Mountain View City Council
October 25, 2022

1. Introduction and Project
Description
This report presents the results of the Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) for the 334 San Antonio Road located in Mountain View, California. This chapter discusses the MTA purpose, Project description, study area, analysis scenarios and methods, and report organization.

Purpose
The purpose of the MTA is to 1) assess the Project’s consistency with transportation and parking policy and design elements of the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) and other City policies highlighted in the Multi-Modal Transportation Handbook, and 2) perform a multimodal site access analysis of the Project’s effect on the transportation network. This analysis accomplishes the following:
• Describes the Existing Conditions of the roadway system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service near the Project site (Chapter 2);
• Determines the Project’s consistency with transportation and parking policy and design elements of the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) (Chapter 3);
• Assesses multimodal site access using the analysis from the SAPP Transportation Impact Analysis (Chapter 4);
• Summarizes the site’s trip generation (Chapter 5);
• Evaluates Existing and Project Conditions for potential traffic calming improvements (Chapter 6); • Reviews the operations of pedestrians (Chapter 7), bicyclists (Chapter 8), and transit (Chapter 9); and
• Determines the Project’s proposed vehicular and bicycle parking supply’s consistency with the City of Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinances (Chapter 10).

This report is organized based on the guidance in the City of Mountain View’s Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis (MTA) Handbook and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Although listed in the City of Mountain View’s MTA Handbook, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is not necessary for this report. The Project meets the City of Mountain View’s VMT map-based and transit screening criteria and is thus exempt from VMT analysis.

Project Description
This Project will demolish an existing 8 fueling position gas station and auto repair shop and construct a new five-story, 62-unit residential mixed-use building with 2,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project will also include two-levels of below-grade parking for a total of 97 new parking spaces. The Project study area is presented in Figure 1 and the Project site plan is presented in Figure 2.         
    
  
 
        



v
š
Œ

o

Æ
‰
Ç
t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ
x


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}

]
Œ


o

^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}




o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š



oD



]
}
À


v
µ

^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


1 ?3URMHFWV?B6-B3URMHFWV?6-BBB6DQB$QWRQLRB07$?*UDSKLFV?*,6?0;'?6-BBPF?6-BDSU[ 6WXG\$UH
3URMHFW6LWH
6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ$UHD
&LW\%RXQGDULHV
)LJXUH
  
0LOHV
Site Plan
Figure 2
SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig02_Site_Plan.ai
Source: Architecture Plans, January 21, 2022 (Page 10)
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project is within the SAPP area and is in the southwest quadrant of the San Antonio Road and California Street intersection. The Project is located approximately half of a mile (walking distance) from the closest Caltrain commuter rail station.

Study Area
With the vehicle trip generation being negative (refer to Chapter 5), the study area is defined as the Project frontage and the direct walking/bicycling paths to the nearest Caltrain stop and bus stops.

Report Organization
This report is divided into six sections and fourteen additional chapters as described below:
• City Policy Conformance and Existing Conditions
◦ Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions describes the transportation system near the Project site, including the surrounding street network, and existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.
◦ Chapter 3 – City Policy Conformance lists the City of Mountain View General Plan polices, and City-specific land use and transportation plan goals, policies, standards, and federal, state, regional, and county jurisdictions plans that could be affected by this Project. The city policy conformance assessment evaluates if the Project would conflict with such plans and policies.
• Site Access and Circulation
◦ Chapter 4 – Site Access and Circulation describes Project access and circulation for all travel modes. This evaluation focuses on accessibility for all users, multimodal access and circulation, existing street facilities, emergency vehicle access, and loading areas for various vehicle types.
• Motor Vehicle Operations Analysis
◦ Chapter 5 – Motor Vehicle Trip Generation describes the trip generation methods and assumptions used to determine whether further operations analysis would be required. ◦ Chapter 6 – Traffic Calming Analysis evaluates for potential traffic calming improvements associated with the Existing Conditions, which could include connections to nearby parks, schools, as well as transit stations and stops. • Active Transportation and Transit Operations Analysis ◦ Chapter 7 – Pedestrian Operations provides supplemental pedestrian facilities analysis by highlighting the pedestrian transportation improvements described in the San Antonio Precise Plan area near the Project site and summarizing the potential increase in 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

pedestrian activity due to this Project. This chapter also summarizes accessible paths from streets to building entrances for this Project and a walk shed analysis for this Project site. ◦ Chapter 8 – Bicycle Operations provides supplemental bicycle facilities analysis by highlighting the bicycle transportation improvements described in the San Antonio Precise Plan area near the Project site and summarizing the potential increase in bicycle activity due to this Project. This chapter also summarizes a bicycle shed analysis for this Project site.
◦ Chapter 9 – Transit Operations provides supplemental transit facilities analysis by highlighting the transit improvements described in the San Antonio Precise Plan area near the Project site and summarizing the potential increase in transit activity due to this Project. This chapter also summarizes transit access to/from the Project site. • Parking Assessment
◦ Chapter 10 – Parking describes the existing parking facilities and conditions, and the Project’s parking supply. The Project parking supply is summarized and compare to the parking requirements.

