Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, August 16, 2022 (part 6 of 7)

0.79 0.77 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.76 0.71 0.74 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

13.3749 14.8612
S53-7 S63-1

I I I I B IB I IB B IB BB I II IB I I
-9.563

33.329
-10.93 1
S73-27.1
r. ,Y~i1 J:~l

0.227 0.328 0. 18 1

16.28 19.57 14.54

1.00 1.00 2.00

15.9492 16,0985
S73-9.1
605.3

3.0 3.760
12,680

0.1 78

14.44 2.00

16.5790
S73-4.1
439.8
J 33.oL 12.680

11.310

0.3 12

19.08 1.00

16.5933
S73-9 S73-4

18.877
-9,343
I I~ lill22l I

16.819 15.335
-8,441 -8.455
I§ 336.0 il 33oJ - 8.530 I~ 0.252 0.232

17.15 16.47

1.00 2.00
16,5815

I B II B
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 15 Appendix CFigure C-15: Final Alternative 4 Profile (1 of 2) Calabazas Creek Trunk (Future 2035 PWWF) Agate Drive
Kifer Road
Central Expressway
Scott Boulevard
Lakeside Drive
MH S73-6 (upstream
of Hwy 101 crossing)
See Figure C-16
- - - l
T I ·- T - - - .T - T l

53.0 - I I I I I
,- ~

48.0 - r-----
~--- r---

43.0 - -
.---
ii

38.0 ----------- -------------- -------------- -------------- '--
0 r---. ............
----------
< r-- " 33.0 - -- -

28.0 - :::tJoc- .._ c-- L] 23.0 - - J l ,,. ,. :,: :,: l :l 18.0 - ~. ~· ! ., 0 - ; ,;; - 13.0 ; I I II 19j • 30f7 37~9 I 6792 I I ft 0 133 41 5 655 11 58 146 2404 275 3398 40 1 4666 529 58 16 6104 7208 7585 7776 8395 89 5 link S62·51.1 S62-48.1 S62·38.1 S62-31.1 S62-29.1 S72·32.1 1217S·D _
SSMH1.1 S72- 17. 1 S72·11 .1 S72·8.1 S72-6.1 S82·9.1 S72·3.1 S72·5.1 S73·5.1 length (ft) [ 282.0 503.0 307.0 343.0 386.0 205.0 l!i!!!!I 598.0 629.0 481.0 288.0 436.0 482.0 377.0 mo 6 19.0 600.0 width (in) 24.0 24.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 us inv (ft AD) 37.780 36.530 35.900 32.300 30.000 28.365 28. 185 24.795 23.665 21.675 20.865 20.460 19.280 18.610 17.980 17.240 16.600 15.810 14.940 ds inv(ft AD) 36.630 32.300 31.300 28.900 28.185 25.975 23.665 21.665 20.875 20.460 19.580 18.610 18.207 17.400 16.600 16.076 14.940 14.120 grad(%) 0.408 0.262 0.716 0.32 6 0.32 1 0.047 0.639 0.341 0.303 0.499 0.315 0.068 0.140 0.139 0.140 0.133 0.133 0.139 0.139 0. 14 1 0.137 pfc(M GDJ 9.34 7.49 10.92 7.36 7.22 4.32 16.00 11 .70 11 .02 14.14 11.24 6.90 9.92 9.90 9.92 9.92 9.67 9.66 9.89 9.89 9.94 9.80 sure 0.74 0.76 1.00 0.98 2.00 0.84 0.54 0.76 0.66 0.85 0.98 0.87 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.72 DS flow(MGDJ 7.5076 7.5076 7.5050 7.5039 7.5037 7.5036 7.5040 8.6466 8.6521 8.6513 8.6690 8.6915 8.8 140 8.8 104 8.8047 8.8014 8.7996 8.9597 8.97 16 Node S62-51 S62-48 S62-29 S72-32 S72-17 S72-12 S72-8 S72-6 S82·9 S72-3 S72-4 S72 -5 S73-5 S73-6 ground (ft AD) GI l;l 41.385 l;l 6 6 36.265 8151 2.250 ~ 6 - I~ 23.200 24.400 25.000 25.400 26.200 level (ft AD) 37.125 34.204 29.284 24.977 23.038 22.27 1 21.340 20.494 19.874 18.468 17.948 17.668 16.767 15.681 flood dep (ft) ·9.595 -8.156 -12.10 1 -11.288 -10.927 -9. 979 -6.940 -6.016 -4.206 -4.732 -6.452 -7.332 ·8.633 ·10.519 Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 16 Appendix CFigure C-16: Final Alternative 4 Profile (2 of 2) Calabazas Creek Trunk (Future 2035 PWWF) Kifer Road
New parallel
18-inch sewer
Surcharge level = 0.4 ft
(4.3 inches) above pipe
crown

46.0 -44.0 - ..,..---------------rllr-lf 42.0 -

40.0 -

38.0 -36.0 -

34.0 - -

32.0 -30.0 - -

28.0 - --'i---------------------------------ii------'i-----------'i-------'i----------------------------------+----,f-----t-+-1 ft
link
length (ft)
width (in)
us inv (ft AD)
ds inv {ft AD)
grad (%)
pfc(MGD)
sure
OS flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep {ft}

34.204
-8.156
562·48. 1
307.0

32.300

31.300

0.326

7.36 0.98

7.5039
307 362
562·40.1

55.0 24.0

31.200

30.820

0.691

12. 16

1.00 7.5038

30.270

0.682

12.07 1.00

7.5037
428 460
562·37.2

31.6 18.0

30.170

30.100

0.222

3.20 2.00
562·38.1
343.0

30.000

28.900
0 .321

7.22 2.00

7.5037
803 8 17 857 871
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 17 Appendix CFigure C-17: Final Alternative 4 Profile Great America Parkway West Trunk (Future 2035 PWWF) Patrick-Henry
Tasman Drive
Drive
Mission College
Boulevard
Westside PSGreat America Parkway Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Refer to Figure C-17 for
proposed GAP West
Trunk improvements

19.0 - I 17.0 -15.0 -13.0 -11.0 -

9.0 7.0
0 " " 5.0

3.0 1.0
-1.0 -3.0 -
-5.0 -
-l.O
_ _ ,.i~----i----i---------------~ ---------------· ~-___ ._ ___________ ______ . ._ _______ ___________ ._ ___ i ---------------~ ------------------~ -9.0 -+----'r-----iF----,-----,------'r---.,,.~.---~.----'r---~F----+----,-----i~---+---+-~riF----+---~.-----+-----t----t--t-1 ft
Link
length (ft)
width (in)
us inv (ft AD)
ds Inv (ft AD)
grad (%)
pfc(MGD)
sure
DS flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep (ft)

9.074
-6.106

8.182
-7.888

7.553
-8.047

7. 195
-7.955

6.824
-6.946

5.765
-7.525

4.883
-7.427

4.273
-7. 147

3.706
-6.084

2.777
-6.203

1.807
-7.063

0.800
-7.860
7288
S103-12.1
471.2

31.9 -5.590 -6.040

0.095

9.65 9.60

2.00 0.0 11 -1.401 -2.528 -3.944 -4.683 -5.284
-17.989 -12.178 -8.090 -12.404 -12.853
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 18 Appendix CFigure C-18: Alternative 1 Great America Parkway and Lafayette Street West Trunks Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 1 is constructed) Patrick-Henry
Tasman Drive
Drive
Mission College
Boulevard
Westside PS
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
C,
<
"

18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0

8.0 6.0

4.0 2.0
o.o
·2.0
·4.0
·6.0 ·8.0
-10.0 - j m : ! l l l -12.0 -,··---~~---~~---·-·--,~---~~--~~~---~~--,~---~--~~---,Bl---~--~----.-+--~---~---~---~--~~+--~---,.----+---+-< ft
Link
length (ft)
width (in)
us inv (ft AD)
ds inv (ft AD)
grad(%)
pfc (MGD)
sure
DS flow (MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep (ft)

9.058
-6.122

8. 159 7.5 19
-7.911 -8.081

7.165
·7.985

6.798
·6.972

5.748 4.870
-7.440

4.263 3.699
-7.157 -6.091

2.770
-6.210

1.800
·7.070

0.793
·7.867

0.004 -2.532
-12.182
-3.234 -3.948 -8.094 -12.408
-4.688 -6.377 -7.042 -7.952
-12.858 -11 .767 -11 .392 -12.732
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 19 Appendix CFigure C-19: Alternative 1 Great America Parkway and Lafayette Street East Trunks Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 1 is constructed) Mission College
Boulevard
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
T I I I I, I I u T I I T I I I I , -~ ,. I I I I I ., I I I I

21.0 19.0 I -·I

17.0 15.0

13.0 11 .0 ------· ---------------

9.0 7.0
" 5.0 <
" 3.0

1.0 -1.0
·3.0
-5.0 -7.0
·9.0
-11.0 - -
N 0 m 0 i -13.0 - ·j i ffl i i i i .;; .;;
·15.0
ft
Link
length (ft)
width (in)
us inv (ft AD}
ds inv (ft AD)
grad (%)
pfc (MGD)
sure
D5 flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD) 9.440 8.773 7.859 7.037 6.798 5.557 4.379 3.590 2.768 1.968 ·1.287 ·2.139 ·2.812 ·3.522 ·4.234 ·6.255 ·7.076 ·7.802 flood dep (ft) ·7.270 ·5.727 ·7.061 ·8.793 ·8.121 ·6.200 ·6.342 ·12.827 ·14.799 ·15.572 ·15.402 ·17.484 ·11 .612 Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 20 Appendix CFigure C-20: Great America Parkway West Trunk Improvements Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 1 is constructed) Patrick-Henry
Tasman Drive
Drive
Mission College
Boulevard
Westside PS
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
GAP West Trunk
Improvements
PHD Alternative 3/Gravity
Scenario E Improvements

18.0 16.0 14.0

12.0 10.0

8.0 6.0
C 4.0 "' "'

