Score Explanation 4.9 With a dry year yield of 4,487 afy (assuming a 5% cutback due to declining Unit Cost 3.4 This option has an estimated unit cost of $3,594/af in 2023 dollars and $6,836/af in year 2045, generally in the middle of other option unit costs. Environmental Benefits 10.7 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 4.7 With a normal year yield of 4,723 afy, this option significantly reduces Palo Efficient Use of Water 4 This option scores well as an efficient use of water as it uses recycled water 2 This option has a moderately negative impact on ecosystems and watershed Ease of Implementation 4.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 1 Given the recent approval of statewide DPR regulations, and additional Operational Complexity 1 This option is very complicated to operate relative to other non-DPR options, as This option is expected to have more opposition from the public than other Total Unweighted Score 22.9 Out of a maximum score of 40. 4.4.6 DPR with Regional Facility The evaluation of the DPR with the Regional Facility option against the evaluation criteria is shown in CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 196     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Water Transfer option is exercised, meaning that in the Evaluation Tool, the Valley Water transfer is active Table 4.12 DPR with Regional Facility Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Reliability Score Score Explanation 2.5 With a dry year yield of 1,681 afy, this option would moderately benefit the City Unit Cost 2.9 This option has an estimated unit cost of $4,024/af in 2023 dollars and $8,689/af Environmental Benefits 8.4 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 2.4 With a normal year yield of 1,769 afy, this option moderately reduces Palo Alto's Efficient Use of Water 4 This option scores as an efficient use of water as it uses recycled water that This option has a moderately negative impact on ecosystems and watershed Ease of Implementation 8.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 1 Given the recent approval of statewide DPR regulations and the fact that this Operational Complexity 5 Although operating an AWPF is generally complex, Valley Water would be Public Acceptance This option is expected to have more opposition from the public than other Total Unweighted Score 21.7 Out of a maximum score of 40. The Unit Cost for this option falls near the middle of all options considered in this OWP, resulting in a CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 197     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Complexity of the DPR with Regional Facility option would be straightforward for Palo Alto, as the City Overall, DPR with Regional Facility scores moderately well across most criteria, with high scores for 4.4.7 DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF The evaluation of the DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF option against the evaluation criteria is Table 4.13 DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Reliability Score Score Explanation With a dry year yield of 599 afy, this option yield limits the benefit to the City’s dry Unit Cost 1 This option has a unit cost of $8,897/af in 2023 dollars and $15,597/af for year Environmental Benefits 7.5 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 1.5 With a normal year yield of 630 afy, this option yield provides limited benefit to Efficient Use of Water 4 This option scores as an efficient use of water as it uses recycled water that This option has a moderately negative impact on ecosystems and watershed Ease of Implementation 4.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 1 Given the recent approval of statewide DPR regulations and the fact that this Operational Complexity 1 This option is very complicated to operate relative to other non-DPR options, as This option is expected to have more opposition from the public than other Total Unweighted Score 14.0 Out of a maximum score of 40. CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 198     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO With a dry year yield of 599 afy and a normal year yield of 630 afy, this option scores relatively lower on The Unit Cost for this option is the highest of all of the options that passed through the pre-screening and Overall, DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF scores low across many criteria due to its low yield, high cost, 4.4.8 IPR with Groundwater Injection The evaluation of the IPR via groundwater injection wells option against the evaluation criteria is shown in The Unit Cost for this option falls in the middle to upper end, resulting in a moderately low Unit Cost CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 199     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO associated with reduction of flows from the Tuolumne River. IPR has a moderately long implementation Overall, IPR addresses Reliability concerns and reduces Reliance on Tuolumne River, but it would be Table 4.14 IPR with Groundwater Injection Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Reliability Score Score Explanation 5.0 With a dry year yield of 4,893 afy, this option has the highest dry year yield of all Unit Cost 2.4 This option has an estimated unit cost of $4,992/af in 2023 dollars and Environmental Benefits 10.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 5.0 With a normal year yield of 5,150 afy, this option significantly reduces Palo Alto's Efficient Use of Water 3 IPR is considered neutral in this criterion as it uses a combination of groundwater 2 This option has a moderately negative impact on ecosystems and watershed Ease of Implementation 7.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 2 While IPR has been extensively implemented in California, additional studies and Operational Complexity 2 This option is fairly complicated to operate relative to other options, as the AWPF Public Acceptance 3 Mixed opinions are expected, as IPR is more generally publicly accepted than Total Unweighted Score 24.4 Out of a maximum score of 40. CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 200     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.4.9 Bay Water Desalination Table 4.15 shows the evaluation of the Bay Water Desalination option against the evaluation criteria. With Overall, while Bay Water Desalination offers benefits in addressing water shortages and reducing Reliance Table 4.15 Bay Water Desalination Evaluation Results Evaluation Criteria Reliability Score Score Explanation 4.9 With a dry year yield of 4,480 afy, this option has one of the highest dry year Unit Cost 2.0 This option has an estimated unit cost of $6,768/af in 2023 dollars and $11,815/af Environmental Benefits 8.5 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Reliance on Tuolumne 4.5 With a normal year yield of 4,480 afy, this option reduces Palo Alto's dependence Efficient Use of Water 3 Bay Water Desalination is scored neutral in this criterion as it uses water from a This option may have a negative impact on ecosystems and watershed health Ease of Implementation 5.0 Combined score of 3 sub-criteria (in italics below) Implementation Timeline 1 More in-depth feasibility studies and design processes would be needed for this Operational Complexity 1 This option is very complicated to operate relative to other options, as the Mixed opinions are expected, with some in support of this option as a Total Unweighted Score 20.4 Out of a maximum score of 40. CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 201     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.5 Option Evaluation Summary The evaluation criteria scores for each option are summarized in Table 4.17. Both the unweighted and Table 4.16 Example of Weighted Score Calculation Raw Score Criteria Weight Weighted ScoreEvaluation Criteria Reliability 5.0 2.4 10.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 24.4 35% 10% 10% 10% 5% 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 Unit Cost Environmental Benefits Reliance on Tuolumne Efficient Use of Water Ecological Benefits Ease of Implementation Implementation Timeline Operational Complexity Public Acceptance 5% 5% Total Unweighted Score 100% Notes: Example reflects the Raw and Weighted scores for the IPR with Groundwater Injection option. As shown in Table 4.17, the new options (excluding RWS Supply), that score the highest without applying .Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 (total score: 28.2). Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 2 (total score: 24.0). When considering all criteria and sub-criteria with their relative weighting factors developed with input .DPR with Palo Alto Facility (total score: 3.7). IPR with Groundwater Injection (total score: 3.6). Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 and Bay Water Desalination (both total score: 3.2). It can be concluded that both Enhanced Water Conservation – Phase 1 and IPR with Groundwater CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-21 Item #4     Packet Pg. 202     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 4.17 Option Evaluation Results Summary Environmental Benefits Ease of Implementation Total Unweighted Score(3) Total Weighted Score(3,4) Reduced Tuolumne River Unit Cost EfficientOptionReliability Ecological Implementation Operational Public Benefit Timeline Complexity Acceptance Reliance Criteria Weight 35% 1.0 1.6 1.5 2.6 4.9 2.5 1.5 5.0 4.9 20% 4.1 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.4 2.9 1.0 2.4 2.0 10% 1.0 1.6 1.5 2.7 4.7 2.4 1.5 5.0 4.5 10% 2 10% 2 5% 5 5% 5 5% 5 n/a n/a 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 1.7 3.2 RWS Supply 25.1 28.2 24.0 24.4 Enhanced Conservation – Phase 1 5 4 3 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 DPR with Palo Alto Facility(1) DPR with Regional Facility(2) DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF IPR with Groundwater Injection(1) 4 2 1 1 2 4 2 1 5 2 4 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 Bay Water Desalination Notes: 3 1 1 1 3 (1) DPR with Palo Alto Facility and IPR with Groundwater Injection options assume that Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP effluent (4) The three highest scores of new options (excluding the benchmark RWS Supply) are shown in bold font. CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-22 Item #4     Packet Pg. 203     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 4.5.1 Results without Valley Water Transfer The weighted-criteria evaluation results without Valley Water exercising the RWQCP effluent transfer Figure 4.2 Options Evaluation Results without the Valley Water Transfer 4.5.2 Results with Valley Water Transfer The weighted-criteria evaluation results with Valley Water exercising the RWQCP effluent transfer option The bar charts also show again visually that the DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF scores the lowest of CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-23 Item #4     Packet Pg. 204     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 4.3 Options Evaluation Results with the Valley Water Transfer It can be observed that the weighted score of Bay Water Desalination (3.2) is higher than the weighted It should also be noted that Bay Water Desalination scores very high when compared with the other .Reliability Score: This criterion has the highest relative weight of 35 percent. Due to the assumed .Cost Score: Bay Water Desalination is expensive and thus brings the overall score down compared to CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-24 Item #4     Packet Pg. 205     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Hence, these two (2) opposing dynamics result in a high score of Bay Water Desalination in the option CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-25 Item #4     Packet Pg. 206     CHAPTER 4 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO -This Page Intentionally Left Blank- CITY OF PALO ALTO 4-26 Item #4     Packet Pg. 207     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 5 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Portfolios in the One Water Plan (OWP) consist of recommended combinations of options. This chapter 5.1 Portfolio Approach As described in Chapters 3 and 4, a total of 27 options underwent a preliminary high-level screening Figure 5.1 Option Evaluation Process Based on the results and discussions with City staff, it was decided to include eight (8) of the nine (9) CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 208     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO the alternative of Palo Alto DPR (without the SSRF) had the highest weighted score of 3.7 as shown in Table 5.1 Options Evaluation Results Summary Total Unweighted Score(2) Normal Year Dry Year Dry Year (3)Weighted (2) Yield Reduction (3)Options(1) DPR with Palo Alto Facility (4) Palo Alto IPR (4) 3.6 22.9 4,723 5% 10% 0% 4,487 Enhanced Conservation - Phase 1 (4) 4,480 0%4,480 0% 1,769 2,250 12,546 630 5%1,680 20% RWS Supply (5) DPR with Palo Alto Facility and SSRF Notes: (1) Options sorted by weighted score in descending order. (5) Based on estimated supply capacities (and medium growth demand forecast for RWS Supply) in year 2045. The options evaluation results informed which options the OWP included in the portfolio evaluation. The 5.2 Portfolio Development As part of this OWP, a total of seven portfolios (A through G) were developed and evaluated. These The options included in each of these portfolios were based on the option evaluation scoring as described CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 209     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Portfolio G may only be implemented if Valley Water does exercise the effluent transfer option. Table 5.2 Table 5.2 Overview of Options included in each Portfolio Enhanced DPR Conservation RWS Phase 1 and Bay Water Ground- Palo Alto Palo Alto Regional Portfolio Supply Phase 2 Desalination water DPR IPR Facility A. Baseline X B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X D. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X E. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X F. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X G. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X 5.2.1 Portfolio A – Baseline Portfolio A represents the baseline portfolio which is the City's existing potable water supply from the Appendix B. 5.2.2 Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Portfolio B builds on portfolio A with the addition of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2, each With the implementation of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 (724 afy), and Enhanced Conservation This portfolio can be implemented whether or not Valley Water exercises the option to transfer a portion CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 210     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 5.3 Projected Yield of Enhanced Water Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 Measures Yield in 2045 (afy) 229 212 Non-Functional Turf Ban for CII Properties 132 139 11 724 Enhanced Conservation Phase 2 Measures Yield in 2045 (afy) 446 152 619 Total Yield Estimate (Phase 1 and Phase 2)1,342 14,000 RWS Supply Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Figure 5.2 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio B 5.2.3 Portfolio C –Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water This portfolio builds upon Portfolio B with the addition of Bay Water Desalination using a dedicated CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 211     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.3 depicts the estimated sources of supply and assumes the desalination plant comes online in 14,000 RWS Supply Bay Water Desalination Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Figure 5.3 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio C Due to the long implementation timeline anticipated to design, permit, and construct a desalination 5.2.4 Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Groundwater This portfolio is similar to Portfolio C; however, Bay Water Desalination is replaced with the addition of Figure 5.4 depicts the estimated sources of supply under the medium demand forecast. Palo Alto could CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 212     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 14,000 RWS Supply Groundwater Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Figure 5.4 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio D 5.2.5 Portfolio E –Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR This portfolio is similar to Portfolio C with the addition of a Palo Alto DPR facility instead of Bay Water This portfolio can only be implemented if Valley Water does not exercise the option to transfer a portion CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 213     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 14,000 RWS Supply DPR with Palo Alto Facility Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Figure 5.5 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio E 5.2.6 Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with IPR This portfolio is similar to Portfolio C with the addition of Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) with groundwater This portfolio can only be implemented if Valley Water does not exercise the option to transfer a portion CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 214     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 14,000 RWS Supply IPR with Palo Alto Facility Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Figure 5.6 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio F 5.2.7 Portfolio G –Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR This portfolio is similar to Portfolio E with the addition of a Regional DPR water purification facility The added local supply yield to supplement RWS Supply would be 1,769 afy from the regional purification Palo Alto can only implement this portfolio if Valley Water exercises the option to transfer a portion of the Due to the long implementation timeline anticipated to implement the Regional DPR option, this portfolio CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 215     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 14,000 SFPUC Supply DPR with Regional Facility Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Figure 5.7 Normal Year Supply and Demand Projection for Portfolio G 5.3 Evaluation Tool The Palo Alto One Water Evaluation Tool facilitates the comparison of up to eight portfolios, each Appendix D provides a more detailed description of the Tool and its functionalities. CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 216     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.8 Evaluation Tool Flow Chart CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 217     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 5.3.1 Data Inputs Data inputs to the Tool include water demand forecast scenarios, option cost estimates (including capital 5.3.2 User Selections Within the tool, the user makes selections regarding future scenario assumptions including demand, Palo The user selections used in the OWP to evaluate portfolios A through G include: .Demand Scenario: the medium demand scenario Dry Year Reduction: a reduction in RWS Supply of 50 percent Emergency Shortage Stage: assumed implementation of a Shortage Stage II (up to 20 percent) under .Criteria Weights: Chapter 4, Section 4.3 presents the criteria weights selected for this OWP The OWP assumes a reduction in RWS Supply of 50 percent as the City anticipates the need to implement Palo Alto has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan with six stages, including Shortage Stage V which Given these stated assumptions, the resulting unplanned supply gap quantities are for illustrative CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 218     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO to a greater or lesser degree, thus limiting the severity of severely impactful drought measures Palo Alto It should be noted that although the RWS Supply cutback assumption of 50 percent is maintained across For ease of comparison, the portfolio evaluation keeps assumptions constant. However, the user can 5.3.3 Tool Outputs The Tool summarizes data inputs and user selections at the portfolio level. The sections below provide an Appendix D provides screenshots illustrating the Tool interface and graphical 5.3.3.1 Portfolio Evaluation The portfolio evaluation is the development of weighted evaluation criteria scores for each portfolio and The weighted score for each portfolio allows the portfolios to be evaluated by comparing them to the For more details on the criteria weighting, see Section 4.3. CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 219     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 5.3.3.2 Portfolio Supply Summary The Tool includes a normal and dry year supply analysis simulated for each portfolio. The normal year 5.3.3.3 Portfolio Cost Estimates The Tool uses the cost estimates provided by the user to calculate portfolio weighted unit costs based on Appendix C. 5.4 Portfolio Evaluation Results The Supply Evaluation Tool was used to evaluate the seven portfolios (A through G). The results presented Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 summarize the raw and weighted portfolio evaluation scores, respectively. The top Additionally, the weighted portfolio evaluation scores are also presented graphically in Figure 5.9 and A discussion of the portfolio evaluation results by portfolio in alphabetical order is presented in the CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 220     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 5.4 Portfolio Evaluation Results – Raw Scores C. Enhanced Conservation Conservation with Bay Water D. Enhanced E. Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR(2) F. Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto IPR(2) G. Enhanced (3) B. Enhanced Criteria Sub-Criteria Unit Cost A. Baseline(2) Phase 1 and 2(2) Desalination(2) Groundwater(2) Unit Cost(1) Reliability 4.73 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.71 2.32 2.21 1.43 5.96 1.00 4.09 7.40 2.93 6.86 3.50 3.97 8.21 1.32 3.90 8.01 4.06 2.56 2.60 2.21 1.99 6.80 Reliability Efficient Use of Water Subtotal Environmental Implementation 5.00 4.74 3.31 4.38 3.23 3.51 4.17 Ease of Operational Complexity Subtotal 5.00 4.84 3.42 4.48 3.34 3.61 4.84 15.00 25.73 14.42 27.09 10.86 23.34 13.34 25.56 10.28 25.96 11.14 24.37 13.43 26.85Total(2,3) Notes: The top three scores for each criterion and for the total score are shown in bold. (3) Portfolio G assumes that Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent (selected “Yes” in the Tool). CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 221     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 5.5 Portfolio Evaluation Results – Weighted Scores C. Enhanced B. Enhanced Conservation D. Enhanced E. Enhanced F. Enhanced G. Enhanced Conservation (2) with Bay Water Desalination(2) Groundwater(2) Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Criteria A. Criteria Sub-Criteria Unit Cost Weight 30% Baseline(2)DPR(2) 0.70 1.39 0.31 0.22 0.29 0.82 IPR(2) 0.26 1.37 0.27 0.22 0.31 0.80 DPR(3) 0.81 0.90 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.68 Unit Cost(1) Reliability 0.95 1.00 0.60 0.23 0.22 0.14 0.59 0.20 1.43 0.75 0.59 0.68 Reliability 0.35 Efficient Use of Water Subtotal 0.20 0.20Environmental 0.10 0.50 Implementation 5%0.25 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.21 OperationalEase of Public Acceptance 5% 15% 100% 0.25 0.75 0.24 0.72 0.21 0.55 0.22 0.66 0.19 0.52 3.43 0.20 0.56 2.99 0.22 0.67 3.06 Subtotal Total(2, 3) Notes: The top three scores for each criterion and for the total score are shown in bold. (3) Portfolio G assumes that Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent (selected “Yes” in the Tool). CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 222     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.9 Weighted Portfolio Scores without the Valley Water Transfer option Figure 5.10 Weighted Portfolio Scores with the Valley Water Transfer option 5.4.1 Portfolio A - Baseline Portfolio A has a weighted unit cost of $2,210/af in 2023 dollars and $4,088/af in 2045 dollars as listed in CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 223     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO all the portfolios (0.35) in the reliability criteria and in the environmental benefits criteria (0.5) due to its 5.4.2 Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Portfolio B has a weighted unit cost of $2,075/af in 2023 dollars and $3,903/af in 2045 dollars as listed in 5.4.3 Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Portfolio C has a weighted unit cost of $3,854/af in 2023 dollars and $6,663/af in 2045 dollars as listed in 5.4.4 Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Groundwater Portfolio D has a weighted unit cost of $2,566/af in 2023 dollars and $5,330/af in 2045 dollars as listed in CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 224     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO words, it does not perform very well nor very poor in any of the categories. Due to the ease of implementation compared to the other portfolios with new large local supply sources (Desal, IPR, and 5.4.5 Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR Portfolio E has a weighted unit cost of $2,654/af in 2023 dollars and $4,938/af in 2045 dollars as listed in 5.4.6 Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with IPR Portfolio F has a weighted unit cost of $3,323/af in 2023 dollars and $6,440/af in 2045 dollars as listed in 5.4.7 Portfolio G – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR Portfolio G has a weighted unit cost of $2,355/af in 2023 dollars and $4,552/af in 2045 dollars as listed in CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 225     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO moderate score for environmental benefits (0.68). Notably, this portfolio is only possible if Valley Water 5.5 Portfolio Evaluation Comparisons This section describes a comparison of the portfolio evaluation results following the three key outputs 5.5.1 Portfolio Scores Based upon the raw criteria scores shown in Table 5.4, the highest scoring portfolios are: .Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR) and Portfolios B and G score highly in the Unit Cost and Ease of Implementation Criteria, while Portfolio E has .Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR), Portfolio E and G are top-scoring portfolios based on raw and weighted criteria, while Portfolio B is only a Based upon the weighted criteria scores, Portfolio F (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto IPR) rises to be The reasons explaining the weighted scoring results are presented below in alphabetical order. Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Although Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2) is not a top-scoring portfolio looking at CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 226     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO beneficial irrespective of which water supply infrastructure option Palo Alto moves forward with. For these Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination Portfolio C (Enhanced Conservation with Bay Water Desalination) scores highly in the Reliability criteria, Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Groundwater Portfolio D (Enhanced Conservation with Groundwater) scores in the middle for all weighted criteria Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR) has a weighted criteria score (3.43), which is the Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with IPR Portfolio F (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto IPR) has the third highest weighted criteria score (2.99). Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination is more expensive), and therefore Portfolio F has CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 227     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO facilities. This is because there is an anticipated need for more extensive community outreach and Portfolio G – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) is the portfolio with the second highest weighted 5.5.2 Portfolio Supply Mix and Unplanned Shortfalls Figure 5.11 provides a graphical summary from the Tool output that compares Palo Alto’s year 2045 water Figure 5.11 Normal Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-21 Item #4     Packet Pg. 228     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO As shown in Figure 5.11, the amount of RWS Supply varies considerably between the portfolios, ranging However, as shown in Figure 5.12, the supply and demand balance would change drastically under dry Figure 5.12 Dry Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 with a 50 percent RWS Supply Cutback Based on 2045 demand conditions, a 20 percent demand reduction would lower the normal year demand For analytical purposes, this analysis assumes that the City would only implement a Shortage Stage II to Unplanned supply gaps (shown as red hatched areas in Figure 5.12 and listed in Table 5.6, range from CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-22 Item #4     Packet Pg. 229     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO unplanned supply gap by greater than 70 percent relative to the baseline portfolio. While Portfolios D and Table 5.6 Unplanned Supply Gap Volumes by Portfolio During Dry Year % Reduction in Baseline Unplanned Supply Gap Volume Unplanned SupplyPortfolio A. Baseline 3,764 0% 18% 77% 36% 74% 73% 39% B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination 2,417 1,032 5.5.3 Portfolio Costs The Evaluation Tool also calculates and compares the weighted unit costs for each portfolio. As noted in Appendix D, the Tool can compare unit costs for each planning year from 2023 Table 5.7 Total Estimated Unit Cost by Portfolio Unit Cost in 2023 Unit Cost in 2045 A. Baseline $2,210 $4,088 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-23 Item #4     Packet Pg. 230     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.13 Weighted Unit Cost by Portfolio (2023 dollars) Figure 5.14 Weighted Unit Cost by Portfolio (2045 dollars) The following subsections provide observation about the weighted unit costs each portfolio in Portfolio A – Baseline With Baseline Portfolio A, the unit cost of RWS Supply is as forecasted in SFPUC’s 10-year Financial Plan (SFPUC, 2023b) through year 2033 and a subsequent extrapolation of unit CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-24 Item #4     Packet Pg. 231     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO cost based on the average historical rate increase since 2013 applied to years 2034 to 2045. The portfolio Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2) has the lowest unit cost and is the only portfolio with a Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination Portfolio C (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination) is the most expensive Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Groundwater Portfolio D (Enhanced Conservation with Groundwater) is more expensive than the baseline in both 2023 Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR) and Portfolio G (Enhanced Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with IPR Portfolio F (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR) is the second most expensive CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-25 Item #4     Packet Pg. 232     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR) and Portfolio D (Enhanced Conservation with Portfolio F, with the addition of the costly Palo Alto IPR project (estimated at roughly $189 million in Portfolio G – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR Portfolio G has a weighted average portfolio unit cost of $2,355/af in 2023 dollars and $4,552/af in 2045 5.5.4 Valley Water Transfer Decision Figure 5.15 shows the highest scoring portfolios with green scores, the medium scoring portfolios with Figure 5.15 Portfolio Evaluation Results Schematic with Valley Water Transfer trigger Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2) is the cheapest portfolio and for this reason is CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-26 Item #4     Packet Pg. 233     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO the baseline). Investing in the enhanced conservation program to supplement the already planned water If Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most If Valley Water exercises its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most Both portfolios involving DPR, Portfolios E and G, are contingent on the Valley Water option to Transfer, Another relatively high-scoring portfolio not dependent on the Valley Water Transfer is Bay Water Portfolio C, with an overall weighted criteria score of 2.91. Although this portfolio does not Except for the Baseline Portfolio A, the lowest scoring portfolio that is independent on the decision of Portfolio D (Enhanced Conservation with Groundwater) with CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-27 Item #4     Packet Pg. 234     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 5.6 Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify how or if the findings change when the evaluation criteria Table 5.8 summarizes the criteria and sub-criteria weighting used in the sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity Appendix E. Table 5.8 Range of Criteria Weighting in Sensitivity Analysis Criteria / Sub-Criteria Initial Weighting Lower Weighting Higher Weighting 50%Unit Cost 20% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 20% 15% 5% Reliability 50% Environmental Benefit (total) Efficient Use of Water Ecological Benefit 45% 15% 5%15% Ecological Benefit 5%15% Ease of Implementation (total) Implementation Timeline Operational Complexity Public Acceptance 0%30% 0%10% 5%0%10% 5%0%10% 5.6.1 Unit Cost Criterion Figure 5.16 compares the results of the sensitivity analysis for the unit cost criterion for each portfolio. The As shown, Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR) has the most robust CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-28 Item #4     Packet Pg. 235     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.16 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Unit Cost Criterion 5.6.2 Reliability Criterion The results of the sensitivity analysis for the reliability criterion are compared for each portfolio in As shown, Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR) has the most robust CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-29 Item #4     Packet Pg. 236     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.17 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for the Reliability Criterion 5.6.3 Environmental Benefit Criterion The sensitivity analysis for the Environmental Benefit criterion adjusts the weighting from 30 percent to CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-30 Item #4     Packet Pg. 237     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.18 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for the Environmental Benefit Criterion 5.6.4 Ease of Implementation Criterion The sensitivity analysis for the ease of implementation criterion adjusts the weighting of the ease of CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-31 Item #4     Packet Pg. 238     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5.19 Results of Sensitivity Analysis for the Ease of Implementation Criterion 5.6.5 Demand Scenario The sensitivity analysis was also conducted for two other demand projections, a high demand, and a low 5.6.6 RWS Supply Cutback and Shortage Stage Scenarios In addition to the multi-criteria scoring, the added supply reliability of each portfolio varies based on the Table 5.9 summarizes the unplanned supply gap volumes for each portfolio for the 50 percent RWS As shown, none of the portfolios would avoid an unplanned supply gap during a 50 percent RWS Supply CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-32 Item #4     Packet Pg. 239     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO cutback was limited to 30 percent, three of the six portfolios would provide sufficient local supply capacity Table 5.9 Unplanned Supply Gaps under RWS Supply Cutback and Emergency Shortages Portfolios Cutback & Cutback & Cutback & Shortage Stage II Shortage Stage III Shortage Stage II A. Baseline 3,764 2,509 1,255 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 2,417 1,163 627 1,032 0 0 G. Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR 1,042 410 Increasing supply reliability generally comes at an increasing cost. However, some combinations of With a 30 percent cutback of RWS Supply, together with Shortage Stage II implementation in Palo Alto, Appendix E. Figure 5.20 Dry Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio for 2045 with a 30 percent RWS Supply Cutback CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-33 Item #4     Packet Pg. 240     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 5.7 Conclusions In addition to the summary observations described in Section 5.5, there are several key conclusions from 5.7.1 Scoring Results Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR) scored the highest in the event that Valley Water Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) scores the highest if Valley Water does exercise If unit cost is given additional weight, Portfolio C (Enhanced Conservation with Bay Water Desalination) The top scoring portfolios remain the same regardless of changes in Environmental Benefits or Ease of 5.7.2 Supply Reliability With an assumed 50 percent RWS Supply cutback and implementation of Shortage Stage III (up to CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-34 Item #4     Packet Pg. 241     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO treated effluent from the RWQCP, while Portfolio F (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto 5.7.3 Implementation Considerations As an implementation consideration, the City plans to make the necessary improvements to convert two Additionally, as an implementation consideration, if Palo Alto plans to implement Conservation Phase 1 For IPR, DPR, and the Bay Water Desalination options, Palo Alto would need to develop and implement Similarly for Bay Water desalination, although Desalination has been implemented at various locations in Since the California DPR regulations were only recently adopted in December 2023, there are no active Chapter 6 describes the OWP recommendations and provides more details regarding implementation. CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-35 Item #4     Packet Pg. 242     CHAPTER 5 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO -This Page Intentionally Left Blank- CITY OF PALO ALTO 5-36 Item #4     Packet Pg. 243     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO CHAPTER 6 ONE WATER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This chapter begins by summarizing the prioritized water supply and conservation portfolios discussed in 6.1 Prioritized Portfolios This One Water Plan (OWP) analyzed seven portfolios (A-G) with different combinations of the highest As described in detail in Chapter 5, each portfolio was evaluated based on the four following evaluation .Environmental Benefit is scored for three sub-criteria including Reduced Reliance on the Tuolumne Unit Cost is scored based on the projected unit cost expressed in dollar per acre-foot ($/af) of each Reliability is scored based on results of the dry year supply analysis for each portfolio using the .Ease of Implementation is scored based on three sub-criteria: Implementation Timeline, Operational Complexity, and Public Acceptance. The raw portfolio scores for each of the evaluation criteria are multiplied by the criteria weighting to get a A summary of the options included in each portfolio is presented in Table 6.1. The portfolios were CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 244     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 6.1 Overview of Options included in each Portfolio Enhanced Conservation DPR withPortfolioRWS Supply Bay Water Desalination Ground Palo Alto Palo Alto Regional water DPR IPR Facility A. Baseline X B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X X X X X X G. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 X Notes: Table 6.2 summarizes the weighted portfolio scores, yield, and unit cost by portfolio in both 2023 and Table 6.2 Portfolio Evaluation Summary Valley Water Transfer Option Exercised Weighted (1) Yield (afy)Unit Supply Cost ($/af) Portfolio Names Normal Dry 2023 2045 year year dollars dollars(2) A. Baseline.not sensitive 2.55 0(1)0(1)$2,210 $4,088 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 1,342 1,342 C. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 not sensitive 2.91 5,823 $3,854 $6,663 3,592 G. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 1) The weighted portfolio score in the Evaluation Tool is based on the portfolio weighted unit costs in 2045 dollars. Figure 6.1 shows the weighted scores summarized in Table 6.2 with a breakdown of the different portfolio CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 245     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 6.1 Comparison of Weighted Portfolio Evaluation Scores. As shown in Figure 6.1, all portfolios score higher than the Baseline, making the “Do Nothing” alternative Figure 6.1 also shows that Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR) scores the highest, with The portfolio with the highest combined weighted score that is not dependent on Valley Water’s transfer CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 246     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO In summary, the portfolios are prioritized based on the combined weighted multi-criteria scores and the .Portfolio B: Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 only (independent of Valley Water Transfer option Portfolio E: Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with the addition of a local Palo Alto DPR facility Portfolio G: Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with the addition of a Regional DPR facility (only 6.2 Trigger-Based Implementation When prioritizing the options described in this OWP and compiled in the various portfolios, it is important Due to the complexity and magnitude of the options identified and evaluation as part of this OWP, there The two major triggers that were identified for this OWP that could impact the decision on moving 1. Need to Increase Supply Reliability These triggers are described in the following subsections. It should be noted that funding is not included CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 247     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 6.2.1 Trigger 1: Increase Supply Reliability The decision on whether the City needs to further increase its supply reliability is contingent upon the 1. The forecasted water demand is based on anticipated growth due to demographic changes, 2. The forecasted supply availability and reliability of imported water delivered by the SFPUC via its RWS. 3. The City’s existing water conservation program, thus excluding the Enhanced Conservation measures 4. The implementation of one or more local water supply options, such as the options evaluated in this The combination of these factors described above needs to be considered in the trade-off decision As shown in Table 6.3, the projected supply shortfall for the Baseline Portfolio is 3,764 afy during a Does the City need to increase its supply reliability?” is strongly dependent on the type and duration of a potential RWS cutback, CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 248     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 6.3 Projected Unplanned Supply Gap under various RWS Cutback and Shortage Scenarios Projected Remaining Unplanned Supply Gap (afy) Portfolios 50% RWS cutback 50% RWS cutback 30% RWS cutback & Stage II 3,764 3,092 852 & Stage III & Stage II A. Baseline 2,509 1,255 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 2,417 1,163 627 1,032 0 0 G. Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR 1,042 410 6.2.2 Trigger 2: Valley Water Transfer Option Per the agreement dated November 18, 2019 (Palo Alto 2019c), the Valley Water Effluent Transfer Option Table 6.2 summarizes the weighted portfolio scores, yield, and unit cost by portfolio in both 2023 and Table 6.2, four of the seven portfolios are not impacted by the execution of Valley Water’s transfer option .Palo Alto DPR in Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto DPR). This portfolio can only be .Palo Alto IPR in Portfolio F (Enhanced Conservation with Palo Alto IPR). Similar to Palo Alto DPR, this CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 249     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Transfer Option, this portfolio would not be feasible. Hence, the Palo Alto IPR option should only be .Regional DPR in Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR). This portfolio can only be Implementation of water supply projects and water conservation programs typically requires broad public 6.3 Trigger-Based Implementation Roadmap A trigger-based implementation roadmap was developed to guide the City of Palo Alto with prioritization The One Water Plan (OWP) screened 27 options through a two-step process (pre-screening and screening The implementation of the options and/or portfolios described in this OWP is also dependent on the As shown in Figure 6.2, the trigger-based implementation roadmap follows a pathway indicated by the orange diamonds. Each trigger is a key decision point that leads to different pathways YES or NO. Note that in reality, the answers CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 250     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 6.2 Trigger-Based Implementation Roadmap 1. The “Increase Supply Reliability?” trigger occurs multiple times in the pathway as the City may want to blue boxes. The sequence of the options along the pathway The triggers and pathways of decisions regarding these options are depicted in Figure 6.2. As noted Despite its simplification, the purpose of the trigger-based implementation roadmap is to lead the City to CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 251     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 6.3.1 Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 Water conservation measures included in Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 result in a higher weighted Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” (DWR, 2017). Figure 6.3 Projected Yield Trajectory of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2. 6.3.2 Groundwater As the combined yield of the Enhanced Water Conservation Phase 1 and 2 is estimated to be 1,332 afy Knowing the City is planning to implement the option to blend groundwater with RWS supply during Increase Supply Reliability?” trigger question remains YES, the next CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 252     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 6.3.3 Direct Potable Reuse Options If the City decides that public acceptance for a local DPR project would be achievable with a community 1. If Valley Water does not exercise the Effluent Transfer Option, the City would have sufficient 2. If Valley Water exercises the Effluent Transfer Option, Palo Alto would not have sufficient wastewater 6.3.4 Other Options 3. Although the other options involving IPR, Bay Water Desalination, and Groundwater Treatment scored 1. Indirect Potable Reuse (Portfolio F with a weighted score of 2.99) The triggers and pathways of these options are depicted in Figure 6.2. As noted earlier, this trigger-based The OWP considered all other water supply and conservation options and either pre-screened or screened CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 253     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Non-Potable Reuse with Phase 3 expansion, graywater capture and reuse, residential rainwater capture, 6.4 Next Steps The One Water Plan presents a 20-year adaptable roadmap of prioritized options that provides an The City is already planning the following activities: 1. Continue with planned water conservation program activities to meet the Making Conservation a water use efficiency targets. 