Criteria for Determining Adverse Effects
The criteria for determining adverse effects are presented in the Multi-Modal Transportation Handbook (City of Mountain View, February 2021) and summarized in Table 1. The Motor Vehicle Operations and Heavy Vehicle Operations criteria are omitted because of the estimated negative trip generation between the existing land use and future land use.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Table 1: Criteria for Determining Adverse Effects and Operational Deficiencies Criteria # Determination of Adverse Effect or Operational Deficiency Site Access and Circulation
1 Project designs for pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile on-site circulation, access, loading, and parking areas fail to meet City or industry standard design practices.
2 The project fails to provide adequate accessibility for services and delivery trucks on-site, including access to truck loading areas.

Traffic Calming and Neighborhood Intrusion
3 A project meets the threshold set by the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). 4 Traffic calming devices or other traffic control is identified in an adopted plan. 5 In conformance with the City’s Vision Zero Policy, projects proactively implement traffic calming devices to meet the City’s multi-modal and safety goals.

Pedestrian Operations
6 The project fails to provide accessible and safe pedestrian connections between buildings and adjacent streets and transit facilities.
7 A project disrupts existing or planned pedestrian facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.
8 The project adds trips to an existing transportation facility (e.g., sidewalk) that does not meet current design standards. 9 The project increases vehicle trips to a roadway with a Pedestrian Quality of Service (PQOS) score of 3 or more.

Bicycle Operations
10 The project disrupts existing or planned bicycle facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.
11 The project adds trips to an existing transportation facility (e.g., bikeway) that does not meet current design standards.

The project increases vehicle trips to a roadway with a BLTS score of 3 or 4. 12 The project does not connect to the City’s low-stress (LTS 1 to 2) bike network.

Transit Operations
13 A project decreases the number of housing or jobs within one-half mile of existing active transit stop or transit corridor. This applies to all active transit stops in Mountain View. 14 The project disrupts existing or planned transit facilities and services or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Parking
15 The project increases off-site parking demand in the project area. 16 The project proposes more parking than allowed by the City's Zoning Code. 17 The project parking results in significant spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. 18 Parking reduction—requires parking study to demonstrate effective parking management and adequate parking to serve project.

Note: Adverse effect criteria that do not apply to this project are not summarized in this table.

Source: City of Mountain View MTA Handbook – Version 1.0 (February 2021), Table 4. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Existing Conditions and City
Policy Conformance
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the Existing Conditions of the roadway system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service near the Project site.

Existing Street System
US 101, El Camino Real, and San Antonio Road provide regional access to the Project site. The following streets provide local access: Middlefield Road, Central Expressway, California Street, Showers Drive, Del Medio Avenue, and San Antonio Circle. Each access facility is described below in more detail.

US 101 is a north-south freeway located north of the Project site with five travel lanes in each direction.

Two travel lanes in each direction are designated as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, beginning approximately 1 mile north (near Oregon Expressway) of the study area through the US 101/SR 85 interchange. One HOV lane and four travel lanes in each direction are present outside of this area in Santa Clara County between East Bayshore Road (in Redwood City) and Cochrane Road (in Morgan Hill). HOV lanes, also known as diamond or carpool lanes, are limited to use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons Monday through Friday between 5:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM. US 101 extends north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. Access to the Project site from US 101 is via San Antonio Road.

El Camino Real/SR 82 is a six-lane north-south (alignment is east-west in the Project area) major arterial that extends from The Alameda in Santa Clara to Market Street in Daly City. El Camino Real is parallel to US 101 and I-280 provides a connection between cities. El Camino Real provides access to residential, commercial and office developments. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

San Antonio Road is a two- to six-lane, north-south arterial road that extends from Foothill Expressway in the south (within Los Altos) to the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. San Antonio Road provides access to residential, commercial and office developments. The posted speed limit near the Project site is 35 mph.

Middlefield Road is a four-lane, east-west arterial street that extends from Central Expressway to SR 85, as West Middlefield Road from SR 85 to San Antonio Road, and as Middlefield Road from San Antonio Road to Jefferson Avenue in Redwood City. Middlefield Road provides access to local residential streets as well as to light industrial and commercial developments. The posted speed limit on Middlefield Road within the Project area is 35 mph.

Central Expressway is a four- to six-lane east-west expressway which extends from the City of Santa Clara in the east to San Antonio Road in the west where it continues as Alma Street into the City of Palo Alto. In Mountain View, it runs on the north side of the Caltrain railroad tracks with limited connections to the south side of the railroad tracks at Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard, Shoreline Boulevard, and Rengstorff 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Avenue. Central Expressway has limited access to adjacent parcels because it is designed as an expressway. The posted speed limit on Central Expressway is 45 mph.

California Street is a four-lane local street adjacent to the Project site that extends between Del Medio Avenue to the west and Bush Street to the east. California Street provides access to residential, commercial, and office developments. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Showers Drive is a four-lane local street to the east of the Project site that extends north from El Camino Real to become San Antonio Circle where it crosses underneath San Antonio Road. Showers Drive provides access to residential and commercial developments. The posted speed limit near the Project site is 35 mph.

Del Medio Avenue is a two-lane local street to the west of the Project site that extends north from El Camino Real and ends just before Alma Street. Del Medio Avenue provides access to residential developments. The posted speed limit near the Project site is 25 mph.

