City Council and Authorities Concurrent
August 16, 2022

cost of the audit if the audit determines that there has been a substantial billing deviation in excess of five (5) percent adverse to the City.

Consultant shall submit to City any and all reports concerning its performance under this Agreement that may be requested by City in writing. Consultant· · agrees to assist City in meeting City's reporting requirements to the State and other agencies with respect to Consultant's Services hereunder.

14. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and attorney's fees in providing a defense to any such claim or other action, and whether sounding in law, contract, tort, or equity, to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or related to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, subconsultants, or agents in the performance, or non-performance, of Services under this Agreement.

15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth in Exhibit C, Consultant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to City, insurance policies as set forth in Exhibit C.

16. WAIVER
Consultant agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Neither City's review; acceptance nor payments for any of the Services required under this Agreement shall be constructed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

17. NOTICES
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: Department of Public Work$
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
and by e-mail at [email protected]
And to Consultant addressed as follows:

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Rev. 09-28-18

WRECO
Attention: Han-Bin Liang
100 Century Center Court, Suite 502
San Jose, CA 95112
and by e-mail at [email protected]
The workday the e-mail was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given.

An e-mail transmitted after 1 :00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following business day. ·

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including but not limited to 'The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("SCCC"). In particular, Consultant's attention is called to the regulations regarding Campaign Contributions (SCCC Chapter 2.130), Lobbying (SCCC Chapter 2.155), Minimum Wage (SCCC Chapter 3.20), Business Tax Certificate (SCCC section 3.40.060), and Food and Beverage Service Worker Retention (SCCC Chapter.9.60), as such Chapters or Sections may be amended from time to time or renumbered. Additionally Consultant has read and agrees to comply with City's Ethical Standards (http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58299).

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Consultant certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no City officer, employee or authorized representative has·any financial interest in the business of Consultant and that no person associated with Consultant has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. Consultant is familiar with the provisions of California Government Code section 87100 and following, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which would violate these code provisions. Consultant will advise City if a conflict arises.

20. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex, color, religion, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, military and veteran status, or ethnic background, in violation of federal, state or local law.

21. NO USE OF CITY NAME OR EMBLEM
Consultant shall not use City's name, insignia, or emblem, or distribute any information related to services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without express written consent of City.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 6 Rev. 09-28-18

22. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or if appropriate, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.

23. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.

24. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment duly authorized and executed by the Parties to this Agreement.

25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 7 Rev. 09-28-18
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized represen_tatives.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
Approved as to Form:
/1/t ,{ s

BRIAN OYLE
City Attorney
DEAN
City Man ger
"CITY"
WRECO
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
a California Corporation
Dated: 'J/tJ/3l
By (Signature): _ ~---= 6"
Name: Han-Bin Liang
Title: President
Principal Place of 100 Century Center Court, Suite 502
Business Address: San Jose, CA 95112
Email Address: hanbin [email protected]
Telephone: (925) 941-0017 x 201
Fax: (925) 941-0018
"CONSUL TANT"
Design Professional Agreement with WR ECO (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project} Page 8 Rev. 09-28-18

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Services to be performed for the City by the Consultant under this Agreement are set forth below.

I. GENERAL
The Consultant will provide complete, professional, high-quality services and products; provide consultation to city personnel and others who are involved with the project; and provide the expertise, guidance, advice, and assistance in accomplishing the work.

II. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT
Increasing traffic volume in the City necessitates adding a third left turn lane on northbound Great America Pkwy (GAP) to Mission College Blvd (MCB) and a third left turn lane on westbound MCB to GAP. Street widening is to be achieved by reducing existing median island width and moving existing sidewalks further out to create space needed for additional turning lanes at the intersection.

Intersection and street improvements also include ADA improvements within the project area, new traffic signal, new street lights, a combination of pavement overlay and pavement reconstruction, modification to existing storm drain system and other utilities, and Silicon Valley Power (SVP) electrical and fiber facilities improvements.

The progress plans, dated February 20, 2014, prepared by the original designer with City's review comments shall be used as a starting point to finish the design.

Ill. SCOPE OF WORK
Basic Services shall include professional services required to study the project.

Consultant shall conduct a quality control review prior to submitting any documents to the City for review. Basic Services shall include the following:

Task 1: Project Management
Consultant shall manage its team and overall project activities consistent with the direction from CITY in order to meet the project goals, schedule and budget.

Coordinate with CITY, CONSULTANT staff, other government agencies (such as VTA, and Caltrans etc.), utility owners, property owners and operators, and other affected parties as required throughout the duration of the project.

CONSUL TANT administrative staff time spent preparing invoices for services complete shall be considered as included in the overhead of the CONSUL TANT's basic hourly rates and shall not be billed.

1.1 Project Schedule
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 1
Rev. 09-28-18
Prepare, monitor, and update progress schedule in MS Project format beginning at the kickoff meeting and ending at CITY's acceptance of the final bid documents for the PROJECT. Schedule shall indicate significate milestones, review time, and the critical path for the PROJECT.

CONSUL TANT shall notify CITY if there are delays in any phase or Task of the PROJECT. In such case, CONSULTANT shall make up the schedule in subsequent Tasks of the PROJECT or provide information to CITY substantiating a time extension. The schedule shall be maintained and kept updated at all times and shall be updated each time progress and milestones are changed. In addition, the progress schedule shall be updated no less frequently than after each Task is complete. The base Project schedule shall be submitted to City within five (5) working days of receiving NTP.
1 .2 Project Kickoff Meeting
Consultant shall coordinate a Project kickoff meeting with the City to gain approval of the proposed base schedule and to identify any known Project issues. Consultant to prepare and distribute an agenda prior to the meeting and a meeting minutes following the meeting.

1.3 Project Meetings
Consultant shall coordinate monthly project status meeting through design phase and attend twelve (12) meetings occurring monthly with the City to coordinate the Project activities and update City staff on the progress of the Project deliverables. Prepare meeting minutes, action item log, data request log, and pending item log following each meeting. Provide monthly progress reports and updated project schedule.

1.4 Stakeholder Coordination
Consultant shall coordinate with stakeholders, including but not limited to City staff, City's consultants, Caltrans, utility owners, property owners and operators, permitting agencies and other affected parties. Consultant shall actively manage the utility relocation process to minimize or eliminate potential delays. Coordinate stakeholder design review meetings with City, and stakeholders.

1.5 Quality Control
Consultant shall submit a Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) program manual specifically tailored for the Project for CITY's approval.

QA/QC program shall include an independent review of the design, plans, specifications and cost estimate at each design stage. The independent reviewer shall not be involved in the design and/or preparation of the construction documents. The independent reviewer shall be a licensed professional engineer in the discipline, which he/she reviews, and at a Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 2
Rev. 09-28-18
minimum shall possess equivalent experiences as the designer. The independent reviewer can be an employee of the CONSULTANT or a subconsultant to the CONSUL TANT.

Consultant shall designate a QA/QC manager to ensure that QA/QC procedures established for the Project are adhered to by all Consultant's team members. With each deliverable, CONSULTANT shall provide a QA/QC report and a signed certification that the independent review is performed per the QA/QC program manual.

Deliverables:

1. Project schedule [PDF and MS Project file]

2. Agenda and minutes from project kickoff meeting [PDF and MS Word file]

3. Agenda and minutes from project meetings including pending item log/action item log/data request log [PDF and MS Word/Excel file]

4. Monthly Invoices and Progress Reports

5. QA/QC Manual [PDF]
Task 2: Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation Consultant shall identify significant elements that will shape the Project scope, and potential physical and schedule constrains. Provide evaluation and recommendation to the City for discussion of Project scope confirmation.

2.1 Data Collection and Review
Consultant shall review existing as-built data, reports, utility mapping, and other available data. Provide a list of any additional data that is necessary to complete the Project design.

2.2 Preparation of Cleaned-up Progress Plans
Prepare a set of cleaned-up progress plans by taking the progress plans dated February 20, 2014 and revising them to include updated Right-ofway and easements that have since been acquired by the City. Note modifications to the Project area that have been constructed since the preparation of the progress plan. Extend project limits to include area up to Hwy 101 overpass bridge abutment.

2.3 Review of Progress Plans
Review the clean progress plans to evaluate improvements that can be made to the proposed geometric layout, feasibility of the utility vault modifications, adequacy of ADA facilities, and staging plan. Compare the clean progress plans to existing conditions to determine if revisions to the design are needed.

2.4 Bus Duckout Evaluation
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 3
Rev. 09-28-18
Examine the three (3) bus duckout shown on the progress plan dated February 20, 2014 to determine if they meet current Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) standards. Also check if the bus duckouts shown on the progress plan are sufficient to meet the needs of VT A's future plans. If the bus duckouts shown do not meet the existing standards or future needs, the Consultant shall provide options, including right-of-way impacts, to the City for discussion. After Consultant and City reach an agreement on any modifications to the bus duckouts, Consultant shall prepare a memorandum to document the changes to be incorporated into the Project.

2.5 Bike Lanes
Review new green bike lanes being installed on Mission College Boulevard by a separate project adjacent to the Project limit and determine if revision to the progress plan is needed to conform to the new green bike lanes at the Project limit.

2.6 Stormwater Treatment
Consultant shall conduct a preliminary study of stormwater treatment requirements for the Project based on the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects, June 2016. Consultant shall determine preliminary treatment area requirements and identify potential locations for treatment measures.

If no locations are feasible within the project limits, Consultant to propose other methods of meeting permit requirements to City.

Consultant shall prepare a Stormwater Management Plan which includes the findings of the study as well as the preliminary treatment recommendations.

Upon reaching agreement with the City on treatment to be included in the Project, Consultant to include design of Best Management Practices (BMPs) into Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 6.

If treatment cannot be accomplished within the project limits it may be necessary to use off-site treatment methods. If off-site treatment is required, additional design and coordination efforts may be necessary.

The coordination and design of off-site treatment is not included in this scope and fee estimate. If off-site treatment is required Consultant will discuss with the City and submit a separate scope and fee for said work.

2.7 Pavement Analysis and Design
Prepare a Pavement Recommendation Memorandum based on the field investigation and information provided by the City.

Prepare a geotechnical engineering study, which includes a summary of available pavement and subsurface information, the field investigation, Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 4
Rev. 09-28-18
laboratory testing and design recommendation for the Project. The study to provide the following information:
• Discussion of the scope of work performed
• Summary of the field investigation performed
• Summary of the laboratory testing performed
• Discussion of the idealized soil and rock profiles along the Project with engineering soil parameters.
• Recommendation for reuse and/or rehabilitation of the existing pavement along with new pavement sections.
• Recommendation for any subgrade special preparation prior to new structural pavement section placement.
• Recommendation for reuse of excavated materials.
• Other recommendations with respect to site grading, disposal of excavated material and other construction recommendations. • Recommendations for the project including roadway structural pavement sections for widening areas, pavement dig-outs, overlays, pavement reinforcing fabric, and rubberized pavement.

Prepare the Draft Geotechnical Engineering Study and submit to City for review and comment.

Overlay recommendations may be based on agreed upon R-value and Traffic Index and existing pavement section as shown in as-built plans and other historical data. Consultant will provide recommendations of appropriate R-value and Traffic Index to City based on discussions with City staff and available historic data.

If City elects to have Consultant perform Geotechnical Field Investigations as an Optional Service, Consultant will use the results of the field investigations to determine the R-value.

Consultant shall determine and mark locations of pavement dig-outs in a site walk-through in conjunction with City representative. Consultant shall include traffic control for protection in the site walk-through.

2.8 Surveys
Consultant shall conduct topographic survey of the following:
• Curb, sidewalk and pavement conforms at GAP/MCB and
MCB/Marriott Driveway intersections.
• All existing curb ramps Within Project limits defined in Exhibit E.

Survey data to include ramp, flowline, top of curb, back of sidewalk, inlets, poles, boxes, and other visible features.
• Existing manholes, inlet grates, vault and valve covers, utility or signal cabinets and monuments.
• Inverts of existing manholes and inlets.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 5
Rev. 09-28-18
• Existing Marriott Hotel entrances signs at two locations, Marriott Hotel Entrance driveway, and at the southeast corner of GAP/MCB intersection.
• Driveway, vehicle gate and concrete decorative walls of the business property of the northeast corner of GAP/MCB intersection. • Lip of gutter wherever pavement width changes along GAP and MCB to confirm limits of pavement works.
• Pavement grade breaks
• Pavement grades at the determined dig-out areas
• Pavement grades across north end of U.S. 101 bridge abutment.

Traffic control for performance of field surveys is included in this task. It is Consultant's responsibility to manage the surveys to avoid multiple mobilizations. Consultant shall apply for encroachment permit for traffic control. If there is a permit fee, City will pay the fee directly to the permitting agency. Removal of paint markings due to survey is not necessary.

Survey, site investigation and measurement of SVP underground vaults is under Task 2.10.

2.9 Permits and Agreements
Consultant shall prepare and obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit to conduct necessary field surveys and exploration. Consultant shall issue a letter to City requesting to be City's agent on the permit application. It application fee, if any, will be paid by City directly.

Prepare Right-of-Entry (ROE) request letters for the City to deliver to the private property owners within the Project limits so the design team can conduct field reviews. It is anticipated that no ground disturbance, modifications, or limitations to access for the private properties will be required during the design phase of the Project. The ROE letters shall be prepared in MS Word, so they can be place on City letterhead and sent to each property owner by the City.

2.10 Utility Design and Coordination

2.10.1 CONSUL TANT shall perform the utility design and coordination for all City owned utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, traffic signal, and Silicon Valley Power utility facilities. a. Silicon Valley Power (SVP) Fiber - Review a hand-drawn redline information of the SVP fiber relocation at the southeast corner of GAP/MCB intersection provided by SVP. Show the new location of SVP fiber on plans.
b. Silicon Valley Power (SVP) Fiber and Signal Inter Connect (SIC) - Review as-built drawings showing the horizontal information with minimal vertical information of the SVP & SIC Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 6
Rev. 09-28-18
fiber relocation at the south side of Mission College Boulevard.

Show the new location of SVP fiber and SIC on plans.
c. Silicon Valley Power (SVP) underground vaults - For survey and site investigation of SVP underground vaults, SVP staff will enter the underground vault to conduct measurement and take photos. Consultant is to remain above ground to give SVP staff direction and is not allowed to enter SVP
underground vaults. Coordinate with SVP to set up a mutually agreed upon procedure for survey and site investigation, which will ensure Consultant is satisfied with the data accuracy. Lead time for SVP staff to come to the site to assist the consultant is two week.
d. Sanitary Sewer facilities - Obtain as-built drawings and verify the existing sanitary sewer facilities. Coordinate with City and private property owner for any adjustment or relocations if determined necessary.
e. Update signal controller cabinet per City standard detail.

2.10.2 Consultant shall perform the utility coordination for all non-City owned utilities in the City right of way. It is assumed the utilities owners will design and construct necessary relocations with their own forces, except irrigation lines on private properties disturbed by the Project. Bid document shall include language indicating Contractor to coordinate with property owners and restore irrigation lines disturbed by the Project. Consultant shall support City to facilitate timely utility relocation.

Consultant shall take inventory and review utility information and records provided by the City. Prepare letters to request additional information from utility owners, if needed. Confirm existing underground utilities and existing aboveground utilities are shown correctly and accurately.

After reviewing as-built drawings, newly installed facilities information and proposed improvements, Consultant shall identify the locations of utility potholes if necessary as an Optional Service at City's request.

Consultant shall coordinate relocation with the following utility owners listed below have utility facilities in the City right of way under franchise agreement. Consultant shall issue bi-weekly status reports of utility coordination.
a. Comcast - Review utility relocation plans completed by Comcast. Coordinate with Comcast and provide
recommended location of Comcast vault due to reduced R/W available behind sidewalk.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 7
Rev. 09-28-18
b. AT&T - Obtain and review as-built drawings from AT&T.

Review final relocation plan prepared by AT&T. If conflict is determined to exist, coordination with AT&T and provide recommended location of AT&T facilities to be shown on their relocation plan.
c. MCI - Review MCI relocation plans. Coordinate with MCI for any conflicts with R/W and recommended location of MCI
facilities with clarification of depths. Respond to MCI requests including R/W information and Project schedule.
d. PG&E - Review and show the locations of newly installed PG&E facilities. Coordinate with PG&E to verify location of new PG&E facilities to be shown on Project plans.
e. XO Comm - Review as-builts of existing facilities with pothole information provided by XO Communication. Determine if
utility relocations are required based on changed field condition or new data received from utility owner.
f. Zaya - Review as-builts of existing facilities with mapped pothole information. Confirm the need for manhole
adjustments. Determine if additional utility relocations are required based on changed field condition or new data
received from Zaya.
g. Level 3 - Coordinate with Level 3 to obtain as-built drawings and show existing Level 3 facilities on plans.
h. Sobrato property fire service assemblies - Verify if two set of existing fire service assemblies with double check detector, post indicators, and fire department connection located adjacent to the existing driveways on Sobrato property are clear of the proposed construction limit.
i. Water and reclaimed water facility relocations such as service meters, valves, and fire hydrants shall be addressed in the project deliverables. Shut-downs impacting private properties shall be coordinated with owner and identified in bid
documents.

2.11 Project Scope Confirmation Meeting
Attend a project meeting in person to discuss all findings in Task 2.

Provide sketches for proposed design changes from the progress plan.

Prepare meeting minutes, action items, and pending items tracking log.

Deliverables:

1. RFI for existing as-builts, reports and other project data

2. Clean Progress plans [11"x17" PDF]
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 8
Rev. 09-28-18

3. Progress Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Memo [PDF]

4. Draft Geotechnical Engineering Study [PDF]

5. Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application [PDF]

6. Survey Data [electronic file]

7. Summary of utility coordination status

8. ROE request letter [MS Word]

9. Stormwater Management Plan (PDF)
Task 3: 60% Submittal
Consultant shall obtain City's written approval of the Progress Plan evaluation and recommendations memorandum and receive written directions from City on the scope of improvements to be included in the Project. After reaching confirmed scope, consultant shall begin preparation of the 60% submittal.

3.1 Respond to comments on the Progress Plans.

Prepare a Comment Response Form (CRF) to document each of City's and other agencies' comments on the cleaned-up Progress plans, Progress Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Memo. Prepare written response to each comment and submit the CRF to City. After discussion with the City and reaching an agreement on the disposition of each comment, the CRF will be updated to document the final status of each comment.

3.2 60% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate
Upon reaching an agreement with the City on status of the Progress Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Memo comments, the Consultant shall incorporate comments and prepare construction documents and cost estimates to 60% complete level. Construction documents including plans, details, technical specifications and modified CITY standard specification necessary to complete the work described, integrate all work with all other elements of the project.

Review City's current specifications and after discussion, recommend which Caltrans version to use for the Project. Once an agreement is reached with City on Caltrans specification version, consultant will prepare 60% technical specification, any modification of City standard specification and a bid item list and bid item description. City will prepare the front-end boiler plate specifications on bidding procedure and legal requirements.

Consultant shall prepare a pay item list and engineer's cost estimate shall be associated with the pay item list. The project has several funding sources and each funding source has restrictions on what it can pay.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 9
Rev. 09-28-18
Construction activities related to SVP facilities will be paid by SVP fund.

The pay item list and engineer's cost estimate shall be segregated to assist City in determining budget required from each funding sources.

Specifications shall include instruction to contractor on preparing invoices to facilitate payment from each funding source. Bid Item Codes will provide a segregated bid. A summary bid list as well as segregated bid lists for each funding source will be provided.

3.3 60% Design Memoranda
Prepare engineer's construction cost estimate to ensure that the proposed improvements are within the available construction budget. The construction cost estimate will be based on historical unit costs obtained from recent project near the project area as well as Caltrans' construction cost data. Consultant to provide cost calculation backup documents.

Document the adequacy of the design elements in the following design memoranda:
• Lighting calculation and memorandum
• Structural calculation and memorandum
• Stormwater treatment memorandum

3.4 Right-of-Way
Identify and delineate necessary temporary construction easements (TCE) required for the Project. Right of entry language will be included in all TCE addressing proposed construction activity. Prepare exhibits, and if needed plate and legal description for TCE at the following six (6) parcels:

Sobrato parcel (APN 104-42-009, Sobrato parcel (APN 104-41-030) Dorcich Farms parcel, Zaton Farm parcel, Sunstone parcel and lam parcel.

3.5 Permits
Prepare a draft encroachment permit application, including required attachments and support documents for City review and for City to submit to Caltrans.

3.6 QA/QC and Independent Review
Conduct an independent review of the 60% submittal, including PS&E and design calculation and memorandum, according to QA/QC manual accepted by City. The independent review also serves as an interdisciplinary review (IDR) to ensure each section of the contract documents is coordinated. The review comments as well as resolution of each comment will be documented in a CRF prepare for the independent review/I DR.

Deliverables:

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 10
Rev. 09-28-18

1. CRF [PDF]

2. 60 Percent (60%) complete plans [PDF]

3. 60 Percent (60%) Technical Specifications and modified City Standard Specifications [PDF and native MS word].

4. 60 Percent (60%) Construction Cost Estimate [PDF with cost back-up and native MS Excel].

5. 60 Percent (60%) Project Schedule [PDF and native MS project].

6. 60 Percent (60%) Geotechnical Report [PDF]

7. 60 Percent (60%) Lighting Calculations [PDF]

8. 60 Percent (60%) Structural Calculations [PDF]

9. 60 Percent (60%) Stormwater Treatment Memorandum [PDF]

10. Summary of Utility Coordination Status

11. Caltrans Encroachment Permit application package.

12. Draft temporary construction easement and right of entry agreement exhibits, plates and legal descriptions of all impacted private properties.

13. Meeting minutes and pending item log.

14. QA/QC report and signed certification of 60% independent review, and associated CRF.

Task 4: 90% Submittal
CONSUL TANT shall proceed with 90% design after receiving written confirmation from the City to proceed.

4.1 Respond to comments on 60% submittal.

Consultant to update the CRF to document each of the City's and other agencies' comments on 60% PS&E and design memoranda. Submit initial responses to each comment, then meet with the City to discuss any comments that requires agreement on the Consultant's proposed resolution. After discussion with the City and reaching an agreement on the disposition of each comment, the Consultant shall update CRF to document the final status of each comment.

4.2 90% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate
Upon reaching an agreement with the City on status of the 60% submittal comments, the Consultant shall incorporate comments from the 60% submittal and prepare construction documents and cost estimates to 90% complete level. Construction documents including plans, details, technical specifications and modified CITY standard specification necessary to complete the work described, integrate all work with all other elements of the project.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 11
Rev. 09-28-18

4.3 Update project schedule for the entire work, including construction phase.

4.4 90% Design Memoranda.

Update the following design memoranda based on the 90% plans and specifications.
• Structural calculation
• Lighting calculation
• Stormwater treatment memorandum
• Geotechnical report

4.5 Attend one (1) design coordination meeting with CITY personnel. Record meeting minutes, action items and prepare pending item log.

4.6 Permits
Revise Caltrans encroachment permit application, including required attachments per City and Caltrans review comments.

4. 7 TCE and ROE Documents and Assistance.

Assist the City in obtaining the necessary TCE's and ROE's necessary to construct the Project. Prepare exhibits, plates and legal descriptions.

Provide guidance on acquisition and negotiation requirements.

Preparation of appraisals or negotiation and acquisition of rights are not included in this task. These services are under optional tasks if needed.

4.8 Advance utility coordination. Send 90% plans to utility owners potentially affected by the Project.

4.9 QA/QC and Independent Review.

Perform QA/QC tasks according to CITY approved QA/QC program manual, including an independent review. Provide a certification of independent review on the company letter head, dated, and signed.

Independent review engineer's electronic stamp and signature are acceptable. The certification should be addressed to the assigned CITY project manager. The independent review also serves as an Interdisciplinary Review (IDR).

Deliverables:

1. CRF [PDF]

2. 90 Percent (90%) complete plans [PDF]

3. 90 Percent (90%) Technical Specifications and modified City Standard Specifications [PDF and native MS word].

4. 90 Percent (90%) Construction Cost Estimate [PDF with cost back-up and native MS Excel].

5. 90 Percent (90%) Project Schedule [PDF and native MS project].

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 12
Rev. 09-28-18

6. 90 Percent (90%) Geotechnical Report [PDF]

7. 90 Percent (90%) Lighting Calculations [PDF]

8. 90 Percent (90%) Structural Calculations [PDF]

9. 90 Percent (90%) Stormwater Treatment Memorandum [PDF]

10. Summary of Utility Coordination Status

11. Caltrans Encroachment Permit application package.

12. Draft temporary construction easement and right of entry agreement exhibits, plates and legal descriptions of all impacted private properties.

13. Meeting minutes and pending item log.

14. QA/QC report and signed certification of 90% independent review.

Task 5: 100% Submittal
CONSUL TANT shall proceed with preparation of the 100% design after receiving written confirmation from the City to proceed.

5.1 Respond to Comments on 90% submittal.

Consultant to update the CRF to document each of the City's comments and other agencies' comments on 90% PS&E and design memoranda.

Submit initial responses to each comment, then meet with the City to discuss any comments that requires agreement on the Consultant's proposed resolution. After discussion with the City and reaching an agreement on the disposition of each comment, the CRF will be updated to document the final status of each comment.

5.2 Attend one (1) design coordination meeting with CITY personnel. Record meeting minutes, action item and update pending item log.

5.3 100% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate
Upon reaching an agreement with the City on status of the 60% submittal comments, the Consultant shall incorporate comments from the 90% submittal and prepare construction documents and cost estimates to 100% complete level. Construction documents including plans, details, technical specifications, and modified CITY standard specification necessary to complete the work described, integrate all work with all other elements of the project. 100% submittal plans shall be stamped, and signed.

5.4 Update project schedule for the entire work, including construction phase.

5.5 100% Design Memoranda.

Prepare the following final design memoranda based on the 100% plans and specifications.
• Structural calculation
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 13
Rev. 09-28-18
• Lighting calculation
• Stormwater treatment memorandum
• Geotechnical report

5.6 Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Incorporate Caltrans' review comment. Prepare the Encroachment Permit Application package for the City to submit to Caltrans.

5.7 TCE and ROE Documents and Assistance.

Prepare final TCE and ROE, exhibits or plats and legal descriptions necessary to construct the Project. Incorporate CITY review comments and property owners' comments on the draft temporary construction easement and right of entry agreement exhibits, plates and legal description for all impacted private properties.

5.8 QA/QC and Independent Review.

Perform QA/QC tasks according to CITY approved QA/QC program manual, including an independent check. A statement to indicate independent review has been performed for each discipline and signature of the engineer who performed it shall be added to the Plans Cover Sheet.

Electronic stamp and signature are acceptable. Provide a certification of independent review on the company letter head, dated, and signed.

Independent review engineer's electronic stamp and signature are acceptable. The certification should be addressed to the assigned CITY project manager.

5.9 Finalize utility coordination and incorporate into construction documents.

Deliverables:

1. Comment Response Form (CRF) [PDF and MS Word or Excel].

2. 100 Percent (100%) complete plans [PDF with electronic signature].

3. 100 Percent (100%) technical Specifications and modified City Standard Specifications [PDF files with electronic signature and native MS word files].

4. 100 Percent (100%) Construction Cost Estimate [PDF with cost back-up and native MS excel file].

5. 100 Percent (100%) Project Schedule [PDF files and native MS project file].

6. Caltrans Encroachment Permit application package with all necessary supporting documentation for the CITY to obtain permits.

7. 100 Percent (100%) Geotechnical Report [PDF with electronic signature]

8. 100 Percent (100%) Lighting Calculations [PDF with electronic signature] Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 14
Rev. 09-28-18

9. 100 Percent (100%) Structural Calculations [PDF with electronic signature]

10. 100 Percent (100%) Stormwater Treatment Memorandum [PDF with electronic signature]

11. Final temporary construction easement and right of entry agreement exhibits, plates and legal descriptions for all impacted private properties.

12. Summary of Utility Coordination Status

13. Meeting minutes and pending item log.

14. QA/QC report and signed certification of independent review.

Task 6: Bid Documents
Consultant shall proceed with preparation of the Bid Documents after receiving written confirmation from the City to proceed.

6.1 Respond to Comments on 100% submittal
Consultant to update the Comment Response Form (CRF) to document each of the City's comments and other agencies' comments on 100% PS&E and design memoranda. Submit initial responses to each comment and then meet with the City to discuss any comments that requires agreement on the Consultant's proposed resolution. After discussion with the City and reaching agreement on the disposition of each comment, the CRF will be updated and finalized to document the final status of each comment.

6.2 Attend one (1) design coordination meeting with CITY personnel. Record meeting minutes, action item and update pending item log.

6.3 Prepare Bid Documents.

Consultant shall prepare final bid documents, which include the plans, technical specifications, modified CITY standard specification, engineer's estimate and project schedule, necessary to complete the Work described. Incorporate all comments from the 100% submittal to bid documents based on agreed upon dispositions. The plans are to be signed and sealed by the responsible engineer for each plan. The signature page of the specifications will be signed and sealed for each discipline. The cover page of the plans is to include signature of the independent reviewers.