2.0 o.o
-2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0
- lQ,Q - t? CD U:, 1 q i
·12.0 -,;~---;~~---;;~---'i;i----t"i-----'i----'ir-'i'---~~i---,~~-~~r• ---'r--1-----'i~--+--T--;~--'irl----'i---T---"i---~r----'r-+tf--T---+----+---+-, ft
Link length (ft)
width (in)
us inv (ft AD)
ds inv (ft AD)
grad (%)
pfc(MGD)
sure
DS flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep (ft)

8.971
-6.209

7.883 6.201
-8.187 -9.399

5.799
-9.35 1

5.360
-8.410

2.800
-9.S10

2.140
-9.280

1.616
-8.174

0.935
-8.045

0.381
-8.489
-0.064 -0.346 -8.724
-3.243
-12.893
-3.704 -4.193 -8.564 -12.653
-4.726 -6.32 1 -7.005 -7.930
-12.896 -11.3S5 -12.710
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 21 Appendix CFigure C-21: Great America Parkway East Trunk Improvements Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 1 is constructed) Mission College
Boulevard
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
T • • • • , • • u T • • T • • • • , -~ ,. • • • • • ., • • • •

21.0 19.0 I

17.0 15.0

13.0 11.0
9,0

7.0 - --------------- ---------------- ---------------- " 5.0 <
"' 3.0

1.0 ·1.0 ·3,0 ·5,0 ·7,0 ·9.0 ·11 .0 -
., N "' ; 0 -13.0 - i i i m m i .;; .;; .;;
·15.0
ft 10472
link 5104·8. 1
length (ft) 428.0
width (in) t!0.7 42.0
us inv (ft AD) -9.693 - 10.398
ds inv {ft AD) - 10.398 - 11.092
grad (%) 0.162 0. 162
pfc(MGD) 26.19 26.19
sure 0.75
D5 flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD) 9.245 8.24 7 7.121 6,043 5.728 4.231 3.338 2.574 1.750 0.984 -1.963 ·2,639 ·3,202 -3.790 -4.405 -6.23 1 -7.05 1 -7.782 flood de p (ft) -7.465 ·6.253 -7.799 -9.787 -9.162 -7.2 16 -7.32 6 -13.503 -15.299 - 15.962 - 15.670 - 17.655 -11.592 Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 22 Appendix CFigure C-22: Great America Parkway West Trunk Improvements Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 4 is constructed) Patrick-Henry
Tasman Drive
Drive
Mission College
Boulevard
Westside PS
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
GAP West Trunk
Improvements
PHD Alternative 3/Gravity
Scenario E Improvements
f

18.0 • • l • • r T • • T • • l l T • T • • • • • l. • • • l I I I I I

16.0 14.0 ----------------- -------------------

12.0 10.0
8,0
6,0
" 4.0 "' " 2.0
0,0
-2.0 -4.0
-6,0 ---l------1------1 ---------------------------8,0
-10.0 -
-12.0 ;
ft
Link
length (ft}
wi dth (in)
us inv (ft AD)
ds inv (ft AD) grad (%)
pfc (MGD}
sure
DSflow(MGD) Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep (ft}
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report 23 Appendix CFigure C-23: Great America Parkway East Trunk Improvements Profile (Future 2035 PWWF assuming Alternative 4 is constructed) Mission College
Boulevard
Great America Parkway
Lafayette Street
Interconnection #2
Interconnection #3
Great America Parkway Lafayette Street
T

21.0 19.0 =- 1
• • . , • • T • . ,
I
,. 1

17.0 15.0

13.0 11 .0

9.0 7.0
D s.o
<
" 3.0

1.0 -1.0
-3.0
-5.0
-7.0
-9.0
-11 .0 -
-13.0 !!!
-15.0 ;
ft
Link length (ft)
width (In)
us inv (ft AD)
ds,nv (ft AD)
grad (%)
pfc (MGD)
sure
OS flow(MGD)
Node
ground (ft AD)
level (ft AD)
flood dep (ft)
Appendix D –Capacity Improvement
Project Cost Estimates
ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

"!#
$%&''(()*$+*

+*,-- ../

!
!

0+%
1'%'''
!

23!! (! ! 23,4!4 ! -4!(5(2 5 3! 4 (- 4( !-!2 -%!6!- ,7
!3-4!
,4! (4-4 5
-( -4+'$85$9!! !(
-- +''&!!4 !( -! ! 4
4 (!!*(( ( !!54 5 !!% 44!#-4!! 4 5 (

!!!

23!!!! 42+'++

:!
(4/!3(
$9$'8
23!!!!*
!

23 (! 5 ! (4!!!!((5 (% !! 4 5 (4

23 !!-

!"
#$

"
#$

%&'

()&*

()&*
')
(+*

(,*

)
(+-. *

&
#)/
!
&
(0" 1*

&
(0*
8$*$
8$*$8 ) $+ 98 '
&9 ; < 08)' 0 +9%1+'
8$*$8 8$*$9 ) $+ +$' '

1 ; < 08)' 0 $''%&')
8$*$9 8$*$& ) $+
'' '

' & < 08)' 0 $88%$88
8$*$& 8$*$; ) $+ +'; '

+ & < 08)' 0 11%
&'
8$*$; 8$*$) ) $+ +9 '
+8 & < 08)' 0 $+%'''
8$*$) 8$*$1 ) $+ 8'8 '

1 & < 08)' 0 $1
%1+'
8$*$1 8$*+' ) $+
1 $
+& ) < 08)' 0 $))%91+
,=!!! 0 ;&8%988

4!2)3 0 $
+%'''
%

9' 0
''%'''
-
&
&
&
0 232453677
=!!-2$'>(!!3 0 ;&%898 :?:/29>(!!3 0 )%++;
,((2$'>(!!3 0 )1%&98

0 237883998
@#5
#29>(!3 0 ;'%'88

&
/
&
&

0 237:834;7
-!2
'>(!!3 0 88$%+;;

&
/
&
&
0 2342;3;82

--% !%-2+9>(!!3 0 8;)%'9'

&
/

&
0 ;3 483888
(

&&
&

&/;8;;

+26287*
Santa Clara (0011096.00)
Master Plan Addendum Report Appendix D
Project P4: Tasman Drive Sewer Improvement

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… P4 Project Name ……………………………………………………………………….. Tasman Drive Sewer Improvement Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Tasman Dr. between Old Ironsides Dr. and Great America Pkwy.

Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Upsize approximately 600 feet of 12-in pipe to 15-in pipe Priority ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 - Triggered under Future PWWF Estimated Capital Imp. Cost ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $832,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (i) Pipes are listed in order from upstream to downstream Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (i) Cost estimates are based on the (Apr 2022 ENR Cost Index for the San Francisco Area) of 15104
(ii) Cost assumes pipe will be upsized using open-cut construction method Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (i) Install parallel pipe

PROJECT COST DETAIL
U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New
Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet)
Slope
(%)
Pipe Depth
(feet BGL)
Construction
Method
Unit Cost
($/LF)
Total Cost
($)
S93-24 S93-25 12 15 108 0.14 13 Open Cut $505 $ 54,540
S93-25 S93-26 12 15 370 0.24 14 Open Cut $505 $ 186,850 S93-26 S93-35 12 15 152 0.20 15 Open Cut $505 $ 76,760
Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost $ 318,150
New manholes (4) $ 66,000
Lower lateral replacement and cleanout, Approx. 4 $ 24,000 Baseline Construction Cost: $ 408,150
Bypass Pumping (10% of pipe construction cost) $ 31,815 Remove & Replace Factor (5% of pipe construction cost) $ 15,908 Traffic Control (10% of pipe construction cost) $ 31,815 Subtotal: $ 487,688
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) $ 24,384
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 512,072
Contingencies (30% of construction subtotal) $ 153,622
Total Estimated Construction Cost: $ 665,693
Engineering, Administration, Legal (25% of construction cost) $ 166,423 Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: $ 832,000
(Note: Cost estimates are based on April 2022 ENR CCI of 15104) ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

%
&!!'(''))(
*+# #+

,-./000
+

12# '# "'#

12+3
1"#
0 *
4+ 5
("2

) , .
/000

!
" # $%%%
& + , 60/000

!&
" $%%%
378
371
9 '32 ,
/:
0 ' !
!&
" ($( %
+!1%09 ''32 , 6:/%

' !
" ( $%(
*!!/"/!1

9 '2 , 6/:;-
' )

')'
" *#$%%%
+

' &
)
,%,,

-. .%#/
ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

!"#$

%&

'()!
&!
'(*

!"#$%

&

&)*

+,
+

$-.//
01

,,2##

!"#
!&

&3&

4.-%/-///

56
&
&
&7
(&

568
&
7
56
&

9/.&
($/$$!8*7
(
3

%
(
%
($

+3
"# 7
'()!

(&!+,
-
./&
&-
./&
!"#
&
%
0
1
*
&
%
0
1
,#

021
&

034,1

.

05-,61

051
1$
0% 1$
0 8!, !
$: /7$.; 0 <
490/ 4 9-9$:
1$
0 1$

0. $$7
$% 0.0 /70$; 0 <
411/ 4 $$1-0
/
1$

0. 1$
00 $. $% . /79/; 0 <
411/ 4 :-$./
1$
00 1$
0$ $. $% ./ /700; 0 <
411/ 4 $1-.//
1$
0$ $%9

=>? $. $% . /7%; $ <
411/ 4 :-$./
$%9

=>? $%9

=>?/ $% $% 0
1 /700; <
411/ 4 $9.-%1/
$%9

=>?/ $%9

=>?: $% $% 0.9 /700; $ <
411/ 4 $$%-%//
$%9

=>? %$
% 0/ 01 9:
/7/%; : <
4

/ 4 9$1-$./
%$
% %$
$ 0/ 01 1$: /7.; % <
4

/ 4 990-9$/

@

4 -
.:-//:
>+!"#>

- 4 ..-9$

3

5 78897:9

#

#
@#"&+ 4 19-.
1
# 4 19-%:/
@+
&#5/;6 4
.-:/
*&3A*
2
59;6 4 :-1%.

5 $7;<79

>
B
&
59;
6 4 $/-/1:
!%

5 $7:$7;:

#50/;
6 4 %91-.0%
!%

5 97$ 7
8:
&
+*<,B!
&(C54.B26 4 %0-//
!##-(&
-'#
5$9;6 4
:-.%.
!%

%=%

5 ;7 <7<<<
58D
&

($/$$!8*

9/.6
ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

!""#$$ %

#
"$!%"#

"$!%

&

''())

*+)
*

,-!.#///

01
&

012"

&!.!/3&
$/$$*24

5
5%$
!" #"
$&
'(#
)$
(#
)$
"*+

,
-
%.