San Antonio Circle is a two-lane local street to the north of the Project site that extends north from San Antonio Road to become Showers Drive where it crosses underneath San Antonio Road. San Antonio Circle provides access to residential, and commercial developments. The posted speed limit near the Project site is 35 mph.

Existing Truck Routes
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code section 19.60 designates truck routes within the City limits.

The designated truck routes within the study area are: Central Expressway, El Camino Real, and San Antonio Road.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Both San Antonio Road and California Street have sidewalks that are 6 to 10 feet wide and in good condition along the Project site frontage. All major intersections near the Project site have crosswalks.

The locations of the existing pedestrian facilities are shown on Figure 3.         
    
  
 
        
x
6DQ$QWRQLR
&DOWUDLQ
6WDWLRQ
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}

]
Œ


o

D
]
o
o


Œ
À

E^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z



o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š

o
u
^
š
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z

t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z




oD



]
}
À

K
Œ
š


P

À

D
}
v
Œ
}


Œ
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}
À




v>
}
u
}
v

Œ
&


Œ
v


À




oD
}
v
š


À

>
}
µ

l
•
À

W

•
Z
}

o


•
À

D

Œ



o
ot
Ç
D


Œ






•
À

>

š
Z

u^
š
6-B)LJB([LVWLQJB3HGHVWULDQB)DFLOLWLHV
([LVWLQJ3HGHVWUL
)LJXUH
  
0LOHV
3URMHFW6LWH
6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ$UHD
&LW\%RXQGDULHV &URVVZDONV
6LGHZDONV
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Existing Bicycle Network
The four classes of bicycle facilities in Mountain View are described in the Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (MVBTP Update, 2015). These descriptions are based on California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) classifications of bikeways from California Assembly Bill 1193 and the Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design). Each bikeway class is intended to provide bicyclists with enhanced riding conditions. Bikeways offer various levels of separation from traffic based on traffic volume and speed, among other factors. The four bikeway types and appropriate contexts for each are presented below.

Class I Bikeway (Shared Use Path) Shared-use paths, sometimes referred to as multi-use paths, provide a separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal roadway crossings. In general, bike paths are along corridors not served by streets or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow them to be constructed away from the influence of vehicles.

Mountain View has many such paths located along creeks and the light rail line. Class I Bikeways can also offer opportunities not provided by the road system by serving recreational areas and/or desirable commuter routes.

Class II Bikeways (On-Street Bike Lanes) Bike lanes provide a striped lane, pavement markings, and signage for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are typically five (5) feet wide, although wider lanes are desirable on roadways with high traffic volumes and/or high travel speeds. The VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (December 2007) recommends that Caltrans standards regarding bicycle lane dimensions be used as a minimum and provides supplemental information and guidance on when and how to better accommodate the many types of bicyclists. Bike lanes may be enhanced with painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections).
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Class IIIa Bikeways (Bike Routes) Bike routes maybe identified on a local residential or collector street when the travel lane is wide enough, and the traffic volume is low enough to allow both cyclists and motor vehicles to share a lane and/or to provide continuity to a bikeway network. Shared-use arrows or “sharrows” are common striping treatments for bike routes.

Class IIIb Bikeways (Bike Boulevards) Bicycle boulevards provide further enhancements to bike routes to encourage slow speeds and discourage non-local vehicle traffic via traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and/or speed tables. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other bikeways.

Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeway) Separated bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic.

Separated bikeways were recently adopted by Caltrans in 2015. Types of separation may include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Under California Law, bicyclists are allowed to use all roadways in California unless posted otherwise.

Therefore, even for roadways that have no (or planned) bikeway designation identified; a majority are open for cycling.

Under Existing Conditions, both California Street and San Antonio Road, south of the intersection with California Street, feature Class II facilities. The locations of the existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 4.
6KRUHOLQH
DW0WQ
9LHZ3DUN
        
    
  
 
        



u
‰
Z
]
š
Z



š
Œ

W
l
Á
Ç


Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ

>
}
µ
]
•Z


o
u
^
š


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š

o
u
^
š E^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z

tD
]


o


.


o
Z


Œ

•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z

^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ
&


]

vt
Ç
EZ


v
P
•
š
}
Œ
+
À

K
o
D
]


o


.


o
t
Ç


Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ

D
]



o

.



o
Z


o


u
]
v
}t
Ç

D




}
Á
Œ
t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š


Ç
•
Z
}
Œ

W
l
Á
Ç
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z

t

o


u
]
v
}Z


o
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
 


oD



]
}
À

t
Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ

>
}
u

s

Œ




À

t

o


u
]
v
}Z



o
>
}
•
o
š
}
•
À

x
D
]
o
o


Œ
À

D
]
o
o


Œ
À

^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}
]
Œ

o

6-B)LJB([LVWLQJB%LNHB)DFLOLWLHV
([LVWLQJ%LNH)
3URMHFW6LWH
6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ$UHD
([LVWLQJ%LNHZD\V
&ODVV,7UDLOV
&ODVV,,%LNH/DQHV
&ODVV,,,%LNH5RXWHV %LNH%RXOHYDUGV
)LJXUH
  