6.4 Coordinate with and provide information to Caltrans and other permitting agencies for their issuance of Caltrans encroachment permit and other necessary permits.

6.5 The submittal will include a quality control review according to the quality control plan.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 15
Rev. 09-28-18
Deliverables:

1. Comment response form, meeting minutes and pending item log. [PDF file and in native MS word or excel format].

2. Bid Plans [PDF files with electronic signatures for all sheet except cover page, 1 hard copy wet signed cover page, AutoCAD files,].

3. Bid Specifications [PDF files with electronic signature, MS Word file]

4. Engineer's Cost Estimate [PDF files, MS Excel with cost back-up]

5. Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application and all supporting documents.

6. Project Schedule [PDF file, MS Project].

7. Summary of Utility Coordination Status.

8. Lighting calculations and structural calculations are assumed to be final at 100% submittal. Calculations (lighting, structural, or others) to be included in bid document submittal only if the calculations contain changes not included in 100% submittal.

9. Geotechnical report is assumed to be final at 100% submittal.

Geotechnical report to be included in bid document submittal only if the report contains changes not included in 100% submittal.

10. QA/QC report and signed certification of independent review.

Task 7: Bidding and Award Assistance
Consultant shall:

7.1 Assist City by providing names and contact information for contractors in the area who may be interested in bidding this project. 7 .2 Pre-Bid Meeting
Contribute material for pre-bid meeting presentation, present the material and attend the pre-bid meeting. The pre-bid meeting will be coordinated and hosted by the City.

7.3 Assist City with responses to bidder's inquiries through City's Project Manager, and assist City with addenda to the construction documents as needed to respond to bidder's inquiries and clarify the intent of bid documents.

7.4 Assist City with bids review and provide recommendations for award.

Deliverables:

1. Written responses to bidder's inquiries [electronic copy in MS word].

2. Support information for addenda [one signed original hard copy, and electronic copy in PDF format].

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 16
Rev. 09-28-18
Task 8: Construction Phase Assistance
CONSULTANT's responsibility to provide basic services for the construction phase under this agreement commences with the "Notice to Proceed" (NTP) of the contract for the construction and terminates on the date the City Council approves the acceptance of the PROJECT.

8.1 Up to two (2) Consultant staff to attend the pre-construction meeting, which will be coordinated and hosted by the City.

8.2 Attend meetings and visit the site when necessary as determined and requested by City during construction phase. Twenty (20) site visits, at a total of 40 hours included.

8.3 Assist with utility coordination.

8.4 Review and approve Contractor's submittals for conformance to the plans and specifications. Submittals includes shop drawings, product data, substitution requests, and samples.

8.5 Review Contractor's request for information (RFI) and furnish additional drawings and/or specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and /or correction purposes.

8.6 Assist City in evaluating the merit of contractor's Change Order Requests, and preparing Change Orders, if needed.

8.7 Total 240 hours included for tasks 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6.

Deliverables:

1. Responses to RFI [electronic file].

2. Review results of contractor submittal/shop drawings. [electronic file]

3. Field reports, construction visit notes and photographic record by CONSUL TANT and sub-consultants. [electronic file]

4. Furnish additional drawings and/or specifications for supplementing, clarifying, and /or correction purposes and for change orders.

5. Change orders as required. [electronic file]
Task 9: Record Drawings and Project Close-out
The CONSUL TANT shall:

9.1 Attend one (1) inspection meeting to conduct preliminary observation and prepare a Final Inspection Report including a punch list. (1 inspection meeting and 1 punch list included in allowance).

9.2 Assist the City with preparation of close-out documents, which includes assisting the City in preparing the punch list verification, Notice of Substantial Completion affirming the project is sufficiently complete. This Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 17
Rev. 09-28-18
commences the warranty period, transfers insurance responsibility for the project area from the contractor to the CITY.

9.3 Assist the city with preparing Issuance of Notice of Final Completion (filing will be by CITY).

9.4 At completion of the PROJECT Consultant shall prepare record drawings that reflect the changes to the work during construction based upon any issued ASl's or other documents issued by the Consultant and upon marked up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the Contractor and CITY. If the CONSULTANT adds additional sheets to the plans, these shall be properly numbered, properly referenced on other affected drawings and included in the drawing index. CONSUL TANT shall provide CITY a complete set of record drawings in PDF and AutoCAD format.

CONSULTANT may at its own expense, prepare and retain a copy of each drawing for its permanent file.

Deliverables:

1. Final inspection report including Issues Punch List. [PDF and MS Word]

2. Record drawings in 22" x 34" size on CD/DVD in PDF and AutoCAD format.

Task 10: Optional Services

10.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration
Drill and collect subgrade soil samples from up to 7 locations distributed along the proposed roadway widening and repair work. City will provide encroachment permit (no fee) for the field work. Traffic control shall be provided by the Consultant for the field exploration work as per City permit conditions. The bore holes shall be back filled with cement grout or cold patch AC. R-value tests shall be conducted by Consultant on samples collected from the drilling work. This data is to be used in the pavement design. The following is included in this task:
a. Obtain a City of Santa Clara encroachment permit (assumed no fee). b. Mark out the borings in white paint and call in USA North Utility Notification a minimum of 72 hours before the start of the field work. c. With traffic control in place, drill up to seven soil borings using solid flight augers to completion depths of 10 feet below current grades.

Because these are less than 45 feet deep, no boring permit from Santa Clara Valley Water Authority is required.
d. The existing asphalt concrete (AC) and any identified base material will be measured where penetrated with borings. All borings will be backfilled with lean cement, and the soil cuttings drummed and Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 18
Rev. 09-28-18
disposed of off-site. All penetrations in the asphalt will be patched with SET 45 dyed black, patching and repair mortar.
e. Sampling will be performed using driven split barrel samplers following the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586). Bulk samples will be retrieved from the auger cuttings as the drilling advances. f. Recovered representative samples will be visually classified and tested to better determine the engineering characteristics of the soils. At this time the testing is anticipated to consist of Atterberg Limits, gradation, R-value, and optimum moisture content/maximum dry density (Modified Proctor). The actual test schedule will be prepared after the samples are collected.

One (1) day of fieldwork is assumed.

10.2 Pothole
Consultant will prepare a potholing plan and submit it to the City for approval. Upon receiving City approval, Consultant will conduct up to thirty (30) potholes to locate existing underground utilities.

10.1.a through 10.1.d shall also apply to pothole work.

10.3 As-Needed Construction Support
Consultant to provide as-needed support at City's request during construction. Consultant shall only perform work under this task with City's written request.

Deliverables:

1. Results of Geotechnical Field Exploration (to be included in Geotechnical Engineering Study).

2. Potholing Plan.

3. Potholing Data (to be included in Utility Plans and Utility Report).

IV. SCHEDULE
Milestones Duration Due date
Notice to Proceed 1 day July 10, 2019
Confirm Project Scope 3 months October 10, 2019
60% Submittal 3.5 months Januarv 24, 2019
90% Submittal 3.5 months May 8, 2020
100% Submittal 1.5 months June 22, 2020
Bid Document Submittal 1.5 months Auaust?,2020
Due dates shall shift based on actual NTP date and durations in the schedule.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit A-Scope of Services (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 19
Rev. 09-28-18

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF FEES
I. GENERAL PAYMENT
The total payment to the Consultant for Basic Services, as stated in Exhibit A, shall not exceed $930,233, plus any authorized Reimbursable Expenses, which shall not exceed $1,500. The amount billed to City for pre-approved Additional Services shall not exceed the sum of $96,267. In no event shall the amount billed to City by Consultant for services under this Agreement exceed $1,028,000, subject to budget appropriations.

Consultant shall bill City on a monthly basis for Services provided by Consultant during the preceding month on an invoice in a format approved by City and subject to verification and approval by City. Consultant shall, during the term of this Agreement, invoice the City for hours and dollars of work completed under this Agreement. The invoice shall describe the Task invoiced, percent complete of the Task, time and materials expended by Task, and total amount during the invoice period. The invoice shall also show the total to be paid for the invoice period. City will pay Consultant within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of an approved invoice.

II. BASIC SERVICES
The total payment to Consultant for all work necessary for performing all Tasks, as stated in Exhibit A, shall be in proportion to services rendered. The Consultant fee allocated to each Task, as shown below, shall be the Consultant's full compensation for all the Consultant services required by this Agreement, as directed by the City, and no additional compensation shall be allowed. City may reallocate remaining budget from completed Tasks to additional services. The total amount of all the Tasks is a not-toexceed amount. Figures in table below include subconsultants' costs and their markup, but exclude reimbursable expenses.

Task Description Task subtotal
1 Project Manaqement $ 63,593
2 Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation $ 137,316 3 60% Submittal $ 201,251
4 90% Submittal $ 165,205
5 100% Submittal $ 113,237
6 Bid Documents $ 36,914
7 Bidding and Award Assistance $ 18,738
8 Construction Phase Assistance $ 57,785
9 Record Drawinqs and Project Close Out $ 34,365
10 Optional Services

10.1 Geotechnical Exploration $ 34,120

10.2 Pothole $ 24,710

10.3 As-Needed Construction Support $ 43,000
TOTAL $ 930,233
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit 8-Schedule of Fees (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 1
Rev. 09-28-18
Ill. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $1,500 without prior written approval by the City. The amount allocated for Reimbursable Expenses shall be the Consultant's full compensation for all Reimbursable Expenses required for the Project and by this Agreement, as directed by the City, and no additional compensation shall be allowed.

Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services. The following is a sample of items that are included as part of the Basic Services and are not considered Reimbursable Expenses:
• Basic Office Expenses such as overhead, paper, pens, pencils, ink cartridges • Insurance Expenses, Applicable Taxes, Computer Time
• Travel expenses (travel time and mileages)
• Local and Long Distance Telephone (landline, mobile) and Fax Expenses • US Mail
• Copying and Plotting Cost
Reimbursable Expenses may include:
• Outside Duplicating Cost for Plans and Reports
• Presentation Materials
• Delivery, Courier Services when requested by City.

All other reimbursable costs shall be approved in advance by City in writing.

IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional Services consists of work not included in the Scope of Services outlined within this Agreement. Pre-approved Additional Services shall be billed to City at the fixed hourly rates shown below in Section V, RATE SCHEDULE, or at an agreed negotiated price. Monthly billing for Additional Services shall be consistent with the term set forth in this Agreement. Payment for any Additional Services is allowed only if written authorization is given by the City Engineer in advance of the work to be performed. Additional Services shall not exceed $96,267 without approval by the City.

V. RATE SCHEDULE
Labor Categories and Billing Rates. Rates shown are rates per hour.

WRECO
Billing Classifications Rates
Principal Engineer $270
Supervising Engineer $230
Senior Engineer $180
Associate Engineer $120
Staff Engineer $95
Senior Technician/CADD $90
Ad min istrator/Clerical/T ech Editor $80
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit 8-Schedule of Fees (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 2
Rev. 09-28-18
Subconsultants are billed at rates below plus 10% markup. Markup is limited to 10% maximum.

CSG Consultants
Billinq Classifications Rates
Principal Engineer $220
Senior Engineer $190
Associate Enqineer $165
2-Man Survey Crew $320
Gates + Associates
Billinq Classifications Rates
Principal $180
Associate Principal $160
Senior Associate $140
Irrigation $145
Job Captain $125
Kimley-Horn
Billing Classifications Rates
Sr. Enqineer IV $270
Enqineer IV $195
Engineer Ill $165
Engineer II $140
Analyst II $125
Admin $85
Associated R IQ ht 0 f W S av ervIces
Billing Classifications Rates
Principal Consultant $225
Consultant II $130
Rig ht of Way Tech $80
Appraiser I $175
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit 8-Schedule of Fees (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 3
Rev. 09-28-18

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting the Contractor's indemnification of the City, and prior to commencing any of the Services required under this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide and maintain in full force and effect during the period of performance of the Agreement and for twenty-four (24) months following acceptance by the City, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance policies from insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of California. These policies shall be primary insurance as to the City of Santa Clara so that any other coverage held by the City shall not contribute to any loss under Contractor's insurance. The minimum coverages, provisions and endorsements are as follows:

A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01. Policy limits are subject to review, but shall in no event be less than, the following:
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal Injury

2. Exact structure and layering of the coverage shall be left to the discretion of Contractor; however, any excess or umbrella policies used to meet the required limits shall be at least as broad as the underlying coverage and shall otherwise follow form.

3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Liability policy as well as any umbrella policy maintained by the Contractor to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement:
a. Coverage shall be on a "pay on behalf' basis with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits;
b. There shall be no cross liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and c. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with policy limits a minimum limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident using, or providing coverage at Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 1
Rev. 09-28-18
least as broad as, Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned (if any), non-owned and hired autos.

In the event that the Work being performed under this Agreement involves transporting of hazardous or regulated substances, hazardous or regulated wastes and/or hazardous or regulated materials, Contractor and/or its subcontractors involved in such activities shall provide coverage with a limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident covering transportation of such materials by the addition to the Business Auto Coverage Policy of Environmental Impairment Endorsement MCS90 or Insurance Services Office endorsement form CA 99 48, which amends the pollution exclusion in the standard Business Automobile Policy to cover pollutants that are in or upon, being transported or towed by, being loaded onto, or being unloaded from a covered auto.

C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

1. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy as required by statute and employer's liability with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) policy limit Bodily Injury by disease, one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident/Bodily Injury and one million dollars ($1,000,000) each employee Bodily Injury by disease.

2. The indemnification and hold harmless obligations of Contractor included in this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damage, compensation or benefit payable by or for Contractor or any subcontractor under any Workers' Compensation Act(s), Disability Benefits Act(s) or other employee benefits act(s).

3. This policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.

D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor. Covered services as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim or two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Any coverage containing a deductible or self-retention must first be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office.

E. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
All of the following clauses and/or endorsements, or similar provisions, must be part of each commercial general liability policy, and each umbrella or excess policy.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 2
Rev. 09-28-18

1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of Contractor's work for City, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 20 10 11 85, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.

2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Contractor shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance indemnities may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Contractor's insurance.

3. Cancellation.

4. a. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided due to non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.
b. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided for any cause save and except non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of nonrenewal.

Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth in Sections A through E of this Exhibit C, above.

F. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS
Contractor and City agree as follows:

1. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the Services, who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor, except as with respect to Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 3
Rev. 09-28-18
limits. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor agrees that upon request by City, all agreements with, and insurance compliance documents provided by, such subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

2. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

3. The City reserves the right to withhold payments from the Contractor in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement.

G. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to commencement of any Services under this Agreement, Contractor, and each and every subcontractor (of every tier) shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Agreement. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City and as described in this Agreement. Contractor shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City's approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.

H. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Contractor or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of Insurance Services Office (ISO) endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, at or prior to execution of this Agreement.

Upon City's request, Contractor shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 100085 - S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John's Creek, GA 30097
Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 4
Rev. 09-28-18
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]
I. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Contractor shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit C-lnsurance Requirements (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 5
Rev. 09-28-18

EXHIBIT D

LABOR COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM
This Agreement is subject to the requirements of California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. requiring the payment of prevailing wages, the training of apprentices, and compliance with other applicable requirements.

A. Prevailing Wage Requirements

1. Contractor shall be obligated to pay not less than the General Prevailing Wage Rate, which can be found at www.dir.ca.gov and are on file with the City Clerk's office, which shall be available to any interested party upon request. Contractor is also required to have a copy of the applicable wage determination posted and/or available at each job site.

2. Specifically, contractors are reminded of the need for compliance with Labor Code Section 177 4-1775 (the payment of prevailing wages and documentation of such), Section 1776 (the keeping and submission of accurate certified payrolls) and 1777.5 in the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Further, overtime must be paid for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week pursuant to Labor Code Section 1811-1813.

3. Special prevailing wage rates generally apply to work performed on weekends, holidays and for certain shift work. Depending on the location of the project and the amount of travel incurred by workers on the project, certain travel and subsistence payments may also be required.

Contractors and subcontractors are on notice that information about such special rates, holidays, premium pay, shift work and travel and subsistence requirements can be found at www.dir.ca.gov .

4. Only bona fide apprentices actively enrolled in a California Division of Apprenticeship Standards approved program may be employed on the project as an apprentice and receive the applicable apprenticeship prevailing wage rates. Apprentices who are not properly supervised and employed in the appropriate ratio shall be paid the full journeyman wages for the classification of work performed.

5. As a condition to receiving progress payments, final payment and payment of retention on any and all projects on which the payment of prevailing wages is required, Contractor agrees to present to City, along with its request for payment, all applicable and necessary certified payrolls (for itself and all applicable subcontractors) for the time period covering such payment request. The term "certified payroll" shall include all required documentation to comply with the mandates set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, as well as any additional documentation requested by the City or its designee including, but not limited to: certified Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit D-Labor Compliance (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 1
Rev. 09-28-18
payroll, fringe benefit statements and backup documentation such as monthly benefit statements, employee timecards, copies of wage statements and cancelled checks, proof of training contributions (CAC2 if applicable), and apprenticeship forms such as DAS-140 and DAS-142.

6. In addition to submitting the certified payrolls and related documentation to City, Contractor and all subcontractors shall be required to submit certified payroll and related documents electronically to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Failure to submit payrolls to the DIR when mandated by the project parameters shall also result in the withholding of progress, retention and/or final payment.

7. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1 (a)].

8. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project, unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Contractors MUST be a registered "public works contractor" with the DIR AT THE TIME OF BID. Where the prime contract is less than $15,000 for maintenance work or less than $25,000 for construction alternation, demolition or repair work, registration is not required.

9. All contractors/subcontractors and related construction services subject to prevailing wage, including but not limited to: trucking, surveying and inspection work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as a "public works contractor". Those you fail to register and maintain their status as a public works contractor shall not be permitted to perform work on the project.

10. Should any contractor or subcontractors not be a registered public works contractor and perform work on the project, Contractor agrees to fully indemnify the City for any fines assessed by the California Department of Industrial Relations against the City for such violation, including all staff costs and attorney's fee relating to such fine.

11. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

B. Audit Rights
All records or documents required to be kept pursuant to this Agreement to verify compliance with this Addendum shall be made available for audit at no cost to City, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such records or documents shall be provided to City for audit at City Hall when it is Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit D-Labor Compliance (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 2
Rev. 09-28-18
practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at Contractor's address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement.

C. Enforcement

1. City shall withhold any portion of a payment; including the entire payment amount, until certified payroll forms and related documentation are properly submitted, reviewed and found to be in full compliance. In the event that certified payroll forms do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., City may continue to hold sufficient funds to cover estimated wages and penalties under the Agreement.

2. Based on State funding sources, this project may be subject to special labor compliance requirements of Proposition 84.

3. The City is not obligated to make any payment due to Contractor until Contractor has performed all of its obligations under these provisions. This provision means that City can withhold all or part of a payment to Contractor until all required documentation is submitted. Any payment by the City despite Contractor's failure to fully perform its obligations under these provisions shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained in this Agreement or a waiver of the right to withhold payment for any subsequent breach of this Addendum.

City or the California Department of Industrial Relations may impose penalties upon contractors and subcontractors for failure to comply with prevailing wage requirements.

These penalties are up to $200 per day per worker for each wage violation identified; $100 per day per worker for failure to provide the required paperwork and documentation requested within a 10-day window; and $25 per day per worker for any overtime violation.

Design Professional Agreement with WRECO/Exhibit D-Labor Compliance (GAP-MCB Intersection lmprov. Project) Page 3
Rev. 09-28-18
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 1
Rev. 07/25/22
Ebix Insurance No. _________________
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
WRECO
FOR

GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY AND MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

PREAMBLE
This agreement (“Amendment No. 1”) is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and WRECO, a California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Agreement for Design Professional Services between the City of Santa Clara, California, and WRECO for Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard Intersection Improvements, dated August 29th, 2019 (Agreement); and
B. The Parties entered into the Agreement for the purpose of having Consultant provide engineering design services for the Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard Intersection Improvements, and the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to update the current 60% plans to meet the parameters made by the City Traffic Engineer in January 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement” is amended to read as follows:
“Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on July 17, 2019 and terminate on December 31, 2025.”
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 2
Rev. 07/25/2022

2. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled “Compensation and Payment” is amended to read as follows:
“In consideration for Consultant’s complete performance of Services, City shall pay Consultant for all materials provided and Services rendered by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES.” The maximum compensation of this Agreement is One Million Four Hundred Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty-Nine dollars ($1,409,629), subject to budget appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials, and equipment required to perform the Services.

All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Consultant’s expense. Consultant shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any circumstance.”

3. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The Section II (Background and Project) of Exhibit A (Scope of Services) is amended to read as follows:
“Increasing traffic volume in the City necessitates a third left turn lane on westbound MCB to GAP. Street widening is to be achieved by reducing existing median island width and moving existing sidewalks further out to create space needed for additional turning lanes at the intersection. Intersection and street improvements also include ADA improvements within the project area, new traffic signal, reconstructed curb returns, new streetlights, a combination of pavement overlay and pavement reconstruction, modifications to the existing storm drain system and other utilities, and Silicon Valley Power (SVP) electrical and fiber facilities improvements.

The progress plans, dated February 20, 2014, prepared by the original designer with City’s review comments was used as a starting point in the agreement. With the City traffic engineer revising the layout parameters in 2022, additional services are requested from the Consultant to complete the redesign, restarting from the previous 60% submittal.”

4. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following paragraph is added to Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 2 (Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation), Subtask 2.3 (Preparation of Cleaned-up Plans) after the first paragraph of the Original Agreement:
“The City will take responsibility for the new layout and road alignments which includes traffic analysis at the GAP/MCB intersection and providing minimum Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 3
Rev. 07/25/2022
truck sizes to use for turning movements based on the provided roadway layout alternative.”

5. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following paragraph is added to Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 2 (Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation), Subtask 2.4 (Bus Duckout Evaluation) of the Original Agreement:
“The City will coordinate with VTA on the elimination/redesign of bus pull-outs for the Project.”

6. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The first paragraph of Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 2 (Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation), Subtask 2.9 (Permits and Agreements) of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“Consultant shall prepare a Caltrans Encroachment Permit to allow the project to conduct roadway improvements within the state right of way. It is assumed this will be done through the DEER process. Any additional requirements by Caltrans will be considered outside the scope of work. Application fee, if any, will be paid by City directly. The City will continue to be the point of contact with Caltrans (encroachment permit) and property owners (right of entry/temp easements).”

7. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following paragraph is added to Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 2 (Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation), Subtask 2.10.1a (Utility Design and Coordination) of the Original Agreement:
“The City and SVP will provide all relevant updates on the latest infrastructure and design standards for SIC/fiber, signals, and street lighting prior to starting the 60% design.”

8. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following subtask is added to Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 2 (Pre-Design Investigation and Project Scope Confirmation) of the Original Agreement:
“2.12 Traffic Analysis
The City has performed a traffic analysis to justify the roadway alternative (including lane reductions, lane width reductions, bike and bus lane widths) and Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 4
Rev. 07/25/2022
will provide to the Consultant. Consultant takes no responsibility for the traffic analysis, lane reductions, reduced traffic storage lengths and lane alignments.”

9. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The first paragraph of Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section III (Scope of Work), Task 4 (90% Submittal) of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“CONSULTANT shall proceed with the 90% design after receiving written confirmation from the City to proceed. The City will provide one set of complete, consolidated, and non‐conflicting comments from the City prior to commencing on the 90% design, 100% Design and Final Design. Any comments received after the comment resolution matrix is finalized will be addressed at the following design stage. If the City choses to include a second set of comments, this work will be covered under additional services.”

10.AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The table under Exhibit A (Scope of Services), Section IV (Schedule) is amended to read as follows:

Milestones Duration Due date
Notice to Proceed 1 day July 10, 2019
Confirm Project Scope 3 months October 10, 2019
Notice to Proceed (2022 Redesign) 1 day August 17, 2022 60% Submittal 2 months October 21, 2022
90% Submittal 5 months March 17, 2023
100% Submittal 3 months June 23, 2023
Bid Document Submittal 2 months September 1, 2023
This adjusted timeline includes City review time (25 days for 60% review, 25 days for 90% review and 10 days for Final review) and should this review time extend beyond the allocated days the overall project will be extended accordingly.

11.AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The first paragraph of Exhibit B, Section I (General Payment) of the Original Agreement is amended to read the following:
“The Total payment per the original Agreement was set not to exceed $1,028,000, which includes pre-approved additional services to the sum of $96,267. As the project was halted to facilitate the redesign of the intersection per the City Traffic Division, the total remaining budget available from the original agreement is $357,933. To facilitate the redesign of the Project, the total Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 5
Rev. 07/25/2022
redesign payment to the Consultant for Basic Services (and optional services) shall not exceed $290,914. The amount billed to the City for pre-approved Additional Services for the redesign shall not exceed the sum of $90,715. In no event shall the amount billed to the City by consultant for redesign services under this Agreement exceed $381,629, subject to budget appropriations.”

12.AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The following paragraph is added Exhibit B, Section II (Basic Services) of the Original Agreement:
“Rates shall be per the attached standard hourly rate sheets through December 31, 2023. On January 1, 2024, Rates may be adjusted as described herein. The adjustment of rates shall be submitted by CONSULTANT and agreed in writing by City prior to any adjustment being made. The adjusted Rates shall be no more than the percentage difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of January of the preceding year and the CPI as may be available nearest to and in advance of the month and year in which the adjustment is made and shall be capped at a maximum of 3% for each adjustment per year. The CPI shall be defined as the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward urban wage earners and clerical workers (W). Rates changed by calculation shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.”

13.AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The table under Exhibit B, Section II (Basic Services) of the Original Agreement is amended and replaced as:

Task Description Payments to
date
Remaining
balance
Redesign
cost
Basic Services
1 Project Management $ 54,097 $ 9,496 $ 41,374
2 Pre-Design Investigation Project Scope & Confirmation $ 173,136 $ 0 $ 0 3 60% Submittal $ 200,586 $ 665 $ 144,928
4 90% Submittal $ 204,778 $ 21,519 $ 132,637
5 100% Submittal $ 0 $ 113,237 $ 101,612
6 Bid Documents $ 0 $ 36,914 $ 36,968
7 Bidding and Award Assistance $ 0 $ 18,738 $ 19,300
8 Construction Phase Assistance $ 0 $ 57,785 $ 59,519
9 Record Drawings and Project Close Out $ 0 $ 34,365 $ 35,396 10 Optional Services

10.1 Geotechnical Exploration $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

10.2 Pothole $ 81,090 $ 14,541 $ 70,059

10.3 As-Needed Construction Support $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Basic Services Subtotal $ 705,888 $ 350,879 $ 641,793
Reimbursable Expenses $ 0 $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Additional Services $ 0 $ 5,554 $ 96,269
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 6
Rev. 07/25/2022
Total $ 705,888 $ 357,933 $ 739,562
Additional redesign cost $ 381,629

14. AMENDMENT PROVISIONS
The tables under Exhibit B, Section V (Rate Schedule) of the Original Agreement have been amended to read the following:

WRECO
Billing Classifications Rates
Principal Engineer $278
Supervising Engineer $237
Senior Engineer $185
Associate Engineer $124
Staff Engineer $98
Senior Technician/CADD $93
Administrator/Clerical/Tech Editor $82
Subconsultants are billed at rates below plus 10% markup. Markup is limited to 10% maximum.

CSG Consultants
Billing Classifications Rates
Principal Engineer $240
Senior Engineer $205
Associate Engineer $180
2-Man Survey Crew $340
Gates + Associates
Billing Classifications Rates
Principal $185-200
Associate Principal $165-185
Senior Associate $145-165
Senior Irrigation $180-200
Job Captain $135-145
Kimley-Horn
Billing Classifications Rates
Sr. Engineer IV $180-210
Engineer IV $280-300
Engineer III $155-185
Engineer II $140-160
Analyst II $120-135
Admin $95-110
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with WRECO Page 7
Rev. 07/25/2022

15.Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 1 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
Approved as to Form: Dated:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
Office of the City Manager
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”
WRECO
a California corporation
Dated:

By (Signature):

Name:

Title:

Principal Place of
Business Address: (to be filled in by City staff)
Email Address:

Telephone: ( )
Fax: ( )
“CONTRACTOR”
S:\Attorney\AGREEMENTS\Amendments\Amendment No. 1 - Form.doc City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-536 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Ordering the Vacation of an Electric Easement and Wire Clearance Easement at 2690 Scott Boulevard

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing, and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2013, the Architectural Committee approved the construction of a 20,219 SF office building (Project) at 2690 Scott Boulevard (Property) for Botham Construction (Owner). The Project was conditioned to vacate the existing electric and wire clearance easements on the Property as they conflict with the new building footprint. A conditional building permit release was issued on November 8, 2013 to allow for the issuance of the building permit with the condition that the easement be vacated prior to final building inspection or occupancy. For reasons unknown, the building permit was finalized, and the easements were not vacated. The Owner completed the construction of the Project in 2014 and a new underground electrical easement was dedicated to serve the site. On November 1, 2021, the Owner reached out to the City to request the outstanding easement be vacated as a cleanup item for their property.