,
-
&+

,/-
#
0
,1-
00

,/23&-

'
,4(&5-

,4-

6! 7.$%!!8 2*' * $! !!/ !.9 : ;
,../ , :/#.//

, :/#.//

&2"'#! , 33#58$
&<*+)
#! , !-#!-8

2"
#! , !:#.//
2
4
67896

<

)0!/9& 1 , :#/./
4
=4
(
0.9& 1 , -#/$.

&&
0!/9& 1 , :#/./
#
4
:;8;:<

>

0.9&
1 , 5#./-
"

#
4
: 8::9

)0-/9&
1 , 35#$:?
7 (
0-/9&
1 , 35#$:?
"

4 =:=8;97
*))#

#
)
0$.9&1 , :-#/$-
"

0
$
0
4 6
:8;;;
02@

$/$$*24

&!.!/31
WƌŽũĞĐƚ/͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙
WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙
ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙
tt&dƌŝŐŐĞƌ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽƐƚ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙Ψϳ͕ϬϬϴ͕ϬϬϬ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙;ŝͿWŝƉĞƐĂƌĞůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌĨƌŽŵƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵƚŽĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵ͘ ƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙;ŝͿEĞǁĚŝĂŵĞƚĞƌďĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƉĞŶĐƵƚ͘ ;ŝŝͿŽƐƚĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶ/ŽĨϭϱϭϬϰĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŝůϮϬϮϮ EZ͘
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙
hͬ^
D,/
ͬ^
D,/

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ
;ŝŶĐŚĞƐͿ
EĞǁ
ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ
;ŝŶĐŚĞƐͿ
>ĞŶŐƚŚ
;ĨĞĞƚͿ
^ůŽƉĞ
;йͿ
WŝƉĞĞƉƚŚ
;ĨĞĞƚ'>Ϳ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
DĞƚŚŽĚ
hŶŝƚŽƐƚ
;Ψͬ>&Ϳ
dŽƚĂůŽƐƚ
;ΨͿ
^ϯϮͲϭϬϮ ^ϯϮͲϲ ϭϬ ϭϱ Ϯϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϭй ϴ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ ΨϭϮ͕ϭϳϭ ^ϯϮͲϲ ^ϯϮͲϵ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϯϬϴ Ϭ͘ϭϱй ϳ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ Ψϭϱϱ͕ϱϰϬ ^ϯϮͲϵ ^ϯϮͲϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϱ Ϯϴϴ Ϭ͘Ϯϴй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ Ψϭϰϱ͕ϰϰϬ ^ϯϮͲϭϬ ^ϯϯͲϭ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϯϭϴ Ϭ͘ϭϵй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ ΨϭϲϬ͕ϳϵϮ ^ϯϯͲϭ ^ϯϯͲϮ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϯϯϱ Ϭ͘ϮϮй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ Ψϭϲϵ͕Ϭϳϰ ^ϯϯͲϮ ^ϯϯͲϯ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϯϬϬ Ϭ͘Ϯϵй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ Ψϭϱϭ͕ϲϬϭ ^ϯϯͲϯ ^ϯϯͲϰ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϮϬϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϭй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ ΨϭϬϯ͕ϱϮϱ ^ϯϯͲϰ ^ϯϯͲϱ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϭϴ ͲϬ͘Ϭϲй ϲ KƉĞŶƵƚ ΨϱϬϱ Ψϵ͕ϮϰϮ ^ϱϯͲϯϰ ^ϱϯͲϮϮ Ϯϳ ϯϬ Ϯϭϭ Ϭ͘ϯϱй ϵ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϭϱϰ͕ϴϲϱ ^ϱϯͲϮϮ ^ϱϯͲϮϭ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϴϬ Ϭ͘ϲϱй ϭϬ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϱϴ͕ϴϬϬ ^ϱϯͲϮϭ ^ϱϯͲϳ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϳϬϱ Ϭ͘ϰϯй ϭϬ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϱϭϴ͕ϭϳϱ ^ϱϯͲϳ ^ϲϯͲϯϲ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϯϭϰ Ϭ͘ϯϵй ϭϭ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ ΨϮϯϭ͕Ϭϭϭ ^ϲϯͲϯϲ ^ϲϯͲϯϱ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϴϲ Ϭ͘ϯϬй ϭϮ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϲϯ͕Ϯϴϰ ^ϲϯͲϯϱ ^ϲϯͲϯϯ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϯϱϰ Ϭ͘ϱϱй ϭϭ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ ΨϮϱϵ͕ϴϵϲ ^ϲϯͲϯϯ ^ϲϯͲϯϮ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϯϴй ϭϭ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ ΨϮϵ͕ϰϬϬ ^ϲϯͲϯϮ ^ϲϯͲϮϳ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϭϯϮ Ϭ͘ϰϲй ϭϮ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϵϳ͕Ϭϵϰ ^ϲϯͲϮϳ ^ϲϯͲϮϲ Ϯϳ ϯϬ Ϯϲϲ Ϭ͘ϰϰй ϭϯ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ Ψϭϵϱ͕ϱϭϬ ^ϲϯͲϮϲ ^ϲϯͲϮϬ Ϯϳ ϯϬ ϰϬϬ Ϭ͘ϱϱй ϭϯ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ ΨϮϵϰ͕ϬϬϬ ^ϲϮͲϯϳ ^ϲϮͲϯϴ E
tW/W
ϭϴ ϯϮ Ϭ͘ϮϮй ϭϯ KƉĞŶƵƚ Ψϳϯϱ ΨϮϯ͕ϮϮϲ dŽƚĂůĂƐĞůŝŶĞWŝƉĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ ΨϮ͕ϴϯϮ͕ϲϰϯ DŽĚŝĨǇ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐDĂŶŚŽůĞƐ͕ϮϮ ΨϮϴϵ͕Ϭϱϳ
ĂƐĞůŝŶĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ͗ Ψϯ͕ϭϮϭ͕ϳϬϬ ǇƉĂƐƐWƵŵƉŝŶŐ;ϭϬйŽĨƉŝƉĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚͿ ΨϮϴϯ͕Ϯϲϰ ZĞŵŽǀĞΘZĞƉůĂĐĞ&ĂĐƚŽƌ;ϱйŽĨƉŝƉĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚͿ ΨϭϰϬ͕ϰϳϭ dƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽů;ϮϬйŽĨƉŝƉĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚͿ Ψϱϲϭ͕ϴϴϯ ^ƵďƚŽƚĂů͗ Ψϰ͕ϭϬϳ͕ϯϭϴ
DŽďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶͬĞŵŽďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ;ϱйŽĨƐƵďƚŽƚĂůͿ ΨϮϬϱ͕ϯϲϲ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ^ƵďƚŽƚĂů͗ Ψϰ͕ϯϭϮ͕ϲϴϰ ŽŶƚŝŶŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ;ϯϬйŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƵďƚŽƚĂůͿ Ψϭ͕Ϯϵϯ͕ϴϬϱ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ͗ Ψϱ͕ϲϬϲ͕ϰϴϵ

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕>ĞŐĂů;ϮϱйŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚͿ Ψϭ͕ϰϬϭ͕ϲϮϮ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽƐƚ͗ Ψϳ͕ϬϬϴ͕ϬϬϬ ;EŽƚĞ͗ŽƐƚĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƉƌŝůϮϬϮϮ
EZ/ŽĨϭϱϭϬϰͿ
WZK:
dK^d
d/>
ϭ͕ϴϬϬĨĞĞƚŽĨϭϬƚŽϭϱͲŝŶĐŚƉŝƉĞ
Ϯ͕ϲϬϬĨĞĞƚŽĨϮϳƚŽϯϬͲŝŶĐŚƉŝƉĞ
ϯϬĨĞĞƚŽĨŶĞǁϭϴͲŝŶĐŚƉŝƉĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚWϳͲůƚϮ͗ŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂů;
ZͿĂŶĚŽǁĞƌƐǀĞŶƵĞ
WZK:
d
^Z/Wd/KE
ŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂů;
ZͿĂŶĚŽǁĞƌƐǀĞŶƵĞ
ůŽŶŐ
ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂůĨƌŽŵĂůĂďĂǌĂƐŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚƚŽŽǁĞƌƐǀĞŶƵĞ͘ ůŽŶŐŽǁĞƌƐǀĞŶƵĞĨƌŽŵŚƌŽŵŝƚĞƌŝǀĞƚŽ<ŝĨĞƌZŽĂĚ͘
ůŽŶŐĂůĂďĂǌĂƐƌĞĞŬĂƚ<ŝĨĞƌZŽĂĚ͘
WϳĂŶĚWϳͲůƚϭ
6DQWD&ODUD

0DVWHU3ODQ$GGHQGXP5HSRUW $SSHQGL['
ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

!