2. Make the necessary improvements to get the two emergency groundwater wells (El Camino Well and 3. Continue to monitor external funding opportunities from Federal, State, or Local grant funding and 4. Continue to coordinate with BAWSCA, SFPUC, and Valley Water regularly to learn from their outreach The OWP recommends the following actions to enhance the City’s water supply reliability that reflect the 1. Start with the planning and exploration of the Enhanced Water Conservation measures included in a. Outdoor Irrigation Efficiency for Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional (CII) Properties. 2. Once the Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 program activities are set in motion, start with the planning a. Lawn Limitation for Residential Properties upon Resale. CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 254     CHAPTER 6 OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 3. Incorporate education and monitoring of the level of support for IPR, DPR, and/or Bay Water Desalination in Palo Alto’s community outreach and engagement activities in close collaboration with 4. Update the option cost estimates, and Excel-based Evaluation Tool assumptions as new information 5. Prepare a conceptual feasibility study for the DPR, IPR, Bay Water Desalination, and/or Groundwater .Facilities Planning: Conduct a more detailed technical analysis to size infrastructure components, .Cost Estimating: Utilizing the additional information from the facilities planning, refine cost estimates Funding and Financing: Identify potential Federal, State, and Local funding and grant options. .Inter-agency Agreements: Depending on the option, one or more inter-agency agreements may be Environmental Documentation Needs: Based on the facilities planning effort, identify the .Permitting Needs: Based on the facilities planning effort, identify the appropriate permits that are .Stakeholder and Community Outreach: Based on the City’s understanding of the level of support CITY OF PALO ALTO 6-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 255     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX A Item #4     Packet Pg. 256     APPENDIX A OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX A REFERENCES (AWWA, 2023)American Water Works Association. Website with Factsheet on Ammonia What Every Information obtained in June 2023. https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/AWWA's%20Ammonia%20Fac t%20Sheet.pdf (B&V, 2021)Black and Veatch, Advanced Water Purification System - Basis of Design Report, Brown and Caldwell, Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (CoRe Plan). Prepared for (Carollo, 2000)Carollo Engineers, 2000. Long Term Water Supply Plan. Prepared for the City of Palo (Carollo, 2018a)Carollo Engineers, Inc., One Water LA 2040 Plan prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Carollo Engineers, Inc., One Water LA 2040 Plan prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Carollo Engineers, Inc., One Water 2050 Plan (Draft) prepared for the City of South Carollo Engineers, Countywide Potable Reuse Study prepared for the City of Santa Barbara, November 2023a. (Carollo, 2023b)Carollo Engineers, Inc., Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plan Updates prepared for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, August 2023. California Department of Water Resources, Making Water Conservation a California , Implementing Executive Order B-37-16, April 2017. (CDM Smith, 2015)CDM Smith, Inc. Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy - Strategy Phase II Final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Life Cycle and Cost Assessments of https://pasteur.epa.gov/uploads/10.23719/1503094/AWG_LCA_Report_Final.pdf (EPA, 2021)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Atmospheric Water Generation Research – January, 2021. https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/water-research/atmospheric-water- generation-research_.html. (Homes Directory, 2023)Historical Housing Market for Palo Alto, CA, 2023. Maddaus Water Management, Inc., in collaboration with Brown and Caldwell (B&C) and . Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Update. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) CITY OF PALO ALTO A-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 257     APPENDIX A OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO (NOAA, 2018)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Data Online: Palo Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard Number 1910.141 – (Pacific Institute, 2020)Economic Evaluation of Stormwater Capture and its multiple benefits in California, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230549 (Palo Alto, 2005)Palo Alto Monthly Wastewater Flows, July 2005. Final EIR, City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, SCH (Palo Alto, 2008)City of Palo Alto, December 2008. Recycled Water Facility Plan. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/water- quality/final_palo_alto_rwmp_dec08.pdf (Palo Alto, 2017)City of Palo Alto, 2017. 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. January 2017. Feed to an Advanced Water Purification Facility. May 2018. (Palo Alto, 2018b)City of Palo Alto, Graywater Laundry to Landscape Workshop. (Palo Alto, 2018c)City of Palo Alto, July 2018. Preliminary Design Report. City of Palo Alto City Council Minutes, August 20, 2018. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2018/08-20-2018- final-ccm-minutes.pdf (Palo Alto, 2019a)City of Palo Alto, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. 2019 (Palo Alto, 2019b)City of Palo Alto, Wastewater service connection charges utility rate schedule s-5, City of Palo Alto, City Council Staff Report ID #10627, Water Reuse Agreement with https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- (Palo Alto, 2021)City of Palo Alto, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency , June 2021. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/uwmp/2020-uwmp_final- submission-to-dwr.pdf City of Palo Alto, 2022. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by City Council November 2017, amended December 2022. CITY OF PALO ALTO A-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 258     APPENDIX A OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- (Palo Alto, 2022b)City of Palo Alto,2023-2031 Housing Element, December 2022. (Palo Alto, 2023a)City of Palo Alto correspondence with Carollo. New DPR Option with SSRF, 6/23/2023 City of Palo Alto, 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Adopted by City Council June 5, 2023. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/sustainability/reports/2022-scap- (Palo Alto,2023c)City of Palo Alto, 2023. Watershed Protection – Apply for a Rain Barrel Rebate. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Watershed- Protection/Stormwater-Rebates/Rain-Barrels. Last updated January 2023. (Palo Alto, 2023d)City of Palo Alto, Commercial wastewater collection and disposal utility rate schedule s- City of Palo Alto, Historical Billing data on City Park Water Usage from 2018 to 2022. January 2023. (Palo Alto, 2023f)City of Palo Alto, Addendum to Guaranteed Feed Memo. March 2023. City of Palo Alto. Current and Projected SFPUC Supply Costs for Palo Alto, 2023. City of Palo Alto, Waterfluence Data CII Savings. 2023 City of Palo Alto, Website information regarding the Rain Barrel Rebate. Information (Palo Alto, 2023l)City of Palo Alto, Project correspondence with Carollo regarding project construction City of Palo Alto, Website information regarding the Landscape Rebate Program. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/bill- (Palo Alto, 2023n)City of Palo Alto, Staff Report 2308-1863 Approval of Financing Plan for Local Salt , October 16, 2023 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meeting/document/2844.pdf?name=Item%2010% 20Staff%20Report City of Palo Alto, Website information regarding Smart Metering Program. Information https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/Meter- (SFPUC, 2018)San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Graywater Design Manual for . 2018. https://www.urbanfarmerstore.com/wp- CITY OF PALO ALTO A-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 259     APPENDIX A OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO content/uploads/2021/05/6_Graywater-L2L_RGW3-Graywater-Design-Manual- (SFPUC, 2021)San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the . April 2021. https://www.sfpuc.org/sites/default/files/documents/UWMP%20Public%20Review%20 (SFPUC, 2023a)San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Wholesale Water . May 9, 2023. https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se733246b7afe457080762bfc20b8fe2b. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,. SFPUC 10-Year Financial Plan FY 2023-2024 . February 2023. https://sfpuc.org/sites/default/files/about-us/policies-reports/FY24-10-Year-Financial- (SFPUC, 2024)San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Alternative Water Supply Plan. February 2024. State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco . Dec 12, 2018. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/docs/2018wqcp.pdf (SVI, 2020)Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies. Palo Alto Business & Economic Activity, May 2020. https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/palo-alto-report-2020-05.pdf (Todd Groundwater, 2018)Todd Groundwater in association with Woodard and Curran, 2018. Northwest County Prepared for the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Water District. November 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=64573.3&BlobID=68051 (Valley Water, 2019)Valley Water in partnership with the cities Palo Alto and Mountain View, Agreement to . December 10, 2019. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa 1.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.us-west-1/s3fs-public/2021_GWMP.pdf (Valley Water, 2022)Valley Water, Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies for FY 2022-2023. February 25, 2022. https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/2022-02- . (Valley Water, 2023a)Valley Water (VW, Desalination as a Potential Water Supply in Santa Clara County , March 2023. Valley Water, 2024-2028 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, July 2023. CITY OF PALO ALTO A-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 260     APPENDIX A OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO (Valley Water, 2023c)Valley Water, Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies, 52nd Annual Report, Valley Water, Website with FAQs regarding Purified Water – Information regarding (Valley Water, 2023e)Valley Water, Website with information regarding Valley Water’s Graywater Rebate. Valley Water News, Website information regarding Residential Graywater Systems. https://valleywaternews.org/2019/03/21/graywater-direct-install-program-helps- (WaterReuse, 2012)WaterReuse Association, Seawater Desalination Costs, January 2012. Woodard & Curran, Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report, Northwest County Recycled Prepared for the City of Palo Alto and Valley Water. July 2019. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/water- quality-control-plant/recycled-water/2021/rw-strategic-plan-rpt_vol1_body.pdf (W&C, 2023),Woodard & Curran, Preliminary Finance Plan for the Advanced Water Purification Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. April 2023. Woodard & Curran, 2017, Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Presentation. CITY OF PALO ALTO A-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 261     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX B SUPPLY OPTIONS PRE-SCREENING CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX B Item #4     Packet Pg. 262     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX B OPTIONS PRE-SCREENING 1.1 Introduction A total of 27 options were initially identified for consideration as a part of the One Water Plan. These The 15 options remaining (shown as “pass” in Table B-1) after this pre-screening process were subjected Table B-1 Summary of Option Prescreening Pre-ScreeningCategory Conservation Option Results Ongoing Pass Planned/Ongoing Conservation Efforts Enhanced Conservation – Phase 2 Pass Advanced Metering Program Ongoing Distribution System Water Loss Reduction Groundwater New Irrigation Wells Pass Non-Potable Reuse (NPR), Phase 3 Extension to Foothills Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Removed Blackwater Capture and Reuse Removed Stormwater Capture Residential Rainwater Capture Green Stormwater Infrastructure Pass Imported Water Pass Valley Water Treated Water Removed CITY OF PALO ALTO B-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 263     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Pre-ScreeningCategoryOption Interagency Transfer Agreement Removed Tuolumne River Purchases Other Multi-Source Storage Bay Water Desalination, Distributed or Centralized Pass Removed (1) Notes: (1) Eliminated as a standalone alternative, will be considered as a component of reuse projects. 1.2 Planned/Ongoing Conservation Efforts Description The City has been engaged in a series of conservation and efficiency efforts, including the preparation of Valley Water Program Partnerships Water Wise Survey Program: Offered in partnership with Valley Water, this survey informs and educates consumers on how to use less water for landscaping and within the home. o The DIY indoor Water Wise Survey portion includes a survey kit and guides to enable o Landscape Rebate Program: Provides rebates to convert high-water use landscapes to low- WaterSmart Home Water Use Report Program: The City delivers monthly home water use Submeter Rebate Program: Aides in converting mobile home and apartment complexes from a Waterfluence Irrigation Budget Program: Waterfluence provides a suggested monthly CITY OF PALO ALTO B-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 264     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Large Landscape Survey: Professional landscape irrigation surveys for commercial, industrial, BAWSCA Program Partnerships BAWSCA maintains a Regional Water Conservation program which the City of Palo Alto participates in. Justification for Removal The existing conservation programs have been removed from consideration due to these already being 1.3 Advanced Metering Program Description Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) entails the installation of “smart” technology to utilize radio and Justification for Removal This alternative was removed from consideration because the program is already in the process of being 1.4 Distribution System Water Loss Reduction Program Description Non-revenue water is the difference between the amount of water purchased (from SFPUC in this case) Justification for Removal This alternative was removed from consideration because this program is already underway and will be WP. CITY OF PALO ALTO B-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 265     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.5 IPR, Lagunita Groundwater Recharge Description The alternative would include construction of an IPR facility and associated infrastructure to transport Justification for Removal Successful implementation of this project requires participation from both the City and Stanford Lagunita was originally a naturally occurring vernal pool, now modified and managed as an ephemeral 1.6 Blackwater Capture and Use Description This alternative includes the on-site reuse of blackwater either on a customer-scale or at City facilities. Justification for Removal This alternative was removed from consideration due to operational and regulatory complexities as well as CITY OF PALO ALTO B-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 266     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Should blackwater be considered in the future, it ideally would be implemented in conjunction with 1.7 Valley Water Treated Water Description This alternative would extend the existing Valley Water treated water distribution system by constructing Valley Water manages the Santa Clara County groundwater and produces and delivers treated drinking Justification for Removal Ultimately, development and implementation of this project is not within the City’s control at this time 1.8 Interagency Transfer Agreement Description A specific project is not defined, but this would include purchasing additional water from another water Justification for Removal This alternative was removed from consideration because it is not within the City’s control to initiate a 1.9 Tuolumne River Purchases Description An option proposed during the stakeholder process is Tuolumne River water rights purchases. This entails CITY OF PALO ALTO B-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 267     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Justification for Removal Further investigation revealed that this alternative would not provide new supply to the City. Rather, 1.10 Atmospheric Water Generators Description This alternative includes the on-site use of Atmospheric Water Generators (AWGs) either on a customer- AWGs range from home-based units that can produce 1 to 20 liters of water per day to commercial-scale Justification for Removal This alternative was removed from consideration due to high unit cost and low water yield. A 2018 EPA 1.11 Local Storage Description A specific project is not defined, but this would include building surface storage within the City's Justification for Removal There were no additional local storage ideas identified aside from the multi-source storage and Lagunita CITY OF PALO ALTO B-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 268     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.12 Temporary Dewatering Sites Description Shallow groundwater in the City leads to frequent instances of dewatering necessitated when a basement Dewatering is permitted from April through Oct (to avoid overflowing the storm drain system) and (W&C, 2020a). This temporary Justification for Removal The alternative was removed from consideration due to lack of local control, high cost, and environmental In addition, because these sites are all over the City, trucking would be required to move the water to (W&C, 2020a) Although this option will not be carried forward for consideration in this Plan, it is recommended the City 1.13 Permanent Dewatering Sites Description Due to the shallow groundwater table, there are two permanent dewatering sites within the City, located The Oregon Expressway is located at the Oregon Expressway underpass (at the intersection of the Oregon (W&C, 2020a) The City Hall site (located at Palo Alto City Hall) is owned and operated by the City. There are no flow This alternative would redirect the discharge from both of these sites to the sewer system flowing to Palo CITY OF PALO ALTO B-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 269     APPENDIX B OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Justification for Removal This alternative is being removed from consideration as a singular option but will remain in the water CITY OF PALO ALTO B-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 270     Item #4     Packet Pg. 271     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATING DETAILS CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX C Item #4     Packet Pg. 272     Summary 2023 Costs Imported Conservation Groundwater Water Reuse Desalination Enhanced Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Emergency Well DPR, Palo Alto IPR, Groundwater Injection DPR, Palo Alto Non Potable Bay Water DesalinationConservation,DPR, Regional Facility OWP Capital Cost ($) Treatment Conveyance Pump Stations Storage Tank Injection Well $0 $0 $0 $23,132,965 $26,517,236 $0 $5,324,997 $52,754,827 $1,480,400 $60,027,579 $6,849,565 $0 $251,832,599 $0 $0 $7,286,400 $0 $0 $420,073 $0 $0 $6,446,109 $68,824,318 $188,900,000 $7,400,000 $196,300,000 $0 $0 Mark-ups & General Requirements Capital Cost Excluding Land Acquisition Land Acquisition Cost Included $49,760,760 $0 $56,733,887 $105,251,073 $11,463,000 $116,720,000 $9,117,126 $16,410,000 $0 $31,466,953 $80,169,543 $148,510,000 $0 Included $251,832,599 $43,560,000 $295,400,000$49,770,000 $16,410,000 $148,510,000Total Capital Cost (rounded) Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Cost ($) Treatment $0 $0 $0 $1,811,749 $8,975,193 $0 $2,007,583 $6,012,364 $358,400 $9,827,073 Conveyance $0 $4,780 $0 Pump Stations, Except Energy Costs $0 $0 $0 $99,964 Included in Cost of Water $1,281,486 Storage Tank $0 $0 $0 Injection Wells $0 $5,172,000 $0 $0 $96,692 $5,671,960 $0 $0 Groundwater Pumping Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Water $24,267,125 $0 $0 $6,044,840 $0 $0 $0 Average Lifetime Staffing and Program $0 $188,176 $639,142 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,270,000 $7,090,000 $9,380,000 $6,050,000 $2,130,000 $12,950,000 $1,000,000 $11,110,000Total OWP O&M Cost (rounded) 1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 273     Summary (AF) Imported Conservation Groundwater Water Reuse Desalination Units Enhanced Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Emergency Well DPR, Palo Alto IPR, Groundwater Injection DPR, Palo Alto DPR, Regional Non Potable Bay Water DesalinationConservation, Cost Escalation Programmatic Cost Programmatic Cost Cost Escalation Cost Escalation Cost Escalation Cost Escalation Cost Escalation Cost Escalation Cost EscalationCost Method Method Estimate Estimate Method Method Method Method Method Method Method Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $0 $0 $49,760,760 $105,257,000 $16,410,000 $48,900,000 $188,900,000 $148,510,000 $251,832,599 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total Annual O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $3,408,068 $1,067,494 $12,769,597 $9,660,789 $0 $24,267,125 $0 $0 $188,176 $0 $0 $639,142 $0 $5,172,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,671,960 $0 $0 $ per Year $9,305,267 $6,049,640 $1,897,644 $909,679 $9,827,073 Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $24,267,125 $188,176 $639,142 $10,491,781 $16,972,804 $7,117,134 $5,605,085 $25,709,597 $10,570,467 $30,324,272 $ per Yr Acre Feet perProject Yield 10,982 582 330 2,250 $1,515 $2,299 $805 4,723 $1,608 $0 1,769 630 $5,813 $0 5,150 $2,480 $1,101 $1,206 $205 1,100 $8,783 $0 4,480 $4,289 $0 Capital Cost Unit Cost $ per AF $0 $0 $0 O&M Unit Cost $2,210 $323 $1,939 $1,970 $3,420 $3,012 $827 $2,193 Energy Unit Cost $44 $2,210 $323 $1,939 $4,663 $3,594 $8,897 $4,992 $9,610 $6,768 Note: Energy cost estimate for DPR, Regional Facility is a separate estimate and is not additive to O&M estimate; energy cost estimate for DPR, Palo Alto Facility and Emergency Well Conversion Full Treatment includes pump station energy costs while Future Cost Basis 2045 Imported Conservation Groundwater Water Reuse Desalination Units Enhanced Conservation, Phase 1 Enhanced Conservation, Phase 2 Emergency Well DPR, Palo Alto IPR, Groundwater Injection DPR, Palo Alto DPR, Regional Non Potable Bay Water DesalinationSFPUCFacilityFacility Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $0 $0 $53,304,971 $159,050,554 $29,450,626 $73,891,257 $240,333,553 $188,946,193 $380,536,347 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost $3,650,808 $1,915,805 $16,246,493 $12,291,221 Groundwater Production Charge $0 $49,517,551 $0 $0 $418,502 $0 $0 $1,421,444 $0 $19,262,570 $0 $0 $0 $21,124,618 $0 $0 $ per Year $20,694,811 $13,454,332 $4,220,340 $2,023,115 $21,855,303 Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $0 $418,502 $1,421,444 $27,102,295 $32,287,381 $15,370,137 $9,826,392 $52,873,447 $14,446,208 $52,937,648 $ per Yr Acre Feet perProject Yield 12,113 582 330 2,250 $1,623 $8,561 $1,791 $71 4,723 $2,429 $0 1,769 $1,083 $0 630 $8,784 $0 5,150 $3,155 $4,102 $2,683 $327 1,100 $11,174 $0 4,480 $6,481 $0 Capital Cost Unit Cost $ per AF $0 $0 $0 $4,088 $719 $4,313 $4,382 $7,606 $6,699 $1,839 $4,878 $4,088 $719 $4,313 $12,045 $6,836 $8,689 $15,597 $10,267 $13,133 $11,815 Note: Energy cost estimate for DPR, Regional Facility is a separate estimate and is not additive to O&M estimate; energy cost estimate for DPR, Palo Alto Facility and Emergency Well Conversion Full Treatment includes pump station energy costs while 2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 274     Assumptions Cost Methods Description Cost Escalation Method Costs are based on a previous study and are updated to account for escalation or anticipated changes in time for labor, material, and equipment. Programmatic Cost Estimate Annual estimation of costs and water use/water savings for projects without a significant capital/infrastructure Full conceptual level cost estimate for projects that do not have a previous cost study. Construction Cost Markups (used to calculate Capital Cost Multipliers)(1) Total Raw Construction Cost Subtotal (1)100% General Requirements, incl. de/mobilization 8%of Subtotal (1) 9.375% Construction Cost Subtotal Subtotal (2)117% 40%of Subtotal (2) General Contractor Overhead (OH), Profit, Risk, 3% Bond Insurance 10%of Subtotal (3) Pre-design pilot testing/outreach (Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)/Desalination 10% Pre-design pilot testing/outreach (other) Engineering(2)10%of Subtotal (3) Construction Management Admin, Environmental &Legal (DPR/Desal) 3% Engineering Services During Construction 4% DPR/Desal Options 49%Subtotal (4)245% Other Options (1) Breakdown ofmarkups in this table are used to calculate markups for "Capital CostMultiplier byProjectType" table Capital Cost Multiplier by Option Type (USED FOR OPTION CALCS) (1) Capital Cost multiplier (DPR/desal) (Subtotal (4))2.45 (2) Capital Cost multiplier (IPR) (1) (3)+/ 2 (3) Capital Cost multiplier (other options/infrastructure) (Subtotal (5))2.25 (4) Capital Cost multiplier (prefabricated components) (Subtotal (2)) Engineering News Record (ENR)Cost Basis Assumptions Value Current ENR Index (SF Area: Sept, 2023)15,490 September 2023 15,367ENR Index (Water Main Replacement (WMR) 29, June 2019)1.01 ENR Index basis (Greater SF Area, September 2022)15,083 13,169 1.18 ENR Index (CoRe Plan, August 2019) ENR Index (Groundwater Assessment/Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Study, Nov 12,110 1.28 ENR Index (NW County RWSP, June 2018) One Water Los Angeles 2040 Plan (Los Angeles, July 2016) ENR Index (BAWSCA Long Term Regional Water Strategy Phase II, Feb 2015)11,178 1.39 1.52 ENR Index (Carollo Groundwater Study, May 2000)7,164 2.16 126.9/111.8 50-year Historical Fed Rate US Bureau of Statistics, CPI San Inflation Rate (Bay Area, 2023)3.4% Long-Term Interest Rate (for future Capital Expense (CAPEX) escalation)5.0%Historic Average or Hard Enter Note: All ENR index values reflect Greater San Francisco Bay Area; RSMeans is a database of current construction cost estimates Depreciation Periods Civil infrastructure (pipelines, buildings)40 years Options with multiple components (civil, mechanical, structural) Mechanical infrastructure (Pump Station (PS), treatment plants)20 years Membrane replacements Reverse Osmosis (RO) Pipeline Cost (pressurized, Water (W) & Recycled Water (RW)) Diameter (in)Project Bid Time ENR (SFBAY)Unit Cost Bid Data Unit Cost (June '23 $)Bid Data Cost/inch Diameter Unit Cost ($/lineal ft)1 $520 Extrapolated Cost/inch diameter Water Main Replacement (WMR) 29 Jun-23 15,367 $630 $630 $105 $560 $936 8 WMR 29 $620 $78 10 $740 $790 $850 $910 $960 $1,010 30 Special Construction Extra Markups Pipelines w/jack&bore 200% Offshore pipelines Source: Palo Alto project bids for WMR 29 (June, 2023) and WMR 27 (June, 2019) and extrapolation of trendline Pump Stations (W & RW) Capacity (Horsepower (HP))Unit Cost ($/HP) 1-5 $10,000 5-10 10-50 51-100 101-250 Source 100-500 HP: South Pasadena One Water Plan, Carollo (November 2021) with RS Means index (LA to SF) and ENR correction to 15,490. Groundwater Wells New Well Motor only $100,000 New Well Pump only Drilling Equipping New Well (total) Source: South Pasadena One Water Plan, Carollo (November 2021) with RS Means index (LA to SF) and ENR correction to 15,490. Irrigation Demand Assumptions Irrigation Duration (hrs/day)4 Peak Hour Demand Peaking Factor Minimum Net Positive Suction Head 5 Minimum Irrigation pressure (psi)60 Concrete Storage Reservoirs (W & RW) Volume (million gallons (MG))Cost per gallon <1 $7.00 1 to 3 to 10 $3.75 Special Construction Extra Markups Below-ground construction markup 100%Assumed to be 2x more expensive Source: South Pasadena One Water Plan, Carollo (November 2021) with RS Means index (LA to SF) and ENR correction to 15,490. Labor Cost Category Annual Salary $/hr (raw salary)$/hr (labor cost) Labor Cost -low range $50,000 3.5 $24 $84 City labor cost multiplier -&$167,000 n/a $80 Operations Staff -& Land Cost Land Value in Palo Alto $/sq ft Source Land Value Rinconada $482 City Staff 3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 275     Assumptions Land Value Fernando $330 City Staff Land Value Peers City Staff Low Industrial Land City Staff High Industrial Land $150 City Staff Value Used for Supply Options City Staff (Todd Groundwater 2018) 4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 276     Assumptions O&M Cost Estimates Pipelines Repair and Replacement 0.5%of annual CAPEX Storage Tanks Repair and Replacement 2% Stormwater BMP Repair and Replacement 3%of annual CAPEX Advanced Water Treatment Repair and 6%of annual CAPEX Ocean Desal Treatment Repair and 25%of annual CAPEX Energy Cost 2023 $0.10 COST ESCALATION METHOD Historical Cost Escalation (ENR index) Historical Cost Escalation (Handy-Whitman) Cost Escalation from previous reports to current year Selected Method Rate 3.50% 5.70% Notes/Sources Average ENR increase for San Francisco Bay Area from 2003 to 2023 Historical Cost Escalation (ENR index) Selected Multiplier for current year estimates Future Cost Escalation for Capital Cost Future Cost Escalation for O&M Cost 3.5% 3.50% 3.70%Using RS Means City Cost Index for San Jose, 2007 to 2023 Electricity Uses the average increase in electricity cost for the City of Palo alto over the next 20 years Average Future Cost Escalation for Labor Cost Construction Labor/Installation Cost 5.30%Using RS Means City Cost Index for San Jose, 2007 to 2023. In-house Government Labor in water sector 3.10%Using Federal Reserve Economic Data for State and Local Government Workers service occupations, 2005 to 2023. COST ESCALATION ASSUMPTIONS 22 variable 3.5%3.7%4.2%3.4%9.5%2.1% GW production charge(2)GW production charge(2) w/9.5% escalation 2033-2024Planning Year Net Present Value 2023 SFPUC Rates (1) ($/AF)Capital Cost O&M Cost Labor Cost Energy Cost % Increase Energy Cost $1,693 $2,345 $3,033 $0.08 $2,069 100%100%100%$1,724 $1,724 $0.10 2024 103% 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 (1) From SFPUC published rates in (SFPUC 2023a), (SFPUC 2023b), and 2034 through 2045 projected from historical rate increase since 2013 (See SFPUC Tab) (2): From (Valley Water, 2022) (Figure 4-2.1) projected Groundwater Production Charge through year 2023. Escalated with inflation from 2033-2045. Selection GW Production Charge 9.5% escalation 2033-2024 Treatment and Pumping Efficiencies DPR (W&C, 2019)75% DPR (B&C, 2021) Pump Station pump & motor efficiency Secondary UV Capital Cost Sources and Escalation Secondary UVModelApproximate Flow (mgd)Direct Cost Source Notes $100,000Spektron 250 (Carollo 2023a) The Spektron 350 is appropriate for flow ranges from 0.4 to y =42000x + 582000.7 $87,600 +SSRF supply 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 (Carollo 2023a)Flow (MGD) Interpolation for Palo Alto DPR 1.00 $100,200 Developing anticipated unit cost based on vendor quotes Calcite Contactor Capital Cost Sources and Escalation Calcite Contactors Model Approximate Flow (mgd)Direct Cost Source Notes $540,000 Wigen, Two 6' Dia Vessels with 7' sidewalls 0.1 $470,000 (Carollo 2023a)y = 500000x + 420000 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Developing anticipated unit cost based on vendor quotes.Flow (MGD) Interpolation for Palo Alto DPR 1.00 $920,000 Conservation Rebates Device/Program Rate ($)Unit Cost per toilet replacement $875 $15,000 $2 $ $ Turf Replacement -Rebate Rate $/ square foot Installation Costs $2 Conservation Measure Savings Rates Device/Program Savings per High Efficiency Toilet Replacement Rate ($)Unit Source ccf/year 12.19 City Staff Turf Replacement Savings Rate gallons/square foot Treatment Costs Sewer Connection Fee Sewer Capacity Fee Details One Time Rate, 6-inch connection, depth at feet and below Cost ($/unit)Unit Per Connection6$9,846 Quantity Rate, per 100 cubic feet Unit Conversions From To mgd mg/year AF Conversion (divide by) afy 1,120 afy 3.57 325,851 1.61 gallon afy gpm 694.44 1,336.80 436ccfaf acre sq ft 43,560 Treatment Costs Type of Treatment Groundwater Nitrate Treatment Satellite Surface WTP Original Unit Cost ($/gallon)Cost Basis Year Current Unit Cost ($/gallon)Source $1.00 $2018 dollars (SoCal)$1.50 (Carollo, 2018b) (Carollo, 2018b) Satellite (Wastewater) WRP $22.00 $7.50 $10.25 Advanced WTF for DPR Brackish Groundwater treatment $17.75 5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 277     SFPUC SFPUC Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost $ per Year Groundwater Production Charge (GPC)$ per Year$0 $24,267,125 $0 O&M Cost $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost Project Yield $24,267,125 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost 0.0 $ per AF $2,210 $2,210 Cost Escalation Method Unit Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Estimate Source Notes Unit Cost SFPUC Base Rate BAWSCA Debt Service Cost Summary Total Cost 10,982 af $2,069 $22,723,701 (SFPUC, 2023a, Slide 7)Palo Alto demand multiplied by unit cost $1,543,424 $24,267,125 10,9822023 Demand (afy) Unit Cost per AF $2,210 6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 278     SFPUC Projected Costs and Demand Year Palo Alto Demand (4) BAWSCA Debt Service (5)SFPUC Base Rate (1, 2, 3)Unit Cost Total Projected Cost CY $/ccf 2.93 2.45 2.93 3.75 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.75 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.31 5.63 5.83 6.00 6.01 6.04 6.17 6.43 6.65 6.89 7.13 7.38 7.63 7.90 8.18 8.46 8.76 9.07 9.38 Annual Increase - $/af afy $$/af - $ 2013 1,276 --- -16.4%---- ---- ---- 10,061 1,889,496 1,974 $19,857,998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (SFPUC, 2023a, Slide 7) 3 SFPUC Rates from 2032-2045 calculated using average % increase since 2013 5 BAWSCA Debt Service from City Staff Estimate. Assumes this remains zero after 2036 7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 279     Enhanced Conservation Enhanced Conservation Project Cost Estimate Summary Table Phase 1 Phase 2 Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $0 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost $ per Year O&M Cost $188,176 $639,142 $ per Year Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $188,176 $639,142 $ per Year Project Yield Capital Cost Unit Cost $0 $0 $ per AF $323 $1,939 Programmatic Cost Estimate Project Costs Assumptions Units Cost Notes General Assumptions Staffing Cost - Salary and Benefits $167,000 per FTE Salary + benefits per Palo Alto direction Project Period 21 years through 2045 Calculations 1) Outdoor Irrigation Efficiency for CII Properties Phase 1 -- Years to Saturation YR City Staffing Time Needed 0.6 FTE Staff time for technical guidance and landscaping support. No financial incentive Program Savings Estimate 229.0 AFY City Staff Estimate from Waterfluence Assumes all CII customers come down to irrigation level calculated by WaterFluence. Savings in 2024 Savings in 2045 229.0 Note that these savings potentially overlap with Measures #2 and #7. So if all of these AFY Total Savings Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost $100,200 Staffing costs occur every year until program saturation. Annual Program Costs $0 Total Annual Costs $100,200 Lifetime Costs $501,000 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF)$115 Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 2) Non-Functional Turf Ban for CII Properties Phase 1 -- In 2027 the City will have to adopt an ordinance to follow AB1572, this measure goesYears to Saturation 10 YR City Staff for Owner Notifications 0.3 $15,000 Cost per survey Frequency of Spatial Survey 5 Assume this occurs every 5 years over 10 year saturation period Legal review/possible challenges $100,000 $ 28 acres City Staff Estimate from Waterfluence Turf Replacement Savings Rate 36 gal/sq ft Turf Replacement Savings Rate 4.8 Savings in 2024 13.2 Note that these savings potentially overlap with Measures #1 and #7. So if all of theseSavings in 2045 132.3 AFY 2,184 Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost $66,800 $372 Staffing costs occur every year until program saturation. Annual Program Costs Lifetime Costs Annual costs averaged over implementation period (does not include staffing) Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF)Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 280     Enhanced Conservation 3) Low Income Residential HET Replacement Program Phase 1 -- Years to Saturation 10 YR City Staffing Time Needed 0.05 FTE Rebate Rate $875 $ / toilet City Staff Estimate, 7/28/23, pg 5 Assumes full cost of toilet replacement is borne by Palo Alto Number of DUs targeted 200 DU toilet ccf/yr AFY Number of toilets per DU Savings per Toilet Replacement 12.19 City Staff Estimate Savings in 2024 1.1 Savings in 2045 11.2 AFY Linear ramp up until program saturation, then constant savings through planningTotal Savings 185 Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost $8,350 $35,000 Total Annual Costs $43,350 Lifetime Costs $433,500 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF) $2,347 Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 4) Lawn Limitation for New Development and Major Retrofits Phase 1 -- Years to Saturation ongoing YR City Staffing - Plan Review FTE City Staffing - Site Inspections 0.1 City Staffing - Education & Outreach 0.1 Legal review/possible challenges $100,000 $One time cost Lawn size assumption based on approximate measuring Google Earth lawns and PaloEstimated size of front lawn replaced sqft Number of major retrofits per year 100 Palo Alto Development Services estimates 50-100 major remodels per year. Estimated acreage of front lawns repl afy/ac gal/sq ft AF/acre AFY City Staff Estimate 4.8 Savings in 2024 6.6 Savings in 2045 139.2 AFY 1,531 AF Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost $66,800 Annual costs averaged over implementation period (does not include staffing) $68,309 Lifetime Costs $1,502,800 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF) 5) 3-Day Watering Week Phase $981 Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 1 -- Years to Saturation 1 YR City Staffing - Enforcement 0.1 FTE City Staffing - Education & Outreach 0.1 FTE Total Palo Alto Water Use (2020)10,722 (Palo Alto, 2021, Table 10) 2020 City of Palo Alto Flows to the RWQCP Outdoor Water Use in 2024 Outdoor water use minus savings assumed from other irrigation programs Outdoor Water Use in 2045 Irrigation Reduction with 2 Day Irrigation Reduction with 3 Day 5%City Staff Savings in 2024 214.3 AFY Savings in 2045 Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost $33,400 $0 Total Annual Costs $33,400 $177 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF)Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 6) HET Replacement Program for CII Properties Phase 2 -- Years to Saturation 10 YR City Staffing Time Needed 0.3 FTE Cost per toilet replacement $875 City staff comments 7/28/23, pg 5 Assumes full cost of toilet replacement is borne by Palo Alto 100,000 employees Range: 92,000 to 114,000 in 2018 Assuming that an average commercial toilet lasts 30 years and toilet age is equallyPercentage of Toilets Eligible for 13%% Total Employees Targeted 13,000 employees Number of employees who use toilets that are eligible for replacement employee / toilet (OSHA, 2023, Standard 1910.141( C )(1)(i)) Average required number of toilets per OSHA Assumes 1 toilet replacement per 17 employees (average required number of toiletsTotal Replacements 765 12.19 0.028 2.1 EA ccf/yr AFY AFY AFY Savings per Toilet Replacement Savings per Toilet Replacement Savings in 2024 City Staff Estimate Savings in 2045 21.4 Total Savings 353 Linear ramp up until program saturation, then constant savings through planning AF Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost Lifetime Costs $50,100 Staffing costs occur every year until program saturation $117,012 $1,170,118 $3,314 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF)Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 281     Enhanced Conservation 7) City Landscaping Support for Turf Replacement Phase 2 -- Years to Saturation ongoing YR No saturation within planning horizon given low rate of replacement FTE Existing rebate. Valley Water contributes another $2 so customers get a total of $4/sqRebate Rate $2 $ / sqft City Staff Estimate Cost to Help Cover Direct Installation 1.5 acres / yr Turf Replacement Savings Rate 4.8 Savings in 2024 7.2 AFY Savings in 2045 151.6 Note that these savings potentially overlap with Measures #1 and #2. So if all of these AFY Total Savings Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost Lifetime Costs $66,800 $261,360 $328,160 $6,891,360 $4,133 Total cost through planning horizon Unit Cost ($/AF)Total cost through planning horizon/total savings through planning horizon 8) Lawn Limitation for Residential Properties Upon Resale Phase 2 -- Years to Saturation Ongoing as turnover rate (400 per year) does not reach all Palo Alto homes (17,900) ongoing YR City Staffing - Plan Review City Staffing - Site Inspections 0.3 0.4 City Staffing - Education & Outreach 0.3 $100,000 One time cost Estimated size of front lawn replaced Lawn size assumption based on approximate measuring Google Earth lawns and Palo 600 sqft Total SFR in Palo Alto 17,900 (Palo Alto, 2022b, Table 2-36) Average SFR sold per year 2014-2022 per "New Homes Directory". May double-count #6Houses turned over per year 400 DU/yr Expected Compliance (%) Estimated acreage of front lawns repl acres gal/sq ft AF/acre 36 City Staff Estimate 4.8 Savings in 2024 21.2 AFY Savings in 2045 Cost Summary Annual Staffing Cost Lifetime Costs $250,500 $236,818 $487,318 $5,360,500 $1,094Unit Cost ($/AF) Phase 1 Total Average Annual Cost Average Annual Project Yield Unit Cost ($/AF) $188,176 582 $323 Phase 2 Total Average Annual Cost Average Annual Project Yield Unit Cost ($/AF) $639,142 330 $1,939 1) Measures 1, 2, and 7 target outdoor irrigation and may have some overlap, leading to a reduction in total expected savings from those programs if they are all implemented. 2) Similar to Note #4, Measures 7 and 8 target residential front lawns and may overlap, leading to a reduction in total expected savings if they are both implemented. For example, if a customer first renovates a house and then sells it, there would 10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 282     Enhanced Conservation Water Conservation Program Summary by Best Management Practice Total Yield Through 2045 (af) Unit CostProgram Cost 1 1) Outdoor Irrigation Efficiency for CII Properties 4,351 $501,000 $115 2,184 $2,347 1 4) Lawn Limitation for New Development and Major Retrofits 1,531 12,224 $1,502,800 $981 1 Phase 1 Subtotal $3,951,700 $1,170,118 $6,891,360 $323 2 6) HET Replacement Program for CII Properties $3,314 1,668 2 8) Lawn Limitation for Residential Properties Upon Resale 4,900 6,921 $5,360,500 $13,421,978 $17,373,678 $1,094 $1,939 $907 Phase 2 Subtotal Water Conservation Program Summary 19,145 Project Yield and Cost 8) Lawn Limitation for Residential Properties Upon Resale 1) Outdoor Irrigation Efficiency for CII 3) Low Income Residential HET Replacement 4) Lawn Limitation for New Development 6) HET Replacement Program for CII 7) City Landscaping Support for TurfYear2) Non-Functional Turf Ban for CII Properties 5) 3-Day Watering Week Phase 1 Total Phase 2 TotalProperties CY Count Yield 46 Cost Yield 13 Cost Yield Cost Yield 7 Cost Yield Cost Yield Cost Yield 7.2188 14 Cost Yield 21 Cost Yield 281 345 410 474 Yield 3120251$100,200 $181,800 1 $43,350 $166,800 214 $33,400 2 $117,012 $328,160 $350,500 92 26 13 42 61 137 40 20 22 64 92 53 27 29 85 122 2029 5 229 $100,200 66 $81,800 6 $43,350 33 $66,800 204 $33,400 11 $117,012 36 $328,160 106 $250,500 538 153 2030 6 229 $0 79 $66,800 7 $43,350 40 $66,800 202 $33,400 13 $117,012 43 $328,160 127 $250,500 557 183 2032 8 229 $0 106 $66,800 9 $43,350 53 $66,800 197 $33,400 17 $117,012 58 $328,160 170 $250,500 594 245 2033 9 229 $0 119 $66,800 10 $43,350 60 $66,800 194 $33,400 19 $117,012 65 $328,160 191 $250,500 612 275 2034 10 229 $0 132 $81,800 11 $43,350 66 $66,800 192 $33,400 21 $117,012 72 $328,160 212 $250,500 631 306 2036 12 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 80 $66,800 187 $33,400 21 $0 87 $328,160 255 $250,500 639 363 2037 13 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 86 $66,800 184 $33,400 21 $0 94 $328,160 276 $250,500 643 391 101 2039 15 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 99 $66,800 179 $33,400 21 $0 108 $328,160 318 $250,500 651 448 2040 16 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 106 $66,800 177 $33,400 21 $0 116 $328,160 339 $250,500 655 476 2042 18 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 119 $66,800 172 $33,400 21 $0 130 $328,160 382 $250,500 664 533 2043 19 229 $0 132 $0 11 $0 126 $66,800 169 $33,400 21 $0 137 $328,160 403 $250,500 668 562 Total 4,351 $501,000 2,184 $813,000 185 $433,500 1,531 $1,502,800 3,973 $701,400 353 $1,170,118 1,668 $6,891,360 4,900 $5,360,500 12,224 6,921 11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 283     Irrigation Wells Irrigation Wells Cost Estimate Summary Table Project Total Capital Cost Capital Cost Cost Units $1,000,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge (GPC) O&M Cost $M $65,051 $ per Year $93,096 $ per Year Energy Cost $ per Yr Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $168,246 $ per AF Capital Cost Unit Cost $1,205 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost Energy Unit Cost $61 Unit Cost $3,116 Cost Escalation ENR Date ENR Index (Northwest County Recycled 13,169 December 2020 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments Construction Cost Construction Cost Per Well 5 EA $75,000 $375,000 (W&C, 2019, TM 6.4, Table 5, pdf pg 11) Construction Cost Markup 2.25 Added construction cost markup since it was not clearly included in original cost.