DISCUSSION
Due to the redevelopment of the Property, the existing electric easement and wire clearance easement encumbering the Property have been relocated or determined to be excess, and these easements are no longer necessary. The Owner has requested that the City vacate the subject easements to clear these unnecessary encumbrances on the Property. Any relevant facilities previously within said easement have been removed or abandoned. Silicon Valley Power, the only agency having an interest in the easements, concurs that these easements are eligible to be vacated. Staff has reviewed this proposal and found that these easements are no longer necessary for public purposes and therefore recommend that they be vacated according to subsection C of California Streets and Highways Code Section 8333.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, In-fill Development Projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional cost to the City other than staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and Silicon Valley Power.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 8/9/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-536 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution Ordering the Vacation of an Electric Easement and Wire Clearance Easement at 2690 Scott Boulevard [APN 224-10-131 (2021-22); SC 21-0014]; and

2. Authorize the recordation of the Resolution.

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/9/2022
powered by Legistar™
Resolution ordering the Vacation of Easements Page 1 of 3 Rev. 11/22/17; Typed:04-08-2022 SC21-0014

RECORD WITHOUT FEE PURSUANT
TO GOV’T CODE SECTION 6103
Recording Requested by:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California
When Recorded, Mail to:

Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Form per Gov’t Code Section 27361.6 [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE] RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN

ELECTRIC EASEMENT AND WIRE CLEARANCE
EASEMENT AT 2690 SCOTT BOULEVARD [APN 224-10-
131 (2021-22)]
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara currently possesses the Electric Easement and Wire Clearance Easement described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, which Exhibits are incorporated herein by reference. Said Easements were dedicated by those certain documents as mentioned in said Exhibits; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council “may summarily vacate a public service easement” in any of the following cases:
(a) The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. (b) The date of dedication or acquisition is less than five years, and more than one year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the easement was not used continuously since that date.

Resolution ordering the Vacation of Easements Page 2 of 3 Rev. 11/22/17; Typed:04-08-2022 SC21-0014
(c) The easement has been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That said Easements shown in said Exhibits have been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess by the easement holders, and there are no other public facilities located within the easements.

2. That said Easements described and shown in said Exhibits in the City are hereby vacated pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 8333.

3. That the vacation hereby releases all easement rights and interest of the City referred in said Exhibits to the current property owner(s).
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Resolution ordering the Vacation of Easements Page 3 of 3 Rev. 11/22/17; Typed:04-08-2022 SC21-0014

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: __________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Exhibits A and B
K:\Engineering\Engineering\5-LPD\DOC\SC21-0014 Res vac easements.doc

EXHIBIT'A'

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS TO ACCOMPANY VACATIONS OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS

IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
THAT CERTAIN 10' (TEN) WIDE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING,

MAINTAINING AND REPLACING UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND/ OR OVERHEAD WIRES, CABLES AND

LINES SUSPENDED FROM CROSSARMS AND POLES SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED PARCEL A IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1966 IN BOOK 7402, AT PAGE 279, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

THAT CERTAIN 5' (FIVE) WIDE WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CLEARANCE

FOR, AND FROM, WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES THERETO ON ANY CONTIGUOUS ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT, AS DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED PARCEL 1 IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1966 IN BOOK 7402, AT PAGE 279, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

THAT CERTAIN 5' (FIVE) FOOT WIDE WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING

CLEARANCE FOR, AND FROM, WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES THERETO ON ANY CONTIGUOUS ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT, AS DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED PARCEL 2 IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1966 IN BOOK 7402, AT PAGE 279, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 'B' (PLAT) ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.

END OF DESCRIPTIONS

THESE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WERE PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. , I
DATE
P.L.S 6809
EXHIBIT •e•

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY VACATIONS OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS
IN THE Cl1Y OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BEING A PORTION OF PARCELS SIX AND SEVEN AS SHOWN ON THAT PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 314 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 40, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. (/)
(")
)>
r
rr,
_.
;
II
(X)
0 f1J
LEGEND
APN 224-10-130
LO
0 I
0 .-
I
,qN
N
z

0..
<(
10' EASEMENT & RIGHT OF WAY

FOR INSTALLING, MAINTAINING

REPLACING UNDERGROUND

CONDUITS AND/OR OVERHEAD

WIRES, CABLES AND LINES

SUSPENDED FROM CROSSARMS

AND POLES (PARCEL A)

EXISTING LOT LINE

EXISTING CENTERLINE

PORTION OF

PARCEL SEVEN
& PARCEL SIX
314 MAPS 40
(PARCEL 1)
s·w.c.E.1 ~ Naa·57'55"W _ 110.00· 1=---------- t: ==== - === (PARCEL 2) S'W.C.E.

PARCEL EIGHT
314 MAPS 40
LO
N
O'l
LO
b
0 (/)
I
50'
- - - - - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINE
Date
W.C.E. WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT
. King, P.L.S.
10 -1 ( -Z.1
JN 13007
.I 50'
NOTE: ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN WERE GRANTED FROM

GRESHAM TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA BY DEED
RECORDED JUNE 6, 1966 IN BOOK 7402, AT PAGE
279, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
(AS PARCEL A. PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2)
HANNA-BRUNE:TTI
EST. 1910
CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS

CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
7651 EIGLEBERRY ST. I GILROY, CA 95020
408.842.2173
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-662 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Award of a Purchase Order to American Truck & Trailer Body Co. for Automated Valve Operators and Installation Services

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The Water & Sewer Utilities Department (Department) delivers potable water to approximately 26,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers. In doing so, Department staff maintains, rehabilitates, repairs, or replaces approximately 335 miles of potable water mains throughout the City. These water mains are controlled by valves that can control, direct and regulate water flow in pipes.

The valve turning equipment is used to exercise main line valves throughout the distribution system to assure reliable operation and maintain water quality. It is used during routine water main replacement and emergency main breaks to stop water flow to the segment(s) being replaced.

During an emergency main break, the valve turning equipment will play the vital role of stopping the flow of water, thereby mitigating property damage in the area. This equipment will make the process safer and more efficient. Having multiple pieces of equipment provides the redundancy necessary in a water distribution system.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to City Code Section 2.105.330, a formal Request for Bids (RFB) was conducted as the solicitation method for this procurement, with the award recommendation based on the “lowest bid”.

In April 2022, the RFB for the purchase and installation services of three (3) automated valve operators was issued using the City’s e-procurement platform. A total of 16 companies viewed the RFB and one bid was received as follows:

Bidder Total Base Bid
American Truck & Trailer Body Co. (AT&TBC) $156,844
In addition to the automated bid notifications sent to potential bidders through the e-procurement platform, staff reached out to firms in the industry.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 8/10/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-662 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
Staff recommends award of purchase order to AT&TBC as the sole bidder meeting all RFB specifications and requirements.

Under this purchase order, AT&TBC will provide and install three (3) automated valve operators onto the front of City vehicles. Pricing shall be fixed for the one-year term of the purchase order.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 (b)(2) in that the proposed actions are agreements for the purchase of products and services that are continuing maintenance and administrative activities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is sufficient budget in the Water Utility Fund of the Water & Sewer Utilities Department’s FY 2022/23 adopted operating budget to cover the costs of this purchase order ($156,844) and a recommended 10% contingency amount ($15,684).

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Fleet Division of Public Works Department, Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase Order with American Truck and Trailer Body Co. for the purchase and installation of three (3) automated valve operators, with a maximum compensation of $156,844 plus applicable taxes for a one-year term; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute change orders for a not-to-exceed contingency amount of $15,684 in the event any unforeseen changes arise, subject to the appropriation of funds.

Reviewed by: Gary Welling, Director of Water & Sewer Utilities Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/10/2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-900 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Request for a Special Permit to Allow Seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree Sales Events at 2610 El Camino Real from September 17, 2022 through December 24, 2022

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Holly Prinz of ABC Tree Farms, LLC, is requesting a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.60.030 to allow seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree sales events located at 2610 El Camino Real (the Moonlite Shopping Center). The property is zoned for commercial use (Community Commercial). The Community Commercial zoning district does not identify outdoor seasonal sales events as a use permitted by right or through issuance of a Use Permit. However, City Code Section 18.60.030 allows activities to be performed in any non-industrial Zoning District for any use not otherwise regulated within the Zoning Code upon issuance of a Special Permit by the City Council.

The site is developed with commercial uses. Neighboring land uses include Saratoga Creek, multifamily residential, and commercial development.

The Pumpkin Patch sales event is proposed to begin on September 17, 2022 and end on October 31, 2022, with setup commencing on September 1, 2022 and the breakdown of the setup to be completed by November 10, 2022. The Christmas Tree sales event will begin on November 19, 2022 and end on December 24, 2022, with setup commencing on November 10, 2022 and the breakdown of the setup to be completed by December 31, 2022. The hours of operation for the Pumpkin Patch will be 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. The hours of operation for the Christmas Tree lot will be 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m.-9:30 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

The proposed Pumpkin Patch sales event would include temporary tents, children’s inflatable entertainment units, a dumpster area, and a storage container. The Christmas Tree sales event would include similar temporary facilities. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power. The property is owned by Moonlite Associates LLC, which has provided written authorization for the temporary use.

DISCUSSION
The proposed temporary use, with limited duration and operations proposed, is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding land uses in that the events will occur over a limited time period City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 8/10/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-900 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
and will be subject to conditions which mitigate potential negative impacts, including a condition of approval that the use be conducted in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance.

Any possible impacts would also be offset by the benefit to the community from the event. The Special Permit is subject to revocation should a problem arise. Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree lots operated at this location in prior years have not resulted in any known negative impacts to the community.

The proposed project will allow the purchase of pumpkins and trees for the surrounding community.

The proposed use could impact the availability of parking to support the host shopping center.

However, given the site context and the limited timeframe of the proposed use, the benefits of providing access to holiday décor outweigh the potential disadvantages, and conditions of approval help protect the surrounding community from adverse impacts.

Draft Permit and Conditions
The proposed permit would be subject to conditions of approval as follows:

1. Special Permit shall be valid from September 17, 2022 through December 24, 2022; with setup beginning on September 1, 2022, and breakdown/clean-up to be completed by December 31, 2022, with the following sales allowances:
a. Pumpkin Patch sales: September 17, 2022 through October 31, 2022; b. Christmas Tree sales: November 19, 2022 through December 24, 2022;

2. Pumpkin Patch hours of operation: Sunday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.;

3. Christmas Tree lot hours of operation: Sunday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-9:30 p.m.;

4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all applicable Santa Clara Building Division and/or Fire Department directives, permits, and requirements, including but not limited to temporary electrical and tent permits;

5. The applicant shall obtain an amplified music permit and shall comply with City Code Section

9.10.040, noise and sound regulation;

6. The applicant shall obtain temporary sign permits for all temporary signs advertising the events;

7. There shall be no “searchlight” beams, streamers, or roof-mounted balloons during the events;

8. Upon conclusion of the Christmas Tree sales events, the parking lot shall be cleaned and returned to its prior condition; and

9. The use shall operate in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from formal environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15304(e) (Class 4 - “Minor Alterations to Land”) as it consists of “minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.”

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 8/10/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-900 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request of a Special Permit to allow for seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree sales events at 2610 El Camino Real from September 17, 2022 through December 24, 2022, subject to conditions.

Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. ABC Tree Farms 2610 El Camino Real Operations Plan

2. Pumpkin Patch Site Plan

3. Christmas Tree Site Plan
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 8/10/2022
powered by Legistar™
4 -,~ay Management, Inc.
- 1111
May 23, 2022
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
2464 El Camino Real Ste 934
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Re: Letter Agreement between Moonlite Associates LLC and ABC Tree Farms, LLC, a California limited liability company
To Whom It May Concern:

In consideration .of your .cov.enants set forth below, Lessor agrees to your temporary lease of a portion of Moonlite Shopping Center as described herein. (1.) The leased area herein ("Leased Area") is located in the parking lot ofMoonlite Shopping Center in Santa Clara, California and further outlined in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Lessor is MOONLITE AS SOCIA TES LLC and the Lessee is ABC TREE FARMS, LLC. (2.) The tenn ofthjs lease is August 16, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (a) In the event Licensee is unable to obtain the necessary permits to operate its planned business upon the property from the City of Santa Clara, or any other government agency that requires Lkeosee to obtain a pennit, Licensee shall advise Lkensor in writing of such denial of the needed pennit and the License Agreement shall be .tenninated at such time. Licensee shall be entitled to the unused portion of the rent payment made in advance. (3.) Rent shall be in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($5,000~00) per month payable beginning September 1, 2021. With payment for August 2022 of TWO THOUSAND AND 00/100 ( $2,500.00) . Please remit the first month's rent upon the execution of this Letter Agreement.
(4.) The Leased Area shall be used for the purpose of a Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree Farm, selling pumpkins, trees and seasonal fruits.
(5.) Lessee shall lease the Leased Area in an "as is" condition. (.6.) T.enant shall surrender Premises to.Owner in.good.order, condition and.repair, with all personal property removed, and Area shall be left in a ''BROOM-CLEAN'' condition. (7.) Lessee covenants and agrees that:
(a.) Lessee shall provide an insurance certificate naming MOONLITE ASSOCJATES LLC, as additional insured, specifying Moonlite Shopping Center, as the location with a comprehensive g.eneral liabilicy amount.of$2,000,000.
1350 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. SUITE 800- BURLINGAME, CA. 94010-1617-TELEPHONE (650) 952-2300 FAX (650) 581-1912 www.scmre.com
5 (b.) Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any damage or liability of any kind arising out of any injury to or death of persons or damage to the property of Lessee, Lessor or any other person or entity which occurred during the term of this Letter Agreement, from any cause whatsoever, by reason of the use, occupancy and enjoyment of the leased area by Lessee or any person and save the Lessor harmless from all liability arising out of the supply of Labor material supplied to or benefiting the leased area during the term of this Letter Agreement.

This indemnification shall extend to the retention of legal counsel, payment of attorney's fees, the expenditure of investigation costs and all other costs, expenses and liabilities in defending and/or settling any such lien, claim or demand.
(c.) In the event that Lessee is (a) unable to operate from leased premises due to any COVID-19 related city, county, or state restrictions ( including Lessee's inability to obtain permits to operate from the leased premises due to COVID- 19 and due to city, county, or state restrictions), or (b) required to shut down or not operate from the leased premises due to a virus threat; Lessee shall notify Lessor within three days of such and Lessee shall be entitled to terminate this Lease as of the date of such notification. In the event of termination of the Lease by Lessee in accordance with the tenns of this paragraph; (1) the Lessee shall at once surrender the said premises and alJ interest therein to Lessor; and (2) rents shall be prorated as to the length of the term of tenancy prior to the termination and if rentals are paid in advance, any unused portion shall be refunded to Lessee by Le.ssor.
(d.) Lessee agrees to hold the contents of this Letter Agreement in full confidence and not to disclose its context.

Please indicate your agreement to the above stated terms and conditions by signing in the designated area below, and return both copies. You wilJ receive a fully executed copy shortly thereafter. If you should have any further questions, please contact Deborah Hemlock at (650) 228-2201.

Cordially,

MOONLITE ASSOCIATES LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SC!ay Management, Inc.
are corporation

BJM/JLM
Encl.
6 The undersigned hereby agrees to the terms and conditions set forth in the foregoing Letter Agreement

ABC TREE FARMS, LLC,
a .California limited liability company
5/24/2022
Holly Prinz, Director of Operations Date
7 EXHJB1T A
I :;
l Untitled Map
' ·rite J d:!scr.p:ion o · cur 013
Method of Operations Proposed Halloween/Pumpkin Patch
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
Moonlight Center, 2610 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA
APN 290-06-020
2022
Proposed Days are September 1, 2022 through November 10, 2022 for the Pumpkin/Halloween Sales, which includes several days for set up and tear down of the operation. Lot will be open to the public from September 17 through October 31, 2022. Hours of operation will be Seven days a week, Sunday through Thursday we will open at 10:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM. Friday and Saturday we will open at 10:00 AM and remain open until 10:00 PM.

The area will be as diagrammed in the attached Potential Halloween/Pumpkin Patch Plot Plan. All necessary permits and approvals will be acquired from the City. Garbage and chemical toilets including (1) handicap accessible toilet will be provided on the site (90”H x 67” W x 86.5D with seat height of 19”. We have no hazardous chemicals on our site. Tent permits will be filed with the local Fire Department. Handicap parking will be available at the entrance with a 36” wide clear path accessible by wheelchairs to the cashier booth/area. We are requesting the use of a 40’ x 40’ tent with posted signs of Maximum Occupancy of 80 on each side of tent and (1) 20’ x 60’ tent (consisting of 3 20x20 canopies side by side) with posted signs of Maximum Occupancy of 40 on each side of tent which are all made of Fire Retardant material and with label attached. Tent will be open on all sides. Lighted exit signs will be placed inside the 40’ x 40’ tent and will be on two separate circuits in the tent. This will be cleared through the appropriate Building and Fire Departments. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power with (2) 200 amp temporary power poles with permits pulled through the Building Department. Signage will be as diagrammed (exit, no smoking). Parking is as diagrammed on the site plan and traffic flows will be as diagrammed. We will have approximately 9 inflatable amusements including bounce houses, obstacle courses and slides for children ages 2-12 that meet all California state requirements and one hard slide. Inflatables are tied down using 1"x36" double head steel stakes made by Hogan Tent Stakes that go into the ground 30 inches. Each stake has the capability of holding down 2000 lbs. The tie down consist of a minimum 3/8" polypropylene rope with a minimum breaking strength of 2430 lbs.

The rope is tied to stake and all tie downs located on the inflatable. Tie downs are double stitched on all inflatables. Small Jumpers (20x20) generally have 6-10 tie downs. Medium Size Jumpers or 3N1's generally have 8-12 tie downs and 40x60 Slides have 20 tie downs.

Items that will be available will be pumpkins, inflatable amusements, Halloween Sundries and décor along. Anticipated attendance over the course of 30 days is approximately 2500 people. Our application is similar to the operations we ran in the 2017-2021 seasons.

COVID-19 Protocols: We are prepared to enforce crowd control, social distancing and mask wearing etc., as well as remain compliant with any current regulations that may be in effect for COVID-19. All locations will have hand washing stations with hand sanitizer at the entrance of the lot. We understand that any permit to operate is also subject to any current city, county or state ordinances.

If you require further information please contact my project manager, Holly Prinz, at 707-775-1520 or via email at [email protected].

Jerome R Klima JR
LLC Member
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
8 Method of Operations Proposed Christmas Tree Sales
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
Moonlite Center
2610 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA
APN 290-06-020
2022
Proposed days of operation are November 10, 2022 through December 31, 2022 for Christmas tree sales which includes several days before and after for lot set up and tear down. Lot will be open to the public from November 19 through December 24, 2022.

Hours of operation will be Seven days a week, Sunday through Thursday we will open at 10:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM. Friday and Saturday we will open at 9:00 AM and remain open until 9:30 PM.

The area will be as diagrammed in the attached Potential Christmas Tree Sales Plot Plan.

All necessary permits and approvals will be acquired from the City. Garbage and chemical toilets including (1) handicap accessible toilet will be provided on the site (90”H x 67” W x 86.5D with seat height of 19”. We have no hazardous chemicals on our site. Handicap parking will be available at the entrance with a 36” wide clear path accessible by wheelchairs to the cashier booth/area. We are requesting the use of a 40’ x 100’ tent that will have a posted Maximum Occupancy signs of 180 and is made of flame retardant materials with posted label. This will be cleared through the appropriate Building and Fire Departments. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power with (2) 200 amp temporary power poles with permits pulled through the Building Department.

Signage will be as diagrammed (exit, no smoking). Parking is as diagrammed on the site plan and traffic flows will be as diagrammed.

Items that will be sold will be Christmas trees, wreaths and garlands and assorted Christmas Holiday Items. Anticipated attendance over the course of the 30 day period is approximately 1500 families. Our application is similar to the operations we ran in the 2016-2021 seasons.

COVID-19 Protocols: We are prepared to enforce crowd control, social distancing and mask wearing etc., as well as remain compliant with any current regulations that may be in effect for COVID-19. All locations will have hand washing stations with hand sanitizer at the entrance of the lot. We understand that any permit to operate is also subject to any current city, county or state ordinances.

If you require further information, please contact the project manager, Holly Prinz, at 707-775-1520 or via email at [email protected].

Jerome R Klima JR
LLC Member
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
14 EL CAMINO REAL

BOWE AVE

MOON LIGHT

CENTER ABC TREE FARMS PUMPKIN PATCH
APN 290 - 06 - 020
2610 EL CAMINO REAL

SANTA CLARA, CA
DRAWN BY: HUAN NGUYEN
CONTACT: JERRY KLIMA
TELEPHONE: 503 975 8733
1 INCH
25 FEET SCALE:

N
S
E
W
LARGE
SLIDE
SMALL
SLIDE
CANOPY
20’ x 20’
CANOPY
20’ x 20’
CANOPY
20’ x 20’

PLAY AREA

PIRATE SHIP
12’ x 30’
TENT
40’ x 40’ STORAGE

CONTAINER
MGR RV
ASST
MGR RV 8’ x 20’
JUMPER
15’ x 15’
3 IN 1
20’ x 20’
X

PARKING
160’
140’
110’
45’
35’ 35’
ADA
TOILET
CONES+ DIRECTIONALS

FOR VEHICLES

TEMPORARY

TOILETS
PAINT
BALL
RANGE

SLIDE SLIDE
KIDDIE
PLAY
AREA
15’ x 20’
TENT
40’ x 40’

CUSTOMER

ENTRANCE / EXIT
(2) 200AMP
TEMP
POWER
= LIGHT UP BATTERYBACKUP EXIT SIGNS
EE = LIGHT UP BATTERY BACKUP EXIT SIGNS
= NO SMOKING SIGNS
= FIRE EXTINGUISHER
ES
ESES
NS

NS NS NS NS
FE
FE FE
FE
FE
FE
FE FE
FE
JUMPER
20’ x 20’
EE
FE
FE
0 0 0
'\
......
,,,.,
/ I
I/
0 ,,,.,
......
\'
t

ABC TREE FARMS

CHRISTMAS TREE LOT
APN 290 - 06 - 020
2610 EL CAMINO REAL

SANTA CLARA, CA
ASST
MGR RV

EL CAMINO REAL

BOWE AVE

MOON LIGHT
CENTER
DRAWN BY: HUAN NGUYEN
CONTACT: JERRY KLIMA
TELEPHONE: 503 975 8733
1 INCH
25 FEET SCALE:

TENT
40’ x 100’

STORAGE

CONTAINER
MGR RV
8’ x 20’ CUSTOMER ENTRANCE / EXIT
(2) 200AMP
TEMP
POWER
X

PARKING
160’
125’
110’
45’
35’ 35’
CONES+ DIRECTIONALS

FOR VEHICLES
TRASH

CHRISTMAS
TREE

SALES AREA
ADA
TOILET

TEMPORARY

TOILETS
ES
ES
ES

NS NS NS
N
S
E W
= LIGHT UP BATTERYBACKUP EXIT SIGNS
EE = LIGHT UP BATTERY BACKUP EXIT SIGNS
= NO SMOKING SIGNS
= FIRE EXTINGUISHER
ES
NS
FE
FEFE
FEFE

FEFE FEFE
FE
FE
FE
EE
0 0 0
'\ I/
,, ......
/ I \'
t
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-901 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Request for a Special Permit to Allow Seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree Sales Events at 3590 Benton Street from October 1, 2022 through December 24, 2022

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Holly Prinz of ABC Tree Farms, LLC, is requesting a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.60.030 to allow seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree sales events located on a vacant lot at the southeast corner of Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street (3590 Benton Street). The property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R1-6L). However, City Code Section 18.60.030 allows activities to be performed in any non-industrial Zoning District for any use not otherwise regulated within the Zoning Code upon issuance of a Special Permit by the City Council.

The site is adjacent to a church and the Calabasas Creek. Neighboring properties include singlefamily, multi-family, and commercial uses.

The Pumpkin Patch sales event is proposed to begin on October 1, 2022, and end on October 31, 2022, with setup commencing on September 1, 2022 and the breakdown of the setup to be completed by November 10, 2022. The Christmas Tree sales event will begin on November 20, 2022, and end on December 24, 2022, with setup commencing on November 10, 2022 and the breakdown of the setup to be completed by December 31, 2022. The hours of operation for the Pumpkin Patch will be from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. The hours of operation for the Christmas Tree lot will be from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

The proposed pumpkin sales event would include temporary tents, children’s inflatable entertainment units, a dumpster area, and a storage container. The Christmas Tree sales event would include similar temporary facilities. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power. The property is owned by the County of Santa Clara which has provided written authorization for the temporary use.

DISCUSSION
The proposed temporary use, with limited duration and operations proposed, is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding land uses in that the events will occur over a limited time period and will be subject to conditions which mitigate potential negative impacts, including a condition of approval that the use be conducted in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance.

Any possible impacts would also be offset by the benefit to the community from the event. The City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-901 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
Special Permit is subject to revocation should a problem arise. Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree lots operated at this location in prior years have not resulted in any known negative impacts to the community.

The proposed project will allow the purchase of pumpkins and trees for the surrounding community.

The proposed use could impact the availability of parking to support the host shopping center.

However, given the site context and the limited timeframe of the proposed use, the benefits of providing access to holiday décor outweigh the potential disadvantages, and conditions of approval help protect the surrounding community from adverse impacts.

Draft Permit and Conditions

1. The proposed permit would be subject to conditions of approval as follows:

2. Special Permit shall be valid from October 1, 2022 through December 24, 2022; with set-up beginning on September 1, 2022, and breakdown/clean-up to be completed by December 31, 2022, with the following sales allowances:
a. Pumpkin Patch sales: October 1, 2022 through October 31, 2022; b. Christmas Tree sales: November 20, 2022 through December 24, 2022;

3. Pumpkin Patch hours of operation: Sunday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.;

4. Christmas Tree lot hours of operation: Sunday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.;

5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all applicable Santa Clara Building Division and/or Fire Department directives, permits, and requirements, including but not limited to temporary electrical and tent permits;

6. The applicant shall obtain an amplified music permit and shall comply with City Code Section

9.10.040, noise and sound regulation;

7. The applicant shall obtain temporary sign permits for all temporary signs advertising the events;

8. There shall be no “searchlight” beams, streamers, or roof-mounted balloons during the event;

9. Upon conclusion of the Pumpkin Patch/Christmas Tree sales events, the vacant lot shall be cleaned and returned to its prior condition; and

10.The use shall operate in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from formal environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15304(e) (Class 4 - “Minor Alterations to Land”) as it consists of “minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.”

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-901 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request of a Special Permit to allow for a seasonal Pumpkin Patch and Christmas Tree sales events at 3590 Benton Street from October 1, 2022 through December 24, 2022, subject to conditions.

Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. ABC Tree Farms 3590 Benton Street Operations Plan

2. Pumpkin Patch Site Plan

3. Christmas Tree Site Plan
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
Method of Operations Proposed Halloween/Pumpkin Patch
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
3590 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
2022
Proposed Days are September 1, 2022 through November 10, 2022 for the Pumpkin/Halloween Sales, which includes several days for set up and tear down of the operation. Lot will be open to the public from October 1 through October 31, 2022. Hours of operation will be Seven days a week, Sunday through Thursday we will open at 10:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM. Friday and Saturday we will open at 10:00 AM and remain open until 10:00 PM.

The area will be as diagrammed in the attached Potential Halloween/Pumpkin Patch Plot Plan. All necessary permits and approvals will be acquired from the City. Garbage and chemical toilets including (1) handicap accessible toilet will be provided on the site (90”H x 67” W x 86.5D with seat height of 19”. We have no hazardous chemicals on our site. Handicap parking will be available at the entrance with a 36” wide clear path accessible by wheelchairs to the cashier booth/area. We are requesting the use of a 40’ x 80’ tent with posted signs of Maximum Occupancy of 160 on each side of tent which is made of Fire Retardant material and will have required labels. Tent will be open on all sides. Lighted exit signs will be placed inside the tent and will be on two separate circuits in the tent. This will be cleared through the appropriate Building and Fire Departments. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power with (2) 200 amp temporary power poles with permits pulled through the Building Department. Signage will be as diagrammed (exit, no smoking). Parking is as diagrammed on the site plan and traffic flows will be as diagrammed. Parking will be at least 20 feet from any temporary membrane structures, tents or canopies. We will have approximately 9 inflatable amusements including bounce houses, obstacle courses and slides for children ages 2-12 that meet all California state requirements and one hard slide. Inflatables are tied down using 1"x36" double head steel stakes made by Hogan Tent Stakes that go into the ground 30 inches. Each stake has the capability of holding down 2000 lbs. The tie down consist of a minimum 3/8" polypropylene rope with a minimum breaking strength of 2430 lbs. The rope is tied to stake and all tie downs located on the inflatable. Tie downs are double stitched on all inflatables. Small Jumpers (20x20) generally have 6-10 tie downs. Medium Size Jumpers or 3N1's generally have 8-12 tie downs and 40x60 Slides have 20 tie downs. No flammable or combustible liquids will be stored on site.