"

!
"

"

#

$%&'' ('"((()*+

,
-"

./0%))(%'''

12
"" "#

123"4"#
124" /$/'5 +
0'00-36#

!
#
$%
&'!
!%
&'!
()
!
*+,
"
!
*+,
#)+
*-,
.
*/,
!+
*-0
#,

&+1
$
*2%#3,
.
*2,
)(*57 )(*55 07#) () 50( '#/89 7 ! .)$$ . 5'(%)8$ )(*55 )(*50 (' () 50( '#0/9 7 ! .)$$ . 5'(%)8$ )(*50 )(*(8 (' () 5'/ '#/(9 7 ! .)$$ . (70%)$$ )(*(8 )(*0/ (' () 5$0 '#/89 & ! .)$$ . 5(/%88' )(*0/ )(*5 (' () 5$/ '#/79 & ! .)$$ . 5('%&'$
)(*5 /'(*00 (' () 55$ '#/(9 7 ! .)$$ . 505%&75 /'(*00 /'(*/) 07#7 () 5'' '#/&9 /( ! .)$$ . (70%')8 /'(*/8 /'(*/5 (( () 0$8 '#/09 /8 ! .)$$ . 055%8&/ /'(*/5 /'(*) (( () /'( '#0'9 /( ! .)$$ . )&%777 /'(*) /'(*/' (( () (&$ '#')9 /( ! .)$$ . ($&%857 /'(*/' /'(*/0 (( () 5&/ '#/'9 /' ! .)$$ . 55)%))8 /'(*/0 /'5*05 (( () 5&8 '#')9 /' ! .)$$ . 5$5%)80 /'5*05 /'5*08 (( () 5&' '#/'9 /0 ! .)$$ . 55)%/(& /'5*08 /'5*0( (( () 500 '#/'9 /' ! .)$$ . 5'(%'/' /'5*0( /'5*/) (( () /0/ '#&$9 /' ! .)$$ . //$%08)
:
. $%5(0%&')
3;+
%/& . 07'%$''
0.
2 4567859:;
:1/'9 2 . $5(%0&/ 6
<6
,1$9 2 . 0&/%8($

10'9 2 . /%'78%$50
<.
2 65=7>5=4=
;4
=>
4
=1$9 4
2 . (7'%&((
1<.
2 65;;458 ;
1('9 4
2 . 0%()7%8/&
1
2 7:58;>5::=
-%
"%

10$9 2 . 0%$)7%$'0
1.

2 795;;85:::
13?4"

0'00-36 /$/'52
ĀȀ !Ȁ"#$Ȁ%Ȁ"&''((')*+'',
-Ȁ.!/%"0$Ȁ "122/ 234"5/67%! 166/ 289":

!""
#
$%
&
'%
(&
(&%%

))!*
+
%,%%

-
.$/& ##
!
/!
*!)
!

%1 1

2 &345&
1

67

%%#'
%

67
1

'%#
%%

#

%

%

'%#(5
3!
"!
/&

%

%

## 4*
%8
&

'%

#
%9

1

%
%#
%
&

'
.%

%#

'##%
'

%
'
'

%
%%

'

(

671

%
6() ))
,1
%$#
:
(7#

*
;
(

!"

!"
#$%

&'$(

&'$(

%'
&)(
*
&+(
'
&),-
(
$.
!'/
$
&0
1(

*$
&0(

!""
!"/

* 5
* ))
<1' 2* * 2
*4& "*

!"/
!"4

* 5 )"

<1' 2* * 2
*
&*

!"4
!/

* 5
3 <1' 2* * 2
*
&*

!/

!/5

* )3) 5
/ <1' 2* * 2
5)& */

!/5

!"3

* 5 " *
/ <1' 2* * 2
*;&45;

!"3

!""

*
4 ;5 4 <1' 2* * 2 **&
;3

!""

!"/

*
3; ;; / <1' 2* * 2 /)&/)

!"/

* 5
3 ;/ 3 <1' 2* * 2
*4&;"4

* 5)
*; 3 <1' 2* * 2
3)&)*"

* )/3 /3 3 <1' 2* * 2
;;&
"/

!3"

* 5

)
" <1' 2* * 2
*3&/ 5

!3"

* 55* 3/ " <1' 2* * 2
34& );

* 5 / 5) 3 <1' 2* * 2
**&34)

* 55/ ;5 " <1' 2* * 2
" &34

!;)

* )*) )/ / <1' 2* * 2
)"&)

!;)

* ); *; " <1' 2* * 2
) &44/

!)4

* "4 ; " <1' 2* * 2 54&3;5

!)4

!
4 *
5/ 33 / <1' 2* * 2 34&34

!
4

* ;

/ <1' 2* * 2 ) )&3*"

!
))!45

* ;)*
3 4 <1' 2* * 2 )
;&5"5
))!45 ))!/

* 554 *3 4 <1' 2* * 2
"
& ;;
))!/ ))!";

* 5
; ;" 4 <1' 2* * 2
*/&53/
))!"; ))!34

* )"3 )
4 <1' 2* * 2
54&*5)
))!34 ))!**
)
*
/ ; 4 <1' 2* * 2 4 &3;/
))!** ))!;3
* *5 ;4
<1' 2* * 2 )3&"
*
))!;3 ))!;"
/ )
5 5 3/
; <1' 2** 2
")&5"
))!;" ))!;/
/ )
5 3/
5 <1' 2** 2
3&*
))!;/ ))!;4
/ )
5) 3/
5 <1' 2** 2
"3&
))!;4 ))!*
/ )
53" 3/
5 <1' 2** 2 )
&/*
))!* ))!*

/ )
5;4 3/
5 <1' 2** 2
4 &"5
=
1
'1
2 ;&
);&;""

65
7 2 *

&*
%'&($
2 3 &
,
$*$.$
0 234523677
=

'
6
>#
'
7 2 ;
)&;;/
,?,:6*>#
'
7 2 ) 3&));
##16
>#
'
7 2 ;
)&;;/
.8
*
0 934973:69
@.0
.6*>#
'7 2 5
5&5**
$
/$.$.8
*
0 932;:3<2

1

65 >#
'
'7 2
&4";&
5*

* $
/$.$
0 ;322<32;9

&(%
&
6)*>#
'
7 2 )&
5/&3;"
$
/

*$
0 :39653:::
&

$$
$
8
$/
*4:44
)
2 :<(

woodardcurran.com
COMMITMENT INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS
~

WOODARD
. ~
&CURRAN
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge
Conveyance Fee
Report
June 2022
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 2 of 6
June 2022
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 capacity improvements to the sanitary sewer system required as a result of intensification and densification of land uses permitted by the General Plan and associated development land use amendments. The fee was subsequently updated in 2009 and 2010 with the following actions:
 Resolution 09-7643 approved on June 16, 2009 to update the fee to include costs of bond issuance to fund and implement projects
 Resolution 10-7741 approved on June 8, 2010 to update 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).

Technical Basis for Projects and Fee
The initial establishment of the fee in 2007 was based upon projects identified in the 2007 Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment conducted by the City consultant RMC Water and Environment. This assessment accomplished the following 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 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Another sewer capacity assessment was conducted in 2009 by RMC Water and Environment.

This assessment (an update to the 2007 assessment) accounted for land use changes resulting from the in-progress General Plan Update which was finalized in 2010. Recommended changes to the capacity project improvement listing and project budget cost estimates were approved with City Council Resolution 10-7741 in June of 2010.

Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Improvements
After approval of the initial project improvement listing in 2007 (Resolution 07-7415), two projects were initiated and completed as listed below. The specific projects are listed below with their completion dates and the specific deficiency project numbers from the project list.  Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement (El Camino Real Diversion) – 2008 (Project ID/No. ‘ECR Diverson’)
 El Camino Real Sanitary Sewer Improvement (Flora Vista to Calabazas Creek) – 2009 (Project No. 8)
After approval of the project improvement listing in June of 2010 (Resolution 10-7741), four projects were initiated and completed. The specific projects are listed below with their Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 3 of 6
June 2022
completion dates and the specific deficiency project numbers from the project list. Two of the projects addressed multiple deficiencies.
 Walsh Avenue Sewer Improvement Project – 2011 (Project ID/No. ‘West to East Alternative’)
 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phase II – 2015 (Project Nos. 4A, 4B, 5 and 6)  Scott Boulevard and Park Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvements – 2016 (Project Nos. 9 and 10)
 Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement – 2020 (Project No. 11) 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 final report was completed by the City’s consultant RMC Water and Environment and issued April 2016 (Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Final Report dated April 2016). As with prior reports, the assessment resulted in a recommended phased capital project improvement 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 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP) Update to accomplish the following objectives: 1) analyze a Calabazas Creek trunk line capacity issue; 2) update the Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement project identified in the 2016 SSMP Update; and 3) identify a solution to a deficiency on the Great America Parkway West trunk line. The Calabazas Creek trunk analysis was needed due to the discovery in 2021 of existing sewer network conditions that were different than the hydraulic model. The most notable difference was the discovery of a 19-inch diameter pipe segment that was assumed to be 24-inch diameter (the same as the immediate upstream and downstream segments and consistent with the original as-built drawings). This smaller diameter pipe size results in reduced sewer capacity at this location. The Tracy Drive sewer project was being revised to better balance downstream flow between the Homestead Road and Pomeroy Avenue intermediate trunk lines. The Great America Parkway West trunk deficiency was identified for analysis due to new development plans in the tributary sewer basins.

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 deficiency project listing. Also, a solution was identified for the Great America Parkway West trunk line resulting in a recommended project to address the deficiency.

The 2022 Addendum provides an update to the 2016 project improvement listing resulting in a combined listing of the 2106 deficiency projects with the additional projects identified in the 2022 analysis. The project improvement listing is included here as Table 1.

Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 4 of 6
June 2022
TABLE 1

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LISTING
Project
ID Project Name Description
Estimated Capital
Improvement
Cost1
P1 Westside Lift Station
Adjustment
Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower
elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in
the influent line.

Project
Complete
P2 Tasman Lift Station
Adjustment
Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower
elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in
the influent line.

Project
Complete
P3 Cabrillo Avenue
Sewer Improvement
Upsize 1,600 feet of 8-inch line in Cabrillo Ave.
between Lawrence Expressway and Nobili Ave.
to a 12-inch line.
$2,390,000
P4 Tasman Drive Sewer
Improvement
Upsize 600 feet of 12-inch line in Tasman Dr.
between Old Ironsides Dr. and Great America
Pkwy. to a 15-inch line.
$832,000
P5
Sewer Diversion at
Los Padres
Boulevard and
Saratoga Avenue
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.
$94,000
P6
Sewer Diversion at
Calabazas Boulevard
and Machado
Avenue
Install a new manhole upstream of S52-93 in
the intersection of Calabazas Blvd. and
Machado Ave., and install a new 15-inch highlevel 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.