$168,844 $993,011 Subtractions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Pump Stations Additions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Pump Stations Total Capital Cost $375,000 $993,011 Subtractions --$0 Calculated Total --$993,011 $1,000,000 O&M Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments O&M Cost Original O&M wo GW Production Charge $5,800 $6,822 (W&C, 2019, TM 6.4, Table 6, pdf pg 11) $105,000 --(W&C, 2019, TM 6.4, Table 6, pdf pg 11) (Valley Water, 2022)New Groundwater Production Charge 54 $/AF $1,724 $93,096 Subtractions Treatment Conveyance Pipelines Other Additions Treatment Conveyance Pipelines Other Energy Cost for Pumping O&M Total 45,000 Kwh $0.10 $9,000 $3,276.19 City Staff Estimate O&M Subtotal $119,800 $99,918 $0Subtractions $3,276 Calculated O&M Total $110,800 $103,194 Total O&M Cost (Rounded) 12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 284     Groundwater Emergency Well Conversion Cost Estimate Summary Table Iron (Fe)/Manganese (Mn)/Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Treatment Difference (Treatment El Camino Only with Fe/Mn/TDS El Camino OnlyBlending- (Option 4B)(Option 4) Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $49,760,760 $1,532,363 $48,228,398 $25,472,442 $0 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge (GPC) O&M Cost $3,408,068 $92,395 $3,315,673 $1,788,376 $ per Year $5,172,000 $5,172,000 $0 $1,599,739 $0 $4,137,600 $4,137,600 $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $10,491,781 $5,576,369 $4,915,412 $7,362,471 $4,381,634 $ per Yr 2,250 3,000 1,800 2,400 Capital Cost Unit Cost $1,515 $1,484 $ per AF $2,299 $1,724 $2,299 $1,724 O&M Unit Cost $735 Energy Unit Cost $44 $33 $11 $41 $31 Unit Cost $4,663 $1,859 $2,804 $4,090 $1,826 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date ENR Index (Carollo Groundwater Study, May 2000)7,164 May, 2000 15,490 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Construction Cost Original Construction Cost varies by Option. See Summary Table for Options 1-4 above (Column L-R). Adjustments Land Acquisition Original Land Acquisition n/a (no land needed for the 2 selected wells) Revised Land Acquisition n/a Subtractions Treatment Facilities n/a Conveyance Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Other n/a Additions Treatment Facilities n/a (already included in 2000 Study) Conveyance Option 4: Brine line for RO waste stream Brine line flowrate assumption for Fe/Mn filter backwashing 5%of Q_well _well _well Brine line flowrate El Camino Well (1488 gpm) gpm gpm Design velocity ft/sec Assumes pressurized flow of brine to RWQCP outfall Brine Line El Camino to Eleanor Pardee Park @ 1000 gpm @1000 gpm @1488 gpm @1000 gpm 4.5 inches 9,000 feet $10,536,000 Assumes dedicated brineline is needed (most conservative) 10,600 Storage Options 2, 3, 4: Backwash water storage for Fe & Mn treatment (2 sites) Backwash volume 5 times Q_well time per day Options 2 and 4 (El Camino = 1,488 gpm & Eleanor Pardee = 372 gpm) Daily backwash volume El Camino Well @ 1,488 gpm 0.11 MG $1.00 n/a $251,229 Check backwash volume is approximately 5% of treatment flow (5%*1488 gpm = 748 gpm = 0.107 mgd *372 gpm = 19 gpm = 0.027 mgdDaily backwash volume Eleanor Pardee Well @ 1000 gpm Sewer Connection from Camino Well to sewer (25%*1488=372 gpm) *1000=250 gpm) Option 3 (El Camino = 613 gpm & Eleanor Pardee = 524 gpm) inches feet 1,891,052 ########################################### 971,641 ########################################### A dedicated brineline is used (15% cheaper in $/AF than sewer connections w/charges) 4.5 Backwash volume El Camino Well @ 613 gpm 0.05 MG $1.00 n/a $103,478 Backwash volume Eleanor Pardee Well @ 524 gpm *613=153 gpm) =131 gpm) Options 4B (El Camino = 1,488 gpm) inches feet 1,755,977 ########################################### gpm on average ########################################### gpm on average3.5 Backwash volume El Camino Well @ 1,488 gpm Sewer Connection from Camino Well to sewer (25%*1488=372 gpm) Pump Stations (Option 4 only) 0.11 MG $1.00 n/a $251,229 inches feet 1,891,052 ########################################### gpm on average Brine PS at El Camino Well @ 1000 gpm @ 1488 gpm @ 1000 gpm 1 hp 20 feet TDH $26,015 Assumes pressurrized flow of brine to RWQCP outfall Assumes pressurrized flow of brine to RWQCP outfall Sewer Connection Fees (not used) Sewer Connection Charge El Camino Well 1 connection $9,846 $9,846 WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION CHARGES UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-5 Sewer Connection Charge Eleanor Pardee Park Well 13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 285     Groundwater O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Current Scaled Capacity Cost (2023)Source Adjustments O&M Cost Original Annual O&M: Option 1 $1,084,968 $5,907,548 $5,483,974 Original Annual O&M: Option 1B (El Camino Well with blending only)2,944,458 4,381,634 1,121,459 Original Annual O&M: Option 3 Original Annual O&M: Option 4 1,606,063 $7,083,713 Subtractions Treatment 2023 Cost of Chlorine per 1000 gpm well $13,931 per year Palo Alto staff estimate based on (AWWA, 2023) that the amount of ammonia required is 1/8 to 1/12 the ammount of 2024 Cost of Ammonia compared to Chlorine per 1000 gpm well - 2023 Cost of Ammonia per 1000 gpm well per year n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other n/a Additions Treatment n/a Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) neglible Storage n/a Other Annual Energy Cost for Groundwater pumping El Camino Well 204 ft 1,488 gpm $50,014 $74,426 (Todd Groundwater, 2018, Table 4-2) Annual Energy Cost for Groundwater pumping Eleanor Pardee Park Well $99,964 2,400 $209,088 $52,272 $52,272 $13,068 afy 1,724 $/AF (2023 dollars)$4,137,600 9.08 $/ccf 44. COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2ccf Capacity Charge Eleanor Backwash Water El Camino SFPUC Cost 125 afy $2,069 $/AF $258,635 Backwash Water Eleanor SFPUC Cost Energy Cost for brine pumping neglibable O&M Total Original Total Subtractions $542,484 -- $2,944,458 $4,381,634 ---- Additions $50,014 $50,014 $2,994,472 $74,426 $4,456,059Calculated Total $593,000 $2,995,000 $4,457,000 14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 286     Groundwater SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS BY OPTION (updating costs from the 2000 Carollo Study) - Blending with SFPUC Water Capacity set to not exceed 3,000 afy (Todd Description Original Cost (1)Cost Adjustment 2000 -> 2023 Escalated Cost Estimate ($2023)Capacity Scaling in 2023 dollars FLOW CAPACITY/YIELD GW Production Capacity SFPUC Flow Total GW Yield (1,2) Flow Control El Camino (1)Eleanor (1)Quantity Unit El Camino Eleanor El Camino (2)Eleanor (2) gpm 1,000 1,000 1,488 372 1,153 1,613 1,613 149%37% $$75,000 100,000 $75,000 100,000 216% ENR ratio in-place $162,165 $60,329 Blending Facility(3) Pipeline $$ $ 50,000 225,000 21,238 42,461 n/a $ $ 1,730,000 1,905,000 216% ENR ratio in-place $ $ $ $ $ 3,740,606 4,118,991 in-place $ $ $ $ $ 1,391,594 1,532,363CAPEX Subtotal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Annualized Capital Costs $/Yr - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST Energy Cost for GW pumping OPEX Subtotal 268% labor multiplier 1,724 $/AF (2023 dollars) 113,977 50,014 163,991 2,780,467 2,944,458 1,826 169,608 42,402 $/Yr 25,538 $/Yr $ $ $ $ 42,461 500,023 563,722 350 $ $ $ $ 42,461 500,023 722,303 448 182,623 2,780,467 3,211,449 1,991 244,034 4,137,600 4,381,634 1,826 67,940 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION CHARGE $1,034,400 1,194,735 1,991 $/yr Unit GW Production Cost $/afy 39 138 102 267 102 267 1) Production Capacity from (Todd Groundwater, 2018, Appendix B Cost Estimates) 3) Addition of chelate recommended to keep Fe and Mn in solution. Option 2 - Fe and Mn Treatment at Each Well Exceeds 3000 afy (Todd Groundwater, 2018) Capacity Scaling in 2023 dollarsOriginal Cost (1) El Camino (1) Cost Adjustment 2000 -> 2023 Escalated Cost Estimate ($2023) FLOW CAPACITY/YIELD GW Production Capacity SFPUC Flow Eleanor (1)Quantity Unit El Camino Eleanor El Camino (2)Eleanor (2) gpm 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,488 0 0 Total Yield (1,2)1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613 2,400 1,613 CAPTIAL COST 149%100% Pressurized Filters $$900,000 $900,000 216% multiplier $ $ 1,945,980 $ $ 1,945,980 $ $ 2,895,490 $1,945,980 Backwash Storage Tank (3) CAPEX Subtotal n/a n/a 1,891,052 2,197,209 1,891,052 2,114,824 1,891,052 5,037,771 1,891,052 4,005,876$900,000 84,954 $900,000 84,954 $ Annualized costs $/Yr $$$ OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST Operating Cost $/Yr $42,461 $42,461 268% labor multiplier $113,977 $113,977 $169,590 $113,977 Energy Cost for GW pumping $1,506 $1,506 167% energy multiplier 239% materials Repair Valve Kits 239% materials Replacement Valves 500 500 239% materials 1,196 1,196 1,779 1,196 Personnel Costs $/Yr $9,100 $9,100 268% labor multiplier $24,427 $24,427 $36,345 $24,427 OPEX Subtotal $/Yr $60,706 $60,706 $209,196 $227,829 $311,278 $184,720 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION CHARGE $ $ 500,023 645,683 $ $ 500,024 645,684 $1,724 $/AF (2023 dollars)$ $ 2,780,467 3,165,973 $ $ 2,780,467 3,177,995 $ $ 4,137,152 4,805,620 $ $ 2,780,467 3,241,385$/yr Unit GW Production Cost $/afy $400 $400 $1,963 $1,970 $2,003 $2,010 GW production cost without GW Production Charge $90 $90 $239 $246 $279 $286 1) Production Capacity from (Todd Groundwater, 2018, Appendix B Cost Estimates) 2) Increase production capacity for El Camino Well from Todd Groundwater, 2018 3) Backwash tank sized to avoid large flow rate with Fe and Mn backwash water. Assumed that backwash water has sufficient pressure to drain to nearby sewer by gravity. 15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 287     Groundwater Option 3 - Fe and Mn Treatment at Each Well plus Blending Original Cost (1)Cost Adjustment 2000 -> 2023 Escalated Cost Estimate ($2023)Capacity Scaling in 2023 dollars FLOW CAPACITY/YIELD El Camino (1)Eleanor (1)Quantity Unit El Camino Eleanor GW Production Capacity gpm 380 3,720 325 3,775 380 3,720 325 Not scaled as the wells are already 3,775 underutilized in 2000 Study. Total Yield (1,2)AFY 613 524 613 524 No information available on CAPTIAL COST upscaling with blending. Pressurized Filters $700,000 905,000 85,426 700,000 75,000 100,000 1,150,000 n/a n/a 2,025,000 191,146 216% multiplier $ $ 1,513,540 3,816,246 $ $ 1,513,540 162,165 This alternative is not carried forward 216,220 and out of scope to analyze this further. Pipelines 2,486,530 6,222,933 Backwash Storage Tank (3) CAPEX Subtotal Annualized costs OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST $/Yr $/Yr 20,381 20,381 268% labor multiplier $54,708 $54,708 167% energy multiplier $/Yr Repair Valve Kits 500 500 1,196 1,196 Personnel Costs $/Yr 9,100 9,100 268% labor multiplier $24,427 $24,427 OPEX Subtotal 38,626 38,626 $118,919 $122,224 Groundwater Production Charge Total Annual Cost 190,009 314,061 512 162,507 392,279 748 $1,724 $/AF (2023 dollars)$ $ $ $ 1,056,578 1,439,455 2,349 $ $ $ $ 903,652 1,430,091 2,728 $/yr $ $ $ $Unit GW Production Cost $/afy GW production cost without GW Production Charge 202 438 625 1,004 1) Production Capacity from (Todd Groundwater, 2018, Appendix B Cost Estimates) 3) Backwash tank sized to avoid large flow rate with Fe and Mn backwash water. Assumed that backwash water has sufficient pressure to drain to nearby sewer by gravity. Capacity set to not exceed (3,000 afy) (Todd Option 4 - Fe, Mn, and TDS + Ammonia Treatment at Each Well Description Original Cost (1)Cost Adjustment 2000 -> 2023 Quantity Escalated Cost Estimate ($2023)Capacity Scaling in 2023 dollars FLOW CAPACITY/YIELD GW Production Capacity SFPUC Flow El Camino Eleanor Unit El Camino Eleanor El Camino (2)Eleanor (2) gpm 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,488 372 -0 0 0 Total Yield (1,2)1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613 CAPTIAL COST Pressurized Filters RO system 149%37% $900,000 3,400,000 n/a 900,000 3,400,000 n/a 216% multiplier $1,945,980 $1,945,980 $2,895,803 10,939,702 251,229 $1,945,980 Backwash Storage Tank (3) Sewer Connection (3) CAPEX Subtotal $n/a n/a n/a 4,300,000 84,960 320,936 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,300,000 84,960 320,936 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9,297,460 156,150 589,902 - n/a n/a n/a 9,297,460 156,150 589,902 - $ $ $ 11,347,000 25,472,442 $ $ $ 14,796,000 24,288,318$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $/Yr Other including Brine Disposal Pipeline Annualized costs $405,896 $405,896 746,052 746,052 1,788,376 1,619,692 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST Energy Cost for GW pumping Energy Cost for treatment Replacement Media Ammonia Chemicals Repair Valve Kits Replacement Valves Personnel Costs $/Yr 42,461 42,461 268% labor multiplier $113,977 $113,977 $169,608 $42,402 $/Yr n/a 1,506 1,254 n/a 5,825 60 n/a 1,506 1,254 n/a 5,825 60 $50,014 $68,647 $74,426 $25,538 167% energy multiplier n/a 500 9,100 500 9,100 1,196 24,427 1,196 24,427 1,779 36,349 445 9,087 Subtotal $/Yr 18,245 18,245 98,053 116,686 $145,913 $43,410 RO O&M Cost Energy Cost 83,255 83,255 167% energy multiplier $199,113 $199,113 $296,300 $74,075 Other O&M Cost $/Yr 159,047 159,047 141,510 Annual Sewer Service Charge for Option 4 Brine $- 258,635 1,436,495 4,137,600 7,362,471 3,068 $- 173,822 475,218 1,034,400 3,129,310 5,216 Backwash Water SFPUC Cost OPEX Subtotal GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION CHARGE Total Annual Cost 303,008 500,023 1,208,927 750 303,008 500,024 1,208,928 750 791,522 2,780,467 4,318,041 2,677 810,154 2,780,467 4,336,674 2,689 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $1,724 $/AF (2023 dollars)$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $/yr Unit GW Production Cost $/afy 440 440 953 965 1,344 3,492 1) Production Capacity from (Todd Groundwater, 2018, Appendix B Cost Estimates)with sewer discharge option 3827 4855 3) Backwash tank sized to avoid large flow rate with Fe and Mn backwash water. Assumed that backwash water has sufficient pressure to drain to nearby sewer by gravity. 16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 288     Groundwater Brine Pipeline to RWQCP for TDS removal options (3.7 miles) From El Camino Park to Eleanor Park:1.7 miles 9000 ft From Eleanor Pardee Park to RWQCP:10600 ft 17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 289     Palo Alto DPR Palo Alto DPR Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $105,257,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge (GPC) O&M Cost $ per Year $0 $ per Year $9,305,267 Energy Cost $ per Yr Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $16,972,804 $ per AF Capital Cost Unit Cost $ per AF O&M Unit Cost 1,970 Energy Unit Cost 3,594 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date ENR Index (NW County RWSP, June 2018)12,015 June 2018 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments Note that the primary source document for this supply option (W&C, 2019) wasCapital Cost - Reduced Project Yield Original Project Yield Revised Project Yield Land Acquisition 4.73 MGD $16,834,448 $79,600,000 --(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 $91,512,299 Capital cost escalated to 2023 and yield decreased. Original Land Acquisition 50,000 sq ft $500 $25,000,000 --(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 Revised Land Acquisition Subtractions $11,463,000 Treatment Facilities RO Concentrate treatment removed per direction of City, assuming RO ConcentrateRemoval of RO Concentrate Treatment Costs (W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 1341.18 MGD $1,510,000 $1,784,971 ($2,301,223) Construction Cost Markup Conveyance 0.870 multiplier (W&C, 2019) multiplier used to remove (W&C, 2019) -based cost Original HDPE Pipeline: 12 inch 5,000 lf $254 $1,270,000 ($1,637,312) Original pipeline costs from (W&C, 2019) removed in order to use updated pipeline (W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 1341,400 Original HDPE Pipeline: 30 inch 2,600 lf $1,201,200 ($1,548,613) multiplier (W&C, 2019) multiplier used to remove (W&C, 2019)-based cost Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Other n/a Additions Treatment Facilities Cost scaling factor applied to water stabilization and secondary UV. Vendor quotes Cost Scaling Factor 2.0 -- Assuming 30% flow through calcite contactor, based on recent similar projectWater Stabilization (Calcite Contactor)1.26 MGD $920,000 --$2,327,513 (Carollo, 2023a) 4.22 MGD $844,988 Construction Cost Markup Conveyance 1.448 multiplier $4,595,185 Pipeline: 12 inch 5,000 lf $740.00 --$3,700,000 (W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 Pipeline: 20 inch Pipeline: 24 inch 1,400 $1,010.00 $1,414,000 Pipeline: 30 inch Construction Cost Markup Storage 2,600 lf $2,756,000 multiplier n/a Pump Stations n/a Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $79,600,000 $91,512,299 $11,463,000 $102,975,299 ($12,826,870) $26,565,644 $116,714,073 $116,720,000 Land Acquisition Original Total Subtractions Additions $25,000,000 $104,600,000 -- Calculated Total -- 18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 290     Palo Alto DPR O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments O&M Cost - Reduced Project Yield Original Project Yield 4.73 MGD $1,694,019 $8,010,000 --(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 135 Revised Project Yield $9,208,713 O&M cost escalated to 2023 and yield decreased due to decreased RWQCP flows Subtractions Treatment RO Concentrate treatment removed per direction of City, assuming RO ConcentrateRemoval of RO Concentrate Treatment Costs 1.18 MGD $226,000 ($267,155)($344,422)(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 135 Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other Original Energy Costs Additions 718,547 KWh/yr $0.15 ($107,782)City Staff Treatment of annual CAPEX Calcite Contactor 4%$6,847,119 $273,885 Estimated as 4% of annual capital cost. Operating costs for calcite contactors include of annual CAPEX Estimated as 4% of annual capital cost. Operating costs for secondary UV include Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other 718,547 KWh/yr is from the Recycled Water Strategic Plan, city staff provided the cost KWhEnergy Costs $0.10718,547 KWh/yr $74,733 Recycled Water Strategic Plan and City Staff O&M Total ($/year) O&M Subtotal $8,010,000 $9,208,713 Subtractions -- Additions Calculated Total $9,379,012 19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 291     Regional DPR Regional DPR Cost Estimate Summary Table (Palo Alto) (2)Cost Estimate Summary Table (Valley Water) (1) Cost Units Project Cost Units Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $16,410,000 $Capital Cost $779,008,732 $ Land Acquisition Cost Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost $1,067,494 $ per Year $50,675,636 $ per Year Groundwater Production Charge (GPC)$0 $ per Year O&M Cost $31,340,000 $ per Year O&M Cost (including Cost of Water)$6,049,640 Total Unit Cost $ per Yr Total Annual Cost$270,999 $82,015,636 Total Unit Cost Project Yield AFY Total Annual Cost $7,117,134 $ per AF $3,417 $ per AF 1) This table calculates the estimated unit cost of the Regional DPR Facility with capital and O&M costs paidProject Yield Capital Cost Unit Cost $603 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $3,420 Energy Unit Cost Unit Cost (Including Cost of Water) 2) This table calculates the capital and O&M costs paid by Palo Alto for the pipeline from Cost Escalation Period ENR Index (CoRe Plan, August 2019) Current Cost Basis ENR Date Aug-1912,368 September 2023 20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 292     Regional DPR Yield Calculations Yield Unit Source Notes Yield Available to Palo Alto Flow available to Palo Alto based on 2022 flows to RWQCP; assumes no SSRF and allFlow available for Local Reuse 0.88 mgd mgd (Palo Alto, 2023f) Dewatering flow (W&C, 2019) TM 6.5, Section 8 Total flow available (influent) Treatment Efficiency Production Capacity (effluent) 1.88 84% 1.58 1,769 (B&C, 2021) Appendices, Appendix A-2, Section 2.1 mgd afy Total Regional Facility Yield Regional Facility Yield 24,000 afy (B&C, 2021), Page 1 (Valley Water, 2023d) Selected based on Valley Water's potable reuse goal of producing 24,000 afy by 2040. Energy Assumption Energy Assumption 1.65 GWh/MGD 21 Item #4     Packet Pg. 293     Regional DPR Cost Escalation Method Capital Cost (Valley Water) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments CoRe Plan DPR Options CoRe Plan 1b: San Jose Raw Water 19,800 afy $32,828 $650,000,000 (B&C, 2021), Table 6-13 CoRe Plan 1b: San Jose RWA (High)24,000 Note: Raw Water Augmentation is defined in (B&C, 2021) asCoRe Plan 1c: San Jose Treated Water (B&C, 2021), Table 6-13 CoRe Plan 1d: SJ TWA, new pipeline $25,208 $605,000,000 CoRe Plan DPR Average $26,005 $622,000,000 $779,008,732 Capital Cost Total (Rounded)--$779,008,732 O&M (Valley Water) Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments CoRe Plan DPR Options 19,800 afy $1,237 $24,500,000 (B&C, 2021), Table 6-13 CoRe Plan 1b: San Jose RWA (average) 24,000 afy $1,004 $24,100,000 (B&C, 2021), Table 6-13 CoRe Plan 1d: San Jose TWA, new pipeline Escalated with ENR Index. No O&M cost provided in (B&C,CoRe Plan DPR Average 24,000 $31,331,228 Estimated Energy Cost 35,352,596 KWh $3,676,886 City Staff O&M Cost Total (Rounded)--$31,340,000 22 Item #4     Packet Pg. 294     Regional DPR Capital Cost (Palo Alto) Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Treatment Facilities Conveyance Length from Regional AWPF to Palo Alto Distribution System if Pipeline Length 2 mi Pipeline (10")10,560 $690 $7,286,400 10" diameter estimated for expected flow and vmax = 5 fps Construction Cost Markup Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Other n/a Calculated Total --$16,403,526 Capital Cost Total (Rounded) O&M Cost (Palo Alto) Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Treatment Facilities n/a Conveyance Pipeline (10")0.5%of annual CAPEX $955,967 $4,780 Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Other n/a Calculated Total --$4,780 23 Item #4     Packet Pg. 295     DPR + SSRF DPR with Small Salt Removal Facility (SSRF) Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Keep or Remove SSRF Phase Remove 1 Costs Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $48,900,000 $< Select Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $ per Year $0 $ per Year $1,897,644 Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $5,605,085 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $5,813 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $3,012 Energy Unit Cost $8,897 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date ENR Index (NW County RWSP, June 2018)12,015 June 2018 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments Option D1 - Project Subtotal $43,006,000 (W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 4.73 MGD $359,530 $1,700,000 --(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 BAC Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection Treatment - Reduced Capacities Ozone Back calculating from RO feed flow of 2.72 mgd. Assuming ~5% = 2.85 * ~95%) 2.85 MGD $463,513 --$1,321,013 (B&V, 2021), Table 5-12 2.85 Cost scaling factor applied to advanced oxidation/disinfection and Cost Scaling Factor -- Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection Assuming 25% of Phase 2 SSRF capacity allocated to Palo Alto0.56 MGD $599,841 --$548,292 Free Chlorine Additional Capital Costs - Reduced Capacities Remaining capital costs from include required infrastructure (size Remaining Raw Capital Costs $17,534,400 -- Remaining Raw Capital Costs Subtractions 0.50 multiplier $11,332,882 Treatment Facilities 4.73 MGD $6,200,000 RO System (W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 Included in SSRF costing below instead RO Concentrate Treatment Conveyance Original HDPE Pipeline: 12 inch 5,000 lf $254 $1,270,000 Original HDPE Pipeline: 20 inch Original HDPE Pipeline: 24 inch Original HDPE Pipeline: 30 inch Storage Original pipeline costs from (W&C, 2019) removed in order(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 1341,400 $533,400 $1,201,200 Pump Stations Additions Treatment Facilities Cost scaling factor applied to water stabilization and secondary Cost Scaling Factor 2.0 -- Water Stabilization (Calcite Contactor)(Carollo, 2023a)Assuming 30% flow through calcite contactor, based on recent0.17 MGD $920,000 $310,500 Addition of Secondary UV Conveyance (Carollo, 2023a)The Spektron 350 is appropriate for flow ranges from 0.4 to 0.7 MGD N/A Pipeline: 12 inch --5,000 lf $740 $3,700,000 Pipeline: 20 inch Palo Alto project bids for Water Main Replacement 29 (June, 2023) and Water Main 1,400 $1,010 $1,414,000 2,600 $2,756,000 Reduced Capacity Multiplier Storage Pump Stations Total Capital Cost Raw Construction Cost Construction Cost Markup SSRF $19,363,566 2.45 multiplier Salt Removal Capital, Phase 1 Capital Cost Total 1.125 MGD $0 (W&C, 2023), pg 4 $1,480,400 $48,900,000 City Staff Estimate -- Land Cost Original Capital Costs 50,000 sqft $500 $25,000,000 --(W&C, 2019), Option D1, pdf pg 134 MGD Project Size (Based on MF/UF Treatment Land scaled to size required for MF/UF component of SSRF 2.72 MGD (B&V, 2021) Table 5-12 Land required (scaled down)36,973 --$7,394,592 Land Cost Total $7,400,000 24 Item #4     Packet Pg. 296     DPR + SSRF O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Option D1 - Original O&M $8,010,000 W&C, 2019, Option D1, pdf pg 134 Adjustments Treatment - Original Project Capacity 4.73 MGD $93,055 $440,000 $620,000 $1,600,000 $2,700,000 $350,000 $150,000 --W&C, 2019, Option D1, pdf pg 134 BAC MF/UF System RO System Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection -- Treatment - Reduced Project Capacity Ozone Back calculating from RO feed flow of 2.72 mgd. Assuming ~5% = 2.85 * ~95%) 2.85 MGD $119,968 --$341,909 BAC 2.85 MGD $169,046 $481,781 Advanced Water Purification System, (B&V, 2021), MF/UF System Based on RO feed flow rate. O&M for SSRF processes has been Process capacity based Phase 2 gross production rate. O&M for RO System 2.32 MGD $736,168 $426,978 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection --Advanced Water Purification System, (B&V, 2021)Assuming 25% of Phase 2 SSRF capacity allocated to Palo Alto Free Chlorine Resized and Escalated O&M Costs Remaining O&M includes energy and consumables, and labor Remaining O&M Costs $1,762,218 -- Remaining O&M Costs Subtractions 0.28 multiplier $488,267 Treatment Facilities RO Concentrate treatment removed per direction of City, RO Concentrate Treatment 4.73 MGD ($280,000)($360,982) Original Energy Costs Conveyance 718,547 KWh/yr $0.15 Input by City Storage Pump Stations Additions Treatment Facilities of annual CAPEX Estimated as 4% of annual capital cost. Operating costs for Calcite Contactor 4%$3,181,015 $127,241 Estimated as 4% of annual capital cost. Operating costs for 4%$3,181,015 $127,241 Energy Costs Total O&M Cost ($/year) O&M Subtotal Subtractions 433,098 KWh/yr City Staff Estimate -- -- -- $2,111,927 Additions Calculated Total $1,942,689 O&M Cost Total ($/year) 25 Item #4     Packet Pg. 297     IPR Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Cost Estimate Summary Table Project Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $188,900,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost $12,769,597 $ per Year Groundwater Production Charge (GPC)$5,671,960 $ per Year Energy Cost $ per Yr Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $25,709,597 $ per AF Capital Cost Unit Cost $2,480 $ per AF $4,992 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date ENR Index (NW County RWSP, June 2018)12,015 June 2018 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Capital Cost Original Capital Cost $70,700,000 $91,147,982 W&C, 2019, Option C1, pdf pg 128 Total capital cost ($92.2M) minus land acquisition ($21.5M), escalated to 2023 Adjustments (Land Acquisition only) Land Acquisition Original Land Acquisition Treatment Facility Land Cost 20,000 sq ft $500 $10,000,000 W&C, 2019, Option C1, pdf pg 128 Cost provided in RWSP as lump sum Peers Land Cost 14,000 Revised Land Acquisition Treatment Facility Land Cost = 1,850 gpm) =1000 gpm) 23,000 sq ft $200 4,600,000 City Staff Estimate $0 There is sufficient land for Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) treatment at this site 0 City Staff Estimate 9,000 Area calculated from Cost in W&C, 2019 Peers Well (Qmax =1700 gpm) Adjustments (Treatment only) Treatment Facilities $2,800,000 Updated land cost based on $200/sft instead of $500/sft. Wellhead Treatment at El Camino Well 1,000 gpm $-$9,297,460 Assumes treatment for Fe, Mn and TDS (Carollo, 2000, Option #4) #4) #4) (Carollo, 2000) and (Todd Groundwater,Wellhead Treatment at Eleanor Pardee Well 9,297,460 11,675,879 (Carollo, 2000) and (Todd Groundwater,0 Wellhead Treatment at Library Park Well Total Adjustment 0 $30,270,798 Subtractions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Original HDPE Pipeline: 8 inch 2,000 lf $200 $400,000 ($515,689) Original HDPE Pipeline: 10 inch lf ($409,973) ($1,637,312) ($7,320,846) ($8,598,923) Original pipeline costs from W&C, 2019 removed in order to use updated pipeline costslf$1,270,000 W&C, 2019 Option C1, pdf pg 128 multiplier Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Other n/a Additions Conveyance (RO waste stream/brine) 25%of Q_well Brine line flowrate El Camino Well gpm requires a 4.5 inch diameter brine line 250 gpm requires a inch diameter brine line; and 8" once combined with brine from El Camino Well and Peers Well 425 gpm 0 gpm Not included in OWP since 3 wells are sufficient to produce expected yield Brine line flowrate Rinconada Park Well 0 gpm Not included in OWP since 3 wells are sufficient to produce expected yield 0 gpm 925 gpm Design velocity 5 ft/sec Brine line from El Camino and Peers Well to junction (6 inch)7,500 lf $560 --$9,455,261 lf $560 lf -- lf Discharge to sewer replaced with dedicated brine line. lf --Discharge to sewer replaced with dedicated brine line. 830 lf Discharge to sewer replaced with dedicated brine line. 100 lf Not included in OWP since 3 wells are sufficient to produce expected yield 100 lf 100 lf 2,000 lf --$1,240,000 Pipeline: 10 inch lf W&C, 2019 Option C1, pdf pg 128Pipeline: 12 inch lf Pipeline: 16 inch Pipeline Construction Cost Markup multiplier Storage Options 4: Backwash water storage for Fe & Mn treatment (3 sites) Backwash volume 5 times Q_well Backwash duration 15 1 Backwash volume El Camino Well @ 1000 gpm Backwash volume Eleanor Pardee Well @ 1000 gpm Backwash volume Peers Well @ 1700 gpm Backwash volume Hale Well @ 609 gpm Backwash volume Rinconada Well @ 609 gpm Backwash volume Library Well @ 609 gpm Connection to sewer EC/EP/P well Pump Stations (Option 4 only) 0.08 $1.00 n/a $168,844 MG 168,844 MG MG Not included in OWP since 3 wells are sufficient to produce expected yield MG MG inches feet $117,065 ######################################## gpm on average Brine PS at El Camino Well @ 250 gpm @ 250 gpm @ 425 gpm 2 hp 20 feet TDH $40,648 40,648 69,102 188,186 Assumes pressurized flow of brine to RWQCP outfall Assumes pressurized flow of brine to RWQCP outfall 3 hp 1.251 multiplier Other n/a Sewer Connection Charge El Camino Well 1 connection 9,846 9,846 WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION CHARGES UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-5 Sewer Connection Charge Library Park Well Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $70,700,000 $92,200,000 $91,147,982 Land Acquisition $7,400,000 Original Total $98,547,982 Adjustments (treatment)$30,270,798 --($18,482,741) $196,297,634 ##### Additions Calculated Total Capital Cost Total (Rounded) 26 Item #4     Packet Pg. 298     IPR O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments O&M Cost Original Annual O&M $14,820,000 W&C, 2019, Option C1, pdf pg 129 Groundwater Production Charges (RWSP)5,900 afy $1,960 ($11,564,000) Original Annual O&M without GW Prodcution Charge $4,197,706 Per discussions with VW, it is reasonable to assume that there may be some losses associated with recharge water, Groundwater Product Charge Recharge Loss Assumption 10% Pumping charge should only be applied to GW pumping amount (3,000 afy), not recharge amount (5,900 afy)Groundwater Production Charges (Adjusted)3,290 afy $1,724 Subtractions Treatment Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage Other Original Energy Cost 342,958 KWh/yr $0.15 $51,444 $66,322 Additions Treatment (Fe/Mn and Ammonia) Wellhead Treatment: El Camino Well 1,000 gpm $46,947 46,947 Included in Carollo 2000, but not in Todd Not included in OWP since 3 wells are sufficient to produce expected yield 0 0 84 $2,069 $/AF $173,822 84 afy 143 1,000 1,000 1,700 afy gpm RO Treatment: Pardee Park Well RO Treatment: Peers Park Well Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other Energy Cost for Groundwater pumping El Camino Well 204 ft 1,000 gpm $50,019 Todd Groundwater, Table 4-2 1,000 $68,654 1,700 $354,304 Scaled Peers Well production to not exceed 5900 afy = 3700 gpm) - (3,700) $138,705 Sewer Service Charge for 3 wells Brine Sewer Service Charge for 3 wells Backwash Sewer Capacity Charge O&M Total ($/year) 64,984,401 ft^3 9.08 $/hcf 5,900,584 COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2 1,229,447 COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-3 Original Total $14,820,000 $9,869,666 ($66,322) 3,133,156 Subtractions -- Additions Calculated Total $12,936,500 Total O&M Cost ($/year, Rounded) 27 Item #4     Packet Pg. 299     NPR Non Potable Reuse (NPR) Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $148,510,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $9,660,789 $ per Year $0 $ per Year $909,679 Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $10,570,467 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $827 Energy Unit Cost $75 $9,610 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date ENR Index (NW County RWSP, June 2018)12,015 June 2018 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments Capital Cost Original Capital Cost Subtractions Treatment Facilities n/a $63,000,000 $81,220,974 W&C, 2019, Option A2, pdf pg 116 Conveyance Original HDPE Pipeline: 8 inch 50,383 lf $200 $10,076,600 ($12,990,972) Original HDPE Pipeline: 10 inch Original pipeline costs from W&C, 2019 removed in W&C, 2019, Option A2, pdf pg 116 $2,376,410 ($3,063,720) W&C, 2019, multiplier used to remove W&C, 2019,-Construction Cost Markup $11,809,206 ($15,224,686)0.870 multiplier Storage n/a Pump Stations n/a Additions Treatment Facilities SSRF Phase 1 costs removed as MV agreed to paySmall Salt Removal Capital, Phase 1 $0 W&C, 2023, pg 4 $1,480,400 Conveyance Pipeline: 8 inch 50,383 lf $620 $31,237,460 lf lf W&C, 2019, Option A2, pdf pg 116lf $6,830,400 Construction Cost Markup multiplier Storage n/a Pump Stations Energy Cost Total Capital Cost Original Total $63,000,000 $81,220,974 ($35,788,044) $103,069,305 $148,502,234 $148,510,000 Subtractions -- Calculated Total 28 Item #4     Packet Pg. 300     NPR O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments O&M Cost Original Annual O&M $520,000 $670,395 W&C, 2019, Option A2, pdf pg 117 Subtractions Treatment n/a Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other Original Energy Cost 794,111 KWh/yr $0.15 ($119,117)Input by City Additions Treatment n/a Conveyance Pipelines n/a Pump Station(s) n/a Storage n/a Other SSRF O&M 1,100 afy MGD Calculated average O&M cost per mgd from enhanced $640,000 per MGD KWh/yr $358,400 W&C, 2023, Section 4.2 Energy Cost O&M Total ($/year) Original Total 794,111 $0.10 $520,000 $670,395 ($119,117) $440,992 $992,271 $1,000,000 Subtractions -- Additions Calculated Total 29 Item #4     Packet Pg. 301     Desalination Desalination Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $251,832,599 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $ per Year $0 $ per Year $9,827,073 Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $30,324,272 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $4,289 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $2,193 Energy Unit Cost $6,768 Cost Escalation Period ENR Date Feb-15ENR Index (BAWSCA Long Term Regional Water Strateg 11,178 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments Capital Cost Escalation BAWSCA 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - Low BAWSCA 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - High BAWSCA 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - Average 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - Escalated Adjustment for Change in Size 5 mgd Open Bay Intake 15 MGD $20,600,000 $309,000,000 Cost estimate from BAWSCA study includes intake, CDM Smith, 2015, Table B-10 $464,921,721 15 mgd facility escalated to 2023 cost 5 MGD $30,994,781 No loss of economies of scale See Additional Calculations for scaling factor to Cost Scaling Factor (15 -> 5 mgd) BAWSCA 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - Average Land Acquisition $251,832,599 Capital Cost including loss of economies of scale CDM Smith, 2015, Section B.3 1 acre/mgd of treated water capacityLand Acquisition 5 ac sq ft217,800 $200 Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $251,832,599 $43,560,000Land Acquisition Calculated Total Capital Cost Total (Rounded) 30 Item #4     Packet Pg. 302     Desalination O&M Cost Project Quantity 73% 5 Unit Unit Cost $16,382,072 $437,000 Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Adjustments O&M Cost $12,012,073 See Reference CalculationsO&M Total calculation Subtractions of annual CAPEX Estimated from Table A9-B of the _Volume_II_Phase_II_A_AttachmentsEnergy Cost ($2,185,000)City Staff Estimate Additions Estimated energy required from Valley Water Energy Cost KWh/AF2750.00 $0.104006 $1,281,486 $12,012,073 ($2,185,000) $1,281,486 $11,108,559 $11,110,000 Original Total Subtractions Additions -- Calculated Total Total O&M Cost ($/year, Rounded) Reference Calculations for Estimating Capital and O&M Costs Assumptions 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - Low Source $309,000,000 CDM Smith, 2015, Table B-10Capital Cost Interest Rate in 2015 $16,800,741 CDM Smith, 2015, Table B-10 Total Annual Cost O&M % of Annual CAPEX Assumptions 15 mgd Open Bay Intake - High Capital Cost $362,000,000 CDM Smith, 2015, Table B-10 Interest Rate in 2015 $19,682,422 Total Annual Cost O&M % of Annual CAPEX 31 Item #4     Packet Pg. 303     Multi Source Storage Multi Source Storage Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $22,630,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $1,472,114 $ per Year $0 $60,000 $0 $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $1,532,114 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $38,125 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $1,554 Energy Unit Cost $39,679 Bottom Up Calculation Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Estimate Source Notes Treatment Facilities Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expressway 0.068 MGD $4.50 $307,506 Using PHD/ADD peaking factor of 6.0 Conveyance 4-Inch Diameter Pipeline Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expressway 3,000 LF $520 $1,560,000 Storage Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expressway 12,000 gallons $14 $170,000 Pump Stations Supply PS Construction Cost (from Stormwater/Dewatering Site to Park) Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expres 1 hp $10,000 $10,000 Hoover Park, Oregon Expwy Dewaterin Irrigation PS Construction Costs (from below-ground storage to feed irrigation system) Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expres 3 hp $10,000 $30,000 Hoover Park, Oregon Expwy Dewaterin Other Report to be prepared by City, estimates per CityTitle 22 Report 5 EA $20,000 $100,000 Land Acquisition Cost Assumption Cost Peers Park, Dewatering Oregon Expressway $2,097,506 Ramos Park, RW Connection Total Raw Construction Cost (2023 $) $2,452,809 Hoover Park, Oregon Expwy Dewatering 2.25 Capital Cost Total (Rounded)$22,630,000 32 Item #4     Packet Pg. 304     Multi Source Storage O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Estimate $6,448 Source Notes Treatment $2,478,210 Annualized Capital Cost for Treatment only 4% Conveyance Pipelines Capital Cost for Pipelines only $18,145,095 0.5%$5,287 Pump Station(s) Capital Cost for PS only $382,713 $614 Storage Capital Cost for Storage only $1,395,777 1.0%$1,120 Land n/a Other O&M Staff (inspections per site)96 hrs/yr per site Labor Cost (salary + benefits)$80 $38,538 O&M Total Calculated O&M Total Total O&M Cost ($/year, Rounded) $52,008 $60,000 33 Item #4     Packet Pg. 305     Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $4,080,000 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $265,410 $ per Year $0 $240,000 $0 $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $505,410 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $8,847 $ per AF O&M Unit Cost $8,000 Energy Unit Cost $16,847 Cost Escalation Period ENR 11,155 1.14 Date Jul-16One Water LA 2040 Plan (Final, April 2018) Jul-05 15,490 September 2023 Cost Escalation Method Capital Costs Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Notes Cost Estimating Basis One Water LA : Green Streets Option 1 length Adjustments 1,690 miles 11,900 Carollo, 2018a, Volume 5. TM5.2 - Appendix Normal Year hydrology $M $875 $1,379 C, Concept Option #1 Average of high and low cost estimates $/AF $M/mile $7,500 Palo Alto Project Sizing Estimated by approximating the miles of high and medium priority streets projects inGreen Street length Palo Alto, 2019a, Figure 4.15miles Note that infiltration may not necessarily lead to increased groundwater availability, so30afy Capital Cost $/mile $816,000 $4,080,000 Subtractions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Storage Pump Stations Other Additions Conveyance Storage Pump Stations Other Total Capital Cost Capital Cost Land Acquisition Subtractions Additions $4,080,000 n/a (green streets are assumed to be constructed in public Right of Way) $4,080,000 $0-- $0 Calculated Total $4,080,000 $4,080,000-- 34 Item #4     Packet Pg. 306     Green Infrastructure O&M Cost Project Quantity Unit Unit Cost Original Cost Current Cost Source Cost Estimating Basis Carollo, 2018a, Volume 5, TM5.2 - Appendix #1One Water LA : Green Streets Option 1 O&M $/year $50,970,535 $80,337,970 One Water LA : Green Streets Option 1 length Adjustments 1,690 miles $/mile per year Palo Alto Project Sizing Palo Alto, 2019a, Figure 4.1 Estimated by approximating the miles of high and medium priority streets projects inGreen Street length 5 miles O&M Cost $/mile $47,500 $237,500 Subtractions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Storage Pump Stations Other Additions Treatment Facilities Conveyance Storage Pump Stations Other O&M Total ($/year) O&M Cost $237,500 Subtractions -- $0 Calculated Total $237,500 $240,000-- 35 Item #4     Packet Pg. 307     Graywater Graywater Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $ per Year $0 $46,650 $0 $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $46,650 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $0 $ per AF $0 O&M Unit Cost $8,215 Energy Unit Cost $8,215 Programmatic Cost Estimate Project Costs Project Yield and Cost Year Project Assumptions Units Cost Source Notes General Assumptions Staff Time Single Family Facilities City Facilities Single Family + City Facilities0.25 FTE Assuming 0.25 FTE per City input Staffing Cost - Salary and Benefits Annual Staffing Cost Calculations $167,000 $/FTE $41,750 CY Count Yield Install Cost Yield Install Cost Total Yield Total Cost 2024 1 0.44 $1,718 0.10 $10,000 0.54 $53,468 1) Single Family Facilities 2025 2 0.88 $1,718 0.20 $10,000 1.08 $53,468 22 years Based on savings in 2045 18,869 (Palo Alto, 2021, Table 11)Single family account projections in 2045 2027 4 1.76 $1,718 0.41 $10,000 2.17 $53,468 Graywater Adoption Rate Annual Single Family Facilities Cost for Single Family Install 1% 9 $200 rate device/yr $/system 2028 5 2.20 $1,718 0.51 $10,000 2.71 $53,468 Palo Alto's portion of the graywater rebate program. Persons/Household 2.62 PPH US Census Bureau 2031 8 3.52 $1,718 0.72 $0 4.24 $43,468 SFPUC manual assumes 15 gpd per person ofGPD per person of graywater SFPUC, 2018, pdf pg. 1915gpd 2032 9 3.96 $1,718 0.72 $0 4.68 $43,468 10 Total Water Captured per Year (SF 0.44 AFY 2034 11 4.84 $1,718 0.72 $0 5.56 $43,468 0.44 Savings in 2045 111.3 2) City Facilities 2038 15 6.60 $1,718 0.72 $0 7.32 $43,468 Saving Assumptions 7 years Assuming one city facility installed per year Graywater/City facility 79 gpd 2041 18 7.92 $1,718 0.72 $0 8.64 $43,468 Annual City Facilities 1.00 Cost for City Site Install $10,000 $/system Total Water Captured per Year (City 0.72 AFY 2044 21 9.24 $1,718 $1,718 $37,800 0.72 $0 9.96 10.40 124.9 $43,468 0.10 Savings in 2045 Total (through 2045)111.3 $70,000 $1,026,300 Total Costs Total Annual Program Costs Lifetime Costs $46,650 $1,026,300 $8,215Unit Cost ($/AF) 36 Item #4     Packet Pg. 308     Rain Barrels Rain Barrels Cost Estimate Summary Table Cost Units Total Capital Cost Capital Cost $0 $ Land Acquisition Cost Amortized Capital and Land Cost Total O&M Cost Groundwater Production Charge O&M Cost $ per Year $0 $43,251 $0 $ per Year Energy Cost Total Unit Cost Total Annual Cost $43,251 $ per Yr Capital Cost Unit Cost $0 $ per AF $0 O&M Unit Cost $58,321 Energy Unit Cost $58,321 Programmatic Cost Estimate Project Costs Project Yield and Cost Project General Assumptions Staff Time Staffing Cost - Salary and Benefits Calculations Assumptions Units Cost Source Notes Rain Barrel Yield (AFY) 0.1 0.1 0.2 CY Count Cost ($/yr) $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 0.25 $167,000 FTE $/FTE Assuming 0.25 FTE per City input 2024 1 Project Yield 2027 4 0.3 $43,251 Available NOAA data for Palo Alto storm events was NOAA Climate Data Online Palo AltoAdjusted average annual rainfall 4.9 inches 2028 5 0.3 $43,251 Rain Collected 100 gal/in-rainfall 2029 6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 16.3 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $43,251 $951,521 Gal/Rain Barrel 490 0.00150 20 gal/yr AF/Barrel years $ 7 8 9 Cost to City/Barrel $35 Palo Alto Rain Barrel Rebate Program Palo Alto's portion of rain barrel rebate 10 Single Family Accts (2040) Total Adoption Rate 2040 Total Barrels 2023 - 2040 Additional Barrels per Year Annual savings rate Savings in 2045 18,869 accts Single family account projections in 2045 943.5 device 0.1 AFY Total Savings 16.3 AF Total Costs Annual Staffing Cost $41,750 Annual Rain Barrels Rebate Costs Annual Program Costs Lifetime Costs (through year 2045) Unit Cost ($/AF) 43 barrels per year at 35 per rain barrel $43,251 $952,000 $58,350 Total (through 2045) 37 Item #4     Packet Pg. 309     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX D SUPPLY PORTFOLIO TOOL CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX D Item #4     Packet Pg. 310     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX D EVALUATION TOOL DOCUMENTATION 1.1 Introduction The Palo Alto One Water Evaluation Tool (Tool) was created to compare up to eight portfolios composed 1.1.1 Organization This Tool is organized in a series of worksheets or tabs. The user can begin with the Readme tab for 1. User Inputs, 2. Option Yield and Cost Comparison, 3. Conservation Program Comparison, 4. Portfolio Selection, 5. Portfolio Cost, and 6. Criteria Analysis. The model tabs include the calculations used to generate the results and graphics in Supply Model, Cost Model, and Criteria Model. 1.2 Readme The Readme tab includes a short summary of the purpose and how to use the Tool and includes a short Table 1 Legend for Cell Types Cell Type ￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Users can input values to develop scenarios and portfolios. Used for namingUser Input Values from outside data sources. If any values are changed, provideOutside Source Drop Down Selection Calculated Value User inputs with drop-down menus to select an option based on the Lists tab. NO ACTION: values based on formulas. CITY OF PALO ALTO D-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 311     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 1 Readme Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 312     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 2 User Inputs Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 313     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.3 User Inputs The User Inputs tab is the starting point for the Tool. The tab includes a Scenario Selection table with Option Yield Assumptions, Demand Scenarios, Unit Cost, Capital Cost, and Evaluation Criteria. More 1.3.1 Scenario Selection The Scenario Selection table has five drop-down menus that allow the user to develop a scenario. Results Note that the Tool distinguishes between the demand year and the cost year. This table includes the following selections: Demand Year Projection: This drop-down menu allows the user to select the demand year used Cost Year Projection: This drop-down menu allows the user to select the cost year used in the Demand Scenario: This drop-down menu allows the user to select among three demand Demand Scenarios table. Emergency Shortage Stage: This drop-down menu allows the user to select the maximum Valley Water Transfer: This drop-down menu has two options (Yes, No) to select between the No Valley Water Transfer and the Valley Water Transfer options under Option Yield in the Option Yield Assumptions table.  