Items that will be available will be pumpkins, inflatable amusements, Halloween Sundries and décor along with a small animal display area. Anticipated attendance over the course of 30 days is approximately 2500 people. Our application is similar to the operations we ran in the 2010-2021 seasons. A scaled diagram is attached.

COVID-19 Protocols: We are prepared to enforce crowd control, social distancing and mask wearing etc., as well as remain compliant with any current regulations that may be in effect for COVID-19. All locations will have hand washing stations with hand sanitizer at the entrance of the lot. We understand that any permit to operate is also subject to any current city, county or state ordinances.

If you require further information, please contact my project manager, Holly Prinz, at 707-775-1520 or via email at [email protected].

Jerome R Klima JR
LLC Member
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department
IO I Skyport Drive
San Jose, California 951 1 0-1302
1-408-573-2400
Via U.S. Mail
June 3, 2022
Ms. Holly Prinz
ABC Tree Farms
1619 Fullerton Road
Edgewater, Maryland 21037
RE: License for the Use of Parcel Owned by the County of Santa Clara for Seasonal Agricultural Sales - Southeast Comer of Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway in the City of Santa Clara
Dear Ms. Prinz:

In the past you have bid upon the parcel of land owned by the County of Santa Clara located at the intersection of Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway, within the City of Santa Clara, for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales. This is a courtesy notice that the County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department is publishing a notice to issue a license for the use of the parcel to the highest bidder. The license will begin on October 1, 2022 and will extend until December 31, 2022.

For your convenience, I have included the notice of availability (with location map), offer form, and a sample agreement for the parcel. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (408) 573-2445, Fax (408) 441-0144.

S/ ly /)(;}~
Ja Wal h
Real . ropert Section
Roads & Airports Department
County of Santa Clara
Attachments as referenced
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, s. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith ill
7-007
Method of Operations Proposed Halloween/Pumpkin Patch
ABC Tree Farms, LLC
3590 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA
2022
Proposed Days are September 1, 2022 through November 10, 2022 for the Pumpkin/Halloween Sales, which includes several days for set up and tear down of the operation. Lot will be open to the public from September 24 through October 31, 2022. Hours of operation will be Seven days a week, Sunday through Thursday we will open at 10:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM. Friday and Saturday we will open at 10:00 AM and remain open until 10:00 PM.

The area will be as diagrammed in the attached Potential Halloween/Pumpkin Patch Plot Plan. All necessary permits and approvals will be acquired from the City. Garbage and chemical toilets including (1) handicap accessible toilet will be provided on the site (90”H x 67” W x 86.5D with seat height of 19”. We have no hazardous chemicals on our site. Handicap parking will be available at the entrance with a 36” wide clear path accessible by wheelchairs to the cashier booth/area. We are requesting the use of a 40’ x 80’ tent with posted signs of Maximum Occupancy of 160 on each side of tent which is made of Fire Retardant material and will have required labels. Tent will be open on all sides. Lighted exit signs will be placed inside the tent and will be on two separate circuits in the tent. This will be cleared through the appropriate Building and Fire Departments. Power will be supplied by Silicon Valley Power with (2) 200 amp temporary power poles with permits pulled through the Building Department. Signage will be as diagrammed (exit, no smoking). Parking is as diagrammed on the site plan and traffic flows will be as diagrammed. Parking will be at least 20 feet from any temporary membrane structures, tents or canopies. We will have approximately 9 inflatable amusements including bounce houses, obstacle courses and slides for children ages 2-12 that meet all California state requirements and one hard slide. Inflatables are tied down using 1"x36" double head steel stakes made by Hogan Tent Stakes that go into the ground 30 inches. Each stake has the capability of holding down 2000 lbs. The tie down consist of a minimum 3/8" polypropylene rope with a minimum breaking strength of 2430 lbs. The rope is tied to stake and all tie downs located on the inflatable. Tie downs are double stitched on all inflatables. Small Jumpers (20x20) generally have 6-10 tie downs. Medium Size Jumpers or 3N1's generally have 8-12 tie downs and 40x60 Slides have 20 tie downs. No flammable or combustible liquids will be stored on site.

Items that will be available will be pumpkins, inflatable amusements, Halloween Sundries and décor along with a small animal display area. Anticipated attendance over the course of 30 days is approximately 2500 people. Our application is similar to the operations we ran in the 2010-2021 seasons. A scaled diagram is attached.

COVID-19 Protocols: We are prepared to enforce crowd control, social distancing and mask wearing etc., as well as remain compliant with any current regulations that may be in effect for COVID-19. All locations will have hand washing stations with hand sanitizer at the entrance of the lot. We understand that any permit to operate is also subject to any current city, county or state ordinances.

If you require further information, please contact my project manager, Holly Prinz, at 707-775-1520 or via email at [email protected].

Jerome R Klima JR
LLC Member
ABC Tree Farms, LLC

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR LICENSE OF COUNTY OF SANTA

CLARA REAL PROPERTY
Property Location:

Proposed Use:

License Period:

Minimum Rent:

Southeast Corner of Lawrence Expressway at Benton Street, Santa Clara, California
Seasonal Agricultural Sales
Three (3) month license from October 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.

Six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) per month.

Comments/ Special Stipulation(s): No expressway access.

Written offers to obtain a license for the use of this property will be accepted before 3 :00 p.m., July 8, 2022, at the Roads and Airports Department, Property Section, 101 Skyport Drive, San Jose, CA 95110-1302. All offers should include a description of the proposed use(s) for the property.

After review of the offers, the Roads and Airports Department shall either accept the highest offer or reject all offers for the property.

If an offer is accepted for the property, the license shall be executed by the successful offerer and the Director of the Roads and Airports Department.

Inquiries should be directed to the Property Section of the Roads and Airports Department at the above-noted address.

DATE: June 3. 2022
Nol ice Avail Lice11se/Lawre11ceBcnto11

EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP
z
0 1-
z
w
(I]
_______ ,l------1
A 'v'MSS3~dX3 3JNJ~M'vl
1-
w
w
~
1-
(J)
z
0 1-
z
w
m
I-
<(
>-
<(
5 (/)
(/)
w
a::::

0...

X
w
w
u
z
w
Ck:
s
<(
_j

LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY
365’
150’
250’

VEHICLE

ENTER/ EXIT

INFLATABLES

INFLATABLE

INFLATABLE

PUMPKIN

DISPLAY

SERVICE VEHICLE

ENTER/ EXIT

DUMPSTER

HANDICAP TOILET
TOILET
EE

SERVICE EXIT

MGR TRAILER

MGR TRAILER

STORAGE CONTAINER
TOILET

ENTRANCE
EXIT
CONER
ADA
ADA
240’

BENTON STREET

ABC TREE FARMS

PUMPKIN PATCH
3590 BENTON STREET
APN 290-22-154
SLIDE
PAINT
BALL
RANGE
TENT
40 ‘x 80’
20’
N
= LIGHT UP BATTERY

BACK UP EXIT SIGN
EE = EMERGENCY EXIT

LIGHT UP BATTERY

BACK UP
= NO SMOKING SIGNS
= FIRE EXTINGUISHER
ES
ES
ES
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
FE
FE FE
FE
FE
ES
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE ES
FE
DRAWN BY: HUAN NGUYEN
CONTACT: JERRY KLIMA
TELEPHONE: 503 975 8733
SCALE: 1 INCH
30 FEET

TEMP PP
0 0
0 0
0 □ 0
□
I
1---
1 1---
1 '-
I
'-
I
'-
:o_
I
I ,--
1 :0--
.-----
I
0 ~
0 . ~· 0 I
M--------+fD___ '---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__
I
L__
I
I __
I
I
:~ ,--
.._ __ _._O ______ Q
1 .--
I
.--
I
.-
1 r--
D0009
□□

ABC TREE FARMS

CHRISTMAS TREES
3590 BENTON STREET
APN 290-22-154

LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY
365’
150’
250’

VEHICLE

ENTER/ EXIT

SERVICE VEHICLE

ENTER/ EXIT

DUMPSTER

HANDICAP TOILET
TOILET
EE

SERVICE EXIT

MGR TRAILER

MGR TRAILER

STORAGE CONTAINER
TOILET

ENTRANCE
EXIT

FLOCKING
BOOTH

CHRISTMAS

TREE DISPLAY

CHRISTMAS

TREE DISPLAY
CONER
ADA
ADA
240’

BENTON STREET
TENT
40 ‘x 80’
20’
N
= LIGHT UP BATTERY

BACK UP EXIT SIGN
EE = EMERGENCY EXIT

LIGHT UP BATTERY

BACK UP
= NO SMOKING SIGNS
= FIRE EXTINGUISHER
ES
ES
ES
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
FE
FE
FE
ES
FE

FE FE FE
FE
FE ES
FE FE
FE
DRAWN BY: HUAN NGUYEN
CONTACT: JERRY KLIMA
TELEPHONE: 503 975 8733
SCALE: 1 INCH
30 FEET

TEMP PP
0 0
0 0
I
I
I
CD
~----_j
0 0
I
1-----
1 1-----
1 L----
1 L----
1 LlQ_
I
·-I
·-:0
.-=----
~
•
•
••••
0 L-
,--- Q_
I
L--
1 L--
1 I, __
I
I __ _
:_a_
I
~
~
~
:-
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-561 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate, Execute, and Administer an Agreement with the City of San Jose for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study and Related Budget Amendment

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High-Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-8781 (Attachment 1) in support of a Stevens Creek Corridor Complete Streets and Transit Study to: 1) explore transit options including Complete Streets elements along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor and 2) consider potential options for a grade-separated high capacity transit system for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor to connect the Cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, and San Jose. The Cities of Cupertino, San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara have also adopted resolutions in support of a Stevens Creek Corridor Complete Streets and Transit Study.

Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee: A Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee (Steering Committee) was formed and includes elected officials from the Cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara. The Steering Committee has met two times - on July 20, 2020 and December 13, 2021. During both meetings the Steering Committee discussed the potential joint study of the Stevens Creek corridor for complete streets and transit improvements.

On July 20, 2020, former Councilmember Teresa O’Neill, Vice Mayor Chappie Jones (City of San Jose), Councilmember Dev Davis (City of San Jose), Mayor Darcy Paul, (City of Cupertino), former Councilmember Rod Sinks (City of Cupertino) and staff from Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, VTA, and the County of Santa Clara met as a part of the Steering Committee to discuss a proposed scope to study the Stevens Creek corridor. At the meeting, the Steering Committee gave direction to proceed with a study that would provide a vision for the Stevens Creek Corridor. The Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study (Vision Study) would be developed through a community engagement process that would be supported by illustrative concepts versus engineered drawings. Final approval for the scope of the Vision Study and budget allocations would require approval of each affected jurisdiction. Additionally, the Vision Study was to be included as an amendment to VTA’s Strategic Plan with the VTA as the lead for consultant contract management. In late 2020, the City of Cupertino’s City Council elected not to participate in the Vision Study and, consequently, the Vision Study was put on hold.

In spring 2021, the staff-level working group met to discuss options to reengage on a possible joint study for the Stevens Creek Corridor. With continued interest in a joint study, staff continued to work on possible options and funding strategies. Additionally, staff from the City of Cupertino expressed City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-561 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
interest in re-presenting the study concept to the Cupertino City Council. During the summer of 2021, it was determined that the option to include the Vision Study as an amendment to the VTA’s Strategic Plan had expired. The City of San Jose proposed an option in which the Vision Study would be included as an amendment with their contract with Iteris and Winter Consulting for the West San Jose Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan, which is a City of San Jose effort to identify, prioritize, and recommend transportation projects and programs for West San Jose, which includes a portion of the Stevens Creek corridor (within San Jose’s jurisdiction).

On December 13, 2021, the Steering Committee, comprised of Mayor Lisa Gillmor, Councilmember Anthony Becker, Vice Mayor Chappie Jones (City of San Jose), and Councilmember Kitty Moore (City of Cupertino), met and gave direction to staff to proceed with the Vision Study subject to the approval of each respective City Council or Board, if necessary.

DISCUSSION
Since the December 2021 Steering Committee meeting, staff has continued to meet monthly with staff from the City of San Jose, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, and the VTA on the Vision Study. As this is a multi-jurisdictional effort with required funding from each agency, a cooperative and funding agreement with the lead agency who is contracting with the transportation planning consultant is necessary. The Council previously adopted Resolution No. 6603 which, among other items, authorizes the City Manager or designee to approve and execute certain documents including partnership, cost-sharing, and service agreements with other public agencies or private entities. Due to the prominent nature of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, staff determined it to be prudent to update Council and confirm the authorizations for the City Manager to proceed with implementation of the project under an agreement with the City of San Jose.

Presented below are key items for the Vision Study:
· Study limits are Stevens Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard (Cupertino), through Santa Clara and San Jose, transitioning to West San Carlos (San Jose) to Diridon Station (San Jose) - See Attachment 2, Study Area Location Map
· Estimated 19-month study schedule
· Total cost estimate of $794,400
· City of San Jose to amend its contract with Iteris and Winters Consultants to include the Vision Study
· City of San Jose to lead contract management for the consultant · Cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, San Jose, County of Santa Clara, and VTA to all have active leadership roles in the technical and community engagement portions of the study · Each jurisdiction to provide fair-share funding for the Vision Study based on each jurisdiction’s proportionate share of mileage along the study corridor · Key Study deliverables include:
o Existing conditions report
o Public outreach results
o Vision statement
o Alternative improvement concepts considered and evaluated City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-561 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
o Final vision concept
o Implementation and a funding strategy
· Study progress and updates to be presented to each respective jurisdiction’s relevant Committees, Commissions, and Council/Board for feedback and direction at key Study milestones.

The key provisions of a cooperative and funding agreement with the City of San Jose would possibly include:
· City of San Jose to lead the study, contract administration, and project closeout · Term of agreement in effect through December 31, 2024 · City of Santa Clara to provide funding in the amount of $100,296 to the City of San Jose for the Vision Study
· Reimbursement costs based upon actual payments made to the consultant procured by the City of San Jose
· Payment made to the City of San Jose on a quarterly basis · City of San Jose would act as Lead Agency for compliance with CEQA for the project.

It is estimated that the Vision Study will start in fall 2022 and would be completed in 2024. Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to negotiate, execute, and administer an agreement with the City of San Jose to complete the Vision Study.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment. Should a project move forward to construction it would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA as part of the approval process.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Vision Study is estimated to have a total cost of $794,400 and is shared by each jurisdiction (Table 1). The cost to Santa Clara is $100,296 and is based on Santa Clara’s share of mileage along the Stevens Creek/West San Carlos corridor in Santa Clara’s city limits.

Table 1: Project Cost Share by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Length
(miles)
Length
(%)
Cost Share
Santa Clara County 0.430 5.21% $27,039
Cupertino 2.450 29.66% $154,059
San Jose 3.785 45.82% $238,006
Santa Clara 1.595 19.31% $100,296
VTA $275,000
Total 8.260 100% $794,400
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-561 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
The recommended budget action allocates funds to a new Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study Project in the Streets and Highways Capital Fund. The recommended funds are traffic mitigation funds set aside for pedestrian and bicycle enhancements.

Budget Amendment
FY 2022/23
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
Streets and Highways Capital
Fund
Expenditures
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Enhancement Facilities Project
$1,766,953 ($100,296) $1,666,657
Expenditures
Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision
Study (New Project)
$0 $100,296 $100,296

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate, execute, and administer an agreement with the City of San Jose for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study up to a total not-to-exceed amount of $100,296;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary for or associated with the agreement, including payments to the City of San Jose; and

3. Approve the FY 2022/23 budget amendment in the Streets and Highways Capital Fund to establish an appropriation for a new project - Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study in the amount of $100,296, and decrease the Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancement Facilities Project by $100,296; (majority affirmative Council votes required).

Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 19-8781

2. Study Area Location Map
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. 19-8781

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

CLARA TO SUPPORT WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (VTA) AND THE

CITIES OF CUPERTINO AND SAN JOSE TO DEVELOP A

COMPLETE STREETS AND TRANSIT STUDY, INCLUDING

OPTIONS OF HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT, FOR THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Santa Clara staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since a multi-jurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting West San Jose, with a focus on transportation and circulation; WHEREAS, the cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, and San Jose along with VTA jointly developed and submitted a grade separated high-capacity transit concept along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the Plan Bay Area 2040 process;
WHEREAS, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) role as County congestion management agency (CMA) and transit provider for Santa Clara County enables it to bring together multiple cities and Santa Clara County together to study upgrading a corridor such as Stevens Creek Boulevard into a multi-modal, transit supportive corridor; WHEREAS, the Santa Clara City Council approved on September 12, 2017 the formation of a Stevens Creek Urban Village Taskforce to address land use on shared borders; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara General Plan contains Circulation policies that include complete streets elements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara adopted Resolution 18-8593 on August 21, 2018, which adopted a Complete Street Policy to support the design of roadways to safely accommodate all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, children, senior citizens, disabled people, and motorists.

Resolution to collaborate with VTA & neighboring cities Rev: 11 /22/17

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City of Santa Clara supports a study exploring transit options including Complete Streets along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor.

2. That the study considers potential options for a grade separated high capacity transit system for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, that connects the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, that is supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

3. That the options considered in the study do not adversely affect streets in the City of Santa Clara.

4. That the City Manager or designee is authorized to assess resources needed to develop these projects and report findings to the City Council.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Davis, Hardy, Mahan, O'Neill, and Watanabe,
and Mayor Gillmor
None
Chahal
None
ATTEST: ~

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution to collaborate with VTA & neighboring cities Rev: 11 /22/17

Attachment 2 – Study Area Location Map
Study Area
Homestead Rd
@.!]
iW
The Dalles Ave r ega ar
0 E Homestead Rd
Apple Infinite Loop Q
Cupert ino
Memorial Park
Kaiser Permanente Santa m Clara Medical Center .. T
Benton St
HomesieadAd
z ifii .!>
Central Park
i ,l
i•
;; Prunerldge Ave
Newhall St
Rose
Municipal • Garden
- ~ arruck:g- - . h~ F<l!ffls lli'rrkeT'"
Cupertino Stevens c,eek BNd
I I - ~ vl'rffl' ciffl< ...- - - - - - - - - ~ e~ lcl.Willew.iair.

T B~'""ulevard Walmart Steve,osCreek f.l lvd
vens Creek
unty Park
--- - -
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve
~
- -- "? - ~
t'- ~
99 Ranch Market£1 I!'
~
Creekside Park
9 McClellan Rd r
The Home Depot ' 8011,,-,Yerl?q
q H Mart San Jose De Anza
____ ..t:i,e,~ or~ d ~ k _____ _
! J wmaamsRd
&
Burbank
Santa Clara Valley m Medical Center T
Fruitdale
A Rosicru¢ian
T Egyptian Museum
.. 11 .'l' ~
"°~ ... $ ~ .. ii
~- -
,g:

I
F,uitdale Ave
Q Willow
Rotary PlayGarden
El
-, '\
>
DOW
SAN
(i\)
.

J_. . Street Frank ·• Bramhall Park
~ 0
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-765 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Actions on a Resolution Adopting the Updated Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report and List of Improvements, and a Resolution Accepting the Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
In 2007, a Conveyance Fee component of the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge was approved by City Council (Resolution 07-7415). The Conveyance Fee funds required capacity improvements to the sanitary sewer system due to intensification and densification of land uses permitted by the General Plan and associated development land use amendments. Updates to the fee were made in 2009 and 2010 through the following actions:
· Resolution 09-7643 approved in June 2009 updated the fee to include costs of bond issuance to fund and implement projects
· Resolution 10-7741 approved in June 2010 updated the fee with consideration of the following: a) resolution of other funding opportunities (i.e. redevelopment and stimulus funds); b) incorporation of latest land use information from the General Plan update finalized in 2010; and c) adjustments to the capacity project improvements listing resulting from a) and b).

The initial establishment of the Conveyance Fee was based upon projects identified in the 2007 Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment. This assessment accomplished the following key objectives:
a) develop wastewater flow projections for the City’s collection area using up-to-date water use and land use information; b) develop a hydraulic model of the trunk sewer system; c) use the model to identify existing capacity deficiencies and future capacity requirements; and d) develop phased capital projects, including budget cost estimates, for implementing the required capacity improvements to the wastewater collection system. It is also important to note that the assessment fulfilled the requirement for a capacity evaluation and capacity assurance plan as required for all sewer system agencies overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Another sewer capacity assessment was conducted in 2009 (an update to the 2007 assessment) that accounted for land use changes resulting from the in-progress General Plan Update which was finalized in 2010. In June 2010, recommended changes to the capacity project improvements listing and project budget cost estimates were approved through City Council Resolution 10-7741.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-765 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022

DISCUSSION
2016 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
In 2015, the City initiated work on a comprehensive update to the prior capacity assessment work completed in 2007 and 2009. The analysis considered the latest information on water use and land use changes since 2009. The 2016 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP) Update was completed by the City’s consultant, RMC Water and Environment, and issued in April 2016 (Attachment 1). As with prior reports, the SSMP recommended a phased capacity improvement project listing including budget cost estimates. Also, the hydraulic model update served as an important tool in the continuous evaluation of individual development proposals with respect to sanitary sewer capacity impacts and resulting development conditions of approval. 2022 Addendum to 2016 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update In 2021, the City initiated work on an addendum to the 2016 SSMP Update to analyze two identified deficiencies and update the Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement project. The two identified deficiencies included one on the Calabazas Creek trunk, which was due to the 2021 discovery of existing sewer network conditions that were different than the hydraulic model and one on the Great America Parkway West trunk resulting from new development in the sewer tributary area. The Tracy Drive sewer project was to be revised to better balance downstream flow between the Homestead Road and Pomeroy Avenue intermediate trunk lines.

The extent of the Calabazas Creek trunk line deficiency was evaluated, and four alternatives were studied, resulting in three recommended alternatives carried forward to the capacity improvement project listing. Also, a solution to the Great America Parkway West trunk line deficiency was identified resulting in a recommended project.

The 2022 Addendum (Attachment 2) provides an update to the 2016 capacity improvement project listing resulting in a combined listing of the 2016 projects with the additional projects identified in the 2022 analysis.

Upcoming Work and Recommended Actions
A comprehensive update to the SSMP is planned to commence in late 2022 and be completed by early 2024. Similar to prior work, this assessment will update the hydraulic model with the latest water use and land use changes. Further analysis will aid in identifying any existing deficiencies and future anticipated deficiencies with a resulting capacity improvement project listing that includes budget cost estimates. After identifying the total project costs, a rate analysis will be performed to determine if the existing conveyance fee rate is appropriate for the needed improvements.

The attached Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report (Attachment 3) provides more detail on the history of the Conveyance Fee and supporting analysis work that is summarized in this memorandum.

It is recommended that the updated Conveyance Fee Report and the updated capacity improvement project listing contained herein be approved. This will allow for continued capacity improvement projects to move forward in parallel with the planned Master Plan Update work. Because the City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-765 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
comprehensive update to the SSMP will be initiated in 2022, and the update will include a conveyance fee rate analysis, it is recommended that the current conveyance fee rate be held constant pending completion of the future rate analysis.

Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees and Recommended Actions Attachment 5 provides the Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. Staff has updated the AB1600 Report previously approved by the Council on February 22, 2022 to include the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee. This section reflects the activity for the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee from FY 2016-17 through FY 2020-21. This fee had initially been omitted from the report as the master planning efforts were underway.

This report is supplied pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(b). Staff has determined that the City does not have to refund any Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees as these fees have been programmed to fund capital projects. Therefore, staff is submitting the attached Resolution (Attachment 6) to accept the Amended AB1600 Report and make findings that there is a continuing need for unexpended balances of impact fees.

On July 29, 2022, the City posted notice and made copies of the Amended AB1600 Report available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, the Finance Department, and online at www.Santaclaraca.gov/Finance. In addition, written notice of the time and place of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 16, 2022, along with a copy of the Amended AB1600 Report were sent to interested parties as requested. More than 15 days will have elapsed as of the date of Council review since the report was made available to the public, as required by applicable state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan updates and assessments mentioned in this report analyzed both existing conditions and future expected land uses based on the General Plan Phase III 2035 Scenario. Public Utilities, including wastewater systems, are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2010-2035 General Plan. The EIR considers the environmental impacts of increased land use densification and the resulting need to increase sanitary sewer capacity. For any specific project from the capacity improvement project listing that moves from the programming stage to construction, the project will be evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the approval process.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than staff time. The current Conveyance Fee will continue to be assessed at the current rate to fund capacity improvement projects.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
22-765 Agenda Date: 8/16/2022
Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the updated Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report and List of Improvements; and

2. Adopt a Resolution accepting the Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Director of Finance
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2016 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update

2. 2022 Addendum to 2016 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update

3. Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report

4. Resolution for the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report

5. Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees

6. Resolution Accepting the Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/11/2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Final Report
Prepared by:

April 2016
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Purpose of Master Plan ..................................................................................... 1 How the Capacity Assessment Was Prepared ............................................................................. 2 Recommended Capacity Improvement Program .......................................................................... 6 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background and Study Objectives .......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Report Organization ................................................................................................ 1-4 Chapter 2 Basis of Flow Estimates .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Wastewater Flow Components ............................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Base Wastewater Flow ........................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Existing Base Wastewater Flow .............................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 Future Base Wastewater Flow ................................................................................ 2-2

2.2.3 Diurnal Curves ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.3 Groundwater Infiltration ........................................................................................... 2-7

2.4 Rainfall-Dependent I/I ............................................................................................. 2-7

2.5 Flow from Cupertino Sanitary District ...................................................................... 2-8 Chapter 3 Hydraulic Model Development ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Modeling Terminology ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Delineation of Modeled System .............................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Model Network Construction and Validation ........................................................... 3-4

3.4 Flow Monitoring Program ........................................................................................ 3-4

3.5 Model Calibration .................................................................................................... 3-9

3.5.1 Dry Weather Calibration .......................................................................................... 3-9

3.5.2 Wet Weather Calibration ....................................................................................... 3-11 Chapter 4 Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Design Event Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Design Storm Condition .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Hydraulic Capacity Criteria ...................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Capacity Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Sizing Criteria for New Sewer Facilities .................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Capacity Analysis Results and Proposed Solutions ................................................ 4-5

4.3.1 Pump Station Firm Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 4-8 Chapter 5 Recommended Capacity Improvement Program .................................................. 5-10

5.1 Development of Capacity Improvement Projects .................................................. 5-10

5.2 Implementation Recommendations ....................................................................... 5-13 Appendices
Appendix A - Plots of Flow Monitoring Data and Summary of Daily Flows Appendix B - Dry Weather Flow Calibration Graphs
Appendix C - Wet Weather Flow Calibration Graphs
Appendix D - Model Hydraulic Profiles of Capacity Deficiencies Appendix E - Rabello & Northside Pump Station Capacity and Forcemain Calibration TM Appendix F - Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates
Appendix G - General Plan Land Use and Recent (2009-2015) Developments City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 ii
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Collection System Flow Estimates ............................................................................ 6 Table ES-2: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects ..................................................... 10 Table 2-1: Base Wastewater Flow Unit Flow Factors ................................................................ 2-4 Table 2-2: Base Wastewater Flow Estimates ............................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-3: City’s Large Water Users .......................................................................................... 2-6 Table 3-1: Sewer Collection System Model Summary ............................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Collection System Pump Station Summary .............................................................. 3-2 Table 3-3: Summary of Flow Monitoring Sites ........................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-4: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Results .................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5: Wet Weather Flow Calibration Results ................................................................... 3-12 Table 4-1: Summary of Capacity Analysis Results .................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-2: Capacity Deficiencies and Proposed Solutions ........................................................ 4-6 Table 4-3: Pump Station Firm Capacity Analysis ....................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-4: Recommended Revised Set Levels for Lift Stations ................................................. 4-9 Table 5-1: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects .................................................... 5-11 List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Sanitary Sewer Collection System Overview ........................................................... 3 Figure ES-2: Modeled Trunk System ............................................................................................ 4 Figure ES-3: Recent and Future Growth Areas ............................................................................ 5 Figure ES-4: Model Predicted System Surcharge Under Future PWWF ...................................... 8 Figure ES-5: Capacity Improvement Projects and Project for Entitlement Compliance ................ 9 Figure 1-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1: Wastewater Flow Components ................................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2-2: Recent and Future Growth Areas ............................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3: Wastewater Diurnal Curves ..................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4: RDI/I Hydrograph Components ............................................................................... 2-8 Figure 3-1: Modeled Trunk System ............................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2: Subcatchments and Loading Manholes .................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-3: Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Locations ................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4: Trunk Sewer System Schematic ............................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-5: Example Dry Weather Calibration Graphs ............................................................ 3-11 Figure 3-6: Example Wet Weather Calibration Graphs for 2014 Storm Period........................ 3-13 Figure 4-1: Design Storm Pattern for the San Jose International Airport MAP Area ................. 4-2 Figure 4-2: PWWF Hydraulic Deficiency Criteria for Gravity Sewers ......................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3: Model Predicted System Surcharge Under Future PWWF...................................... 4-7 Figure 5-1: Capacity Improvement Projects and Project for Entitlement Compliance ............. 5-12

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 iii
Acknowledgements
City of Santa Clara
Rajeev Batra, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Falguni Amin, Principal Civil Engineer
Evelyn Liang, Senior Civil Engineer (Project Manager)
Kimchi Tran, Civil Engineer
Christopher de Groot, Director of Water and Sewer Utilities Shilpa Mehta, Principal Engineer
Garrett Brown, Sanitary Sewer Assistant Superintendent
Gloria Sciara, Development Review Officer
Jeff Schwilk, Associate Planner
Debby Fernandez, Project Planner
Payal Bhagat, Associated Planner
RMC Water and Environment
Gisa Ju, Principal-in-Charge/Technical Director
Steve Bui, Project Manager
Winola Cheong, Project Engineer
V&A Consulting Engineers, Flow Monitoring
Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Pump Station Capacity Assessment City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 iv
Abbreviations and Definitions
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ABWF Average base wastewater flow
ADWF Average dry weather flow
APN Assessor parcel number
Backwater A condition in which the hydraulic gradeline (see definition of HGL below) increases upstream of a location in the system due to a downstream hydraulic constriction.