Project
Replaced by
P7-Alt 1
P6-Alt.

Calabazas Creek
Sewer Improvement
Upsize 1,800 feet of 24-inch line next to
Calabazas Creek between Kifer Rd. and Scott
Blvd. to a 27-inch line.

Project
Complete
P7
Calabazas Creek
Trunk Upsize and
Installation of Parallel
18-Inch Sewer Under
the Existing 27-Inch
Storm Drain
Upsize 2,400 feet of CIPP lined 22.8-inch
sewer, 24, 27, and 30-inch sewer next to
Calabazas Creek between Kifer Road and
downstream of Scott Boulevard to a 27, and 36-
inch sewer. Install approximately 20 feet of 18-
inch sewer between existing manholes S62-37
and S62-38 under the existing 27-inch storm
drain line.
$4,170,000
P7-Alt 1
Calabazas Creek
Trunk Diversion to
Machado Avenue
and Chromite Drive
Install a new manhole upstream of existing
manhole S52-93 at the intersection of
Calabazas Boulevard and Machado Avenue.

Install a weir or high-level diversion sewer
(approximately 120 feet) to divert excess flow
from the existing 24-inch Calabazas Creek trunk
to the 21-inch Machado Avenue trunk. The
diversion line should be approximately 9 inches
higher than the invert of the 24-inch trunk.
$315,000
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 5 of 6
June 2022
Project
ID Project Name Description
Estimated Capital
Improvement
Cost1
P7-Alt 2
Diversion to El
Camino Real (ECR)
and Bowers Avenue
Upsize 1,800 feet of 10-inch line along ECR
between Calabazas Boulevard and Bowers
Avenue to a 15-inch.

Upsize 2,600 feet of 27-inch along Bowers
Avenue between Chromite Drive and Kifer Road
to a 30-inch.

Install approximately 20 feet of 18-inch sewer
on the Calabazas Creek Trunk between existing
manholes S62-37 and S62-38 under the
existing 27-inch storm drain line.
$7,008,000
P82
Great America
Parkway West Trunk
Improvements
Upsize 5,700 feet of 30-inch line along Great
America Parkway between Old Glory Lane and
Lafayette Street to a 39-inch. Improvements
exclude the existing siphons.
$12,993,000
Estimated Total Cost for Projects P3, P4, P5, P7 and P8:

Estimated Total Cost for Projects P3, P4, P5, P7-Alt 1 and P8:

Estimated Total Cost for Projects P3, P4, P5, P7-Alt 2 and P8:
$20,479,000
$16,624,000
$23,317,000
E13 Tracy Drive Sewer
Improvement
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.
$10,693,000
Estimated Total Cost for All Projects (assuming P7):

Estimated Total Cost for All Projects (assuming P7-Alt 1):

Estimated Total Cost for All Projects (assuming P7-Alt 2):
$31,172,000
$27,317,000
$34,010,000

1. All costs are presented in 2022 dollars and include 30 percent allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions and 25 percent for engineering, administration, and legal costs.

2. Project P8 costs do not include improvements associated with the PHD Alternative 3/Gravity Scenario E project.

3. 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.

Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 6 of 6
June 2022
Upcoming Work
The SSMP should be updated every five years to reflect any significant updates or program changes. Work will commence in 2022 on a Request for Proposals to select a consultant to perform a SSMP Update. Staff estimates returning to Council in late 2022 with a recommendation for approval of an agreement. Work would commence shortly thereafter with the planned final report be early 2024. Like prior SSMPs, this work will update the hydraulic model with the latest water use and land use changes. Analysis work will result in identification of any existing deficiencies and future anticipated deficiencies with a resulting project improvement listing with budget cost estimates. After identification of the total project costs, a rate analysis will be performed to determine if the existing conveyance fee rate is appropriate to the needed improvements.

Recommended Actions
It is recommended that this report and the updated capacity project improvement listing be approved. This will allow for continued capacity improvement projects to move forward in parallel with the planned Master Plan Update work. Because the 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.

Resolution/Conveyance Fee Updated Report Page 1 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER OUTLET CHARGE -

CONVEYANCE FEE UPDATED REPORT AND LIST OF

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

WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Clara City Code section 17.15.220, subdivision (c) and Resolution Number 07-7415, the City is authorized to collect charges for persons who desire to connect to the sanitary sewer system;
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee established by Resolution 07- 7415 may be modified and updated periodically by resolution of the City Council pursuant to any applicable law, rule, regulation and conformance with any subsequent fee study prepared by or on behalf of the City of Santa Clara; WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee was last modified and updated by Resolution 10-7741 pursuant to all applicable law, rule, regulation and conformance with subsequent fee study prepared by the City of Santa Clara; WHEREAS, the City Engineer has created an updated Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report (hereinafter "Report") which is attached and includes costs associated with the sewer infrastructure improvements including acquisition, administration, plan, design, construction, and reconstruction of public sanitary sewer facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Report has identified the need to update the list of improvements;

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

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That said Report, as duly revised and corrected if necessary, is hereby approved, confirmed and adopted.

Resolution/Conveyance Fee Updated Report Page 2 of 2
Rev: 11/22/17

3. That the list of improvements contained in the Report, as duly revised and corrected if necessary, is hereby approved, confirmed and adopted.

4. That the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge – Conveyance Fee collected pursuant to Santa Clara City Code section 17.15.220, subdivision (c) shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the Report.

5. That the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge – Conveyance Fee may be modified and updated periodically by resolution of the City Council pursuant to any applicable law, rule, regulation and conformance with any subsequent fee study prepared by or on behalf of the City of Santa Clara.

6. 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. Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge - Conveyance Fee Report S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge
Conveyance Fee
Report
June 2022
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 2 of 6
June 2022
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 capacity improvements to the sanitary sewer system required as a result of intensification and densification of land uses permitted by the General Plan and associated development land use amendments. The fee was subsequently updated in 2009 and 2010 with the following actions:
• Resolution 09-7643 approved on June 16, 2009 to update the fee to include costs of bond issuance to fund and implement projects
• Resolution 10-7741 approved on June 8, 2010 to update 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).

Another sewer capacity assessment was conducted in 2009 by RMC Water and Environment.

Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Improvements
After approval of the initial project improvement listing in 2007 (Resolution 07-7415), two projects were initiated and completed as listed below. The specific projects are listed below with their completion dates and the specific deficiency project numbers from the project list. • Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement (El Camino Real Diversion) – 2008 (Project ID/No. ‘ECR Diverson’)
• El Camino Real Sanitary Sewer Improvement (Flora Vista to Calabazas Creek) – 2009 (Project No. 8)
After approval of the project improvement listing in June of 2010 (Resolution 10-7741), four projects were initiated and completed. The specific projects are listed below with their Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 3 of 6
June 2022
completion dates and the specific deficiency project numbers from the project list. Two of the projects addressed multiple deficiencies.
• Walsh Avenue Sewer Improvement Project – 2011 (Project ID/No. ‘West to East Alternative’)
• Sanitary Sewer Improvements Phase II – 2015 (Project Nos. 4A, 4B, 5 and 6) • Scott Boulevard and Park Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvements – 2016 (Project Nos. 9 and 10)
• Calabazas Creek Sewer Improvement – 2020 (Project No. 11) 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 final report was completed by the City’s consultant RMC Water and Environment and issued April 2016 (Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Final Report dated April 2016). As with prior reports, the assessment resulted in a recommended phased capital project improvement 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 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP) Update to accomplish the following objectives: 1) analyze a Calabazas Creek trunk line capacity issue; 2) update the Tracy Drive Sewer Improvement project identified in the 2016 SSMP Update; and 3) identify a solution to a deficiency on the Great America Parkway West trunk line. The Calabazas Creek trunk analysis was needed due to the discovery in 2021 of existing sewer network conditions that were different than the hydraulic model. The most notable difference was the discovery of a 19-inch diameter pipe segment that was assumed to be 24-inch diameter (the same as the immediate upstream and downstream segments and consistent with the original as-built drawings). This smaller diameter pipe size results in reduced sewer capacity at this location. The Tracy Drive sewer project was being revised to better balance downstream flow between the Homestead Road and Pomeroy Avenue intermediate trunk lines. The Great America Parkway West trunk deficiency was identified for analysis due to new development plans in the tributary sewer basins.

Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee Report Page 4 of 6
June 2022
TABLE 1

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

Project
Complete
P2 Tasman Lift Station
Adjustment
Adjust the set points for the pumps to a lower
elevation to eliminate unnecessary backups in
the influent line.

Project
Replaced by
P7-Alt 1
P6-Alt. Calabazas Creek
Sewer Improvement
Upsize 1,800 feet of 24-inch line next to
Calabazas Creek between Kifer Rd. and Scott
Blvd. to a 27-inch line.

Upsize 2,600 feet of 27-inch along Bowers
Avenue between Chromite Drive and Kifer Road
to a 30-inch.

Estimated Total Cost for Projects P3, P4, P5, P7-Alt 1 and P8:

Estimated Total Cost for All Projects (assuming P7-Alt 1):

Estimated Total Cost for All Projects (assuming P7-Alt 2):
$31,172,000
$27,317,000
$34,010,000

1. All costs are presented in 2022 dollars and include 30 percent allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions and 25 percent for engineering, administration, and legal costs.

2. Project P8 costs do not include improvements associated with the PHD Alternative 3/Gravity Scenario E project.

3. 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.