0LOHV
1RWH
1R&ODVV,9ELNHODQHVDUHZLWKLQWKHDUHD
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Existing Transit Service
Bus and light rail service in Mountain View are operated by the VTA. Commuter rail service (Caltrain) is operated from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board. The Mountain View Community Shuttle is operated jointly by the City of Mountain View and Google. MVgo is operated by the Mountain View Transportation Management Association, a nonprofit organization established and funded by various Mountain View businesses and landowners. Table 2 summarizes the existing transit services for the Project. The bus routes, bus stops, LRT line, LRT stations, and Caltrain station are illustrated on Figure 5. The Project site is located an approximately 1,800 feet (approximately a sevenminute walk), via San Antonio Road and Showers Drive, from the San Antonio Caltrain Station Table 2: Existing Transit Services
Route1 From To
Weekdays Weekends
Operating Hours
Peak
Headway2
(minutes)
Operating Hours Headway2
(minutes)
VTA Bus Service
21 Stanford
Shopping Center
Santa Clara
Transit Center 5:30 AM – 9:00 PM 30
8:30 AM-7:20 PM Sat
(9:30 AM-6:20 PM
Sun)
60 22 Palo Alto Transit
Center
Eastridge
Transit Center 4:10 AM – 3:00 AM 15
4:55 AM-3:00 AM Sat
(5:00 AM-2:00 AM
Sun)
15 40 Foothill College Mountain View
Transit Center 6:15 AM – 10:30 PM 30
8:20 AM-6:35 PM Sat
(9:00 AM-6:00 PM
Sun)
50 Sat
(45 Sun)
522 Palo Alto Transit
Center
Eastridge
Transit Center 5:20 AM – 11:15 PM 15
5:55 AM-11:25 PM
Sat (5:55 AM – 10:25
PM)
20 Sat (20
Sun
Mountain View Community Shuttle
Mountain View
Community
Shuttle
Loop throughout the City of
Mountain View 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM 30 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM 60 MVgo Routes
C/D
Loop throughout the City of
Mountain View (including North
Bayshore via Charleston Road)3
6:35 AM – 10:45 AM
and
2:50 PM – 8:00 PM
10-40
6:35 AM – 10:45 AM
and
2:50 PM – 8:00 PM
N/A
Caltrain Passenger Rail
Caltrain San Francisco Gilroy 4:20 AM – 1:45 AM 20 7:10 AM - 1:50 AM 60 Notes:

1. Weekday and weekend service as of February 2022.

2. Headways are defined as the time between transit vehicles on the same route (e.g., time between two Route 21 buses stopping at the Showers Drive and Latham Street intersection bus stops).

3. MVgo buses pass the Project site on San Antonio Road but do not stop near the Project site.

Sources: Fehr & Peers, 2022.
        
    
  
 
        




v
š
Œ

o

Æ
‰
Ç

o
u
^
š
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z

t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
t

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z




oD



]
}
À

x
^

v

v
š
}
v
]
} 

]
Œ


o

^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}

]
Œ


o













'
'
&
&
&
6DQ$QWRQLR
6WDWLRQ
1 ?3URMHFWV?B6-B3URMHFWV?6-BBB6DQB$QWRQLRB07$?*UDSKLFV?*,6?0;'?6-BBPF?6-BDSU[ ([LVWLQJ7UDQVL
3URMHFW6LWH
6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ$UHD
&DOWUDLQ6WDWLRQ
&DOWUDLQ/LQH
0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&RPPXQLW\6KXWWOH
([LVWLQJ97$5RXWHV
5DSLG%XV
)UHTXHQW%XV
([SUHVV%XV
/RFDO%XV
6FKRRO6HUYLFH
$&(2UDQJH6KXWWOH
09*R
5RXWH&
5RXWH'
)LJXUH
  
0LOHV
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

3. City Policy Conformance
This chapter provides a summary of the key transportation plans, goals and polices and related transportation networks that apply to this Project.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan provides a roadmap for accommodating projected household and employment growth in the nine-county Bay Area by 2050 as well as a transportation investment strategy for the region. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTP 2040 Plan describes all major projects in Santa Clara Valley over the next 20 years. The Congestion Management Program sets State and federal funding priorities for transportation improvements affecting the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) transportation system. The City of Mountain View General Plan 2030 includes mobility goals aimed to enhance travel by all modes by encouraging use by non-auto modes and thus reduce vehicle trips. The San Antonio Precise Plan implements the General Plan’s goals and policies for the San Antonio Change Area and establishes the area’s land use and development regulations.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan
Authored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning agency and federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that provides a roadmap for accommodating projected household and employment growth in the nine-county Bay Area by 2050 as well as a transportation investment strategy for the region. Plan Bay Area 2050 details how the Bay Area can make progress toward the region’s long-range transportation and land use goals.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTP 2040
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the regional transportation authority, has an adopted the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 (adopted in October 2014) that describes all major projects and initiatives expected to occur in the next 20 years. It prioritizes complete streets, express lanes, light rail effectiveness upgrades, bus rapid transit, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. Most recently, the Mountain View Light Rail Double Track project added a second light rail track between the Mountain View and Whisman stations to facilitate more frequent service. The VTA 2040 Plan also includes a package of projects in the San Antonio Precise Plan area including the reconfiguration of the US 101 Southbound Improvements from San Antonio Road to Charleston Road / Rengstorff Avenue.