BWF Base wastewater flow: sanitary and process flow contributions from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial users.

CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Santa Clara
CSJ City of San Jose
CuSD Cupertino Sanitary District
d/D Ratio of flow depth to pipe diameter
Design Storm A rainfall event, defined based on statistical probability of occurrence, which determines the peak wet weather flow conditions for which the capacity of sewer system facilities are evaluated and/or designed.

Diurnal Curve Change in dry weather flow over a typical 24-hour period on an hourly basis.

DU Dwelling unit
DWF Dry weather flow: the flow during non-rainfall periods, composed of normal base wastewater flow plus any dry season groundwater infiltration.

ENR-CCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index; an index published monthly by Engineering News Record magazine and used to reference construction costs (such as those for wastewater system facilities) to a specific date and location.

Firm capacity The capacity of a pump station with the largest pump out of service. fps Feet per second
GIS Geographic Information System: a computerized system in which geographical features (e.g., sewer facilities, parcels, land use) are linked to an attribute database to facilitate analysis and presentation of information
gpad or gpd/ac Gallons per day per acre
gpcd Gallons per capita per day
gpd Gallons per day
GWDR General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems: regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2006 that address the operation, maintenance, and management of publicly-owned sanitary sewer systems in California

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 v
GWI Groundwater infiltration: extraneous water that infiltrations into a sewer system from the ground through defective pipes and manholes. Groundwater infiltration is considered to be a relatively constant daily flow that varies seasonally and depends on location of sewers with respect to the groundwater table.

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line: in a gravity pipeline system, the water surface elevation in the pipes; or in a system flowing under pressure, the elevation representing the sum of pressure head plus elevation head
Hydrograph A graph of flow versus time.

IDF Intensity-duration-frequency: rainfall statistics that establish the rainfall intensity over specified durations for various recurrence frequencies I/I Infiltration/inflow (see definitions below)
Infiltration Extraneous groundwater or storm water that enters sewer pipes, manholes, and service laterals via the soil through breaks, cracks, and defective joints.

Inflow Storm water that enters the sewer system from the ground surface through direct drainage connections (e.g., directly connected catch basins, area drains, or roof drains) or through manhole or cleanout lids.

Inverted Siphon A sewer configuration (also called a “siphon”), typically consisting of a downward leg, horizontal section, and upward leg, in which the flow is forced through the pipe by the pressure head created by the elevation difference between the upstream and downstream ends of the siphon. An inverted siphon is typically used to cross under a creek, channel, or another pipeline.

Isohyetal A contour of equal precipitation (typically average annual rainfall) K Recession coefficient of RDI/I unit hydrograph (see Figure 2-4) lf Linear feet
Loading Manhole A manhole in the modeled sewer network to which flows from unmodeled sewers discharge into the modeled network (also see definition of subcatchment below).

LS Lift Station
MAP Mean annual precipitation
mgd Million gallons per day
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
O&M Operations and maintenance
PDWF Peak dry weather flow: the peak flow during non-rainfall periods.

PS Pump Station
PWWF Peak wet weather flow: the peak flow during a given storm event from dry weather flow plus infiltration and inflow.

R Ratio of RDI/I volume to rainfall volume
RDI/I Rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow: the infiltration and inflow into a sewer system directly related to a rainfall event. RDI/I may cause rapid, short-term peak flows in the sewer system that recede after the rainfall has ended.

RG Rain gauge
RMC RMC Water and Environment

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
April 2016 vi
sf or sq. ft. Square feet
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SECAP System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
Siphon See Inverted Siphon
SJ/SC RWF San Jose / Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
Subcatchment A small area of the sewer system that contributes flow to the modeled sewer network, in which the unmodeled collection sewers are assumed to discharge to a common point (manhole) in the modeled network
Surcharge The hydraulic condition in a sewer pipeline in which the elevation of the hydraulic gradeline (water level) is above the crown (top) of the pipe. Under such a condition, the water in the pipe rises into the manholes and could overflow onto the ground if the hydraulic gradeline exceeds the elevation of the manhole rims.

T Time to peak of RDI/I unit hydrograph (see Figure 2-4) TM Technical Memorandum
WWF Wet weather flow: the flow during rainfall periods, composed on base wastewater flow, wet season groundwater infiltration, and rainfall-dependent I/I.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Executive Summary
April 2016 ES-1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results and recommendations of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (Master Plan) for the City of Santa Clara (City). The Master Plan was prepared by RMC Water and Environment (RMC) in close coordination with City staff. The Master Plan will be used to guide improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer system to accommodate current and future development and ensure that the City continues to provide a high level of service to its customers.

Background and Purpose of Master Plan
The City of Santa Clara is located in central Santa Clara County adjacent to the Cities of San Jose, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale. The City has a population of approximately 120,000 and is served by a wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 270 miles of sewer pipelines and seven sewage pump stations. The system collects wastewater flows generated within the City limits and also flows from the major portion of the Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD) via a connection at Homestead Road and Swallow Drive. Flow is conveyed eastward to the City of San Jose’s interceptor sewer on Zanker Road and also northward to the Northside and Rabello Pump Stations, where the flow is pumped to the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ/SC RWF) for treatment and disposal. The City’s sewer system and service area are shown in Figure ES-1.

The City’s last sanitary sewer master plan was completed in 20071 . Since that time, the City has completed
a number of sewer improvement projects and is experiencing significant growth and redevelopment in a number of areas, necessitating an evaluation of the capacity of the sanitary sewer system to handle future wastewater flows. This Master Plan will help identify future capital needs for capacity improvements and associated requirements for financing those improvements through increased connection fees or other sources of funding.

The City is also required to comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (GWDR) adopted in 2006 by the State Water Resources Control Board. The GWDR, which applies to all publicly-owned sewer systems in California, includes the requirement to complete a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The SSMP addresses the overall management, operation, and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system and must include a System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP). Therefore, this Master Plan is also intended to satisfy the SECAP requirements of the SSMP.

The overall objectives of this Master Plan are to develop wastewater flow projections for the City’s collection area using up-to-date water use and land use information and flow monitoring data; develop an updated hydraulic model of the trunk sewer system; use the model to identify existing capacity deficiencies and future projected capacity requirements; and develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including budget estimates, for implementing the required capacity improvements to the collection system.

This Executive Summary is presented in two parts:
ƒ How the Capacity Assessment Was Prepared describes the scope and methodologies of the planning effort, including the key planning and technical assumptions incorporated into the sewer system capacity analysis.
ƒ Recommended Capacity Improvement Program presents the recommended CIP, including capacity improvement projects, priorities, and estimated costs. In addition, recommendations are presented for implementing the proposed capacity improvement program.

1 City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, RMC Water and Environment, May 2007.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Executive Summary
April 2016 ES-2
How the Capacity Assessment Was Prepared
The City’s wastewater collection system includes sewer pipelines ranging in size from 4 to 48 inches in diameter. The larger pipes, primarily the 10-inch and larger sewers and a portion of the smaller diameter pipes, comprise the trunk sewer system, which is the primary network for conveying flows generated from the City’s service area and CuSD to the SJ/SC RWF. The trunk sewer system, comprising about 34 percent of the total pipe footage in the system, was the focus of the capacity assessment in this study.

The project team used a systematic process that incorporated land use planning information, water use and flow monitoring data, and design criteria for estimating wastewater flows, applied in a computer hydraulic model of the trunk sewer system. The modeled system is shown in Figure ES-2. The model was used to assess how the system would perform under various planning and flow scenarios and identify pipes and/or pump stations that may not have sufficient capacity to convey the predicted flows under existing or future conditions. Improvement projects were developed to provide the required capacity, the capital costs of the required projects were estimated, and the projects were prioritized based on the model results.

Capacity Assessment Considers Existing and Future Planning Scenarios Two planning scenarios were evaluated for this study: existing (2015) and future (2035) scenarios. The existing scenario examined the current capacity of the sewer system based on existing land use, with flows defined based on winter water use data and calibrated to flow monitoring data collected in the 2014/15 winter season. The future scenario incorporated information on planned development provided by the City.

Figure ES-3 shows the location of the areas of anticipated development. Planned development within the City represents over 15,000 new residential dwelling units and over 20 million square feet of commercial and industrial building floor space. In addition, CuSD has also projected an increase in their base wastewater flow due to anticipated additional development. Together, these projections are estimated to increase current base wastewater flows by over two folds. The future scenario was used to examine the impact on the system of future increases in wastewater flows due to anticipated development and determine the required sewer system capacity needed to serve both existing and future users.

Potential Capacity Deficiencies under Existing and Future Flow Conditions For each of the planning scenarios, projected dry and wet weather flows were simulated in the hydraulic model. The model was calibrated to flow monitoring data to ensure that it represents a reasonably accurate depiction of system conditions. For this study, a flow monitoring program consisting of 25 temporary flow meters installed in the system during the 2014/15 wet weather season was conducted to provide data to calibrate the hydraulic model and verify existing system flows. The collected data was useful for confirming dry weather flows and characterizing the relative wet weather flow response in different areas of the system.

The model integrates various dry and wet weather flow parameters to determine system capacity under different flow and planning scenarios. Key flow components incorporated into the model included: base (dry weather) wastewater flow (BWF), estimated based on winter water use data; groundwater infiltration (GWI), which occurs when water seeps into pipes under the ground through cracks and pipe joints; and rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I) during storm events. For this Master Plan, a 10-year return period, 24-hour duration rainfall event was selected as the “design storm” to serve as the basis for computing design peak wet weather flows in the system. A 10-year return period has become a standard design storm criterion for many Bay Area agencies. Table ES-1 presents the estimated existing and future average dry weather flow (ADWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) for the selected design storm for the City’s sewer system, based on the modeling conducted for this study. 0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Sewers by Diameter:
≤ 6"
8" - 10"
12" - 16"
18" - 24"
≥ 27"
ÉP Pump/Lift Station
Santa Clara Force Mains
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFigES1_SystemOverview_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master PlanUpdate
Figure ES-1
Sanitary Sewer Collection
System Overview
Clu,;u
SC lnjliien 1/ity
Junction Structure
!, ... -- ' ---~ l
,.,._ ... ·-···
CuSDF/ow
--+tr~~'---_;__d
j j I
0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Modeled Trunk Sewers
≤ 6"
8" - 10"
12" - 16"
18" - 24"
≥ 27"
ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Unmodeled Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFigES2_ModeledNtwk_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure ES-2
Modeled Trunk System
,,. ____r - i ..u
SC lnjliient Junction Structure ___ ._
Nort fde PS
···' ,, ...,._...,,.•·~"~ Rabello PS '\
,, •• •• \.
. \
. I '··· .......... , • .., l ~ ! V•,, i ·: . \
; t---1--m- ··,.
: i '·"' ~
! ~---···, j ,
\
\
\
.., j
•1LS-1 l
\
"\ I
I
;.,
'I
I
I
)
~~.. ,,/··· \ --.. ~ /
' - \ l.-... -···-···= __ 1.--i.-.. - .... ~•)•--__,.__;-=+--- i
i
i
j
I ,,..._
i.:"1
l
i
\
I
I
I
:

1..1. ••
--,
,.
'
j
I r·---•-' _,
)
>
-<; -
- I 1J -_i
··~ -···-···-·'l.,,..
\
I ", \ ! ···, \ I '• :
- ·, .. \
. .,.
·. rQ
-"'\
u~ r r -r n
: ·-.. ·----·--·r . r .... --·-· -· -.-+= •..~------... ~.1_,;;:. ._ - ....... - ..... _ ~- - -- 0 0.5
1 Mile
Legend
Recent (2009-2015) Development Projects
General Plan Phase 3 (2035) Development
μ
ÉP Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
Unmodeled Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFigES3_Dvpt_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure ES-3
Recent and
Future Growth Areas
CSJ Interceptor
(not modeled)
San Jose / Santa Clara
Regional
Wastewater Facility
SC Influent
Junction Structure
CuSD Flow,,·
•--· I
I
; ·-···-···-···-··-···--··-···-···-
.. .,.~· , ... I
!
i
i
l
j
I
!
i
i
;
I
i
r
I
i
i
!
·~, ....
\,
·,. , ..

I
i
\
\
!
i
\\ "\
\
I
)
/
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Executive Summary
April 2016 ES-6
Table ES-1: Collection System Flow Estimates
Existing
ADWF (2)
(mgd)
Existing
PDWF (2)
(mgd)
Existing
PWWF (3)
(mgd)
Future
ADWF (2)
(mgd)
Future
PDWF (2)
(mgd)
Future
PWWF (3,4)
(mgd)
Flow Estimates by System Outfall (1)
North (to Northside and Rabello
Pump Stations) 10.2 15.2/16.0 27.9 24.6 33.5/34.4 41.0
East (to San Jose Zanker Road
Interceptor) 4.7 6.4 11.7 9.8 13.3 18.3
Total 14.9 21.6/22.4 39.6 34.4 46.8/47.7 59.4
Flow Estimates by Agency (1)
Santa Clara System 11.3 15.4/16.2 26.8 27.5 34.6/35.5 45.6 Cupertino Sanitary District 3.5 6.2 12.8 6.9 12.2 13.8
Total 14.9 21.6/22.4 39.6 34.4 46.8/47.7 59.4

1. Assuming that trunk sewer capacity deficiencies are relieved with recommended capital improvement projects presented in Table ES-2.

2. Includes groundwater infiltration for a typical wintertime period. ADWF and first value shown for PDWF includes typical non-game day flow from Levi’s Stadium; second value shown for PDWF includes a peak game day flow from Levi’s Stadium.

3. For 10-year design storm; assumes non-game day flow from Levi’s Stadium.

4. Assuming peak wet weather flow from CuSD would not increase above its contractual maximum flow of 13.8 mgd.

Model results were examined to determine trunk system capacity needs, as indicated by areas where the flow in the pipes would exceed their capacity and cause surcharge conditions (water levels higher than the tops of the pipes). Figure ES-4 shows the capacity assessment results for future PWWF conditions, indicating existing trunk sewers that were predicted by the model to be surcharged due to “throttle” conditions (peak flow exceeding full pipe capacity) or due to backwater from a downstream throttle condition, and locations of where the model predicts a surcharge condition severe enough to violate the City’s capacity criteria, defined as water level that exceeds one (1) foot above the top of pipe. Most of these locations were predicted to be capacity issues only under future PWWF. Note that the locations of criteria violations are not necessarily the locations of the actual capacity-deficient pipes, but are typically located further upstream due to backwater from downstream deficiencies.

Note that no overflows are predicted under design storm conditions. Furthermore, all of the modeled pump stations have adequate firm capacity (capacity with largest pumping unit out of service) to convey the predicted PWWF without violating freeboard criteria or resulting in sewer overflows, although for two of the stations (Westside and Tasman), noticeable backwater surcharge was predicted because the switch-on set points for the lead pumps are higher than the influent lines.

Recommended Capacity Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) recommended in this study is designed to provide for adequate sewer system capacity for the City’s existing and anticipated future development. Figure ES-5 and Table ES-2 present the recommended capacity improvement projects. Projects have been assigned relative priorities based on the extent of criteria violations or surcharge. Priority 1 and 2 projects are required to address capacity deficiencies that result in criteria violations under current conditions, while Priority 3 projects are those that result in criteria violations under future conditions. In addition to these projects, there was also an additional project (Project E1) that was triggered by an entitlement requirement, discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Executive Summary
April 2016 ES-7
As indicated in Table ES-2, the total estimated cost of the recommended capacity improvement program (without Project E1) is about $1.7 million. The total estimated cost, if the City implements Project P6-Alt instead of P6, would be approximately $2.8 million. Note that implementing Project P6-Alt would also increase the peak flow to the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations by about 1 mgd to each pump station, which could require further evaluation of and potential improvements to increase pump station capacity.

Implementation Recommendations
The City should begin implementation of the Capital Improvement Program recommended in this Master Plan, starting with the highest priority projects. The following items should be considered in project scheduling and design, and in future updates of the Master Plan. ƒ The alignments and sizes of projects should be verified with detailed predesign analyses, including topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations, utility research, and constructability reviews. ƒ The estimated costs assumed open cut construction, but alternative methods such as trenchless construction or construction of parallel relief pipes could be considered during design. The decision to parallel or replace existing sewers should consider the physical condition and remaining useful life of the existing pipelines; the availability of pipeline corridors for new sewer construction; and operation and maintenance concerns.
ƒ The hydraulic model has been developed to assist the City in performing capacity analyses and updating the Master Plan in the future. The model should be kept up-to-date with changes to existing sewer connections, development plans, and sewer system facilities. ƒ The City should conduct additional flow monitoring at key locations in the sewer system, particularly the area tributary to the Chromite/Machado trunk sewers where both the 2006 and 2015 flow monitoring programs indicated high I/I. The City should also conduct smoke testing and television inspection to identify potential sources of I/I. Flow levels during large storm events should be compared to the peak flows simulated by the hydraulic model to verify the modeling predictions for the 10-year design storm and confirm the need for and sizing of Project P3 (Cabrillo Avenue Sewer Improvement). ƒ The City should coordinate with the CuSD on flow and planning assumptions to ensure that adequate capacity exists in the Santa Clara system to handle future flows from the District. The City should encourage CuSD to monitor the flows at the flow meter that it operates and maintains on Homestead Road at Swallow Drive on an on-going basis and periodically confirm meter calibration to verify the wastewater flows entering the Santa Clara system.
ƒ The City should coordinate with the City of San Jose to ensure that its flow criteria and planning assumptions are consistent with those used by San Jose in its capacity master planning. ƒ The City should verify the need to implement project E1 (Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement). The project is triggered by the large sewer discharge assumed for parcel APN 316-17-018, which holds an entitlement agreement to discharge a potential flow of 0.95 mgd; however, it is currently discharging less than 10 percent of the entitled rate. While the City is obligated to provide capacity for entitlement holders, it is important to note that implementing this project now may result in oversized sewers where the current daily flow is not sufficient to provide the minimum cleaning velocity and thus creating potential debris and odor issues.
0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Surcharge due to Backwater
Surcharge due to Throttle
Surcharge Criteria Violation
under Existing PWWF
Surcharge Criteria Violation
under Future PWWF
ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFigES4_Deficiencies_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure ES-4
Model Predicted
System Surcharge
-
-
~ --~~____,
.,, .. --·-... -... -.. ........... ~ __.
i l._. __ ___ _ .. , .. _ ..._ ..._ .. __ .. _
r
!
!
i
i
-•u-,..•-•••-u•
Northsfde PS
,, ... ,~ ....... ••·1 ....... ~ Ps\ . ..,. . . ..
... ...... ' \
SC /njlfient
Junction Structurc;_ ____ "l\
.. ·,.
-···, J
i
' \
)
i
\ ~\ I
/
0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Modeled Trunk Sewer
Unmodeled Sewer
Santa Clara Force Mains
San Jose Interceptors
Recommended Capital Improvement Projects
Project for Entitlement Compliance
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFigES5_CIPs_08Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure ES-5
Capacity Improvement
Projects and Project for
Entitlement Compliance
-
-
P61AI
Sew
,,·•--·---..,,...., .... _ ..,.j"-...J
; l, __ __ ... -.. , , ... _________ _
SC /11fluent
Junction Structure ____ -,\\
·,
\ '\
i
!
I
I
l ...
,,
;
I '~ I
I
I
' !
···-···-· ..-··---·-··-·---...,-.. -•i
PJJ: Sewer Dlvers,bn at
Los Pra9/s~1vd. '-.....
/
aod Sa,awg1 A"[2:_::·j
,--~---...
____________ J
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Executive Summary
April 2016 ES-10
Table ES-2: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects
Project
ID Priority Project Name U/S MHID D/S MHID Description Est. Capital Improvement Cost1 P12 1 Westside Lift Station Set Point Adjustment N/A N/A Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in the influent line. -- P22 2 Tasman Lift Station Set Point Adjustment N/A N/A Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in the influent line. -- P3 2 Cabrillo Avenue Sewer Improvement S41-13 S41-20 Upsize 1,600 feet of 8-inch line in Cabrillo Ave. between Lawrence Expressway and Nobili Ave. to a 12-inch line. $1,097,000P4 3 Tasman Drive Sewer Improvement S93-24 S93-35 Upsize 600 feet of 12-inch line in Tasman Dr. between Old Ironsides Dr. and Great America Pkwy. to a 15-inch line. $327,000P5 4 Sewer Diversion at Los Prades Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue S25-85 S25-85
Install a weir in manhole S25-85 located in the intersection of Padres Blvd. and Saratoga Ave. to divert flow northwest to the existing 12-in line in Los Padres Blvd. $77,000
P6 4
Sewer Diversion at Calabazas Boulevard and Machado Avenue U/S of
S52-93 S52-120
Install a new manhole upstream of S52-93 in the intersection of Calabazas Blvd. and Machado Ave., and install a new 15-inch high-level diversion line (approximately 200 feet) to divert excess flow from the existing 24-inch line in Calabazas Blvd. to the 21-inch line in Machado Ave. The diversion line should be about 6 inches higher than the invert of the 24-inch line. $166,000
P6-Alt.3 4 Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement S62-31 S72-20 Upsize 1,800 feet of 24-inch line next to Calabazas Creek between Kifer Rd. and Scott Blvd. to a 27-inch line. $1,334,000 Estimated Total Cost for Recommended Projects P1 to P6:

Estimated Total Cost for Projects P1 to P5 and P6-Alt:
$1,667,000$2,835,000
E14 N/A Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement S10-77 S22-51
Upsize approximately 6,600 feet of 10- to 12-inch line in Tracy Dr. and Pomeroy Ave. to a 15-inch line; install a new 15-inch line between manholes S22-55 and S22-46 in Pomeroy Ave. and Homestead Rd. (approximately 50 feet) to divert flow into Homestead Rd., and upsize approximately 1,400 feet of 18-inch line downstream to a 21-inch. $4,654,000
Estimated Total Cost (P1 to P6) including Project E1:

Estimated Total Cost (P1 to P5 and P6-Alt) including Project E1:
$6,321,000$7,489,000

1. All costs are presented in 2015 dollars and include 30 percent allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions and 25 percent for engineering, administration, and legal costs. 2. These proposed projects are operational, not capital improvements. Refer to Table 4-4 for recommended set points. 3. Project P6-Alt is presented for the purpose of identifying the solution and associated cost to maintain the current system flow configuration. Project P6 is the recommended project. 4. Project E1 addresses the potential capacity deficiency when parcel APN 316-17-018 begins to discharge its entitled flow of 0.95 mgd into the City’s system. +-+-
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 1
Introduction
April 2016 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This report presents the results and recommendations of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (Master Plan) for the City of Santa Clara (City). The report was prepared by RMC Water and Environment (RMC).

1.1 Background and Study Objectives
The City of Santa Clara is located in central Santa Clara County adjacent to the Cities of San Jose, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale. The City has a population of approximately 120,000 and is served by a wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 270 miles of sewer pipelines and seven sewage pump stations. The system collects wastewater flows generated within the City’s service area and also wastewater flows from the major portion of the Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD) via a connection at Homestead Road and Swallow Drive. Flow is conveyed eastward to the City of San Jose’s interceptor sewer on Zanker Road and also northward to the Northside and Rabello Pump Stations, where the flow is pumped to the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ/SC RWF) for treatment and disposal. The City’s sewer system and service area are shown in Figure 1-1.

The City’s last sanitary sewer master plan was completed in 20072 . Since that time, the City has completed
a number of sewer improvement projects and is experiencing new development in a number of areas, necessitating an evaluation of the capacity of the sanitary sewer system to handle future wastewater flows.

This evaluation will help identify future capital needs for capacity improvements and associated requirements for financing those improvements through increased connection fees or other sources of funding. This Master Plan will confirm flows in the collection system and identify capital needs for capacity improvements.

The City is also required to comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (GWDR) adopted in 2006 by the State Water Resources Control Board. The GWDR, which applies to all publicly-owned sewer systems in California, includes the requirement to complete a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The SSMP addresses the overall management, operation, and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system and must include a System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP). Therefore, this Master Plan is also intended to satisfy the SECAP requirements of the SSMP.

The overall objectives of this Master Plan are to develop wastewater flow projections for the City’s collection area using up-to-date water use and land use information and flow monitoring data; develop an updated hydraulic model of the trunk sewer system; use the model to identify existing capacity deficiencies and future anticipated capacity requirements; and develop a phased Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including budget estimates, for implementing the required capacity improvements to the collection system.

2 City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, RMC Water and Environment, May 2007.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 1
Introduction
April 2016 1-2

1.2 Scope of Study
The scope of the Master Plan, as well as a brief discussion of work conducted under each task, is described below.
ƒ Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination. Periodic progress meetings were held with City staff to review project status and discuss project issues, and monthly status reports were prepared to document the work completed. Quality control was carried out, including checking of data and calculations, as well as senior review of proposed criteria, recommendations, and project deliverables. ƒ Task 2 – Data Collection and Review. Data, maps, geographic information system (GIS) files, and previous reports related to the wastewater collection system were reviewed to identify the information available for completing the Master Plan.
ƒ Task 3 – Flow Monitoring. A flow monitoring program, consisting of the 23 meters and 4 rain gauges installed in the collection system for a period of about two months during the 2014/15 wet weather season was conducted to obtain data to characterize flows in the system and calibrate the hydraulic model. Two additional FloDar meters were also installed at the Guadalupe Chart Station on the Trimble Road trunk sewer to confirm flows recorded by the City’s existing permanent meters at that site. Four of the sites were installed early, including a meter at Levi’s Stadium to capture the 2014 Thanksgiving Day football game, and at the three most downstream meters to capture total flows to the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations.
ƒ Task 4 – Hydraulic Model Update. An expanded hydraulic model of the City’s trunk sewer system was developed using InfoWorks™ CS modeling software. Subcatchments (small areas of unmodeled sewers that contribute flow to the modeled system) were delineated to define areas loading to the model, and flow loads to the model were compiled using water use and land use data and flow factors representing unit base wastewater flow (BWF) rates, diurnal BWF patterns, and infiltration/inflow (I/I).

The expanded model also included the Northside and Rabello Pump Stations, the two associated force mains, and a junction structure between the pump stations and the SJ/SC RWF. Meetings were held with City planning staff to identify and obtain pertinent land use data and to discuss specific planning issues and potential growth or development areas in the City. Additional meetings were also held with the City of Cupertino and the CuSD to obtain updated flow projections. The model was verified for system connectivity, calibrated for dry weather conditions, and then calibrated for wet weather conditions using actual storm events from the flow monitoring program under Task 3. ƒ Task 5 – Evaluate System Hydraulic Performance and Develop Capital Improvement Projects.