1.3.2 Option Yield Assumptions The Option Yield Assumptions table is used to set the yield, timeline, and dry year assumptions for RWS Option Names: The user creates names for each option. This table controls the option names in Option Yield: The user can input the yields for the No Valley Water Transfer and Valley Water scenarios. RWS Supply is not included here as these are calculated values. The user can input the start year for each option. Note: this changes the Option . Dry Year Reductions: The user also selects the dry year reduction for each option. The dry year CITY OF PALO ALTO D-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 314     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.3.3 Demand Scenarios The Demand Scenarios table includes the demand scenarios (Low, Medium, High) for the portfolio supply 1.3.4 Unit Cost and Capital Cost The Unit Cost ($/AF) and Capital Cost ($M) tables include the cost information by option used in the 1.3.5 Evaluation Criteria The Evaluation Criteria table includes the raw option scores and a drop-down menu of the criteria Reliance on Tuolumne, Unit Cost, and Reliability, are calculated separately in the Criteria Model tab. The table includes a check of the Total 1.4 Options The Option Yield and Cost Comparison tab provides graphical summaries for the information provided User Inputs tab. This tab includes the Option Timeline and Yield Comparison which compares the Yield Comparison as this supply is calculated separately for each Unit Cost and Capital Cost are also included. A screenshot of the Projects tab with 1.5 Conservation Program Comparison The Conservation Program Comparison tab is used to evaluate changes to the conservation programs Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Enhanced Conservation Phase 2. The User is able to name up Conservation Program Savings Summary showing the AF savings in 2045 for each Conservation Program Annual Savings Summary showing the annual Note that the changes to conservation program assumptions in this tab do not change the supply or cost Option Yield and Unit Cost assumptions in the User Inputs tab. The CITY OF PALO ALTO D-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 315     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 3 Projects Tab with Options Yield and Cost Comparisons CITY OF PALO ALTO D-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 316     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 4 Conservation Program Comparison Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 317     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.6 Portfolio Selection The Portfolio Selection tab is used to dynamically develop up to eight portfolios composed of up to 12 Portfolio Names and uses the The Portfolio Selection tab includes two graphics used to evaluate the performance of each portfolio Normal Year Portfolio shows the normal year assumptions for each of the Dry Year Portfolio shows the dry year assumption for each of the portfolios. Both Demand Year Projection selected from the drop-down menu in the User Inputs Unplanned Shortage is shown if the dry year supply yield for a portfolio is unable to meet Shortage Stage selected from the drop-down menus in the User Inputs 1.7 Portfolio Costs The Portfolio Costs tab provides graphical summaries of the cost information for the portfolios selected Portfolio Selection tab. This tab includes the Weighted Unit Cost by Portfolio, which summarizes the Total Capital Cost by option for each portfolio. The cost results for both of these graphics are based 1.8 Criteria Analysis The Criteria Analysis tab allows the user to compare the results of the criteria analysis. Note that these User Inputs tab. The Weighted Criteria Ranking by Option table compares results by option using the scoring and weights from the User Inputs table. The Weighted Criteria Ranking by Portfolio table compares results by portfolio based on the CITY OF PALO ALTO D-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 318     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 5 Portfolio Selection Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 319     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 6 Portfolio Cost Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 320     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 7 Criteria Analysis Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 321     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.9 Model Tabs There are three analysis tabs. The Supply Model tab includes the calculations used for the normal year Cost Model tab calculates the projected Unit Cost, Capital Cost, Total Annual 1.9.1 Supply Model This model calculates the normal and dry year yields for each portfolio. This tab includes the Normal Year 1.9.1.1 Normal Year Supply Analysis The normal year supplies for each portfolio are calculated based on the selected Demand Scenario, Valley , and Option Yield from User Inputs tab. A linear interpolation formula is used to generate annual water demands in each forecast year. Each portfolio includes the individual options selected from the Portfolio Selection tab. The demand for RWS Supply is calculated as the difference between the total demand for the selected scenario and the total yield for the selected supplies in the portfolio. 1.9.1.2 Dry Year Supply Analysis The dry year supplies for each portfolio are calculated based on the selected Demand Scenario, Valley , Yield, and Dry Year Reduction from User Inputs tab. Each portfolio includes the individual options selected from the Portfolio Selection tab. All options include the Dry Year Reduction. The available supply from RWS Supply is calculated as the Normal Year Supply for that year multiplied by the . Supply shortages are mitigated based on the Emergency Shortage Stage selected in the User Inputs tab. 1.9.1.3 Enhanced Conservation Analysis The graphical outputs from the Conservation Program Comparison tab are also calculated in the Supply Model tab. These include the annual savings and program savings summary for the Enhanced User Inputs tab. 1.9.2 Cost Model This model calculates the annual unit cost, capital cost, total annual cost, and weighted unit cost for each 1.9.2.1 Unit Cost These tables provide the unit costs for options that have been selected as part of each portfolio based on User Inputs tab. The unit cost for each option in the selected Cost Year Projection is Option Yield and Cost Comparison tab. CITY OF PALO ALTO D-12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 322     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 8 Supply and Demand Model Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 323     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 9 Cost Model Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 324     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.9.2.2 Capital Cost These tables provide the capital costs for options that have been selected as part of each portfolio based User Inputs tab. 1.9.2.3 Total Annual Cost The total annual cost is calculated by multiplying the normal year yield for each option in the portfolio by 1.9.2.4 Weighted Unit Cost The weighted unit cost is calculated by dividing the total annual cost for each option in the portfolio by Portfolio Cost tab. 1.9.3 Criteria Model This tab calculates the criteria scoring for each option and portfolio. This includes separate steps for 1.9.3.1 Option Scores The Option Scores include raw and weighted scores. The weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the User Inputs tab. Scores include a combination of inputs Wise Use of Water, Ecological Benefit, Implementation Timeline, Operational Complexity, and Public Acceptance are inputs from in the User Inputs tab. The following scores are Demand Year Projection and Cost Year Projection: Reliance on Tuolumne is scored based on the ability of the supply to reduce Palo Alto's reliance Unit Cost is scored based on the unit cost for each option. The criterion is scored on a linear scale Reliability is scored based on the ability to mitigate an RWS Supply shortage. The criterion is CITY OF PALO ALTO D-15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 325     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 10 Criteria Model Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 326     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.9.3.2 Portfolio Scores The Portfolio Scores include raw and weighted scores. The raw scores are calculated using the weighted Demand Year Projection in the User Inputs tab. The weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the raw User Inputs tab. Scores include a combination of inputs and Wise Use of Water, Ecological Benefit, Implementation Timeline, Operational Complexity, Public Acceptance are from in the User Inputs tab. The following scores are calculated based on the Demand Year Projection and Cost Year Projection: Reliance on Tuolumne is scored based on the ability of the portfolio to reduce the reliance on . Unit Cost is scored based on portfolio unit cost from highest to lowest. The criterion is scored on Reliability is scored based on the dry year RWS Supply shortage in each portfolio. The criterion is 1.9.4 Lists Tab The Lists tab includes drop down menus and other lists used in the model. A screenshot of the List tab is CITY OF PALO ALTO D-17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 327     APPENDIX D OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Figure 11 Lists Tab CITY OF PALO ALTO D-18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 328     Item #4     Packet Pg. 329     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX E SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX E Item #4     Packet Pg. 330     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX E SENSITIVITY AND SCENARIO ANALYSIS Chapter 5, section 5.6 examines how the OWP findings change when the evaluation criteria are weighted 1.1 Raw Scores and Weighted Scores The raw and weighted criteria scores by portfolio are based on the medium demand scenario, and a RWS Table 1 Raw Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Initial Weighting Portfolio A. Baseline 2.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 1.0 25.7 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 331     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Table 2 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Initial Weighting Portfolio Weighting 10% 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.26 10% 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 10% 0.10 0.14 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.20 5%5%5%20% 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.59 0.70 0.26 0.81 35% 100% A. Baseline 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 2.5 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 332     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.2 Unit Cost Weighting This sensitivity analysis adjusts the Unit Cost criterion weighting from 20%, to 5% in the lower weighting 50% in the higher weighting scenario. Table 3 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Lower Unit Cost Weighting Portfolio Weighting 12% 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.37 0.32 0.31 12% 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 12% 0.12 0.17 0.34 0.25 0.35 0.36 0.24 6%6%6%5%42% 100% A. Baseline 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.42 2.1 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 4 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Higher Unit Cost Weighting Portfolio Weighting 6%6%6%3%3%3%50% 2.37 2.50 0.50 1.47 1.75 0.66 2.03 22% 100% A. Baseline 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 3.4 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 333     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.3 Reliability Weighting This sensitivity analysis adjusts the Reliability criterion weighting from 35%, to 20% in the lower weighting 50% in the higher weighting scenario. Table 5 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Lower Reliability Weighting Portfolio Weighting 12% 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.38 0.34 0.25 12% 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.25 12% 0.12 0.18 0.35 0.26 0.36 0.38 0.12 6%6%6%25% 1.16 1.23 0.25 0.72 0.86 0.33 1.16 20% 100% A. Baseline 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.20 2.9 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 6 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Higher Reliability Weighting Portfolio Weighting 8%8%8%4%4%4%15% 0.73 0.77 0.15 0.45 0.54 0.20 0.62 50% 100% A. Baseline 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.50 2.2 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 334     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.4 Environmental Benefits Weighting This analysis adjusts the Environmental Benefits criterion weighting from a total of 30%, to 15% in the 45% in the higher weighting scenario. Table 7 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Lower Environmental Benefits Weighting Portfolio Weighting 5%5%5%6%6%6%24% 1.15 1.21 0.24 0.71 0.85 0.32 0.99 43% 100% A. Baseline 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.43 2.7 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 8 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Higher Environmental Benefits Weighting Portfolio Weighting 15% 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.46 0.41 0.39 15% 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.36 0.33 0.33 0.33 15% 0.15 0.21 0.43 0.32 0.44 0.46 0.30 4%4%4%16% 0.74 0.79 0.16 0.46 0.55 0.21 0.64 28% 100% A. Baseline 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.28 2.4 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 335     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.5 Ease of Implementation Weighting This analysis adjusts the Ease of Implementation criterion weighting from a total of 15%, to 0% in the Table 9 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Lower Ease of Implementation Weighting Portfolio Weighting 12% 0.24 0.27 0.32 0.27 0.36 0.32 0.31 12% 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 12% 0.12 0.17 0.34 0.25 0.35 0.36 0.23 0%0%0%24% 1.11 1.18 0.24 0.69 0.82 0.31 0.96 41% 100% A. Baseline 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 2.1 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 10 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Higher Ease of Implementation Weighting Portfolio Weighting 8%8%8%10% 0.50 0.47 0.33 0.44 0.32 0.35 0.42 10% 0.50 0.48 0.34 0.45 0.33 0.36 0.48 10% 0.50 0.48 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.40 0.44 16% 0.78 0.82 0.16 0.48 0.58 0.22 0.67 29% 100% A. Baseline 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.29 3.0 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 336     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.6 Demand Scenarios This sensitivity analysis adjusts Palo Alto’s demands from the low demand to high demand scenarios. Table 11 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Lower Demand Scenario Portfolio A. Baseline 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.35 2.5 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 12 Weighted Criteria Scores by Portfolio with Higher Demand Scenario Portfolio A. Baseline 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.35 2.5 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 337     APPENDIX E OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO 1.7 RWS Supply Reliability Scenarios This sensitivity analysis adjusts Palo Alto’s required cutback from the RWS Supply and Palo Alto’s Table 13 RWS Reliability (30% RWS Supply Cutback/Shortage Stage II) Portfolio A. Baseline 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.35 2.5 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 Table 14 RWS Reliability (50% RWS Supply Cutback/Shortage Stage III) Portfolio A. Baseline 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.35 2.5 B. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO E-8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 338     Item #4     Packet Pg. 339     OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO APPENDIX F STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS This Appendix include presentations materials from the following stakeholder engagement meetings: ￿Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community Needs and Priorities (9/28/2022) CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX F Item #4     Packet Pg. 340     APPENDIX F OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community Needs and Priorities CITY OF PALO ALTO Item #4     Packet Pg. 341     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 CITY OF PALO ALTO First Community Workshop COMMUNIT Y September 28, 2022 Palo Alto City Hall https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/89411156856 1 // Introductions – Palo Alto Team Utilities Department Staff Karla Dailey Assistant Director Lisa Bilir Senior Resource Planner Linda Grand Sustainability Programs Administrator Rebecca Oliver Associate Resource Planner Public Works Department Staff Karin North Assistant Director Samantha Engelage Pam Boyle Rodriguez Stormwater Compliance Program Manager Elise Sbarbori Environmental Control Program Manager Senior Engineer/ Pretreatment Program Manager 2 2 1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 342     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Introductions – Carollo Team Inge Wiersema Rachel Duncan Jacquelin Mutter Maddi Rasmus Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Advisor Staff Engineer 3 3 // Agenda 1. Welcome & Opening Remarks (10 mins) 2. Project Background (10 mins) 6:00-6:10 pm 3. One Water Plan Overview (5 min) 4. City Water Supplies Overview (10 min) 5. Community Needs & Priorities Discussion (45 min) 6. Meeting Close (15 min) 4 4 2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 343     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // First Community Workshop Housekeeping . In-person Logistics •Sign up to speak/comment during the Community Needs and Priorities discussion Please hold your questions until the dedicated Q&A pauses . Virtual Logistics •Participants are muted by default Enter your question/comment into the chat box, questions will be addressed at the dedicated Q&A pauses During the Community Needs and Priorities discussion, raise your virtual hand to speak (or press *9 on . We want to hear from you! Thank you for contributing your comments and ideas during this listening session. •We will do our best to address all questions possible, keeping time constraints in mind 5 5 // One Water Plan Roadmap in Uncertain Future . The One Water Plan: • Is a Key Action in Sustainability and Climate Action Plan • Is a long-term 20-year (through 2045) Water Supply Plan • Addresses future uncertainty such as SFPUC supply reliability, droughts, • Includes robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement • Is being completed by an outside consultant Carollo Engineers, a National • Builds on existing plans/work . What the One Water Plan does not address: • Current ongoing drought • Short-term emergencies such as earthquakes and wildfires – addressed 6 3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 344     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 Project Background 7 // There are many drivers for the One Water Plan Increased Housing Needs Supply Reliability (multi-year droughts) Recreational Water Needs Limited Funding Regulatory Changes Increased Public Decisions about Joining Instream Flows & Habitat Needs Climate Change 8 8 4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 345     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 Source: WRF #4660 (2017)// What is One Water? 9 9 // The One Water Mindset: Think Differently All Water Has Value Integration Consider the entire water cycle Sustainable water management solutions, Collaboration Breaking down institutional silos, incl. non-water sector partners Inclusion From Elected officials to Community organizations Multi-benefits Broaden project goals like resilience, climate change, and water equity Innovation Embrace new technology and plan for future regulatory conditions 10 10 5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 346     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // One Water Plan Goal and Objective Council adoption of a One Water supply plan that is a 20-year adaptable roadmap for implementationGOAL Address how the City of Palo Alto can mitigate severe multi-year drought, changes in climate, water demand, and regulations through integrated OBJECTIVE 11 11 One Water Plan Overview 12 6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 347     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // One Water involves watershed-based solutions and collaboration to 13 13 // One Water Plan Process Overview 14 14 7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 348     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Roadmap to One Water Plan TODAY Sharing Initial Recommended Supply Strategy Trigger-based Implementation Stra FundingSupply & Conservation PortfoliosWater Supply & Conservation Data Gathering Community Needs Assessment Supply Options Screening Final OWP (~Aug 2023) Evaluation Draft Criteria & Exploring Water Supply and 15 15 Pause for Q&A 16 16 8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 349     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 City’s Water Supplies Overview 17 // Regional Water Supply System from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) 18 18 9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 350     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Palo Alto Distribution System 19 19 // City of Palo Alto Water and Recycled Water Drinking Water Recycled Water . 5 Receiving Stations connected to . Distributes recycled water from the SFPUC Water System (58 MGD)RWQCP to: . 8 emergency wells within the city . City of Mountain View (19 MGD). Palo Alto facilities (including the . 7 reservoirs (13 MG storage) . 6 interties to adjacent water • Mountain View • Stanford • Purissima Hills . Palo Alto uses approximately 0.28 MG = million gallons; MGD = million gallons per day; 20 20 10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 351     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 Pause for Q&A 21 21 Community Needs & Priorities 22 11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 352     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Please share your thoughts! 23 23 // What do you think is the biggest risk to long-term reliable . Climate Change (impact on water supply) . Droughts (temporary water use reductions) . Environmental Regulations . Sea Level Rise (impact on groundwater and water quality) . Increased Demand (resulting from housing requirements) . Impaired Water Quality . Wasteful Water Use . Emergency Disruptions (e.g., earthquakes or wildfires) 24 24 12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 353     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Which of the following best reflect your top 3 water management priorities? (select up to 3) . Water supply reliability . Drinking water quality . Surface water quality/watershed health . Protection of tree canopy health . Affordability . Sustainability 25 25 // Which of the following water supply and conservation . Increased indoor water conservation . Increased outdoor water conservation . Increased use of non-potable recycled water . Purified water for drinking (potable reuse) . Utilization of groundwater . Stormwater capture and use . Desalination (SF Bay or brackish groundwater) 26 26 13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 354     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Should Palo Alto invest in alternative water supplies to increase drought reliability? . Yes . No . SFPUC should invest in alternative water supplies 27 27 // What water use cutback percentage do you think is . 10% . 20% . 30% . 40% . 