VTA Countywide Bike Plan
The Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan’s primary goal was to make it easier and safer for people to bike when traveling from one city to the next in Santa Clara County. The plan establishes a network of Cross 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

County Bikeway Corridors that will provide continuous, complete bike connections across the county. The plan also identifies locations where new and improved bicycle connections are needed across freeways, rail lines, and creeks. Lastly, the plan identifies ways to make it easier for people to use their bicycle with transit, including bicycle access to major transit stops, bicycle parking at stops, and bicycle accommodations on board.

Congestion Management Program
As the County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA), VTA is responsible for managing the County’s blueprint to reduce congestion and improve air quality. VTA is authorized to set State and federal funding priorities for transportation improvements affecting the Santa Clara County CMP transportation system.

CMP designated transportation system components in Mountain View include a regional roadway network, a transit network, and a bicycle network. The CMP regional roadway network in Mountain View includes all State highways, County expressways, and some principal arterials, while the transit network includes rail service and selected bus service. The bicycle network focuses on the Cross County Bicycle Corridors, which is a network of 57 routes that are identified in the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (Summer 2018). The long-range countywide transportation plan and how projects compete for funding and prioritization are documented in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 (adopted in October 2014).

The Citywide Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP), also referred to as the Deficiency Plan per the state’s CMP legislation, is a planning document that identifies measures to improve transportation conditions on the CMP network without making physical traffic capacity expansions such as widening an intersection or roadway. The MIP identifies improvements that aid mobility by modes other than the automobile and how to improve the efficiency of the existing roadways. The MIP is based on the VTA Deficiency Plan Requirements, which describes the required content, actions, and implementation standards to assist Member Agencies with deficiency plan preparation and responsibilities.

City of Mountain View General Plan
The City of Mountain View General Plan 2030 includes mobility goals aimed to enhance travel by all modes by encouraging use by non-auto modes and thus reduce vehicle trips. The goals and policies include topics of complete streets, accessibility, walkability, bikeability, public transit, safe routes to school, vehicle parking, performance measurements, greenhouse gas emissions and air quality, and vehicles and roadway stye efficiency. The goal and polices for the San Antonio Change Area are listed below:

Goal LUD-21: A gateway neighborhood with diverse land uses, public amenities and strong connections to surrounding areas.
• Policies LUD 21.1: A mix of land uses. Support a mix of commercial land uses serving the neighborhood and the region.
• LUD 21.2: Higher-density residential near transit. Encourage higher-density residential uses near bus and Caltrain stations.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

• LUD 21.3: Improved connectivity. Promote improved connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods, destinations and Downtown.
• LUD 21.4: Improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Support improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation and connectivity throughout the area. • LUD 21.5: Hetch Hetchy right-of-way. Promote the use of the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way for open space and mobility improvements in the area.
• Goal LUD-22: A revitalized San Antonio Center with a diverse mix of uses and connections to adjacent neighborhoods.
• LUD 22.1: San Antonio Center transformation. Support the transformation of San Antonio Center into a regional mixed-use and commercial destination. • LUD 22.2: Residential uses. Support new residential uses within San Antonio Center. • LUD 22.3: Gathering spaces. Encourage new plazas, open space and other gathering spaces in the San Antonio Center.
• LUD 22.4: Pedestrian-oriented design elements. Ensure that developments include pedestrian-oriented design elements such as accessible building entrances, visible storefronts and landscaping.
• LUD 22.5: Finer street grid. Promote a finer street grid and improved connectivity within San Antonio Center.
• LUD 22.6: Improved mobility. Support improved mobility within San Antonio Center for vehicles, transit, bicyclists and pedestrians.
• LUD 22.7: Improved bicycle and pedestrian connections. Promote improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to the San Antonio Caltrain station, El Camino Real bus service, adjacent neighborhoods and the citywide bicycle and pedestrian network. • LUD 22.8: Parking area safety. Ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle access through parking areas.

The Mountain View General Plan also states the form and character for the San Antonio Change area Pedestrian and Bicyclist environment to be:
• Streets and paths for pedestrians and bicyclists established in the San Antonio Center. • Large parcels include clear pedestrian, bicycle, and multi-modal roadway connections. • Wide sidewalks and tree wells reinforce pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use setting. • Hetch Hetchy right-of-way used as open space and a pedestrian and bicyclist connection. • Pedestrian amenities such as plazas, street furniture and directional signs. • Safe pedestrian and bicyclist crossings of busy streets. • Bicycle parking in convenient and accessible locations around commercial destinations. • Small curb radiuses and short street-crossing distances. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

AccessMV: Comprehensive Modal Plan
AccessMV is a modal plan to provide a consistent vision for the City’s multimodal transportation network.

This plan aims to identify the City’s primary transportation network for all modes and prioritizes previously identified transportation improvement projects. As part of this effort, the City is analyzing bicycle and pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress, pedestrian quality of service, and potential transit demand.

Mountain View Vision Zero Policy
On December 10, 2019, Mountain View City Council unanimously adopted a Vision Zero Policy, codified in Council Policy K-24, to eliminate fatal traffic collisions in Mountain View by 2030. Vision Zero is an integrated set of policies, plans and programs based on the philosophy that fatal collisions are unacceptable and often preventable.