The model was used to determine sewer system capacity requirements and identify capacity deficiencies under peak dry and wet weather flow conditions, defined based on a design storm and system performance criteria. Potential solutions to capacity deficiencies were identified and tested in the model, and capacity improvement projects and associated costs were developed based on these analyses. The model was also used to confirm the results of the City’s 2010 Pump Station Evaluation to determine if the City’s pump stations are adequate to convey future flows. The recommended capacity improvement projects were prioritized to develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). ƒ Task 6 – Prepare Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (Update) Report. This report was prepared to summarize and present the results and recommendation of the study. 0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Sewers by Diameter:
≤ 6"
8" - 10"
12" - 16"
18" - 24"
≥ 27"
ÉP Pump/Lift Station
Santa Clara Force Mains
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig1-1_SystemOverview_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master PlanUpdate
Figure 1-1
Sanitary Sewer Collection
System Overview
Clu,;u
SC lnjliien 1/ity
Junction Structure
!, ... -- ' ---~ l
,.,._ ... ·-···
CuSDF/ow
--+tr~~'---_;__d
j j I
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 1
Introduction
April 2016 1-4

1.3 Report Organization
This report includes five Chapters, which are described below. ƒ Chapter 1, Introduction, presents the background, objectives, and scope of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.
ƒ Chapter 2, Basis of Flow Estimates, discusses the planning area land use projections, the basis for developing estimates for each component of wastewater flows, and the base wastewater flow projections for the service area.
ƒ Chapter 3, Hydraulic Model Development, describes the modeled sewer system, development of the model network and model loads, flow monitoring program, and model calibration. ƒ Chapter 4, Capacity Analysis, describes the capacity analysis and design criteria, model results, and potential solutions for identified capacity deficiencies. ƒ Chapter 5, Recommended Capacity Improvement Program, presents the recommended capacity improvement CIP, including project costs, prioritization, and implementation recommendations.

The Appendices to this report include plots of the flow monitoring data, model calibration graphs, model hydraulic profiles, and documentation for the recommended CIP, including project descriptions and cost estimates.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-1
Chapter 2 Basis of Flow Estimates
This chapter presents the basis of wastewater flow estimates for the City’s sanitary sewer system. The section describes the wastewater flow components used in the hydraulic model and the existing and projected future land uses for the City, which form the basis for generating base wastewater flows. Design flow estimates were developed based on criteria developed for each flow component: base wastewater flow, groundwater infiltration, and rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow, and confirmed through model calibration, as described in Chapter 3 of this report.

2.1 Wastewater Flow Components
Wastewater flows include three components: base wastewater flow (BWF), groundwater infiltration (GWI), and rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I), as illustrated conceptually in Figure 2-1. BWF represents the sanitary and process flow contributions from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial users of the system. GWI is groundwater that infiltrates into defects in sewer pipes and manholes, particularly in winter and springtime in low-lying areas. GWI is typically seasonal in nature and remains relatively constant during specific periods of the year. RDI/I is storm water inflow and infiltration that enter the system in direct response to rainfall events, typically through direct connections such as holes in manhole covers or illegally connected roof leaders or area drains or, more commonly, through defects in sewer pipes, manholes, and service laterals that may have resulted from poor initial construction, settlement of trench backfill, or deterioration due to age. RDI/I typically results in short-term peak flows that recede quickly after the rainfall ends.

Figure 2-1: Wastewater Flow Components
Flow
Rainfall
Time
(24 Hours)
RDI/I
BWF
GWI
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-2

2.2 Base Wastewater Flow
For the City’s Master Plan Update, BWF loads were developed for both existing and future development conditions. Existing loads were developed based on average winter water use data from the City’s customer billing records, and future loads were based mainly on the General Plan Phase 3 (2035) development forecast and known development and redevelopment projects that had occurred in recent years. The loading methodology for existing conditions and for projecting future BWF are discussed in the following subsections.

2.2.1 Existing Base Wastewater Flow
Existing BWF was estimated based on actual water billing records in the City’s customer billing database.

Data were first processed to exclude non-wastewater generating accounts such as fire, construction, or irrigation accounts; data for the remaining accounts were converted to average water use (in gallons per day, gpd) using the billing dates and quantities. Each account’s BWF was estimated based on the average water use during the four winter periods between December 2010 and February 2014. Each user was also assigned one of three land use types (residential, commercial, or industrial) according to the account’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) designation.

The City also has customers who use domestic wells and/or recycled water. The BWF for these customers were individually estimated based on their winter well usage data and recycled water billing data.

The BWF data (both water use and land use type) were further processed in GIS by geocoding the data to their corresponding parcels using the account’s service address. The total BWF for each sewer subcatchment was then estimated by overlaying the subcatchment boundary on the parcels and summing the BWF of all parcels within each subcatchment.

The data were then imported into the hydraulic model to perform a dry weather simulation run, and the results were compared to the flow data collected during the most recent flow monitoring program, in which a total of 25 meters were installed at selected locations throughout the system and collected actual flow data between November 2014 and March 2015 (see further discussion of model calibration in Chapter 3). It was noticed that the modeled flows were consistently about 10 to 20 percent higher than the observed flows.

One possible explanation was that there was some level of irrigation activities occurring even in the winter months due to the lack of rainfall in recent years. As such, a wastewater return factor of 10 to 20 percent was applied to the estimated BWF based on the water use data to attain a more reasonable match with actual flows observed in the field. The revised estimated BWF including the wastewater return factor is 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) for residential accounts and 4.4 mgd for commercial and industrial accounts. These estimates do not include flow from the Levi’s Stadium, which varies widely depending on the use of the venue and could potentially generate daily peak flows ranging from less than 0.1 mgd (for local events such as team practice or stadium public tours) to 1.0 mgd or higher (for major events such as the Super Bowl).

2.2.2 Future Base Wastewater Flow
The future scenario for this Master Plan Update refers to the projected flow condition in year 2035, which is the planning horizon for the City’s current General Plan. The BWF for this scenario was estimated using multiple data sources, including the original General Plan Phase 3 development forecast that was prepared in 2009 plus various additions and corrections that City staff identified in 2015, development and redevelopment projects that have occurred between 2009 and 2015, and entitlement agreements for specific parcels. These areas are shown in Figure 2-2. A more detailed map and tabulation of the recent developments are included in Appendix G.

0 0.5
1 Mile
Legend
Recent (2009-2015) Development Projects
General Plan Phase 3 (2035) Development
μ
ÉP Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
Unmodeled Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig2-2_Dvpt_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 2-2
Recent and
Future Growth Areas
CSJ Interceptor
(not modeled)
San Jose / Santa Clara
Regional
Wastewater Facility
SC Influent
Junction Structure
CuSD Flow,,·
•--· I
I
; ·-···-···-···-··-···--··-···-···-
.. .,.~· , ... I
!
i
i
l
j
I
!
i
i
;
I
i
r
I
i
i
!
·~, ....
\,
·,. , ..

I
i
\
\
!
i
\\ "\
\
I
)
/
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-4
The original future BWF projection was developed in 2009 as part of the City’s overall General Plan Update effort, in which over one thousand parcels with development potential were identified and their developments were quantified in terms of dwelling units (for residential developments) and/or building square footage (for non-residential developments). The development quantities were multiplied by the corresponding unit flow factors depending on land use to convert the information into BWF estimates.

These unit flow factors are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Base Wastewater Flow Unit Flow Factors
Type of Development Unit Flow Factor (1) Basis
Single Family Detached 245 gpd/DU 3.5 people/DU, 70 gpcd Townhouse or Condominiums 175 gpd/DU 2.5 people/DU, 70 gpcd Apartments 154 gpd/DU 2.2 people/DU, 70 gpcd
Hotels 100 gpd/room n/a
Commercial Offices 0.1 gpd/sq. ft. n/a
R&D Offices 0.15 gpd/sq.ft. n/a

1. All unit flow factors are consistent with factors used in the 2007 Capacity Assessment.

Parcels that were not identified with development potential were assumed to retain the same land use through 2035 and therefore also maintain approximately the same level of wastewater generation, which was developed based on their 2005-2006 winter water billing data. This version of the future BWF projection has since then been used for various capacity evaluations, and was updated regularly when new development or redevelopment project applications were submitted to the City for capacity evaluation.

In 2015, the City identified a number of additional developments that were not accounted for in the original General Plan Phase 3 development forecast prepared in 2009. The City also identified a list of parcels with entitlement agreements that allow the owners of these parcels to discharge wastewater up to a certain flow rate without applying for permission or notifying the City. Neither set of data was accounted for in the original projection. Furthermore, the revised existing BWF estimates are noticeably lower than those developed based on the 2005-2006 winter water billing data. The decline could be mostly attributed to increased water conservation activities in response to the recent drought. This is also evidenced in the City’s potable water sales records, which shows a sharp decline in the past ten years despite continuous population growth in the City. While it is possible that water use could rebound if and when the drought is over (e.g., behavioral changes such as reverting back to longer showers), some of the reduction is likely to remain permanent as a result of installing water-efficient plumbing fixtures and greater awareness of the need to continue conserving water.

In light of the various changes in water use and development information, a focused effort was undertaken to revise the City’s future BWF projections. Parcels that were identified to have development potential in the revised General Plan Phase 3 forecast were re-processed using the updated development quantities.

Parcels that were not identified with development potential were assumed to maintain their current water use, which is the updated existing BWF described in the previous section, instead of the original BWF based on previous 2005-2006 water use data, plus a 10 percent rebound factor to account for possible increase in water use in the future. For parcels that are on the list of development/redevelopment projects that the City has received between 2009 and 2015, their BWF was estimated according to the development quantities specified in their project applications. For parcels that hold entitlement agreements, BWF was set to their entitled flow rates.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
2-5 April 2016
summarizes the existing (circa 2015) and future (2035) BWF for residential and non-residential Table 2-2 sectors. Based on these estimates, BWF is projected to increase by over two fold to 27.1 mgd in 2035.

Table 2-2: Base Wastewater Flow Estimates
Land Use Existing Flow
(mgd)
Future Flow
(mgd)
Residential 6.5 10.7
Non-Residential (1) 4.4 16.4
Total (2) 11.0 27.1

1. Does not include flow from the Levi’s Stadium, which varies greatly depending on the use of the venue; average flow on a peak game day is approximately 0.19 mgd based on flow monitoring conducted as part of this project.

2. Does not include flow from the Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD), which is discussed in section 2.5.

2.2.3 Diurnal Curves
In most sewer systems, BWF typically exhibits distinctive diurnal patterns depending on the land use, usually categorized as residential, commercial, and industrial. For Santa Clara, flow monitoring data showed typical responses to commercial and industrial patterns, but also two residential patterns: the northeastern part of the City in the vicinity of Lafayette Street and Montague Expressway appeared to have a more pronounced morning peak flow and a lower evening peak, while the rest of the City had a less peaky morning peak and a somewhat higher evening peak. As such, two residential diurnal curves were created to represent these two patterns.
. Each subcatchment was assigned one of the residential curves Figure 2-3 The diurnal curves are shown in according to its location (Lafayette Area vs. all other areas); and one of the non-residential curves according to the primary type of non-residential establishments (commercial or industrial).

Figure 2-3: Wastewater Diurnal Curves
Figure 5B: Lafayette Area Residential Flow Figure 5A: Typical Residential Flow

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Factor
Time
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Factor
Time
Weekday
Weekend
Flow Factor
Flow Factor
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-6
Figure 5C: Commercial Flow Figure 5D: Industrial Flow
Some of the City’s large water users do not exhibit typical diurnal curves. To ensure their flow patterns are accurately reflected in the model, nonresidential accounts with average water use of over 50,000 gpd were identified and individually researched. A total of 18 such large users were identified, and City staff contacted each user to collect operational information regarding their sewer discharge pattern. Individual diurnal curves were created for each based on the operational hours indicated on their wastewater discharge permits or surveys. These large water users are summarized in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: City’s Large Water Users
Account Holder APN Address Est. Average
Flow (mgd)
Graphic Packaging Intl. Inc. 230-03-100 2600 De La Cruz Blvd. 0.587 Siliconix Inc. 104-39-023 2201 Laurelwood Rd. 0.405
Streamline Circuits Corp. 224-06-170 1415 Richard Ave. 0.308 Intel Corporation 104-48-010 3600 Juliette Ln. 0.191
Intel Corporation 216-46-015 3065 Bowers Ave. 0.099
Marvell Semiconductor Inc. 104-52-024 5488 Marvell Ln. 0.081 APCT Inc. 101-15-033 3495 De La Cruz Blvd. 0.074
Perkin Elmer Optoelectronics 104-13-083 2175 Mission College Blvd. 0.071 Owens Corning Sales LLC 224-07-099 960 Central Exp. 0.069 Applied Materials 216-49-024 3070 Bowers Ave. 0.067
Reaction Technology Inc. 104-51-001 3400 Bassett St. 0.067 City of Santa Clara – Electrical Dept. 230-03-067 524 Robert Ave. 0.065 Abbott Diagnostics Div. 104-50-016 5440 Patrick Henry Dr. 0.063 Diana Fruit Co. Inc. 224-40-001 651 Mathew St. 0.061
Oracle America Inc. 097-08-114 4100 Network Cl. 0.058
Digital 3011 Lafayette LLC 224-36-052 3011 Lafayette St. 0.053 Intel Corporation 104-39-020 2200 Mission College Blvd. 0.053 Agilent Technology 316-17-018 5301 Stevens Creek Blvd. 0.051

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Factor
Time
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Factor
Time
Weekday
Weekend
Flow Factor
Flow Factor
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-7

2.3 Groundwater Infiltration
Groundwater infiltration is generally quantified based on actual flow monitoring data, since it is difficult to predict GWI rates based on physical system data alone. In the context of design flow criteria, GWI represents the incremental groundwater infiltration that occurs during the wet weather season above the “baseline” infiltration level during the driest months of the year.

GWI can be estimated based on minimum flows during non-rainfall periods during a wet weather flow monitoring period. Minimum flows typical occur during the nighttime or early morning hours when base wastewater flows are at a low. Alternatively, GWI can be estimated as the difference between average metered flow during non-rainfall periods and computed average BWF. In either case, the resulting GWI, is expressed on a unit basis (gpd/acre or gpad) by dividing by the sewered acreage of the monitored area.

Typical GWI rates may range from about 100 to 1,000 gpad.

GWI were estimated through the model calibration process (described in Chapter 3) by comparing modelsimulated BWF to actual flow measurements from the temporary flow monitoring programs. Cases where model-predicted BWF was noticeably lower than monitored flow indicated the possible occurrence of GWI.

2.4 Rainfall-Dependent I/I
RDI/I flows result from rainfall events that produce infiltration and inflow of storm water into the sewer system. RDI/I can be quantified as the difference between the total flow during and immediately following a storm event and the non-rainfall “base flow” (BWF plus GWI) that is estimated to have occurred during the storm period. The magnitude of the resulting RDI/I response is typically described by the percentage of the rainfall volume (called the “R value”) represented by the volume of the RDI/I hydrograph. The R value can vary from storm to storm, depending on such factors as the degree of soil saturation (due to antecedent rainfall) prior to the storm event.

The shape of the RDI/I hydrograph is also important in determining the peak RDI/I response. The RDI/I hydrograph shape is often defined by separating the total RDI/I hydrograph volume into components, representing different response times to rainfall (fast, medium, and slow). Each component is identified by a percentage of the total RDI/I volume and specific time to peak (T) and recession coefficient (K), illustrated in Figure 2-4. The R component percentages and T and K values can be applied to each hour of rainfall to generate a “synthetic hydrograph” that approximates the volume and shape of the hydrograph from the actual observed event. These parameters, when applied to a different rainfall pattern, can be used to estimate the RDI/I response to that particular rainfall event. This methodology is used to synthesize RDI/I hydrographs for a “design storm” for collection system modeling (see Chapter 3 for discussion of design storms).

Design criteria for RDI/I include design R values and hydrograph shape parameters and the hourly rainfall for the selected design storm event. As described in the next chapter, R values and hydrograph parameters are determined through the process of model calibration, in which actual observed rainfall events are simulated in the hydraulic model, and the resulting model hydrographs are compared to the measured flows at flow meters locations. The RDI/I parameters are adjusted as needed to achieve the best match of modeled to monitored flows. Once calibrated, the model RDI/I parameters can be applied to a design storm to simulate wet weather flows for a design event.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 2
Basis of Flow Estimates
April 2016 2-8
Figure 2-4: RDI/I Hydrograph Components

2.5 Flow from Cupertino Sanitary District
CuSD provides sewer collection services for the majority of City of Cupertino, portions of the City of Saratoga, and several unincorporated areas within Santa Clara County east of San Jose. Most of the flow is discharged into the Santa Clara system via a 27-inch sewer line in Homestead Road; the rest is discharged into the City of San Jose (CSJ) system at various other connection points.

CuSD maintains a permanent flow meter at its discharge point in Homestead Road. Meter data between November 2014 and March 2015 were reviewed and analyzed; the average dry weather flow (ADWF) was about 3.5 mgd. Similar to the declining trend observed for the City, CuSD’s flow has also declined over 28 percent from the 2007 estimates of 4.9 mgd to the current estimates of 3.5 mgd, most likely also due to increased water conservation activities in response to the recent drought.

Multiple meetings were held with City staff and CuSD staff to discuss development projections within the CuSD service areas in an effort to estimate the future BWF for the CuSD system. Information from sources such as the City of Cupertino’s General Plan 2020 and General Plan 2040, CuSD-SJ Joint Interceptor Cost Sharing Agreement (which indicates how much flow CuSD would be discharging into the San Jose system), ABAG projections, and CuSD meter data were discussed. Characteristics of the CuSD system, such as system age and I/I, planned sewer improvements, and known large development projects were also considered. Preliminary model simulations were conducted to understand the potential impact of the CuSD flow on the Santa Clara system under future peak design storm condition. For this Master Plan Update, City staff has directed RMC to use 6.90 mgd as CuSD’s future ADWF, and cap its future PWWF at 13.8 mgd, which is the maximum flow rate set forth in the agreement3 between the City and CuSD.
3 Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the Cupertino Sanitary District for (a) the purchase of capacity in Cupertino’s sanitary interceptor sewer within the City of Santa Clara and (b) continued use by Cupertino Sanitary District of 13.8 MGD Peak Capacity in the City of Santa Clara’s interceptor sewer system. , 1 Hour :
p
l
Pis rainfall intensity over 1 hour
Total Rainfall Volume = P x Drainage Area
.-~--Total ROI/I Hydrograph
Triangular Hydrograph 1
(fast response)
TIME
Triangular Hydrograph 2
(medium response)
Triangular Hydrograph 3
(slow response)
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-1
Chapter 3 Hydraulic Model Development
This chapter describes the process of developing and calibrating the hydraulic model for use in the capacity assessment, including the flow monitoring program that was conducted for this study.

3.1 Modeling Terminology
Network refers to the representation of the physical facilities being modeled. The primary components of the modeled network are pipes, manholes, and pump stations.

Nodes are primarily manholes, but also include pump station wet wells, outfalls (discharge points of the modeled system) and breaks (changes in slope or diameter without a structure, such as at the vertical bends in inverted siphons). The primary data associated with nodes are rim and invert elevations. In the case of wet wells, the data also includes the diameter (for a circular well) or cross-sectional area.

Pipes are connections between nodes. The primary data associated with pipes are upstream and downstream node IDs, pipe length, diameter, and upstream and downstream invert elevations. Pipes include both gravity sewers and force mains.

Pumps are represented by links connecting the wet well node(s) and the discharge manhole or upstream end of the force main. Pumps are controlled by a number of user-defined parameters, including the switchon and switch-off levels, types of pumps, and head discharge curves.

Other model components include Gates and Weirs, which are represented by links with zero length.

Primary data associated with gates are the opening width and invert; data associated with weirs are the crest width and crest elevation.

Subcatchments are areas that contribute flow to the modeled sewer network and represent the unmodeled sewers in the collection system. Data associated with subcatchments include base wastewater (sanitary) flow (computed based on population, water use, or other available data), type of land use (which defines the diurnal profile associated with the base wastewater flow), infiltration/inflow (I/I) parameters, and the node at which the flow from the subcatchment enters the modeled system.

Loads are the flows assigned to each subcatchment. Components of model loads include residential and commercial base wastewater flow (BWF), groundwater infiltration (GWI), and rainfall-dependent I/I (RDI/I). As a sum, they represent the total wastewater flow applied to the model.

Models are the combination of a modeled network, its associated subcatchments and loads, and other data files (e.g., rainfall, diurnal profiles, etc.) that comprise a specific model scenario.

3.2 Delineation of Modeled System
A hydraulic model is typically developed to represent the trunk sewer system, which is the network of larger diameter pipes that comprises the “backbone” of the entire system. The City’s original hydraulic model was developed by RMC as part of the 2007 Capacity Assessment project and included approximately 28 percent (about 76 miles) of the total sewer pipelines and four of the pump stations. The model was originally constructed using modeling software MIKE URBANTM (SWMM version) and was converted to InfoWorksTM CS in 2008. RMC has continuously maintained and updated the model as sewer improvement projects were implemented or when new network data became available.

For this Master Plan Update, the model was expanded to include approximately 34 percent (about 92 miles) of the total pipelines and all seven pump stations. The force mains downstream of the Rabello and Northside pump stations were also added. A summary of the system’s pipeline inventory is provided in Table 3-1.

The modeled network is shown in Figure 3-1.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-2
Table 3-1: Sewer Collection System Model Summary
Pipe Diameter (in) Total Length1
(ft)
Length Modeled1
(ft)
Percent
Modeled
4-6 197,400 1,800 0.9%
8 619,600 48,300 8%
10 132,300 65,200 49%
12 224,900 120,300 53%
14-16 62,800 59,400 95%
18 43,700 42,000 96%
20-21 15,300 15,300 100%
24 49,600 49,600 100%
27 15,000 15,000 100%
30 25,900 25,900 100%
>30 38,100 38,100 100%
Force Main 13,000 13,000 100%
Total (feet) 1,437,600 493,900 34%
Total (miles) 272.3 93.5 34%
Approx. No. of Manholes 5,260 1,870 36%
No. of Siphons2 53 53 100%

1. Rounded to the nearest hundred feet.

2. This refers to the total number of barrels. Some siphons have multiple barrels.

All seven pump stations in the system are included in the model. A survey was conducted to collect information on pump curves and the operational sequences, as summarized in Table 3-2 below. Pump capacity analysis was conducted for all stations and the results are summarized in Chapter 4 of this report.

Table 3-2: Collection System Pump Station Summary
No. Station Name No. of
Pumps Description Emergency Bypass
1 Westside Lift Station 2 Identical Flygt 3127 pumps. Yes 2 Tasman Lift Station 2 Identical Flygt 3127 pumps. Yes 3 De La Cruz Lift Station 2 Identical Flygt 3127 pumps. Yes 4 Primavera Lift Station 6 Identical Flygt 3127 pumps. Yes 5 Stadium Lift Station 6
New lift station completed in 2014. Two
identical low-flow pumps (Flygt 3127) and
four identical high-flow pumps (Flygt 3153).

Yes
6 Rabello Pump Station 8 Identical Flygt 3202 pumps. Four new pumps installed in 2013 and in 2014. Yes
7 Northside Pump Station 4 Four identical Flygt 3356 pumps. Yes +
+
+
+
+
+
+
0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Modeled Trunk Sewers
≤ 6"
8" - 10"
12" - 16"
18" - 24"
≥ 27"
ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Unmodeled Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig3-1_ModeledNtwk_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 3-1
Modeled Trunk System
,,. ____r - i ..u
SC lnjliient Junction Structure ___ ._
Nort fde PS
···' ,, ...,._...,,.•·~"~ Rabello PS '\
,, •• •• \.
. \
. I '··· .......... , • .., l ~ ! V•,, i ·: . \
; t---1--m- ··,.
: i '·"' ~
! ~---···, j ,
\
\
\
.., j
•1LS-1 l
\
"\ I
I
;.,
'I
I
I
)
~~.. ,,/··· \ --.. ~ /
' - \ l.-... -···-···= __ 1.--i.-.. - .... ~•)•--__,.__;-=+--- i
i
i
j
I ,,..._
i.:"1
l
i
\
I
I
I
:

1..1. ••
--,
,.
'
j
I r·---•-' _,
)
>
-<; -
- I 1J -_i
··~ -···-···-·'l.,,..
\
I ", \ ! ···, \ I '• :
- ·, .. \
. .,.
·. rQ
-"'\
u~ r r -r n
: ·-.. ·----·--·r . r .... --·-· -· -.-+= •..~------... ~.1_,;;:. ._ - ....... - ..... _ ~- - -- City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-4
Flows are loaded into the model at “loading manholes,” each representing the point where flows from adjacent parcels or parcels connected to unmodeled sewers discharge to the modeled network. The parcels connected to unmodeled sewers were grouped into sewer subcatchments based on the modeled manhole to which the unmodeled sewers drain. Each subcatchment was associated with a unique load manhole in the model network. Approximately 860 sewer subcatchments and associated loading manholes were delineated for defining the model loads. The subcatchments and load manholes are shown in Figure 3-2.

3.3 Model Network Construction and Validation
Data of the expanded network were compiled from available as-built drawings, field measurements, and Excel files from previous modeling efforts. The network was also validated using the following steps:
ƒ The entire modeled network (both the original network and the expanded portion) was checked for connectivity, i.e., verifying that correct upstream/downstream manholes were identified for each pipe and there were no missing links in the network.
ƒ Profiles were plotted for each series of pipe segments to visually check for missing or suspect data, such as missing rim or invert elevations, negative pipe slopes, or abrupt steps up or down in pipe inverts.

Where appropriate, data were interpolated or verified through field investigation or as-built drawings. ƒ As-built drawings and field data were used to develop details for the modeled pump stations, such as wet well elevations and dimensions, number of pumps, pump types, on/off levels, and discharge curves. ƒ Flow splits (manholes with more than one outlet pipe) were identified, and field verification and/or asbuilt drawings were requested as needed for further verification of outlet pipe elevations and/or the existence of weirs or other flow diversion structures.

3.4 Flow Monitoring Program
Flow monitoring was conducted between November 2014 and March 2015 to measure actual flows in the system for analysis and calibration purposes. The monitoring was conducted by V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) as subcontractor to RMC. The flow monitoring program originally consisted of 23 flow meters and four rain gauges. Most of the meters were installed and operational from December 10, 2014 to March 4, 2015 (approximately 12 weeks). Four of the meters, Meters 1 through 4, were installed earlier on November 22, 2014 to collect data during scheduled game events at the new Levi’s Stadium.

Factors that were considered in selecting the flow meter sites included:
ƒ Location of sites used in 2006 flow monitoring program for the City’s previous sewer system capacity assessment study
ƒ Similar sized tributary areas
ƒ Ability to isolate areas to characterize flows for model calibration ƒ Provides more specific information about flow splits
ƒ Preferred hydraulic conditions (i.e., manholes on a straight line preferred over manholes on bends or with multiple incoming pipes)
ƒ Ease of access and safety considerations
In addition to the 23 sites, the City also owns and maintains two permanent flow meters at the Guadalupe Chart Station just upstream of the connection with the City of San Jose’s Interceptors. Upon review of the data collected at these two meters, it was determined that a field calibration was necessary. V&A performed field calibration, and also installed two temporary flow meters at the same site to verify and ensure data quality of the two permanent meters.

The flow monitoring sites are listed in Table 3-3 and shown on Figure 3-3. A flow meter schematic is shown on Figure 3-4. Four rain gauges were installed to collect representative rainfall data over the service area during the monitoring period. The rain gauge locations are also shown on Figure 3-3.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-5
Table 3-3: Summary of Flow Monitoring Sites
Meter
ID Location ManholeID
Pipe Size
(in)
Avg.

Flow (1)
(mgd)
Peak
Flow (2)
(mgd)
1 (3) Lafayette St. north of Calle de Mundo S104-28 36 3.91 7.95 2 (3) Golf course private road west of Lafayette St. S104-26 33 3.97 8.36 3 (3) Lafayette St. north of Calle de Mundo S104-30 42 3.05 9.24 4 (3, 4) Parking lot of the new Levis Stadium S94-35 24 0.22 0.94 5 Mission College Blvd. north of Our Lady’s Wy. S83-21 33 3.97 10.3 6 Mission College Blvd. north of Our Lady’s Wy. S83-22 30 2.60 6.37 7 Upstream of Primavera Lift Station. S105-34 24 0.89 1.81 8 Lafayette St. north of Montague Expwy. S86-12 30 1.79 4.80 9 Calabazas Creek south of Kifer Rd. S62-40 24 1.98 6.34 10 San Juan Ave. and Monroe St. S52-79 24 0.80 2.80
11 Chromite Dr. and Pilot Knob Dr. S53-40 24 1.06 4.76
12 Chromite Dr. and Alhambra S53-23 24 1.19 4.74
13 Bowers Ave. just north of Bonnie Dr. S53-54 30 3.50 7.22 14 South Dr. south of Loma Vista Ln. S54-16 15 0.53 1.12 15 Nvidia Parking lot, west off of Scott Blvd. south of Central Expwy. S65-50 18 0.45 1.44
16 Central Expwy west of UPRR S67-13 27 1.43 2.70
17 De La Cruz Blvd. north of Martin Ave. S58-9 24 0.40 1.48 18 De La Cruz Blvd. north of Martin Ave. S58-8 24 1.14
19 North of intersection of Wren Ave. at Kent Avenue S21-18 24 1.63 3.13 20 Homestead Rd. west of Cherry Orchard Place S21-47 18 1.74 4.00 21 Kiely Blvd. south of Kaiser Dr. S23-6 24 2.25 3.68
22 Los Padres Blvd. at Bray Ave. S45-80 18 0.76 4.60
23 Brokaw Rd. north-east of UPRR S48-31 18 0.58 1.81
M1 (5) Guadalupe Chart Station East Line N/A 33 (6) 3.89 5.80 M2 (5) Guadalupe Chart Station West Line N/A 33 1.07 2.64

1. Average flow during non-rainfall period in mid- to late January.

2. Peak 15-minute flow during flow monitoring period (during December 11-12, 2014 storm event for most meters)

3. Meters 1 through 4 were installed on November 22, 2014. All other meters were installed on or around December 10, 2014.