50% 28 28 14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 355     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // What is your perspective on the water future for Palo Alto? (e.g., drinking water, groundwater, recycled water, stormwater, gray water, water conservation) . Very optimistic . Optimistic . Neutral . Worried . Very Worried 29 29 // Open Discussion: Community Priorities for the One Water . In-person: add your name to the list . Virtual: Send your responses to the Host via chat Indicate whether you would like to go 30 30 15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 356     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // What are the most important outcomes for Palo Alto from this One Water Plan? Increased Green Spaces & Tree canopy Increased Affordability Environmental 1 31 // Roadmap to One Water Plan Sharing Initial Recommended Supply Strategy Trigger-based Implementation Stra FundingSupply & Conservation Water Supply & Data Gathering Community Needs Assessment Supply Screening Final OWP (~Aug 2023) Evaluation Draft Criteria & Exploring Water Supply and 32 32 16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 357     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 Next Steps 33 // We need to hear your voice! Please join us for the next 2 community meetings: . Meeting #1: Community Needs & Priorities . Meeting #2: Draft Criteria & Exploring Water Supply Options (~Nov 2022) . Meeting #3: Sharing the Initial Results (~Feb 2023) . We will share out to our distribution list/email/website/social media the link to the Draft One Water Plan (~June 2023) Subscribe to the One Water email 34 34 17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 358     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Other Upcoming Events .Oct. 1, Rain Barrel Workshop: Learn how rain barrels can improve your property, conserve water, save •10:00 am - 11:30 am at SummerWinds Nursery, 725 San Antonio Rd. Oct. 5, Bay Area SunShares Informational Webinar: Learn about how to receive discounts for rooftop solar •6:30pm - 7:30pm, Zoom webinar Oct. 15, Making Better Choices in Your Home Workshop: Learn about different climate-friendly choices •10:00 am – 1:00 pm, Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Rd. Oct. 18, Landscape Design 101 – How to Get Started: Learn how to create your own low water/low •7:00 pm - 8:30 pm, Zoom Webinar Nov. 1, Lawn Conversion 101: Learn how to create your own low water/low maintenance garden. •7:00 pm - 8:30 pm, Zoom Webinar 35Register and learn more at CityofPaloAlto.org/Workshops 35 Meeting Close 36 18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 359     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 CITY OF PALO ALTO THANK YOU! ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 37 EXTRA GRAPHICS 38 38 19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 360     Stakeholder Engagement #1: Community 09/28/2022 // Meeting #2: What are the categories of supply and conservation options this project will assess… Water Reuse Stormwater Capture & Use Water Supply Option Groundwater Water Conservation Option Water Storage Outdoor Conservation Agency Transfers Indoor Conservation Valley Water Treated Water Other 39 39 20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 361     APPENDIX F OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water Supply and Conservation CITY OF PALO ALTO Item #4     Packet Pg. 362     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 CITY OF PALO ALTO Community Stakeholder EXPLORING WATER December 6, 2022 Mitchell Park Community https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86907772889 1 // Introductions – Palo Alto Team Utilities Department Staff Karla Dailey Assistant Director Lisa Bilir Senior Resource Planner Linda Grand Sustainability Programs Administrator Rebecca Oliver Associate Resource Planner Public Works Department Staff Welcome to City Karin North Assistant Director Samantha Engelage Pam Boyle Rodriguez Stormwater Compliance Program Manager Elise Sbarbori Environmental Control Program Manager Senior Engineer/ Pretreatment Program Manager 2 2 1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 363     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Introductions – Carollo Team Inge Wiersema Rachel Duncan Jacquelin Mutter Maddi Rasmus Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Advisor Staff Engineer 3 3 // Agenda 1. Welcome & Opening Remarks (10 min) 2. One Water Plan Overview (10 min) 5:30 - 5:40 pm 3. Potential Water Supply Options (25 min) 4. Draft Supply Option Screening & Evaluation Criteria (40 min) 6:15 - 6:55 pm 5. Next Steps & Meeting Close (5 min) 6:55 - 7:00 pm 4 4 2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 364     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Housekeeping . This meeting will be recorded and posted on the City website . Please hold your questions until the dedicated Q&A pauses . In-person Logistics •Raise your hand to speak . Virtual Logistics •Participants are muted by default Enter your questions/comments into the chat Indicate whether you would like to go “live” by raising virtual hand or pressing * 9 on your phone . Cell phone or web browser handy for live polls . We want to hear from you! Thank you for contributing your comments and ideas during this listening session. 5 5 One Water Plan Overview 6 3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 365     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // One Water Plan Roadmap in Uncertain Future . The One Water Plan: • Is a Key Action in Sustainability and Climate Action Plan • Is a long-term 20-year (through 2045) Water Supply Plan • Addresses future uncertainty such as SFPUC supply reliability, droughts, • Includes robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement • Is being completed by an outside consultant Carollo Engineers, a National • Builds on existing plans/work . What the One Water Plan does not directly address: • Current ongoing drought • Short-term emergencies such as earthquakes and wildfires – addressed 7 // There are many drivers for the One Water Plan Increased Housing Needs Supply Reliability (multi-year droughts) Recreational Water Needs Limited Funding Regulatory Changes Increased Public Decisions about Joining Instream Flows & Habitat Needs Climate Change 8 8 4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 366     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Roadmap to One Water Plan Sharing Initial Recommended Supply Strategy Trigger-based Implementation Stra FundingSupply & Conservation Water Supply & Data Gathering Community Needs Assessment Supply Options Screening Final OWP (~Aug 2023) Evaluation Exploring Water TODAY 9 9 // As you may recall… In September we asked about community priorities for the One Water Plan Sharing Initial Recommended Supply StrategyResults (~Feb 2023)Trigger-based Implementation Stra FundingSupply & Conservation PortfoliosWater Supply & Data Gathering Community Needs Assessment Supply Screening Final OWP (~Aug 2023) Evaluation Exploring Water 10 10 5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 367     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // What is the 3-Step Water Supply Evaluation Process? Potential Water Supply and Conservation Options Themed Project Portfolios Recommended Implementation Strategy Portfolio Evaluation Criteria Pre- Screening Project Screening Criteria “C”A B C D ~25 options ~15 options 4 portfolios 1 supply portfolio . Supply Availability . Supply Resilience . Community Benefits . Estimated Yield (afy) . Ongoing/Already . Life Cycle Costs ($/acre-ft)Planned . Increases supply reliability. Not feasible at this .Environmental Benefits . Other?. Life Cycle Cost. Moving forward . Ease of Implementation 11 11 // What is the 3-Step Water Supply Evaluation Process? Requesting your Sharing how we are using Potential Water and Conservation Themed Project Portfolios Recommended Implementation Strategy Portfolio Evaluation Criteria Pre- Screening Project Screening Criteria “C”A B C D ~25 options ~15 options 4 portfolios 1 supply portfolio 12 12 6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 368     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Supply and Conservation Option Evaluation Process 13 13 Potential Water Supply & 14 7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 369     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Supply and conservation options categories that this project will assess Groundwater Conservation Water Reuse Other Stormwater Capture & Use Imported Water 15 15 // Supply and conservation options category: Conservation •Planned/ongoing •New conservation actions •Customer side water 16 8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 370     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Planned and ongoing City of Palo Alto water conservation programs . Water Conservation Tools and Resources: • WaterSmart customer web portal • Waterfluence large landscape irrigation budget program • Seasonal landscape workshops . Landscape efficiency rebates in partnership with Valley Water: • Landscape Conversion • Graywater Laundry to Landscape • Irrigation Upgrades • Stormwater Rebates . Advanced metering program . Distribution system water loss reduction Learn more at Cityofpaloalto.org/waystosave 17 17 // Supply and conservation options category: Groundwater •Converting emergency supply wells •City park groundwater 18 18 9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 371     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Supply and conservation options category: Water Reuse •Non-potable reuse •Direct potable reuse Indirect potable reuse •Graywater capture & reuse 19 19 // Supply and conservation options category: Stormwater Capture & Use •Residential or commercial-scale 20 20 10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 372     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Supply and conservation options category: Imported Water •SFPUC supply •Interagency transfer agreement Imported Water 21 21 // Supply and conservation options category: •Atmospheric water generators Temporary dewatering sites Other 22 22 11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 373     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Water supply and conservation options: Feedback & new ideas 23 23 Draft Supply Option Screening & 24 12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 374     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Step 1: Pre-Screening Pre- Screening ~15 options .. OOnnggooini ngg/A/ Al rlreeaaddyy SharingPPl al annnneedd initial.. VNi aobt ifleitaysfirbolme at results .. MMoovvi ni nggf oforrwwaarrdd 25 25 // Initial Pre-screening of Supply and Conservation Options Ongoing or already planned Not feasible at this time Moving 26 26 13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 375     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Initial Pre-screening of Supply and Conservation Options: . Planned/ongoing conservation . Advanced metering program . Distribution system water loss reduction . Non-potable reuseOngoing or . SFPUC imported water supply 27 27 // Initial Pre-screening of Supply and Conservation Options: . Deemed Infeasible in Previous Studies • Temporary dewatering sites • Interagency transfer agreement . Excessive Cost or Complexity • Blackwater capture and reuse • Atmospheric water generatorsNot feasible • Local surface water reservoir • Valley Water treated water (via new pipeline) . Outside of City Control • Indirect potable reuse at Lake Lagunita 28 28 14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 376     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Initial Pre-screening of Supply and Conservation Options: Moving forward . New conservation actions . Converting emergency supply wells . City park groundwater irrigation . Direct potable reuse (via regional facility or City facility) . Indirect potable reuse via groundwater injection . Expanded non-potable reuse Moving . Permanent dewatering (as part of reuse options) .Graywater capture and reuse . Stormwater capture (residential/commercial-scale or GSI) . Multi-source below-ground storage (e.g. stormwater detention) . Desalination . Other ideas from today: _____________________ 29 29 // Initial Pre-Screening Results 30 30 15 Item #4     Packet Pg. 377     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Step 3: Draft Portfolio Evaluation Criteria Sharing how we are using input received at the first meeting… and requesting your input on importance Portfolio Evaluation Criteria ..SSuupppplylyAAvvaailialabbiliiltiyty ..SSuupppplylyRReessiliileiennccee ..CCoommmmuunnitiytyBBeenneefiftists ..EEnnvvi riroonnmmeenntatal lBBeenneefiftists ..LLifiefeCCyyccleleCCoosstt ..EEaasseeooffImImppl el emmeenntatatitoionn 31 31 // Asking for your feedback! Upcoming Mentimeter exercise to rank these criteria Scale these criteria based on relative importance. 32 32 16 Item #4     Packet Pg. 378     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Evaluation Criteria – Supply Availability and Resilience Community Priorities:Evaluation Criteria: Which of the following best reflect your top 3 water management Supply Availability •Normal year reliability Supply Resilience Vulnerability risk score (resilience to • uncertainties) 33 33 // Evaluation Criteria – Community Benefits and Environmental Benefits Community Priorities:Evaluation Criteria: Which of the following best reflect your top 3 water management Community Benefits Water quality Water equity • Environmental Benefits •Tree canopy health •Watershed health 34 34 17 Item #4     Packet Pg. 379     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Evaluation Criteria – Life Cycle Cost Community Priorities:Evaluation Criteria: What do you think are the barriers to the use of Life Cycle Cost $/acre-foot cost of each portfolio • 35 35 // Evaluation Criteria – Ease of Implementation Community Priorities: Evaluation Criteria:What do you think are the Ease of Implementation Implementation timeline Operational complexity Alignment with other efforts Public acceptance • water sources? Regulatory complexity What do you 36 36 18 Item #4     Packet Pg. 380     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Please share your thoughts! 37 37 // Summary of Evaluation Criteria Supply Availability Supply Resilience Life Cycle Cost • Normal year reliability • Vulnerability risk score • $/acre-foot cost of each Community Benefits Environmental Benefits Ease of Implementation • Water quality • Tree canopy health • Implementation timeline • Watershed health • Public acceptance • Regulatory complexity 38 38 19 Item #4     Packet Pg. 381     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Step 2: Draft Screening Criteria and Portfolio Themes Requesting your Themed Project Portfolios Screening A B C D . Estimated Yield (afy) . Life Cycle Costs ($/acre-ft) . Increases supply reliability . Other? 39 39 // Supply and Conservation Options Draft Screening Criteria Draft Screening Criteria Estimated Supply Yield Metric/Unit Potential Range acre-foot per year High: 2,000+ afy Medium: 100-2,000 afy Low: 0-100 afy (afy) Life Cycle Cost dollar per acre-foot $: <$2,000/acre-ft ($/acre-ft)$$: $2,000-$4,000/acre-ft $$$: >$4,000/acre-ft Increases supply reliability in qualitative Yes Other Criteria 40 40 20 Item #4     Packet Pg. 382     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Portfolio Theme Ideas Requesting your input!Required Maximize Maximize Drought Resilience SustainableBaselineMinimize Other Themes Business as usual, only implementing already What mix of What mix ofWhat mix ofWhat mix of further enable the City to best mitigate the impact of planned increase theprojects and lowest combined supply cost?environmentBaseline for droughts? 41 41 Next Steps 42 21 Item #4     Packet Pg. 383     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Thank you for your input today! Sharing Initial Recommended Supply StrategyPlease join us at (~Feb 2023)Trigger-based Implementation Stra FundingSupply & Conservation PortfoliosWater Supply & Data Gathering Community Needs Assessment Supply Screening Final OWP (~Aug 2023) Evaluation Exploring Water 43 43 // We need to hear your voice! Please join us for the next community meeting: . Meeting #1: Community Needs & Priorities . Meeting #2: Exploring Water Supply Options . Meeting #3: Sharing the Initial Results (~Feb 2023) . We will share out to our distribution list/email/website/social media the link to the Draft One Water Plan (~June 2023) Subscribe to the One Water email 44 44 22 Item #4     Packet Pg. 384     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 // Other Upcoming Events . Dec. 16 – 17th, Lawn Busters DIY Workshop: discover the facets of drought-tolerant •12/16 - 6:00pm - 7:00pm, virtual 12/17 - 9:30am-12:30 pm, in-person Register and learn more at ourcityforest.org/diylawnbust 45 45 Meeting Close 46 23 Item #4     Packet Pg. 385     Stakeholder Engagement #2: Exploring Water 12/06/2022 CITY OF PALO ALTO THANK YOU! ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 47 24 Item #4     Packet Pg. 386     APPENDIX F OCTOBER 2024 / FINAL / CAROLLO Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing Initial Analysis Results (6/3/2024) CITY OF PALO ALTO Item #4     Packet Pg. 387     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 One Water Plan: Initial ResultsUtilities Advisory Commission June 3, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 One Water Initial Results Outline 1. Goal, Overview & Approach 5. Next Steps 2 www.cityofpaloalto.org 2 1 Item #4     Packet Pg. 388     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Previous UAC Meetings on One Water Plan • July 7, 2021 – One Water Plan Draft Scope • February 1, 2023 – One Water Plan Update; 3 www.cityofpaloalto.org 3 One Water Plan: Goal Council adoption of a One conservation 4 www.cityofpaloalto.org 4 2 Item #4     Packet Pg. 389     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 One Water Plan: Approach •Key Ac￿on in City’s Sustainability and Climate Ac￿on Plan (SCAP) Long-term 20-year (through 2045) Water Supply Plan Includes robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement ￿ng plans/work One Water Plan does not directly address: •Near-term drought Short-term emergencies such as earthquakes and wildfires – addressed under separate •Building codes 5 www.cityofpaloalto.org 5 Key Uncertainties • Valley Water Transfer • About half of effluent from Regional Water Quality Control Plant • Future Water Supply Availability (varies by water supply project) • Droughts • Cost 6 www.cityofpaloalto.org 6 3 Item #4     Packet Pg. 390     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 One Water Plan: Overview (Summer 2024) (End of 2024) 2 7 www.cityofpaloalto.org 7 Water Supply and Conservation Project .Environmental Implementation . 8 www.cityofpaloalto.org 8 4 Item #4     Packet Pg. 391     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Screening Results: Baseline - SFPUC (Regional Water System; Current Potable Water Supply) Conservation Phase 1 Conservation Phase 2 Groundwater Full Treatment (Iron, Manganese, Total Dissolved Solids) Groundwater Blending Direct Potable Reuse - Palo Alto Facility Direct Potable Reuse - Regional Facility Bay Water Desalination Note: full list of water supply and conservation options attached to this presentation, and schematics 9 www.cityofpaloalto.org 9 Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 & 2 Conservation Phase 1 Conservation Phase 2 Outdoor irrigation assistance for commercial customers High Efficiency Toilet direct install for commercial Non- functional turf ban for commercial customers Turf conversion support for residential customers Front lawn limitation for residential new developments Front lawn limitation for residential properties upon resale Permanent 3-day watering week restriction Low-income residential High Efficiency Toilet direct install 10 www.cityofpaloalto.org 10 5 Item #4     Packet Pg. 392     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Groundwater Options Groundwater with blending plus Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) treatment SFPUC Water Groundwater Blending Only (no treatment) – not carried forward in One Water Plan, need to understand public acceptance 11 www.cityofpaloalto.org 11 Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) DPR Treatment Facility with three possible Or 2) Regional DPR Facility owned by Valley 12 www.cityofpaloalto.org 12 6 Item #4     Packet Pg. 393     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) 13 www.cityofpaloalto.org 13 Baywater Desalination 14 www.cityofpaloalto.org 14 7 Item #4     Packet Pg. 394     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Project Normal Year Yield Comparison (Acre Feet per Year) 15 www.cityofpaloalto.org 15 Project Unit Cost Per Acre Foot Comparison 16 www.cityofpaloalto.org 16 8 Item #4     Packet Pg. 395     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Project Compatibility With Valley Water No Valley Water With Valley Water Baseline - SFPUC (Regional Water System; Current Potable Water Supply)￿￿ Conservation Phase 2 ￿ Groundwater Full Treatment (Fe, Mn, TDS)￿ ￿￿ No ￿ Direct Potable Reuse - Palo Alto Facility No ￿￿ ￿No ￿￿ Note: list of water supply and conservation options attached to this presentation 17 www.cityofpaloalto.org 17 Water Supply andConservationTool & Portfolios 18 9 Item #4     Packet Pg. 396     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Tool for Water Supply Portfolio Analysis Data Inputs User Selections Outputs Water Demand Forecast Future Scenario Assumptions Portfolio Supply Project Yields Project Variables Portfolio Costs Project Cost Estimates Portfolio Development Portfolio Evaluation 19 www.cityofpaloalto.org 19 Water Supply Portfolio Evaluation Criteria & Evaluation Criteria Weight Reliability Reliability 35%Suggested weights fromCost Implementation TimelineEase of Implementation Environmental 20 www.cityofpaloalto.org 20 10 Item #4     Packet Pg. 397     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Initial Water Portfolio Evaluation Results Weighted Criteria Ranking by Portfolio - No Valley Water Transfer - 2045 Evaluation Criteria Note: 1) Each portfolio includes 2) Each portfolio includes SFPUC 21 www.cityofpaloalto.org 21 Initial Water Portfolio Evaluation Results Weighted Criteria Ranking by Portfolio - With Valley Water Transfer - 2045 Evaluation Criteria Note: 1) Each portfolio includes 2) Each portfolio includes 22 www.cityofpaloalto.org 22 11 Item #4     Packet Pg. 398     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Initial Observations • Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 score higher than “do nothing” and do not require large investment to proceed (included in every portfolio other than the • Highest Scoring Portfolios: ￿ DPR - Palo Alto Only No Valley Water Transfer ￿ DPR - Regional Facility with Valley Water Transfer• Both DPR portfolios contingent on Valley Water Effluent Transfer; resolved in nine years • Baywater Desal is highest scoring portfolio not dependent on the Valley Water Effluent Transfer • Other high scoring portfolio is emergency supply well conversion with blending only (no treatment); lower water quality so not included 23 www.cityofpaloalto.org 23 Sensitivity of Initial Results Weighted Criteria Ranking by Portfolio - No Valley Water Transfer - 2045 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation WeightCriteria 20% Ease of Implementation 10%Environmental Note: 1) Each portfolio includes 2) Each portfolio includes SFPUC 24 www.cityofpaloalto.org 24 12 Item #4     Packet Pg. 399     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Sensitivity of Initial Results Weighted Criteria Ranking by Portfolio - With Valley Water Transfer - 2045 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation WeightCriteria 20% Ease of Implementation 10%Environmental Note: 1) Each portfolio includes 2) Each portfolio includes 25 www.cityofpaloalto.org 25 Initial Results Sensitivity to Cost Weighting • Top portfolios unchanged￿ DPR - Palo Alto Only No Valley Water Transfer ￿ DPR - Regional Facility with Valley Water Evaluation Weight Transfer Reliability 20% • Conservation scores higher Cost 35% Ease of Implementation• Only the top scoring portfolio and Conservation score higher than Baseline – SFPUC Environmental • Groundwater blending only (no treatment) is 26 www.cityofpaloalto.org 26 13 Item #4     Packet Pg. 400     Stakeholder Engagement #3: Sharing 06/03/2024 Next Steps UAC Final One Water Plan (Fall 2024) • Recommended supply strategy City Council Final One Water Plan (End of 2024) Future Activities •Funding Strategy Implementation Updating One Water Tool as conditions change 27 www.cityofpaloalto.org 27 14 Item #4     Packet Pg. 401     Item #4     Packet Pg. 402