BACKGROUND
Cities and counties often charge fees on new development to fund public improvements, public amenities and public services. For example, Traffic Mitigation Fees are used to fund transit facilities, streets, bike lanes and sidewalks. These fees are commonly known as development impact fees (Developer Fees). In 1989, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1600 (AB1600) which added Section 66000, et seq., to the California Government Code. The chapter sets forth a number of requirements that local agencies must follow if they are to collect fees from developers to defray the cost of the construction of public facilities related to development projects. Government Code Sections 66000-66025 apply to developer fees established, increased or imposed on or after January 1, 1989, and generally sets forth four broad requirements:

1. A local jurisdiction must follow the process set forth in the bill and make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the fees and to establish a "nexus" or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement being financed with the fee.

2. The fee revenue must be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling of public improvement fees and the General Fund.

3. If a local jurisdiction has had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not committed that money to a project or actually spent that money, then it must make findings describing the continuing need for that money each fiscal year after the five years have expired.

4. If a local jurisdiction cannot make the findings required under paragraph 3, then the city or county must go through a refund procedure.

The Traffic Mitigation Fee, Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee, Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee, Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee, Storm Drain Fee, Parks Mitigation Fee, and Affordable Housing Fees that the City of Santa Clara (City) collects qualify as Development Impact Fees and therefore must comply with the above referenced Government Code Sections. The amount of each of these development impact fees for fiscal year 2020-21 is reflected in the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule, previously adopted by the City Council. The schedule is available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/67706/637257428199370000. As required by law, these fees are segregated and accounted for as Special Revenue Funds. Government Code Section 66001 requires the City to make available to the public certain information regarding these fees for each fund within 180 days after the end of each fiscal year. Accordingly, the following report is presented to the City Council for review.

The report is amended to reflect the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee omitted in the original report approved by Council in February 2022 as the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan efforts were underway. The activities summary for the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee from fiscal year 2016-17 through 2020-21 is on page 4 and the projects programmed for the impact fees held over five years are listed on page 11. 2 ANALYSIS
Using the accounting method known as first in, first out (FIFO), which means the first revenue received is assumed to be the first spent, staff analyzed the annual balances at the end of fiscal year 2020-21 to determine what portion, if any, of the balance was five or more years old. If a balance is more than five years old, a review of previously identified projects is undertaken to determine if any developer fees collected need to be refunded.

Many of the identified projects are already underway, and the City has appropriated funds for these projects as noted in the City’s FY2020-21and 2021-22 Biennial CIP Budget Book. The book is available at https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70351/637443319258630000. The identification of each Capital Project on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each Capital Project including the total percentage of the cost of the Capital Project that was funded with fees are detailed in Exhibit A.

Traffic Mitigation Fee
The Traffic Mitigation Fee is levied to fund improvements or programs to mitigate City traffic problems that result either directly or indirectly from development projects. To determine the traffic mitigation fees the City conducts a Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study. The most recent report was approved by Council August 21, 2018. The basis of Santa Clara’s traffic impact fee is the number of net new PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development. Those additional trips result in the traffic impacts the fee is intended to mitigate. The fee is calculated by dividing the total cost of the projects in the Traffic Mitigation Program by the number of additional PM peak hour trips generated by new development, which results in a “per PM peak hour trip” fee amount. For simplicity of application, this fee is then converted to a fee per square foot, per hotel room, or per dwelling unit, based on the trip generation rates in the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. The fee shall automatically adjust for inflation annually at the start of each fiscal year, based on the latest Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.

The following table summarizes the activity for the Traffic Mitigation Fund from 2016-17 through 2020-

21. Fund 123 & 533 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Beginning Balance 7,852,470 $ 8,711,428$ $ 8,448,382 $ 10,353,046 $ 10,448,972 Developer Fees 1,370,084 855,324 1,958,563 182,518 728,208 Interest Income 81,481 115,449 196,524 200,204 152,901
Expenditures (592,607) (1,233,819) (250,423) (286,796) (824,491) Ending Balance $ 8,711,428 $ 8,448,382 $ 10,353,046 $ 10,448,972 $ 10,505,590 During 2020-21, the City collected $728,208 of traffic mitigation fees, earned $152,901 from interest and incurred $824,491 of project expenditures. The grand total of the Traffic Impact Fee fund balance that is available at the end of 2020-21 is $10,505,590 of which $3,371,224 has been held for over five years.

Exhibit A identifies the projects that will make use of all unspent fees held over five years.

There is no impact on City resources since all qualified impact fees held by the City for over five years are either spent or committed, thus eliminating the need to refund any fees to developers according to Government Code Sections 66000, et seq.
3 Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee
The Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee is collected from developers to construct public sanitary sewer facilities.

City Council passed Ordinance 1778 on December 3, 2002 which created the sanitary sewer outlet charge which is used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of off-site sewerage facilities, and to repay principal and interest on bonds issued for the construction and reconstruction of such sewerage facilities. The fee shall automatically adjust for inflation annually at the start of each fiscal year, based on the latest Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.

The following table summarizes the activity for the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fees from 2016-17 through 2020-21.

Fund 594 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance (2,547,612) $ $ (2,075,945) $ (1,831,352) $ (1,588,864) $ (1,288,884) Developer Fees 471,667 244,593 242,488 299,980 199,286
Expenditures - - - - -
Ending Balance $ (2,075,945) $ (1,831,352) $ (1,588,864) $ (1,288,884) $ (1,089,598) The amount of developer fees collected in 2020-21 was $199,286. The outstanding balance in the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee Fund at the end of 2020-21 is ($1,089,598). Amounts have been transferred within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to make up the negative balance for Capital Projects financed with AB1600 development fees.

There is no impact on City resources since all qualified impact fees collected by the City have been spent, thus eliminating the need to refund any fees to developers according to Government Code Sections 66000-66003.

Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee
The Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee was adopted to improve and expand the sewer collection system.

City Council passed Ordinance 1428 on August 25, 1981 which created the sanitary sewer connection charge which is charged whenever a property is initially connected or requires an addition of a new connection to the sanitary sewer system. The fee is charged based on type of dwelling unit for residential (single family, duplex, condominium, etc.) and non-residential which charges based on connection size.

The fee shall automatically adjust for inflation annually at the start of each fiscal year, based on the latest Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.

The following table summarizes activity for the Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee from 2016-17 through 2020-21.

Fund 594 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance $ (38,526,561) $ (50,329,856) $ (74,240,874) $ (87,737,999) $ (116,641,597) Developer Fees 2,350,574 1,625,820 2,303,752 1,124,123 1,007,031 Expenditures (14,153,869) (25,536,838) (15,800,877) (30,027,721) (5,488,096) Refunded Expenditures - - - - 6,825,720
Ending Balance $ (50,329,856) $ (74,240,874) $ (87,737,999) $ (116,641,597) $ (114,296,942) During 2020-21, the City collected $1,007,031 from developer fees and spent $5,488,096 in construction project. The City received a cumulative $6,825,720 in construction refunds from the City of San Jose for the Joint Venture project, and the City reported this under a separate Refunded Expenditures line. The 4 current year deficit along with prior cumulative deficits brought the impact fee balance to ($114,296,942) as of 2020-21. Amounts have been transferred within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to make up the negative balance for Capital Projects financed with AB1600 development fees.

There is no impact on City resources since all qualified impact fees held by the City have been spent, thus eliminating the need to refund any fees to developers according to Government Code Sections 66000- 66003.

Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee
The Sewer Conveyance Fee was approved by City Council in June 2007 and is intended to mitigate development impacts to the City’s sanitary sewer conveyance system resulting from increases in the sanitary sewer discharges. The amount of Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee is based directly on the potential sewer discharge volumes of the proposed land uses. The fee was based on a Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment Report 2006, and subsequent update in 2016. The basis of Santa Clara’s sewer conveyance fee is sewer flow rate generated by the new development. The fee is calculated by dividing the total cost of the capacity improvement projects in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan or its predecessor reports by the total projected sanitary sewer flow rate generated by future developments, which results in a “per gallon per day (GPD)” fee amount. The per GPD fee multiplied by the estimated sanitary sewer flow rate (GPD) generated by a new development is the sanitary sewer conveyance fee for that new development.

The following table summarizes the activity for the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees from 2016-17 through 2020-21.

Fund 594 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance 13,737,225 $ 22,504,850 $ $ 26,847,028 $ 34,179,296 $ 38,232,186 Developer Fees 8,630,774 4,136,935 6,916,161 4,079,586 3,126,854 Interest Income 211,354 307,104 515,362 705,177 559,621 Expenditures (74,503) (101,861) (99,255) (731,873) (2,499,454) Ending Balance $22,504,850 $ 26,847,028 $34,179,296 $38,232,186 $39,419,207 The current year’s developer fees and interest income of $3,126,854 and $559,621 respectively, were partially offset by expenditures of $2,499,454. The net change resulted in a current balance of $39,419,207 of which $7,275,439 has been held for over five years. Exhibit A identifies the project that will make use of all unspent fees held over five years.

Storm Drain Fee
The Storm Drain Fee is levied to mitigate City storm drainage that results either directly or indirectly from development projects. The Storm Drain Outlet Fee is codified in the Santa Clara City Code Section

17.15.220 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains and was created for the purpose of defraying the estimated costs of constructing planned drainage facilities for removal of surface and storm waters from local drainage areas. The fee is charged based on the amount of acreage being developed with a project. The fee shall automatically adjust for inflation annually at the start of each fiscal year, based on the latest Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
5 The following table summarizes the activity for the Storm Drain Fees from 2016-17 through 2020-21.

Fund 535 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance 552,889$ 555,070$ 626,783$ 586,578$ 613,299$ Developer Fees 10,375 67,194 5,749 15,409 27,903
Interest Income 5,213 4,760 8,845 11,312 9,233
Expenditures (13,407) (241) (54,799) - -
Ending Balance $555,070 $626,783 $586,578 $613,299 $650,435 During 2020-21, the City collected $27,903 from developer fees and earned $9,233 from interest. The grand total of the Storm Drain Fees that is available at the end of 2020-21 is $650,435 of which $240,903 has been held for over five years. Exhibit A identifies the projects that will make use of all unspent fees held over five years.