Mountain View's Vision Zero approach is to eliminate fatal and severe injury traffic collisions among all road users, including those walking, biking, and driving. This approach is working to eliminate fatal traffic collisions by 2030, working to decrease traffic collisions involving fatalities or severe injuries (KSI collisions) by 50 percent by 2030 from a 2016 baseline of 15 collisions; and working to decrease the three-year annual average number of people killed or severely injured (KSI) in collisions by 15 percent every three years from a current three-year annual average baseline of 19 people.

San Antonio Precise Plan
The San Antonio Precise Plan Area is generally bounded by El Camino Real to the south, Central Expressway to the north, Del Monte Avenue to the west, and Ortega Avenue to the east. The San Antonio Precise Plan, adopted in December 2014, is publicly available on the City’s website. The SAPP includes development standards, such as allowable land uses, parking requirements, and identifies new public improvements for the area. The SAPP complete street and land use policies were developed to support transit usage and active transportation.

The San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) implements the goals and policies set forth in the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) for the San Antonio Precise Plan Area (Plan Area). Using input gathered through a separate San Antonio visioning process and during the Precise Plan process, the Plan provides guiding principles, policies, development criteria and implementation strategies to coordinate private development and public improvements given the unique opportunities and characteristics of the Plan Area. The Plan is a regulatory document guiding how future development in the Plan Area will achieve the General Plan vision to transform the existing regional commercial area into a mixed-use core within a broader existing residential neighborhood, considering the area’s proximity to transit services and location along two of the most heavily traveled corridors in the City: El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. The Plan also identifies opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations in the Plan Area in the Intersection Design Standards and Key Intersection Improvements section. The Plan will require vehicular and bicycle parking consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance parking standards. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Plan area street network includes the following street types:
• Major Public Streets. These are the four vehicular corridors that bound the Center and provide access to/from the Plan Area. El Camino Real and San Antonio Road are high-volume roadways that serve as part of a regional commute corridor, while California Street and Showers Drive provide important local access to regional retail uses and transit services. This Plan proposes new or upgraded bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all these roadways. • Neighborhood Streets. These streets are low to medium volume roadways that primarily provide connections to surrounding neighborhood areas for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians alike. This Plan primarily focuses on how future development will engage the street frontages.
• Greenways. Greenways are new publicly-accessible internal roadways along major open space areas proposed within the Center. The greenways provide vehicular access and onstreet parking for internal retail uses, and serve as the primary bicycle and pedestrian corridors through the Plan Area.
• Main Internal Streets. Along with the Plan’s greenways, these internal streets provide the main access to the Mixed-Use Center core. They are low speed facilities that provide pedestrian-oriented street frontages with landscaping and street furnishings. • Flexible Connections. Flexible connections are used to implement this Plan’s vision, policies and standards for better multi-modal connections and a more fine-grained network of streets. Flexible connections include both vehicle and non-vehicle roadways and may serve a variety of purposes such as delivery/loading corridors, pedestrian/bicycle-only pathways, and/or additional vehicle access. These connections may be configured in a variety of ways based on future development proposals and the functional needs. Regardless of their primary purpose, these connections are required to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Site Access and Circulation
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

4. Site Access and Circulation
This chapter provides an evaluation of the Project’s site access and internal circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, and consistency with the San Antonio Precise Plan’s mobility policies, standards and guidelines based on the circulation plan presented in Figure 6. As presented in Figure 6, the Project site has one driveway on the west end of the California Street frontage.

Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The SAPP identifies several policies that relate to pedestrian access and circulation, including:
• CIRC-1.2: Implement an integrated network of publicly accessible complete streets, balancing vehicle access needs with required improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists to improve the circulation system.
• CIRC-1.3: Improve access through the Plan Area with a walkable, small block, grid-like system of publicly accessible streets and connections.
• CIRC-1.5: Provide pedestrian facilities on all internal streets and connections. • CIRC-1.6: Identify and implement circulation improvements providing access to nearby neighborhoods, cities and other destinations.
• CIRC-1.9: Focus infrastructure investment on publicly-accessible bicycle and pedestrian improvements to support viable alternatives to driving and meet the growing infrastructure needs of increased development in the Plan Area.
• CIRC-2.1: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connections to provide efficient access to transit stations and open space areas, between commercial destinations, and in active frontage locations. • CIRC-2.2: Provide pedestrian and bicycle intersection crossing improvements to existing conditions at the time of Plan adoption.
• CIRC-2.3: Prioritize bicycle facilities with separated bicycle lanes in key locations on public streets and within San Antonio Center. Coordinate the design and location of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with Plan Area transit stations and stops.
• CIRC-2.5: Minimize driveway curb cuts and other potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.
• CIRC-2.6: Ensure that street configurations prioritize pedestrian and bicycle comfort, and accommodate necessary delivery, emergency, and solid waste vehicle access.

As seen in Figure 6, the Project has one proposed entrance from California Street. The entrance can be directly accessed by the California Street sidewalk. Additionally, a new pedestrian patio and walkway is 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

proposed to provide connectivity to the California Street sidewalk, improving access and pedestrian comfort to the nearby San Antonio Caltrain Station.

The Project also proposes two other egress points, one on the San Antonio Road frontage and the other on the California Street frontage. The San Antonio Road egress point is located on the south side of the building and provides connectivity to the San Antonio Road sidewalk. The California Street egress point is located at the west end of the California Street frontage, directly adjacent to the proposed motor vehicle driveway, and provides additional connectivity to the California Street sidewalk.