All meters were removed on or around March 4, 2015.

4. Average flow represents a typical non-game day flow; peak flow represents a game day flow.

5. Meters M1 and M2 were installed starting January 9, 2015 in addition to the two permanent meters at the Guadalupe Chart Station.

6. Field measurements and observation show this line to be a 36-inch pre-fabricated T-lock lined pipe, while design drawings show its diameter to be 33 inches. A research was done to verify the pipe diameter but did not reach a conclusive result. As such, this pipe remains a 33-inch in the model.
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
0 0.5
1 Mile
Legend !( Loading Manholes
μ
ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
Unmodeled Sewer
San Jose Interceptors
Subcatchment
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig3-2_NtwkSubs_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 3-2
Subcatchments and
Loading Manholes
.,.,,,. . .,
i
I
i,_, ... ,
r
i
i
i
i
SC Influent
Junction Structure----~
<-... _ ,
- ---- , .. _ ... 1
0 0.5
1 Mile
Legend !( Flow Monitoring Site & ID
μ
Õ Rain Gauge Site and ID ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
Unmodeled Sewer
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig3-3_FM&RGs_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 3-3: Flow Meter
and Rain Gauge Locations
··--·-... - ... - ... -·;a::.:··-=- ... •• ..-..,=i,_.,_ l
r
_ 1 _. ____ ._FM_9._
SC lnjluent
Junction Strucwrc ____ --1.
-.., .. ·,.
.\
j
i
\.,
"\
l
I
I
I
j
alupe West)
-~-,,,,.
\
\
7 \
·•., \
••♦.;
20-26
21-49
10-29 11-41
15”@
126.8’
15”@
127.4
Gate 1
Gate 2
103-22 103-23
93-53
83-17
104-21
33”@-8.14
33”@-7.89
104-22
Calle PS
Westside PS
93-36
Tasman PS
33”@-2.61
93-52
33”@2.32
83-18
33”@6.89
73-7
21”@

19.76 18”@

19.98 73-30
63-20
53-34
62-6
62-8
62-10
53-105
10”
@40.9
62-5
15”@27.37
12”@31.06 21”@27.76
15”@31.01
61-17
61-16
73-29
8”@40.77+6”@43.47
52-4
32-102
ECR siphon
10”@76.16
32-101
15”@75.23 32-8
32-45
15”@75.45 33-33 33-34
15”@83.23
15”@82.83
12”@91.73
15”@91.53
32-68
15”@75.45
12”@113.06 22-55
21”@
100.23
10”@100.23
22-64
22-52 23-14
33-63
10”@131.94
23-27 24-32
10”@131.89
15”@
109.91 12”@

94.62 18”@

90.32 23-24
33-5
15-13
25-85
34-6
104-35
104-37
64-34
57-54
58-12
65-30
58-21
58-11
58-22
57-37
58-23
48-2
47-54
35-2
47-58
Trimble to
San Jose Interceptor
36-83
47-59
47-77
48-3
48-11
12”@

65.32 38-5
38-4
24”@

32.8 15”@

56.37 12”@

58.15 15”@

57.55 12”@

63.77 24”@35.52
48-48
24”@

28.91 57-57
38-14
37-48
12”@

58.89 15”@30.51
48-38
47-30
18”@37.07
58-3
68-23
18”@33.15
18”@33 18”@32.9
30”@

25.75 18”@26.75
68-20
33-4
27”@65.78
12”@72.03
64-41
25-9
64-46
64-44
64-45
105-37
104-33
105-35
105-6
21”@-11.15
21”@-11.15
105-7
105-36
18”@-2.7 15”@-2.71
104-49
104-31
105-27
24”@-9.19 12”@-9.04
22 6
4 3
2 Figure 8: City of Santa Clara Trunk Sewer System Schematic Last Updated: April 4, 2016
De La Cruz PS
1 # 2015 Flow Monitoring Sites
City’s Permanent Meters
Pump Station
Flow Split Manhole
Junction Manhole
Rabello PS
104-19
Northside PS
Santa Clara
Influent Structure 1
(San Jose)
52-65
10 41-104 10”@83.48
10”@

84.16 42-104 10”@78.98
10”@78.98
20-9
5 9
11 12 13
17 18
23 12”@

71.33 12”@

71.48 15
15”@
129.78
27”@
129.28
20-16
19 20
14 Walsh Line
M
M2
M1
97-10
Flow Diversion Structure (e.g., weir)
Stadium PS
86-20
New MH
16 21
8 7
Flow Direction
HighͲLevel Overflow
63-33
54-101
54-100
15”@

36.45 12”@

36.45 64-32
41-125
41-113 41-121
41-123
42-125 12”@

39.6 27”@

37.82 M
Santa Clara
Junction Structure M
42”
42”
36”
42”
Control
Chamber
48”
36”
36”
48” FM
D
C
B
A
E
SJ Interceptors
M
24-62
13-38
13-27
13-55
12-50
23-51
23-28
26-44
35-42
26-70
35-20
35-37
35-25
35-17 35-87
36-1
47-60
47-32
47-55
■
□ ®
•
•
♦
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-9
During the flow monitoring period, all of the monitoring sites and the two permanent meter sites at the Guadalupe Chart Station were visited approximately biweekly to check meter operation and site conditions, obtain field calibration measurements, and download collected data. Field calibration involves taking manual depth measurements and flow velocity measurements using a portable velocity meter. These calibration measurements were compared to and used to adjust monitor-recorded depth and velocity if needed. Calibration measurements were taken at different times of day in order to obtain calibration points for the full range of typical diurnal flows.

Approximately four storm events occurred during the flow monitoring period. The biggest event occurred on December 11, 2014, in which over 3 inches of rainfall were recorded within a 24-hour period, with a peak hour rainfall of 0.38 inch between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. This is the event used for wet weather flow calibration, discussed further in Chapter 3.

Plots of the flow monitoring data and a tabular summary of daily average, minimum, and maximum flows for each meter are included in Appendix A.

3.5 Model Calibration
Model calibration is the process of comparing model-computed flows to observed (monitored) flows to verify that the model is accurately simulating flows in the sewer system. As described above, temporary flow monitoring programs consisting of 25 flow meters installed in the Santa Clara system during the 2014/15 winter season as part of the study. The data collected during this flow monitoring program were used for model calibration.

3.5.1 Dry Weather Calibration
The 14-day non-rainfall period from January 17 to January 30, 2015 was used for dry weather calibration.

The dry weather calibration process was used to verify BWF loads and diurnal curves, and to quantify GWI (as indicated by monitored flows that were higher than estimated BWF). Table 3-4 compares the model vs. metered average dry weather flow (ADWF) at each of the meter locations. Figure 3-5 shows an example plot of model vs. metered flow for one of the flow monitoring locations in the system (Meter 5). Dry weather calibration graphs for all meters are included in Appendix B.

Overall, the model calibration resulted in a reasonably good match at most locations, but there were differences at some locations. These differences may be due to inaccuracies in the meter data, water use loadings, or configuration of the system (e.g., upstream flow splits, weir settings, etc.). Extensive effort was made to resolve as many of the calibration differences as possible. As shown in Table 3-4, the sum of the observed flows at the most downstream meters (Meters 1, 2, 3, M1 and M2) was within 6 percent of the modeled flows, which provides confidence that the overall flows in the model are reasonably accurate.

Note that the total model ADWF is higher than the estimated existing BWF shown in Table 2-2 because the model ADWF also accounts for the CuSD flow (observed flow data was used, which was approximately

3.57 mgd for the calibration period) and about 0.35 mgd of GWI that was added to the system during the calibration process, which was applied to the basins tributary to meters 10 and 11, at an estimated rate of 1,000 gpd/acre. As described in Chapter 2, GWI is calculated based on the difference between average flow on non-rainfall days during the flow monitoring period and estimated BWF for meters for which estimated BWF is noticeable lower than monitored flow. Other meter areas may also include some nominal dry weather GWI, which is assumed to be included in the BWF estimates.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-10
Table 3-4: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Results
Meter ID Meter
Avg. Flow (mgd)
Model
Avg. Flow (mgd)
Difference
(mgd)
Percent
Difference
1 3.91 3.42 -0.49 -12%
2 3.97 3.71 -0.26 -7%
3 3.05 3.27 0.21 7%
4 (1) 0.22 0.22 0.00 0%
5 3.97 3.99 0.02 0%
6 2.60 2.54 -0.06 -2%
7 0.89 0.74 -0.16 -17%
8 1.79 1.70 -0.09 -5%
9 1.98 2.25 0.27 13%
10 0.80 0.80 0.00 0%
11 1.06 1.10 0.04 4%
12 1.19 1.14 -0.05 -4%
13 3.50 3.59 0.09 3%
14 0.53 0.51 -0.02 -4%
15 (2) 0.45 0.81 0.36 79%
16 (2) 1.43 1.06 -0.37 -26%
15 & 16 (2) 1.88 1.87 -0.01 -1%
17 0.40 0.54 0.14 34%
18 1.14 0.99 -0.15 -13%
19 1.63 1.56 -0.07 -4%
20 1.74 1.51 -0.23 -13%
21 2.25 2.09 -0.15 -7%
22 0.76 0.91 0.14 19%
23 (3) 0.58 0.69 0.11 18%
M1 (Guadalupe East) 3.89 3.41 -0.48 -12%
M2 (Guadalupe West) 1.07 1.16 0.09 8%
Sum of D/S Meters (4) 15.90 14.97 -0.92 -6%

1. Meter 4 was installed immediately downstream of the Levi’s stadium with the intention to collect data to study flow patterns during major game events. The meter did capture good flow data for a number of game events, but also encountered a technical issue in late January that caused data collected between January 20 and February 18 (overlapping with the calibration period) to be unrecoverable. As such, data collected between January 11 and January 18 (a 7-day non-rainfall period when the venue was not used for any games) was used to establish the baseline flow for the stadium.

2. Meters 15 and 16 had an unexpected shift in flow distribution between late December 2014 and early January 2015, possibly caused by a temporary blockage upstream of the two meters. City staff was informed of this shift but could not provide an explanation. Although the meter flows did return to a higher level in late January 2015, they never returned to the pre-shift level. As such, their data was deemed not suitable to be used for calibration for each meter basin individually; instead, their tributary subcatchments were calibrated together as one basin using the combined data of the two meters.

3. Meter 23 was located downstream of the Santa Clara University. The dry weather calibration period coincided with the registration week of the school’s winter quarter when student population was not at its maximum. The observed flow for this meter was therefore noticeably lower than the modeled flow (which was developed based normal school period).

4. Downstream (D/S) Meters are meters 1, 2, 3, M1, and M2. See system schematic in Figure 3-4. +-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
+-
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-11
Figure 3-5: Example Dry Weather Calibration Graphs

3.5.2 Wet Weather Calibration
The storm that occurred on December 11, 2014 was used for wet weather calibration. As described previously, RDI/I response to rainfall events was quantified in terms of three sets of triangular unit hydrograph parameters that represent the volume percentage of rainfall that enters the system as RDI/I and the shape of the RDI/I hydrograph as a function of each hour of rainfall. Through the wet weather calibration process, RDI/I hydrograph parameters were developed for each meter area. In general, the response to rainfall in the Santa Clara system is relatively small, as evidenced by the relatively low peak flow response to the rainfall event, with the exception of areas in the western portion of the City near Monroe Street, which showed both a high peak inflow during the rainfall event and an extended period of infiltration after the event.

Table 3-5 lists the “R values” (as percentages of rainfall) for each flow meter area. Figure 3-6 shows an example plot of model vs. metered flow for one of the flow monitoring locations in the system (Meter 5).

A complete set of wet weather calibration graphs of modeled vs. metered flow for all meter locations are included in Appendix C.

Obs.
...n Runs>DWF_1/17/2015+14D (w/GWI)>DWF
Flow (MGD)
Min

1.390

1.380
Max

6.323

6.119
Volume (US Mgal)

55.644

55.886
Flow Survey Location (Obs.) 5 S83-23.1

15.0 10.0
5,0
1/18 1/20 1/22 1/ 24 1/26 1/28 1/30
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-12
Table 3-5: Wet Weather Flow Calibration Results
Meter ID R1 RDI/I Vol. (%) R2 RDI/I Vol. (%) R3 RDI/I Vol. (%) Total R (%) 1 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.4%
2 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 1.4%
3 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
4 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.2%
5 0.1% 1.0% 1.5% 2.6%
6 0.1% 0.5% 1.5% 2.1%
7 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.5%
8 0.3% 0.5% 1.2% 2.0%
9 0.5% 3.5% 8.0% 12.0%
10 1.0% 4.2% 8.0% 13.2%
11 0.1% 2.0% 15.0% 17.1%
12 0.2% 1.0% 20.0% 21.2%
13 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 1.0%
14 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 1.0%
15 & 16 (1) 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5%
17 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.5%
18 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 2.3%
19 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.2%
20 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
21 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4%
22 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
23 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8%
CuSD 0.25% 0.35% 0.5% 1.1%

1. Meters 15 and 16 were calibrated together due to unexpected field conditions. See note 2 under Table 3-4.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 3
Hydraulic Model Development
April 2016 3-13
Figure 3-6: Example Wet Weather Calibration Graphs for 2014 Storm Period Rain
Obs.
...Rainfall Event (11/18-3/05)
Rainfall
Depth (in)

4.990
Peak (in/hr)

1.280
Average (in/hr)

0.019
Flow (MGD)
Min

1.319

1.515
Max

10.323

9.470
Volume (US Mgal)

53.945

52.096
Flow Survey Location (Obs .) 5 583-23.1, Ra infall Profil e: RG2

10.50 ------------------------.-----------------------r---------------------------------------------- ' ' ' ~
~LOO

1.50 15.0 ------ ---- -c ---- - - ---- - - ----- - - --- ,- - ---- - ----- - - ---- - - ---,- - - --- --- ---- - ----- - - --c- - - ----- - - ------ ---- ---,--- - - ----- - - ---- - - -----

10.0 i5"
l.!J
~
~
"' 5.0
o.o -'-------i----~----f----~----+----~----~----~----+----~---- 12/11 12/13 12/15 12/17 12/19
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-1
Chapter 4 Capacity Analysis
This chapter describes the hydraulic analysis and design criteria used to evaluate system performance and size capacity relief projects, the capacity deficiencies based on the results of model runs, and preliminary solutions to identified capacity deficiencies. The chapter also summarizes the pump station capacity evaluation and analysis.

4.1 Design Event Criteria
Peak design flows for sewer systems consist of dry weather base wastewater flow (BWF), groundwater infiltration (GWI), and rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I). Criteria for computing existing BWF, GWI, and RDI/I (developed as part of model calibration), and unit flow assumptions for future development were discussed in the previous chapters. However, the peak design flow criteria must also specify the set of conditions (e.g., design storm rainfall and timing with respect to seasonal GWI and diurnal BWF) that will generate the highest peak flows that the sewer system must be capable of hydraulically conveying.

The following subsections discuss design storm criteria, present data from recent storm events, and identify options and recommendations for selection of a design event for use in this Master Plan Update.

4.1.1 Design Storm Condition
The use of wet weather design events as the basis for sewer capacity evaluation is a well-accepted practice.

The approach is to first calibrate a hydraulic model of the system to match wet weather flows from observed storms, and then apply the calibrated model to a design rainfall event to identify capacity deficiencies and size improvement projects. The design event may be synthesized from rainfall statistics, or may be an actual historical rainfall event of appropriate duration and intensity.

A design storm is used to simulate a peak wet weather flow condition to identify system deficiencies and develop solutions for them. Design storms are typically classified by their return period and duration. The return period defines the probability that the design rainfall will be exceeded in any given year. For example, a storm with a 10-year return period means there is a 1 in 10 chance, or 10 percent probability, of exceeding the design rainfall in a given year. The chosen return period reflects the degree of risk an agency will tolerate of experiencing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) due to future storm events. However, choosing a design storm with a very high return period (reflecting a very low risk tolerance) could lead to the identification of so many system capacity deficiencies that the cost of improvements is prohibitive. Additionally, sizing a system for a very rare event could mean that the system does not function well under typical conditions during much lower flows (due to slow velocities in oversized pipes, or oversized pump stations).

A storm duration must be specified along with the return period. Most Bay Area agencies use a 24-hour storm, though shorter or longer durations may sometimes be appropriate depending on system size and how quickly or slowly the system responds to rainfall. Design storm may be actual historical rainfall events or synthetic events that are designed to represent a certain return period for a specified storm duration or durations.

The City’s 2007 Capacity Assessment used a 10-year, 24-hour storm, with one-hour and six-hour 10-year events included within the 24-hour event. This storm was based on the Santa Clara County intensityduration-frequency (IDF) curve that was current at the time, representing rainfall statistics at the San Jose International Airport. To reflect differences in rainfall characteristics across the service area, the storm was scaled for different areas based on the isohyetal map of average annual rainfall from the Consoer, Townsend & Associates Sanitary Sewer I/I Analysis, dated 1974.

Since the completion of the Capacity Assessment, Santa Clara County released a new County Drainage Manual in October 2007. The Manual includes updated mean annual precipitation isohyetal lines from Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and updated, distinct IDF curves for each mean annual City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-2
precipitation area. In addition to the IDF curves, Appendix D of the 2007 manual includes a 24-hr design storm pattern. According to the manual, this storm pattern is based on an actual event that occurred in December 1955, but with some adjustments to better reflect IDF statistics for various storm durations. Like the previous design storm, the design storm used for this Master Plan Update is also a 10-year, 24-hour storm that varies across the service area, but the storm pattern and hourly rainfall intensities are based on this updated Santa Clara County Drainage Manual. Figure 4-1 shows the design storm hourly rainfall as it occurs in the vicinity of the San Jose International Airport. At this location, the total rainfall for the 1, 6-, and 24-hour durations is 0.65, 1.49, and 2.92 inches, respectively.

Figure 4-1: Design Storm Pattern for the San Jose International Airport MAP Area The design storm represents the “point precipitation” at any single location in the system. The storm is applied in the model at the subcatchment level, with the assumption that the rainfall occurs simultaneously on all subcatchments, which is a conservative assumption.

As noted previously, the timing of the design storm also affects the resulting peak wastewater flows. If the design storm is timed to cause peak RDI/I at the same time as peak base wastewater flow, the total peak wet weather flow will be higher than if the design storm occurs during minimum or average base wastewater flow. Due to variations in the diurnal flow patterns as well as variations in the calibrated I/I response throughout the system, it is not possible to time the rainfall to create a peak-on-peak response everywhere in the system. However, the design storm was timed to achieve a peak-on-peak response in most areas of the system, with the peak hour rainfall occurring at 8:00 a.m. on a weekday.

4.2 Hydraulic Capacity Criteria
The hydraulic capacity criteria determine which sewer pipes should be relieved or replaced due to inadequate capacity to convey existing or future peak flows, and how large the new sewers should be. The criteria adopted by the City should ideally be stringent enough to ensure that sewer overflows caused by capacity limitations (as distinguished from other causes such as obstructions or structural failures) are very rare occurrences, but not so conservative that they cause the City to spend capital improvement funds unnecessarily or result in pipes that are so large that cleaning velocities cannot be achieved under normal flow conditions, causing solids build up and related problems.

The capacity deficiency criteria identify the need to replace an existing facility, while design criteria determine the sizing of new facilities. These criteria are discussed in the paragraphs below. 0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
Hour
r r I I I I I I I I I
•• 11111 •••••••••.••• 11. I I
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-3

4.2.1 Capacity Deficiency Criteria
The capacity deficiency criteria are used to determine when the capacity of an existing sewer facility is exceeded to the extent that a relief sewer or larger replacement sewer or potential pump station capacity upgrade is required. Capacity deficiency criteria are sometimes called “trigger” criteria in that they trigger the need for a capacity relief project. These criteria often differ from criteria that are applied to determine the size of a new facility, which are typically more conservative.

It is important that the capacity deficiency criteria be coordinated with the peak design flow criteria. For example, if the peak design flow were to be based on only peak dry weather flow (PDWF), the deficiency criteria would need to be conservative (e.g., require pipes to flow less than full to allow capacity for I/I).

On the other hand, if the peak design flow includes I/I from an infrequent storm event, it may be appropriate to allow the sewers to flow surcharged to some extent, since the peak flows will be infrequent and brief in duration.

Gravity Sewers
Since the peak wet weather design flow as recommended in the previous section of this chapter includes RDI/I from a 10-year return period event and is assumed to be concurrent with peak BWF, the City should consider it acceptable to allow gravity sewers to flow surcharged to some extent before a capacity relief project is triggered. For example, significant surcharging may be acceptable in larger, deeper sewers provided the hydraulic gradeline remains a reasonable distance below the ground surface and no surcharging occurs during dry weather flow conditions. For smaller or shallow sewers, a more conservative criteria could be considered to account for the chance that capacity could also be compromised by factors such as offset joints, roots, grease, and debris (which cannot be accounted for in the hydraulic model), or that surcharge could result in flow backing up into connecting laterals.

Based on discussion of these considerations, the following criteria are proposed under which gravity sewers would be considered capacity deficient:
• PDWF: No surcharge allowed (d/D ” 1.0)
• PWWF:
o Gravity sewer with less than 6 feet of cover: no surcharge allowed (i.e., d/D ” 1.0) o Gravity sewer with 6 feet or more of cover: surcharge of up to 1 foot under PWWF (see Figure 4-2 for clarification)
• Case-by-case exceptions could be made for isolated short pipe reaches. Conversely, more stringent criteria could be applied for sewers located in areas where the consequences of an overflow would be greater (e.g., adjacent to creeks, schools, or hospitals). • Note that for evaluating the performance of existing sewers, a Manning’s “n” value of 0.013 is assumed for all pipes, regardless of material or age. Although new pipes, particularly plastic materials, would provide a lower initial roughness factor, it is assumed that over time, a “slime layer” formation on the walls of the pipes and/or other obstructions in the sewer, such as roots, debris, or structural defects, may increase pipe roughness. Therefore, an assumption of 0.013 for all pipes is considered to be appropriately conservative for master planning purposes.

Pump Stations and Force Mains
For master planning capacity assessments, the performance of pump stations and force mains are typically evaluated based on pumping capacity and peak force main velocities. Pump stations are considered to be capacity deficient if the station’s firm capacity (capacity with largest pumping unit out of service) is insufficient to convey the peak design flow. Force mains are considered to be deficient if velocity under peak design flow exceeds 10 feet per second (fps).

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-4
Figure 4-2: PWWF Hydraulic Deficiency Criteria for Gravity Sewers Scenario A:

Shallow Pipe (cover less than 6 feet)
Criteria: d/D ” 1.0
Scenario B:

Deep Pipe (cover of or more than 6 feet)
Criteria: Surcharge ” 1.0 foot

4.2.2 Sizing Criteria for New Sewer Facilities
The following criteria are proposed for sizing new trunk gravity sewers as part of the Master Plan. They are consistent with the City’s current sanitary sewer design criteria. Note that the City may use somewhat different criteria for new developments or actual design, e.g., varying Manning’s n for different pipe materials, or a more conservative d/D for smaller diameter sewer mains. These criteria would be based on the modeled design storm peak wet weather flows in the system. • Maximum allowable flow depth-to-diameter ratio (d/D) of 0.75 under peak design flow • A Manning’s ‘n’ of 0.013
• Minimum pipe size of 8 inches diameter in residential areas; 10 inches in commercial areas; and 12 inches in industrial areas
• Minimum velocity of 2 feet per second (fps) at half-full pipe • Maximum velocity of 10 fps at peak design flow
• Downstream pipes at least as large as upstream pipes
• Minimum and maximum pipe slopes determined based on above velocity criteria to the extent feasible (it is recognized that elevation constraints in the existing system may prevent achieving desired minimum slopes for some projects, and terrain may dictate higher maximum slopes in some cases)
• Minimum pipe cover of 6 feet
Gravity Sewer

D
d

Cover (<6’)
Freeboard (•5’)
Cover (•6’)
Surcharge (”1’)
l
~
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-5

4.3 Capacity Analysis Results and Proposed Solutions
Based on the criteria described above, the hydraulic model was run for four sets of conditions representing combinations of existing or future development and dry weather flow or design storm wet weather flow.

Figure 4-3 shows the model results for future PWWF conditions. Pipes shown in red are predicted to be surcharged due to “throttle” (peak flow exceeding full pipe capacity), and pipes shown in blue are surcharged due to backwater from a downstream throttle condition. Locations of capacity criteria violations (surcharge of more than 1 foot due to either throttle or backwater conditions) are highlighted in yellow (pipes with criteria violations under both existing and future conditions) or orange (future conditions only).

Note that the locations of criteria violations (i.e., higher than allowable surcharge) are not necessarily the locations of the actual capacity-deficient pipes, but are typically located further upstream due to backwater from downstream throttle conditions. Appendix D includes model hydraulic profiles for each of these areas.

Potential solutions for the identified capacity deficiencies were developed in order to assess the potential extent of required capacity improvements and to estimate the resulting peak flow to the SJ/SC RWF once capacity deficiencies are relieved. Table 4-1 summarizes the predicted flow under each condition. Table 4-2 describes the solutions. The solutions model results indicate that the combined total estimated design storm future PWWF from the City’s system (including flows from CuSD) would be approximately 59 mgd.

Table 4-1: Summary of Capacity Analysis Results
Existing
ADWF (2)
(mgd)
Existing
PDWF (2)
(mgd)
Existing
PWWF (3)
(mgd)
Future
ADWF (2)
(mgd)
Future
PDWF (2)
(mgd)
Future
PWWF (3,4)
(mgd)
Flow Estimates by System Outfall (1)
North (to Northside and Rabello
Pump Stations) 10.2 15.2/16.0 27.9 24.6 33.5/34.4 41.0
East (to San Jose Zanker Road
Interceptor) 4.7 6.4 11.7 9.8 13.3 18.3
Total 14.9 21.6/22.4 39.6 34.4 46.8/47.7 59.4
Flow Estimates by Agency (1)
Santa Clara System 11.3 15.4/16.2 26.8 27.5 34.6/35.5 45.6 Cupertino Sanitary District 3.5 6.2 12.8 6.9 12.2 13.8
Total 14.9 21.6/22.4 39.6 34.4 46.8/47.7 59.4

1. Assuming that trunk sewer capacity deficiencies are relieved with recommended capital improvement projects presented in Table ES-2.

2. Includes groundwater infiltration for a typical wintertime period. ADWF and first value shown for PDWF includes typical nongame day flow from Levi’s Stadium; second value shown for PDWF includes a peak game day flow from Levi’s Stadium.

3. For 10-year design storm; assumes non-game day flow from Levi’s Stadium.

4. Assuming peak wet weather flow from CuSD would not increase above its contractual maximum flow of 13.8 mgd.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-6
Table 4-2: Capacity Deficiencies and Proposed Solutions Def.

ID
Deficiency
Location (1)
Trigger
Scenario Surcharge or Criteria Violation (2) Proposed Solution 1 Westside Lift Station 2015 PDWF
Current set point of the lead pump is about 5 feet above the invert of the influent line, causing backup issues upstream between MH S102-3 and S103-8 (station wet well).

Adjust the set point of the lead pump to be equal or lower than the invert of the influent gravity line. 2 Tasman Lift Station 2015 PDWF
Current set point of the lead pump is about 2 feet above the invert of the influent line, causing backup issues upstream between MH S93-24 and S93-35 (station wet well).

Adjust the set point of the lead pump to be equal or lower than the invert of the influent gravity line. 3 Cabrillo Avenue 2015 PWWF
Surcharge of up to 5 feet from MH S41-13 to S41-20 under existing PWWF scenario and potential overflow in S41-13, S41-14 and S41-15 under future PWWF scenarios.