Parks Mitigation Fee
The Parks Mitigation Fee was adopted in fiscal year 2014-15 and went into effect for the 2016-17 fiscal year. Fees received can be used to provide (acquire) public parkland and/or make necessary park improvements according to the restrictions of the Mitigation Fee Act and help the City to address its park, recreation and open space needs The City of Santa Clara completed a Parks & Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Study in 2014 and in 2019 that were reviewed and approved by the City Council after community and stakeholder public comment hearings. These reports provide the necessary findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and Quimby Act for the adoption of the fees by Council resolution contained in the Municipal Fee Schedule. These reports provide the facility cost and land acquisition cost data and analysis and describe the methodology for calculation of the fees.

The parks and recreation facilities fees use an existing inventory demand standard translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development’s fair share of planned facility costs. A cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. New residential development would fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing residential development has provided facilities to date. The City uses the existing ratio of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. In 2010 the standard was 2.45. The current standard is 2.60. (Quimby Act allows 3.0 acres/1,000 resident Standard).

The formula to calculate the cost per capita of providing new park facilities involves the following variables: (A) the value per acre of parkland by Zip Code Area of the City (95050, 90551, and 95054) as established by annual appraisal; (B) the Level of Service standard (parkland acres per 1,0000 residents); (C) Cost per 1,000 Capita; (D) cost per capita; (F) Development land use type density per household (Single Family = 2.98, Multifamily = 2.40); (G) the per capita value of parkland improvements, and (H) a 2% in lieu fee program administrative charge. The formula used is C = A x B, D = C/1,000. This cost per capita for parkland (D), and the cost per capita for improvements (G), are each multiplied by the density of development type (F): D x F + G x F = Base Fee (E). The administrative fee (H) is then added to the Base Fee (E) for the “Total Fee” (I) for each Zip Code Area: H + E = I.

The calculation tables are provided in the in-Lieu Fee Resolution adopted by Council and posted on the City website and incorporated into the Municipal Fee Schedule. Based on the date the resident 6 developer’s Project application is deemed complete, the total parkland due can be calculated, the developed parkland dedicated, and credits deducted for eligible on-site recreational amenities.

The following table summarizes the activity for the Parks Mitigation Fee from 2016-17 through 2020-21.

Fund 532 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance -$ 13,505,806 $ $ 10,545,074 $ 5,261,415 $ 10,771,523 Developer Fees 14,780,447 - 268,091 7,159,545 1,522,149 Interest Income 90,301 147,253 111,431 176,942 110,320
Expenditures (1,364,942) (3,107,985) (5,663,181) (1,826,379) (3,466,274) Ending Balance $13,505,806 $10,545,074 $ 5,261,415 $10,771,523 $ 8,937,718 During 2020-21, the City collected $1,533,149 for Park Mitigation fees, earned $110,320 from interest, and incurred $3,466,274 of project expenditures. The grand total of the Parks Mitigation Fee that is available at the end of 2020-21 is $8,937,718. There are no fees that have been held over five years.

Affordable Housing Fee
The Affordable Housing Fee was adopted to mitigate the impacts of new market-rate housing development and non-residential development on the need for affordable housing, in addition to assisting in meeting the City’s share of the region’s housing need and implementing the goals, policies and actions specified in the Housing Element of the general plan. City Council passed Ordinance 1974 on December 5, 2017 which established the affordable housing fee applicable to residential and nonresidential projects and to encourage the development of rental housing and as well as smaller units that may be more affordable by design. The fee established are significantly lower than the amount needed to fully mitigate the impacts of the new for-sale and rental resident projects and non-residential project on the need for affordable housing. The fees shall automatically adjust for inflation annually using the Engineering News Record McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly Building Index for San Francisco.

The following table summarizes the activity for the Affordable Housing Fee from 2016-17 through 2020-

21. Fund 565 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Beginning Balance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Developer Fees - - - - 130,201
Interest Income - - - - 1,083
Expenditures - - - - -
Ending Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 131,284
During 2020-21, the City collected $130,201 from developer fees and earned $1,083 from interest. The grand total of the Affordable Housing Fees that is available at the end of 2020-21 is $131,284. There are no fees that have been held over five years.
7 There is no impact on City resources since all qualified impact fees collected by the City have been spent, thus eliminating the need to refund any fees to developers according to Government Code Sections 66000-66003.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Public notification was achieved by posting the availability of the report 15 days prior to the meeting, as required by Government Code Section 66006(b)(2).

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Summary of Development Impact Fees
8 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Streets and Highways (Fund 123 & 533)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,448,972
Fees Collected 728,208
Interest Earned 152,901Expenditures (824,491)
FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,505,590
Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 7,134,366Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ 3,371,224Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ 6,939,452 Project
# Description
Project Status/
Estimated
Completion Year
Total Project
Appropriation All
Funding Sources
Funding
Status
% Impact
Fee Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
1206 Pruneridge Ave-Lawrence Expwy Bicycle Lanes Improvement 2021 $ 575,000 100% 20% $ 115,000 $ 15,411 $ 99,589 $ 15,411 1214 Coleman Avenue Widening 2021 115,747 100% 0% 79 79 - - 1215 Sidewalk Installation Program 2021 143,955 100% 21% 30,208 30,208 - - 1216 Traffic Studies and Signal Needs Assessment/Upgrade Ongoing 500,000 100% 64% 320,000 222,280 97,720 67,930 1217 Central Control Traffic Signal Upgrade 2022 3,019,800 100% 88% 2,647,871 1,572,357 1,075,514 39,616 1218 Traffic Pre-Emptors 2022 1,295,259 100% 93% 1,208,104 508,601 699,503 2,999 1219 Traffic Signal Enhancements Ongoing 734,141 100% 100% 734,141 572,051 162,090 42,047 1220 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancement Facilities Ongoing 2,759,954 100% 86% 2,359,954 1,378,452 981,502 - 1221 Traffic Monitoring at Various Locations- Phase "C" 2021 123,783 100% 100% 123,783 123,783 - - 1222 Citywide Accessible Pedestrian Signal Installation Ongoing 200,000 100% 100% 200,000 11,623 188,377 391 1224 Traffic Signal Replacement - ECR-Lafayette, Homestead, Scott Area 2029 860,510 100% 0% 2,510 2,510 - - 1232 Traffic Signal Interconnect Upgrade 2025 244,560 100% 41% 100,000 14,491 85,509 14,491 1233 Pedestrian Master Plan 2021 307,135 100% 9% 27,921 - 27,921 - 1234 Travel Demand Model Update Ongoing 216,700 100% 92% 200,000 16,700 183,300 16,700 1236 Traffic Signal Modification 2021 8,160 100% 87% 7,100 7,100 - - 1237 MCB/GAP Intersection Improvement 2021 8,368,124 100% 40% 3,330,400 1,623,243 1,707,157 383,175 1238 Pedestrian Crosswalk Sensors 2021 300,000 100% 100% 300,000 - 300,000 - 1242 ntersection Improvement- ECR at San Thomas Phase B 2021 2,843,588 100% 66% 1,886,041 1,683,590 202,451 - 1245 Benton Bike Lane 2021 1,726,000 100% 10% 172,000 129,810 42,190 129,810 1248 Pruneridge Ave-Complete Street Plan 2021 416,347 100% 22% 90,270 - 90,270 - 1249 Multimodal Improvement Plan 2021 740,000 100% 32% 238,280 - 238,280 - 1251 HAWK Beacon Scott and Harrison 2021 750,000 100% 73% 544,000 12,340 531,660 12,340 1253 Saratoga Bike Lane 2021 71,000 100% 46% 32,500 32,500 - 32,500 1261 Santa Clara School Access Improvements 2022 200,000 100% 100% 200,000 67,081 132,919 67,081 1262 Scott-Benton Traffic Signal Timing 2022 165,000 100% 17% 28,500 - 28,500 - 1376 Vehicle Emission Reduction Ongoing 65,000 100% 100% 65,000 - 65,000 - Totals $ 26,749,763 $ 14,963,662 $ 8,024,210 $ 6,939,452 $ 824,491 Traffic Mitigation Fee (Fund 123 and 533)
Traffic Mitigation Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
9 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee (Fund 594)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ (1,288,884)Fees Collected 199,286 Interest Earned - Expenditures - FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ (1,089,598)Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 1,478,409Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ - Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ - Project # Description
Project
Status
Total Project
Appropriation
All Funding
Sources
Funding
Status
% Impact
Fee
Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining (1)
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
1907 Development Extensions Ongoing $ 220,445 100% 100% 220,445 1,310,043 $ (1,089,598) $ - Note (1) Amounts have been transferred within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to make up the negative balance for Capital Projects financed with AB1600 Development Fees Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee (Fund 594)
Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
10 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee (Fund 594)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ (116,641,597)
Fees Collected 1,007,031
Prior Years Construction Adjustments 6,825,720
Expenditures (5,488,096)
FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ (114,296,942)
Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 9,749,718 Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ - Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ - Project # Description
Project
Status
Total Project
Appropriation
All Funding
Sources
Funding
Status
% Impact
Fee Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining (1)
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
1908 S.J.- S.C. Regional Wastewater Facility Ongoing $ 162,556,977 100% 7% 12,172,057 126,468,999 $ (114,296,942) $ 5,488,096 Note (1) Amounts have been transferred within the Sewer Enterprise Operating Fund and Debt Service Fund to make up the negative balance for Capital Projects financed with AB1600 Development Fees There were no interfund loans.
(2)
Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee (Fund 594)
Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
The constrcution refunds from City of San Jose were not reported as reduction of the expenditures from FY2017-18 through FY2019-20. The refund in amount of $6,825,720 was adjusted in FY2020-21. 11 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee (Fund 594)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ 38,232,186
Fees Collected 3,126,854Interest Earned 559,621
Expenditures (2,499,454)FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ 39,419,207 Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 32,143,768 Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ 7,275,439Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ 19,275,954 Project
# Description
Project
Status
Total Project
Appropriation
All Funding
Sources
Funding
Status
% Impact
Fee
Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
1909 Sanitary Sewer Capacity Improvements Ongoing $ 30,013,640 100% 100% $ 30,013,640 $ 11,024,937 $ 18,988,703 $ 2,320,182 1919 Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Modeling As Needed Support Ongoing 973,636 100% 48% 466,523 179,272 287,251 179,272 Totals $ 30,987,276 $ 30,480,163 $ 11,204,209 $ 19,275,954 $ 2,499,454 Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee (Fund 594)
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
12 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Storm Drain Fee (Fund 535)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ 613,299
Fees Collected 27,903
Interest Earned 9,233
Expenditures - FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ 650,435 Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 409,532 Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ 240,903
Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ 278,469
Project
# Description
Project
Status
Total Project
Appropriation
All Funding
Sources
Funding
Status
%
Impact
Fee
Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
1831 Miscellaneous Storm Drain Improvements Ongoing $ 316,577 100% 32% 100,000 - 100,000 $ - 1834* Storm Drain System Improvement Ongoing 100% 100% 425,374 425,374 392,106 33,268 - 1835 Storm Drain Outfall Reconstruction Program Ongoing 1,673,000 100% 39% 650,000 504,799 145,201 - Totals $ 2,414,951 $ 1,175,374 $ 896,905 278,469 $ -
Storm Drain Fee (Fund 535)
Storm Drain Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
13 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Parks Mitigation Fee (Fund 532)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,771,523Fees Collected 1,522,149 Interest Earned 110,320
Expenditures (3,466,274)FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ 8,937,718 Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 24,366,479Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ - Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ 5,576,448 Project
# Description
Project
Status/
Estimated
Completion
Year
Total Project
Appropriation All
Funding Sources
Funding
Status
% Impact
Fee Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
3001 Misc. Park Improvements Ongoing $ 2,265,374 100% 26% $ 591,400 591,400 $ 391,400 - $ 3136 Westwood Oaks Park Playground Rehabilitatiion 2023 1,149,800 100% 100% 1,149,800 1,149,800 - - 3177 Youth Soccer Fields & Athletic Facilities 2021 45,251,768 100% 22% 10,032,925 9,989,884 43,041 2,569,886 3178 Playground Construction 2022 4,335,275 100% 21% 920,121 920,121 339,886 - 3181 Park Impact Fees Monitoring Project Ongoing 1,148,791 100% 73% 834,019 343,352 490,667 49,471 3184 Montague Park Enhancement 2022 4,290,000 100% 100% 4,290,000 397,060 3,892,940 115,631 Totals $ 58,441,008 $ 17,818,265 $ 12,241,817 $ 5,576,448 $ 3,466,274 Parks Mitigation Fee (Fund 532)
Parks Mitigation Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
14 Exhibit A
City of Santa ClaraSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Affordable Housing Fee (Fund 565)
FY 2019-20 Ending Fund Balance $ -Fees Collected 130,201Interest Earned 1,083 Expenditures - FY 2020-21 Ending Fund Balance $ 131,284 Funds Accumulated in Current and Last 5 Years $ 131,284Funds Held Longer than 5 Years $ - Projects Programmed for Impact Fees $ - Project # Description
Project
Status
Total Project
Appropriation
All Funding
Sources
Funding
Status
%
Impact
Fee
Funded
Total Impact
Fee
Appropriation
Total Impact
Fee
Expenditures
Impact Fee
Appropriation
Remaining (1)
FY 2020-21
Impact Fee
Expenditure
Affordable Housing Fee (Fund 565)
Affordable Housing Fee
Since Inception Date Through June 30, 2021
Resolution/AB1600 Amended Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Rev: 11/22/21
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING THE AMENDED AB1600 REPORT ON