The Project would remove both existing driveways on the San Antonio Road frontage, remove the closest driveway to San Antonio Road on California Street, and relocate the second driveway to the northern edge of the project site on California Street. This is a 75 percent reduction in the number of conflict locations. Further, the driveway is located as far north of San Antonio Road as possible to create the most continuous pedestrian environment as possible and pedestrians should feel increased comfort walking along the frontages of the site.

Bicycle Access and Circulation
The SAPP identifies several policies that relate to bicycle access and circulation, including:
• CIRC-1.2: Implement an integrated network of publicly accessible complete streets, balancing vehicle access needs with required improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists to improve the circulation system
• CIRC-2.1: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connections to provide efficient access to transit stations and open space areas, between commercial destinations, and in active frontage locations • CIRC-2.2: Provide pedestrian and bicycle intersection crossing improvements to existing conditions at the time of Plan adoption.
• CIRC-2.3: Prioritize bicycle facilities with separated bicycle lanes in key locations on public streets and within San Antonio Center. Coordinate the design and location of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with Plan Area transit stations and stops.
• CIRC-2.5: Minimize driveway curb cuts and other potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.
• CIRC-2.6: Ensure that street configurations prioritize pedestrian and bicycle comfort, and accommodate necessary delivery, emergency, and solid waste vehicle access.

The Project does not propose any new on-site or off-site bicycle pathways. The Project includes new indoor, secure bicycle parking facilities. Bicyclists would access the bicycle storage room via building access along the California Street frontage.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project site is located just off the intersection between San Antonio Road and California Street. The intersection features bike lanes in both directions for all intersection approaches except for southbound cyclists.

In total the project would reduce the number of driveways from 4 under existing conditions to 1, reducing the number of vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian conflict points by 75 percent. Specifically, the Project would remove both existing driveways on the San Antonio Road frontage, remove the driveway on California Street closest to San Antonio Road, and relocate the second driveway on California Street to the northern edge of the project site.

Further, by providing the California Street driveway furthest from San Antonio Road, the project minimizes conflict zones closest to the intersection and increases comfort cycling along the frontages of the site.

Vehicle Access and Circulation
The Project will reduce the number of driveways in the southwest corner of the San Antonio Road and California Street intersection. Specifically, the Project would remove both existing driveways on the San Antonio Road frontage, remove the closest driveway to San Antonio Road on California Street and relocate the second driveway further north on California Street.

Driveway Operations
As presented in Figure 6, the Project site will have one driveway the west perimeter of the site, approximately 150 feet west of San Antonio Road on California Street. This driveway will provide access to the underground parking garage and will have a curb-to-curb width of 20 feet. The driveway can be accessed via right turns on eastbound California Street and via left turns on westbound California Street.

The driveway’s relative location to the intersection between San Antonio Road and California Street may produce a conflict point for exiting vehicles with the eastbound right turn pocket on California Street.

However, this conflict point already exists under Existing Conditions, and will likely not be exacerbated due to Project Conditions.

The proposed driveway does not include a gating system for vehicles. Thus, it is not anticipated queuing would occur for inbound vehicles. Fewer than 20 outbound peak hour trips are estimated (refer to Chapter 5) in both the AM and PM peak hours. Exiting vehicles will be stop controlled at the back of the driveway after exiting garage; however, the proposed 75 foot garage ramp will provide the needed storage for exiting vehicles.

Sight Distance Analysis
With the posted speed limit along California Street being 35 mph, the stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway is required by the City to be 150 feet, and the corner sight distance is required to be 110 feet. The stopping sight distance is the minimum distance for a vehicle along California Street to react and slow down or stop for a vehicle exiting the proposed driveway. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The corner sight distance is the minimum distance a driver must be able to see to locate a gap in traffic to turn right without a vehicle on California Street slowing down. There are no obstructions for vehicles exiting the site looking to the west. However, just east of the Project driveway, the proposed tree closest to the driveway as well as the edge of the proposed building may block the vision of drivers from seeing pedestrians if not properly maintained. As a result, it is important for the proposed tree closest to the driveway be properly maintained to ensure drivers can see vehicles on California Street.

The Project proposes a stop bar approximately 3.5 feet out of the proposed building corner. This should improve the vision of drivers exiting the driveway in seeing potential conflicting pedestrians, however, the exact placement of the stop sign will functionally affect where the sight distance triangle will be applied As a result, it is recommended to clearly show where the proposed stop sign will be placed with respects to the Project driveway.

A full triangle of safety analysis, in accordance with the City of Mountain View Public Works Department standard details, is provided in Appendix A.

Emergency and Service Vehicle Access
Emergency Vehicles
Emergency vehicle turning maneuvers will need to be confirmed for entrance into the Project driveway and circulation through the Project for right turns into and out of the Project driveway. The fire access for the Project is shown on Figure 6.

Service Vehicles
The SAPP defines several policies and practices related to the circulation and management of service vehicles, including:
• PTDM-1.4: Locate garage and service bay openings in alleys and at the rear of buildings; and • Use landscaping to screen less attractive elements, including loading, service, and delivery areas.

Loading Areas
Currently, there are no standards set by the City of Mountain View regarding loading zones for City owned streets. In addition, the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.60 does not require loading spaces for commercial, industrial, institutional, and service uses of less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area.