Conduct smoke testing and television inspection in the flow tributary area to identify and address high inflow/infiltration sources. If field investigations indicate that I/I reduction is not feasible or cost-effective, then upsize the existing 8-inch line to a 12-inch between S41-13 and S41-20. 4 Tasman Drive and Old Ironsides Drive 2035 PWWF Surcharge of up to 3 feet upstream of Tasman Lift Station. Upsize 800 feet of existing 12-inch line between S93-24 and S93-35 to a 15-inch line. 5 Scott Blvd. 2035 PWWF Surcharge of up to 1 foot between S25-78 and S26- 44, and S26-57 and S25-37. Install a weir in S25-85 to divert flow northwest to Los Padres Blvd. 6 Calabazas Creek Trunk Sewer 2035 PWWF Surcharge of up to 3 feet in the existing 24-inch line along Calabazas Creek between S52-52 and S62-14. Install a new 200-ft 15-inch line between S42-12 and S52- 93 (Calabazas Blvd. and Machado Ave.) to partially divert flow from the 24-inch to the 21-inch on Machado Ave. 7 Tracy Dr., Pomeroy Ave., and Homestead Rd.
2035
PWWF
Surcharge and potential overflow between S10-77 and S22-55.

Upsize the existing 10- to 12-inch line between S10-77 and S22-55 to a 15-inch line, install a new 15-inch diversion line between S22-55 and S22-46, and upsize the existing 18-inch line between S22-46 and S22-51 to a 21-inch line.

1. Refer to Figure 4-3 for deficiency locations 2. Under PWWF conditions. +
0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Surcharge due to Backwater
Surcharge due to Throttle
Surcharge Criteria Violation
under Existing PWWF
Surcharge Criteria Violation
under Future PWWF
Õ Deficiency ID
ÉP Modeled Pump/Lift Station
Modeled Trunk Sewers
Unmodeled Sewers
San Jose Interceptors
City Limit
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig4-3_Deficiencies_05Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 4-3
Model Predicted
System Surcharge
D1
D1
D2
D4
D3
D7
D5
D6
r
!
!
! ______ .,. _____ ,,,_
,..,~ .. ,..,.,_, \ Northsfde PS
···' \
.,,•·"' Rabello PS (.. •• 1" • ...
.,...... \
\
···,.
'·"' -· .. ,
J
i
' \
\
!
\
"\ i
I
//
I
)
.. ·
i "''"-1•-•••-••-•n-9\..I""'"'-•'
·,
/
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-8

4.3.1 Pump Station Firm Capacity Analysis
All seven lift and pump stations in the system were evaluated to determine if each station had adequate firm capacity to handle the design peak flow. Firm capacity is defined as the capacity of a station with the largest pump out of service. Table 4-3 below provides a summary of station firm capacity compared with peak inflow for future PWWF conditions.

Table 4-3: Pump Station Firm Capacity Analysis
No. Station Name No. of
Pumps
Estimated
Peak Inflow
(mgd) (1)
Estimated
Firm
Capacity
(mgd)
Firm Capacity Status(6)
1 Westside Lift Station 2 0.6 0.6 (3) Sufficient firm capacity 2 Tasman Lift Station 2 1.5 1.5 (3) Sufficient firm capacity 3 De La Cruz Lift Station 2 1.2 1.7 (3) Sufficient firm capacity 4 Primavera Lift Station 6 2.0 5.7 (3) Sufficient firm capacity 5 Stadium Lift Station 6 1.0 6.0 (4) Sufficient firm capacity 6 Rabello Pump Station 8 20 (2) 20 (5) Sufficient firm capacity 7 Northside Pump Station 4 21 (2) 21 (5) Sufficient firm capacity

1. Peak inflow refers to the maximum flows predicted by the model under future peak wet weather scenario using the solution network. The solution network eliminates flow restrictions upstream of the pump stations.

2. Peak inflow reflects the maximum flows predicted by the solution network in which CIP Project P6 (Sewer Diversion at Calabazas Boulevard and Machado Avenue) is implemented, which would divert excess flow from the 24-inch sewer line along Calabazas Boulevard into the 21-inch sewer line in Machado Ave, ultimately flowing to the City of San Jose’s interceptor in Zanker Road. This would reduce the flow conveyed north to the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations to the values shown in the table. Conversely, implementation of Project P6-Alt. would increase the peak flow to the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations by about 1 mgd to each pump station, which could require further evaluation of and potential improvements to increase pump station capacity.

3. Source: Table 1 (Pump Station Firm Capacities and Inflows) of the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Evaluation, Schaaf & Wheeler, December 2010. The firm capacities of Primavera, Tasman, Westside, and De La Cruz lift stations were determined by performing a drawdown test.

4. Based on results from field drawdown tests conducted on September 17, 2015.

5. Source: Rabello and Northside Pump Station Capacity and Forcemain Calibration Technical Memorandum, Schaaf & Wheeler, November 13, 2015. See Appendix E.

6. The lift and pump stations have sufficient firm capacities within the accuracy of the estimated peak flows and capacities.

Although no capacity issues were identified for the pump stations, review of pump station drawings and current on/off set points for the pumps revealed that four of the stations may experience backwater issues in the influent pipes. The current set point of the lead pump at Tasman, Westside, and De La Cruz is above the crown of the influent gravity line. Under this condition, the lead pump will not turn on until the influent line is completely submerged, causing backwater issues upstream. This can be resolved by adjusting the set points to be equal or lower than the invert of the influent line. Primavera Lift Station has a similar condition with the set point of the lag pump. Table 4-4 summarizes the review findings and presents the suggested set points for each of the four stations. Set point revisions for Westside and Tasman are needed to address capacity criteria violations (Deficiencies 1 and 2 in Table 4-2). These settings should be evaluated by the City's pump operators to determine feasibility and if there are other operational issues that should be considered.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 4
Capacity Analysis
April 2016 4-9
Table 4-4: Recommended Revised Set Levels for Lift Stations Pump Station
Maximum
Starts Per Hour
Per Pump w/
Existing Set
Levels (1)
Maximum
Starts Per Hour
Per Pump w/
Recommended
Set Levels (1)
Set points
Recommended
Revised Set
Points (ft from
Wet Well Floor) (2)
Westside Lift Station
No. of Pumps: 2 7.2 3.7
Level Alarm: High | Low 8.0 | 1.2
Lead Pump on | off 6.0 | 1.7
Lag Pump on | off 7.0 | 2.2
Tasman Lift Station
No. of Pumps: 2 4.6 6.4
Level Alarm: High | Low 7.0 | 1.2
Lead Pump on | off 6.0 | 1.7
Lag Pump on | off 6.5 | 2.2
De La Cruz Lift Station
No. of Pumps: 2 4.8 6.2
Level Alarm: High | Low 6.0 | 1.2
Lead Pump on | off 5.5 | 1.7
Lag Pump on | off 6.0 | 2.2
Primavera Lift Station
No. of Pumps: 6 1.0 2.0
Level Alarm: High | Low 6.0 | 1.2
Lead Pump on | off 5.5 | 1.7
Lag Pump 1 on | off 6.0 | 2.2
Lag Pump 2 on | off 6.0 | 1.2
Lag Pump 3 on | off 5.5 | 1.7
Lag Pump 4 on | off 6.0 | 2.2
Lag Pump 5 on | off 6.0 | 1.2

1. Based on predicted future peak wet weather flow condition.

2. Recommendations provided by Schaaf & Wheeler based on pump information provided by RMC.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 5
Recommended Capacity
Improvement Program
April 2016 5-10
Chapter 5 Recommended Capacity Improvement Program
This section summarizes the capacity improvement projects recommended for the City of Santa Clara’s sanitary sewer system. Recommended improvements were developed from the results of hydraulic modeling of the trunk sewer system for predicted flow conditions, as described in Chapter 4. This section discusses the projects needed to address potential capacity deficiencies and unnecessary backups in the existing trunk sewer system including estimated capital costs and priorities for construction.

5.1 Development of Capacity Improvement Projects
Based on the proposed solutions described above, each proposed project was reviewed to identify potential design, permitting, environmental, and constructability issues. Feasible construction methods were also identified for each project, and preliminary estimates of probable construction costs were prepared.

Estimated costs for capacity improvements were based on cost data compiled by RMC from similar projects. The costs are conceptual level estimates, considered to have an estimated accuracy range of -30 to +50 percent, suitable for use for budget forecasting, capital improvement program development, and project evaluations, with the understanding that refinements to the project details and costs would be necessary as projects proceed to design and construction. All costs are presented in 2015 dollars and include a 30 percent allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions and a 25 percent allowance for engineering, administration, and legal costs.

Figure 5-1 shows the locations of the proposed improvements, and Table 5-1 presents the recommended capacity improvement projects, including brief project descriptions and estimated capital costs. Relative priorities have been assigned to the projects based on the flow scenario in which deficiency criteria are violated. Priority 1 and Priority 2 projects are required to address deficiencies that result in criteria violations under current flow conditions. Priority 3 projects are required to address deficiencies that result in criteria violations under future (2035) flow conditions.

Note that an alternative for Project P6 is also presented. While substantially more expensive than Project P6, this alternative would maintain the current system flow configuration of conveying all flows in the Calabazas Creek trunk sewer (including flows from CuSD) to the Northside and Rabello Pump Stations and avoid increasing flows in the Machado, Chromite, and Walsh Avenue trunk sewers that may be needed in the future to handle additional new development within the City. Implementation of Project P6-Alt would also increase flow to the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations by about 1 mgd to each pump station, which could require further evaluation of and potential improvements to increase pump station capacity.

The total estimated cost of the recommended capacity improvement program is approximately $1.7 million.

The total estimated cost, if the City were to implement Project P6-Alt instead of P6, would be approximately $2.8 million. More detailed project descriptions and cost estimates and maps of the recommended capacity improvement projects are included in Appendix F.

One of the projects was triggered due to the large sewer discharge assumed for parcel APN 316-17-018, which holds an entitlement agreement to discharge a potential flow of 0.95 mgd; however, it is currently discharging less than 10 percent of the entitled rate. While the City is obligated to provide capacity for entitlement holders, it is important to note that implementing this project may result in oversized sewers where the daily flow is not sufficient to provide the minimum cleaning velocity and thus creating potential debris and odor issues. This project is included in the summary table as project E1 (Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement), and is not part of the recommended Capital Improvement Program. It is recommended that the City implement project E1 as part of its Capital Improvement Program before the parcel begins to discharge its entitled flow of 0.95 mgd.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 5
Recommended Capacity Improvement Program
April 2016 5-11
Table 5-1: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects
Project
ID Priority Project Name U/S MHID D/S MHID Description Est. Capital Improvement Cost1 P12 1 Westside Lift Station Adjustment N/A N/A Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in the influent line. -- P22 2 Tasman Lift Station Adjustment N/A N/A Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in the influent line. -- P3 2 Cabrillo Avenue Sewer Improvement S41-13 S41-20 Upsize 1,600 feet of 8-inch line in Cabrillo Ave. between Lawrence Expressway and Nobili Ave. to a 12-inch line. $1,097,000P4 3 Tasman Drive Sewer Improvement S93-24 S93-35 Upsize 600 feet of 12-inch line in Tasman Dr. between Old Ironsides Dr. and Great America Pkwy. to a 15-inch line. $327,000P5 4 Sewer Diversion at Los Prades Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue S25-85 S25-85
Install a weir in manhole S25-85 located in the intersection of Padres Blvd. and Saratoga Ave. to divert flow northwest to the existing 12-in line in Los Padres Blvd. $77,000
P6 4
Sewer Diversion at Calabazas Boulevard and Machado Avenue U/S of
S52-93 S52-120
Install a new manhole upstream of S52-93 in the intersection of Calabazas Blvd. and Machado Ave., and install a new 15-inch high-level diversion line (approximately 200 feet) to divert excess flow from the existing 24-inch line in Calabazas Blvd. to the 21-inch line in Machado Ave. The diversion line should be about 6 inches higher than the invert of the 24-inch line. $166,000
P6-Alt.3 4 Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement S62-31 S72-20 Upsize 1,800 feet of 24-inch line next to Calabazas Creek between Kifer Rd. and Scott Blvd. to a 27-inch line. $1,334,000 Estimated Total Cost for Recommended Projects P1 to P6:

Estimated Total Cost for Projects P1 to P5 and P6-Alt:
$1,667,000$2,835,000
E14 N/A Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement S10-77 S22-51
Upsize approximately 6,600 feet of 10- to 12-inch line in Tracy Dr. and Pomeroy Ave. to a 15-inch line; install a new 15-inch line between manholes S22-55 and S22-46 in Pomeroy Ave. and Homestead Rd. (approximately 50 feet) to divert flow into Homestead Rd., and upsize approximately 1,400 feet of 18-inch line downstream to a 21-inch. $4,654,000
Estimated Total Cost (P1 to P6) including Project E1:

Estimated Total Cost (P1 to P5 and P6-Alt) including Project E1:
$6,321,000$7,489,000

1. All costs are presented in 2015 dollars and include 30 percent allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions and 25 percent for engineering, administration, and legal costs. 2. These proposed projects are operational, not capital improvements. Refer to Table 4-4 for recommended set points. 3. Project P6-Alt is presented for the purpose of identifying the solution and associated cost to maintain the current system flow configuration. Project P6 is the recommended project. 4. Project E1 addresses the potential capacity deficiency when parcel APN 316-17-018 begins to discharge its entitled flow of 0.95 mgd into the City’s system. 0 0.5 1 Mile
μ Legend
Modeled Trunk Sewer
Unmodeled Sewer
Santa Clara Force Mains
San Jose Interceptors
Recommended Capital Improvement Projects
Project for Entitlement Compliance
J:\Projects\149 SANTA CLARA\149-008 Santa Clara 2015 Sanitary Sewer MP Update\G. GIS Files\_MXDs\Master Plan Report Figures\MPFig5-1_CIPs_08Apr2016.mxd City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan Update
Figure 5-1
Capacity Improvement
Projects and Project for
Entitlement Compliance
-
-
P61AI
Sew
,,·•--·---..,,...., .... _ ..,.j"-...J
; l, __ __ ... -.. , , ... _________ _
SC /11fluent
Junction Structure ____ -,\\
·,
\ '\
i
!
I
I
l ...
,,
;
I '~ I
I
I
' !
···-···-· ..-··---·-··-·---...,-.. -•i
PJJ: Sewer Dlvers,bn at
Los Pra9/s~1vd. '-.....
/
aod Sa,awg1 A"[2:_::·j
,--~---...
____________ J
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 5
Recommended Capacity
Improvement Program
April 2016 5-13

5.2 Implementation Recommendations
The City should begin implementation of the Capital Improvement Program recommended in this Master Plan, starting with the highest priority projects. The following items should be considered in project scheduling and design, and in future updates of the Master Plan. ƒ The alignments and sizes of all recommended projects should be verified with detailed predesign analyses, including topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations, utility research, and constructability reviews.
ƒ The estimated costs assumed open cut construction, but alternative methods such as trenchless construction or construction of parallel relief pipes could be considered during design. The decision to parallel or replace existing sewers should consider the physical condition and remaining useful life of the existing pipelines; the availability of pipeline corridors for new sewer construction; and operation and maintenance concerns.
ƒ The hydraulic model has been developed to assist the City in performing capacity analyses and updating the Master Plan in the future. The model should be kept up-to-date with any changes to existing sewer connections, development plans, and sewer system facilities. ƒ The City should conduct additional flow monitoring at key locations in the sewer system, particularly the area tributary to the Chromite/Machado trunk sewers where both the 2006 and 2015 flow monitoring programs indicated high I/I. City should also conduct smoke testing and television inspection to identify potential sources of I/I. Flow levels during large storm events should be compared to the peak flows simulated by the hydraulic model to verify the modeling predictions for the 10-year design storm and confirm the need for and sizing of Project P3 (Cabrillo Avenue Sewer Improvement). ƒ The City should coordinate with the CuSD on flow and planning assumptions to ensure that adequate capacity exists in the Santa Clara system to handle future flows from the District. The City should encourage CuSD to monitor the flows at the flow meter that it operates and maintains on Homestead Road at Swallow Drive on an on-going basis and periodically confirm meter calibration to verify the wastewater flows entering the Santa Clara system.
ƒ The City should consider adjusting its set points for the four lift stations identified in Table 4-4 to address upstream backwater issues and capacity criteria violations. These settings should be evaluated by the City's pump operators to determine feasibility and if there are other operational issues that should be considered. In addition, the City should continue to conduct regular maintenance as needed to maintain adequate firm pumping capacity at all pump stations, including cleaning the force mains as needed.
ƒ The City should coordinate with the City of San Jose to ensure that its flow criteria and planning assumptions are consistent with those used by San Jose in its capacity master planning. ƒ Parcel APN 316-17-018 holds an entitlement agreement to discharge up to 0.95 mgd into the City’s system; however, it is currently discharging less than 10 percent of its entitled rate. While the City is obligated to provide capacity for entitlement holders, it is important to note that implementing this project may result in oversized sewers where the daily flow is not sufficient to provide the minimum cleaning velocity and thus creating potential debris and odor issues. However, the City should implement project E1 (Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement) to address the potential capacity deficiency before the parcel begins to discharge its entitled flow of 0.95 mgd.

City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Chapter 5
Recommended Capacity
Improvement Program
April 2016 5-14
This Master Plan report is intended to be a working document to be refined and updated as additional data and new planning information becomes available. The capacity assessment should be updated whenever there are major changes in planning assumptions or, at a minimum, every ten years.

Appendix A - Plots of Flow Monitoring Data and Summary of Daily Flows

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM1 (MH S104Ͳ28, 36") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 36
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM1 (MH S104Ͳ28, 36")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM2 (MH S104Ͳ26, 33") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM2 (MH S104Ͳ26, 33")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)
UHU•mU>HHUm01 01.. .... io .. HO ...... o OHO ..... UUH ........ .. : i :

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM3 (MH S104Ͳ30, 42") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 36
39 42
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM3 (MH S104Ͳ30, 42")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)
UHU•mU>HHUm01 01.. .... io .. HO ...... o OHO ..... UUH ........ ..

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM4 (MH #402Ͳ Levi's Stadium, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
11/2211/2411/2611/2811/30
12/212/412/612/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM4 (MH #402Ͳ Levi's Stadium, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM5 (MH S83Ͳ21, 33") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM5 (MH S83Ͳ21, 33")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

1.0 2.0

3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM6 (MH S83Ͳ22, 30") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM6 (MH S83Ͳ22, 30")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM7 (MH S105Ͳ34, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM7 (MH S105Ͳ34, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM8 (MH S86Ͳ12, 30") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM8 (MH S86Ͳ12, 30")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM9 (MH S62Ͳ40, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM9 (MH S62Ͳ40, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM10 (MH S52Ͳ79, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM10 (MH S52Ͳ79, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM11 (MH S53Ͳ40, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM11 (MH S53Ͳ40, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM12 (MH S53Ͳ23, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM12 (MH S53Ͳ23, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)
-1·· -
L ______________ _

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
12 11
10 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
(in.) Rainfall min. Ͳ 15
(mgd) Flow
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM13 (MH S53Ͳ54, 30") FINAL

7.0 6.0

5.0 4.0

3.0 2.0

1.0 0.0
9 6
3 0
30 27
24 21
18 15
12 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
(fps) Velocity
(inches) Depth
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM13 (MH S53Ͳ54, 30")
Level (in)
Velocity
1 ... (fps) ....

I:::: :::::~
I I,=

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 1.6

1.8 2.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM14 (MH S54Ͳ16, 15") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM14 (MH S54Ͳ16, 15")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps) ····················· I'-,---,--,-....,........,.1

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 1.6

1.8 2.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM15 (MH S65Ͳ50, 18") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM15 (MH S65Ͳ50, 18")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)
- -~--~---------------------

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM16 (MH S67Ͳ13, 27") FINAL

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8

2.0 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM16 (MH S67Ͳ13, 27")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM15 + FM16 PRELIMINARY
...................... ,H, ....... ,H,HO ........ H, ........ H, ... :H,H, ........ H,H, ........ H, ........ H,rnHHHHOHHm"H""""

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 1.6

1.8 2.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM17 (MH S58Ͳ9, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM17 (MH S58Ͳ9, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)
- -~--~---------------------

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM18 (MH S58Ͳ8, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM18 (MH S58Ͳ8, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM19 (MH S21Ͳ18, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM19 (MH S21Ͳ18, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0

5.5 6.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM20 (MH S21Ͳ47, 18") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 6.5

7.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM20 (MH S21Ͳ47, 18")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM21 (MH S23Ͳ6, 24") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM21 (MH S23Ͳ6, 24")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM22 (MH S45Ͳ80, 18") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM22 (MH S45Ͳ80, 18")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.0 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM23 (MH S48Ͳ31, 18") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
FM23 (MH S48Ͳ31, 18")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe East FloDar Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 36") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 36
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe East FloDar Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 36")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe East V&A Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 36") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 36
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe East V&A Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 36")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe West FloDar Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 33") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe West FloDar Meter (MH S68Ͳ14, 33")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe West V&A Meter (MH S68Ͳ13, 33") FINAL

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0
3 6
9 12
15 18
21 24
27 30
33 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
Velocity (fps)
Depth (inches)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
Guadalupe West V&A Meter (MH S68Ͳ13, 33")
Level (in)
Velocity (fps)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0 0.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 12/8
12/1012/1212/1412/1612/1812/2012/2212/2412/2612/2812/30 1/11/31/51/71/9
1/111/131/151/171/191/211/231/251/271/291/31
2/22/42/62/8
2/102/122/142/162/182/202/222/242/262/28
3/23/4
15Ͳmin. Rainfall (in.)
Flow (mgd)
Date
City of Santa Clara 2014Ͳ2015 Flow Monitoring
CuSD Homestead Flume Meter (MH S20Ͳ9, 27") FINAL
City of Santa Clara 2014/15 Flow Monitoring
Daily Flow Data (MGD)
Date Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. 11/22/14 3.32 4.77 1.61 3.59 5.16 1.54 2.78 4.60 1.04 0.05 0.15 0.01 11/23/14 3.36 5.16 1.23 3.62 5.27 1.58 2.80 4.59 1.07 0.12 0.60 0.01 11/24/14 3.48 5.21 1.54 3.69 5.11 1.48 2.83 4.62 1.05 0.03 0.07 0.01 11/25/14 3.39 4.92 1.31 3.68 5.25 1.58 2.73 4.78 1.00 0.03 0.10 0.02 11/26/14 3.38 5.06 1.43 3.70 5.18 1.54 2.77 4.55 1.01 0.05 0.18 0.01 11/27/14 3.16 4.71 1.30 3.48 5.29 1.61 2.77 4.98 1.08 0.19 0.86 0.02 11/28/14 2.75 4.07 1.09 3.35 5.11 1.58 2.69 4.63 1.25 0.04 0.13 0.01 11/29/14 3.07 4.66 1.14 3.60 5.18 1.70 3.03 5.07 1.39 0.07 0.16 0.02 11/30/14 3.22 5.02 1.08 3.71 5.80 1.51 3.19 5.71 1.14 0.06 0.34 0.02 12/1/14 3.57 5.16 1.34 3.85 5.47 1.68 3.14 5.06 1.21 0.10 0.86 0.01 12/2/14 4.04 6.07 1.76 4.32 6.39 1.99 3.72 5.75 1.47 0.06 0.21 0.02 12/3/14 4.74 6.80 2.86 5.31 6.93 4.09 4.79 6.94 3.27 0.07 0.23 0.01 12/4/14 4.41 6.08 2.24 4.35 5.95 2.50 3.58 5.32 1.61 0.07 0.21 0.02 12/5/14 4.15 6.81 2.10 4.09 6.07 2.15 3.37 5.38 1.51 0.11 0.42 0.02 12/6/14 3.60 5.15 1.62 3.89 5.67 1.92 3.26 4.96 1.39 0.05 0.13 0.01 12/7/14 3.51 5.07 1.52 3.80 5.30 1.86 3.14 4.80 1.33 0.03 0.08 0.01 12/8/14 3.90 6.13 1.68 3.95 5.86 1.77 3.16 4.79 1.18 0.03 0.09 0.02 12/9/14 3.87 5.44 1.84 3.96 5.60 1.91 3.12 4.76 1.34 0.04 0.11 0.01 12/10/14 3.86 5.22 1.69 3.99 5.71 1.91 3.08 4.71 1.26 0.05 0.12 0.02 12/11/14 5.16 7.95 1.73 5.55 8.36 1.95 5.16 9.24 1.25 0.06 0.23 0.02 12/12/14 6.00 7.87 4.51 6.02 8.17 4.25 4.94 8.06 3.08 0.05 0.14 0.01 12/13/14 4.69 6.89 2.88 4.95 6.60 3.02 3.82 5.55 2.00 0.06 0.14 0.01 12/14/14 4.26 5.94 2.48 4.62 6.56 2.55 3.71 5.62 1.76 0.05 0.13 0.01 12/15/14 4.80 6.20 2.60 4.90 6.59 2.74 3.99 5.90 2.02 0.05 0.16 0.01 12/16/14 4.83 6.35 2.81 4.94 6.59 2.88 3.94 5.72 1.88 0.06 0.15 0.02 12/17/14 4.86 6.10 3.16 5.00 6.81 2.91 3.95 5.60 2.15 0.06 0.14 0.02 12/18/14 4.74 6.15 3.07 4.80 6.45 2.69 3.76 5.35 1.89 0.05 0.13 0.01 12/19/14 4.81 6.80 2.58 4.48 5.92 2.21 3.61 5.13 1.85 0.05 0.14 0.02 12/20/14 4.82 6.80 2.69 4.25 5.85 2.10 3.53 5.18 1.80 0.14 0.64 0.02 12/21/14 4.25 5.58 2.27 4.15 6.05 1.97 3.36 5.36 1.68 0.04 0.14 0.01 12/22/14 4.38 5.88 2.21 4.24 6.07 2.03 3.29 4.89 1.63 0.06 0.20 0.02 12/23/14 4.27 5.80 2.20 4.18 5.86 2.04 3.20 4.65 1.60 0.07 0.26 0.02 12/24/14 4.23 5.89 2.25 4.02 5.70 2.00 3.12 4.79 1.53 0.06 0.20 0.02 12/25/14 3.83 5.19 2.10 3.72 5.38 1.76 2.95 4.54 1.47 0.04 0.13 0.02 12/26/14 3.93 5.71 1.92 3.75 5.66 1.78 2.96 4.53 1.45 0.07 0.23 0.03 12/27/14 4.06 5.86 1.89 3.76 6.06 1.82 2.97 4.59 1.43 0.07 0.19 0.02 12/28/14 4.38 6.46 2.15 3.74 5.50 1.78 2.94 4.41 1.36 0.19 0.86 0.02 12/29/14 4.58 6.37 2.25 3.84 5.48 1.86 3.02 4.61 1.32 0.07 0.24 0.03 12/30/14 4.58 6.24 2.33 3.80 5.52 1.71 3.05 4.58 1.38 0.12 0.42 0.03 12/31/14 4.58 6.41 2.30 3.82 5.54 1.66 3.08 4.70 1.36 0.04 0.11 0.01 1/1/15 4.04 6.01 2.06 3.70 5.52 1.71 2.86 4.45 1.32 0.04 0.11 0.02 1/2/15 4.25 5.92 2.04 3.79 5.51 1.77 2.98 4.86 1.33 0.05 0.21 0.02 1/3/15 4.29 6.46 1.99 3.78 5.73 1.68 3.05 4.72 1.18 0.04 0.14 0.02 1/4/15 4.38 5.99 2.11 3.87 5.68 1.61 3.18 5.08 1.25 0.04 0.10 0.02 1/5/15 4.87 6.55 1.97 3.99 5.76 1.61 3.22 4.71 1.26 0.05 0.12 0.02 1/6/15 4.79 6.72 2.33 4.02 5.60 1.69 3.16 4.66 1.31 0.04 0.18 0.01 1/7/15 4.76 6.33 2.29 4.05 5.87 1.67 3.08 4.76 1.26 0.12 0.49 0.02 1/8/15 4.70 6.37 2.34 4.12 5.84 1.83 3.07 4.75 1.24 0.05 0.12 0.02 1/9/15 4.49 6.30 2.26 3.98 5.75 1.71 3.09 4.73 1.34 0.05 0.13 0.01 1/10/15 4.00 6.42 2.22 3.90 5.89 1.69 3.01 4.85 1.22 0.05 0.15 0.02 1/11/15 3.74 5.32 1.77 4.09 5.97 1.66 3.07 4.77 1.24 0.03 0.09 0.01 1/12/15 4.18 5.65 1.96 4.18 5.95 1.79 3.02 4.47 1.23 0.04 0.10 0.02 1/13/15 4.14 5.56 2.13 4.18 5.81 1.74 3.12 4.95 1.24 0.04 0.07 0.01 1/14/15 4.21 5.64 2.00 4.21 6.19 1.85 3.01 4.82 1.22 0.04 0.07 0.01 1/15/15 4.21 5.87 2.07 4.19 5.80 1.81 3.01 4.56 1.32 0.04 0.07 0.02 1/16/15 4.06 5.64 2.09 4.14 5.96 1.80 3.00 4.56 1.27 0.06 0.13 0.01 Site 1Site 2 Site 3 Site 4