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2021 AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE

CONTINUING NEED FOR UNEXPENDED BALANCES OF
IMPACT FEES AS OF JUNE 30, 2021
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66000 and following (commonly known as, and referenced herein as, “AB1600”) regulate the imposition, collection, maintenance, expenditure and reporting of impact fees imposed on developers for the purpose of defraying costs of public facilities;
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (“City”) has identified seven (7) impact fees collected from developers that are subject to AB1600’s requirements. Those funds are the Traffic Mitigation Fee (Funds 123/533), the Sanitary Sewer Outlet Fee (Fund 594), the Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee (Fund 594), the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee (Fund 594), the Storm Drain Fee (Fund 535), the Parks Mitigation Fee (Fund 532) and the Affordable Housing Fee (Fund 565);
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of AB1600, the City has set up separate special revenue funds for each type of fee, crediting earned interest to those funds, and spending the accumulated fees and related interest on appropriate expenditures; WHEREAS, the City has prepared an annual report for fiscal year 2020-21 in accordance with AB1600, “AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021,” reflecting the beginning and ending balances of each separate fund containing impact fees; the amount of fees collected and the interest earned for the year; the amount of expenditures and refunds made in the year; the percentage of expenditures paid for by fees; and a description of the type of fees. The amount of each of these development impact fees for FY 2020-21 is reflected in the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule, previously adopted by this Council; Resolution/AB1600 Amended Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Rev: 11/22/21
WHEREAS, a copy of the annual report has been on file and available for review in the City Clerk’s Office and the Finance Department at Santa Clara City Hall, and online at Santaclaraca.gov/Finance since January 14, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an amended annual report for fiscal year 2020-21 in accordance with AB1600, “Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021,” to include the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee that had originally been omitted while master planning efforts were underway.

WHEREAS, a copy of the amended annual report has been on file and available for review in the City Clerk’s Office and the Finance Department at Santa Clara City Hall, and online at Santaclaraca.gov/Finance since July 29, 2022;
WHEREAS, AB1600 requires the City to make specific findings every five (5) years with respect to any portion of the fees remaining unexpended or uncommitted after a period of five (5) years to 1) identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, 2) demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, 3) identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the improvement, and 4) designate the approximate date on which such funding will be available; WHEREAS, the Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee, which was established for the purpose of providing a source of funding for traffic improvements, contains some fee revenues which were received more than five (5) years ago. The sum of $3,371,224 representing fees and accrued interest collected for traffic mitigation remains unexpended five (5) or more years after deposit of the fees;
WHEREAS, the Storm Drain Fee, which was established for the purpose of mitigating storm drainage that results directly or indirectly from development projects, contains some fee revenues which were received more than five (5) years ago. The sum of $240,903 representing fees and accrued interest collected for storm drainage mitigation remains unexpended five (5) or more years after deposit of the fees;
Resolution/AB1600 Amended Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Rev: 11/22/21
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee, which was established for the purpose of mitigating sanitary sewer conveyance load that results directly or indirectly from development projects, contains some fee revenues which were received more than five (5) years ago. The sum of $7,275,439 representing fees and accrued interest collected for sewer conveyance mitigation remains unexpended five (5) or more years after deposit of the fees; WHEREAS, the City desires to make the findings required by law with respect to these unexpended fees.

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

1. That the City Council hereby accepts the attached Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021 (“Amended Report”), and makes the following findings:

A. The Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee revenues are to be used to construct traffic improvements needed by new development. The amount of the fee for different land use types is proportionate to the need for traffic improvements generated by such land use types. This fee is still necessary as several projects are tied to larger development projects that have yet to occur. These development projects are still anticipated to take place based on the City’s General Plan. The traffic mitigation fee is set at a lower rate than justified, and as a result projects are underfunded. This has also slowed down progress on projects resulting in some project costs increasing. Periodically, as the City updates the General Plan and as new development occurs, additional improvement projects are identified and added to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Project List.

B. The portion of the $10,505,590 fund balance in the Traffic Mitigation Fund that was at least five (5) years old as of June 30, 2021, totals $3,371,24. The City will use the entire fund balance for the projects identified in Exhibit A of the Amended Report which are programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Traffic Mitigation Fund has projects Resolution/AB1600 Amended Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Rev: 11/22/21
scheduled in the current Capital Improvement Plan for the next five (5) years and depends upon additional fees and interest each year. Projects identified in Exhibit A which are funded at less than 100% with Traffic Mitigation Impact fees are funded by other sources totaling $11,786,101.

Remaining appropriations totaling $8,316,545 from the other sources are as follows:

Reimbursable Grants $440,232; Bonds Proceeds $1,484,476; Curb Sidewalk Fee $376,003, Measure B $271,626, Electric Utility Contribution $430,553; Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee $707,720, General Fund $1,400,000, and Developer Contributions $3,205,935. All payments have been received and are available except the Reimbursable Grants. The City expects to receive Grant repayments in fiscal year 2020-21.

C. The Storm Drain Impact Fee revenues are to be used to mitigate City storm drainage that results either directly or indirectly from development projects. The amount of the fee is proportionate to the need for storm drainage improvements generated by development projects. This fee is still necessary as several storm drain projects are tied to larger development projects that have yet to occur. These development projects are still anticipated to take place based on the City’s General Plan. As new development occurs, additional improvement projects are identified and added to the Storm Drain Impact Fee Project List.

D. The portion of the $650,435 fund balance in the Storm Drain Impact Fee Fund that was at least five (5) years old as of June 30, 2021, totals $240,903. The City will use the entire fund balance for the projects identified in Exhibit A of the Amended Report which are programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Storm Drain Impact Fee Fund has projects scheduled in the current Capital Improvement Plan for the next five (5) years and depends upon additional fees and interest each year. The project identified in Exhibit A which is funded at less than 100% with Storm Drain Impact Fees is funded by the General Fund Capital Project Reserve (CPR) totaling $1,239,577. The remaining appropriation from the CPR is $564,519.

E. The Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee was adopted in 2006-07 to address Sewer Main capacity deficiencies resulting from increased development.

Resolution/AB1600 Amended Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Rev: 11/22/21
F. The portion of the $39,419,207 fund balance in the Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees Fund that was at least five (5) years old as of June 30, 2021, totals $7,275,439. The City will use the entire fund balance for the projects identified in Exhibit A of the Amended Report which are programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee has projects scheduled in the current Capital Improvement Plan for the next five (5) years and depends upon additional fees and interest each year. These projects are entirely funded by this fee and do not receive funding from any other sources.

2. 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 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Amended AB1600 Report on Development Impact Fees FYE June 30, 2021 1 AMENDED
AB1600 REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
For Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021