Per the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.60, a loading space is not required because the commercial part of the is project is less than 10,000 spare feet of gross floor area. As a result, the Project is consistent with City policies and standards.

Circulation Plan
Figure 6
SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig06_Circulation_Plan.ai

CALIFORNIA STREET
Source: Architecture Plans, January 21, 2022 (Page 11)
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Adverse Effect Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are two adverse effect criteria for the site access and circulation evaluation:
• Criteria #1: Project designs for pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile on-site circulation, access, loading, and parking areas fail to meet City or industry standard design practices. • Criteria #2: The project fails to provide adequate accessibility for services and delivery trucks on-site, including access to truck loading areas.

The project design meets City and industry standard design practices and therefore there is not an adverse effect due to the project based on criterion 1.

To meet other design specifications for the project, there is not sufficient space to provide loading on-site.

As previously mentioned, there are no City loading standards established for City owned streets. Thus, based on City standards, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect relative to published standards (criterion 2).
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Motor Vehicle Operations
Analysis
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

5. Motor Vehicle Trip Generation
This chapter summarizes the vehicle trip generation of the existing and future land use for the Project site.

The new Project will generate fewer trips than the existing use and thus reduce vehicle trips on the roadway system; therefore, based on City staff direction motor vehicle operations analysis for this project will not need to be conducted.

Trip Credits for Existing Uses
The Project proposes to change the existing land use from a gas station to a residential mixed-use development. Trip credits were applied to account for the existing 8 fueling position gas station to be removed as part of the Project. First the appropriate trip rates from ITE were applied (ITE Land Use Code 944). These initial trip generation estimates were adjusted to account for what is known as “pass-by-trips.” This gas station is located on a located on a high traffic volume roadway – San Antonio Road – to attract motorists already on the street. These attracted trips are not new traffic to the adjacent street system, but simply access the gas station as part of their current travel path. These trips are known as pass-by trips.

The VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines suggest following the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3 rd Edition to determine the trip reduction applicable to the gasoline/service station. According to the handbook, the average pass-by trip percentage for this land use is 58% in the AM peak hour and 42% in the PM peak hour, which are the respective reduction percentages applied in the gas station trip generation calculations. As the handbook only provided peak hour pass-by-reduction and no data for daily trips, an average of the AM peak period and PM peak period pass-by trip percentages, equal to 50%, was applied.

Trip Estimates for Proposed Uses
Although the proposed Project most closely fits the description of ITE land use code 231 (Mid-Rise Residential with Ground Floor Commercial), the number of trip generation studies is too small (less than 10) to use for this project. Therefore, the trip generation of the residential (ITE code 221) and retail (ITE code 822) uses were calculated separately.

In addition, transit trip reductions were applied to the proposed uses, consistent with those documented in Table 1 of the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (October 2014). Specifically, the trip reductions applied were for mixed-use development with housing and retail components (15% off the smaller trip generator) and for housing near a Caltrain Station. The completed VTA Auto Trip Reduction Statement is provided in Appendix B.

Net New Project Estimates
Table 3 summarizes the trip generation estimates based on the methodology outlined above. The proposed Project would generate 365 daily vehicle trips, 22 AM peak hour trips (12 inbound and 10 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

outbound), and 27 PM peak hour trips (12 inbound and 15 outbound). Taking into account the trip credit for the existing gas station, the Project would generate fewer trips than the existing use: 323 fewer daily vehicle trips, 12 fewer AM peak hour trips (5 inbound and 7 outbound), and 37 fewer PM peak hour trips (20 inbound and 17 outbound).

Table 3: Trip Generation Using ITE Trip Generation Method ITE# Land Use Type Method Size Type Weekday Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out
Proposed Development
2211 Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise)
Average
Rate 63 Dwelling Units 299 20 11 9 18 8 10
8222
Strip Retail Plaza
(<40k)
Average
Rate 2 KSF 109 5 3 2 13 6 7
Gross Project Trips (A): 408 25 14 11 31 14 17
Housing-Retail Mixed-Use Development Reduction
(15% off retail component) (16) (1) (1) (0) (2) (1) (1) Proximity to Caltrain Station Reduction
(9% off housing component) (27) (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) Total VTA TIA Guidelines Reductions (B): (43) (3) (2) (1) (4) (2) (2) Net Project Trips (Driveway Trips) (C=A-B): 365 22 12 10 27 12 15 Existing (To-Be-Demolished) Development Credit
9443 Gasoline/ Service
Station
Average
Rate 8
Vehicle
Fueling
Positions
1,376 82 41 41 111 55 56
Gross (Driveway Trips) Existing Trips (D): 1,376 82 41 41 111 55 56 Pass-By Trips Reduction
(50% off Weekday, 58% off AM PH, 42% off PM PH) (688) (48) (24) (24) (47) (23) (24) Total Reductions (E): (688) (48) (24) (24) (47) (23) (24) Existing Trip Credit (F=D-E): 688 34 17 17 64 32 32
Net New Project Trips (G=C-F): -323 -12 -5 -7 -37 -20 -17 Notes:

1. ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) provides an average rate and a best fit curve equation for trip generation estimates.

The following average rates were used for ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) – Close to Rail Transit:

Daily: T=4.75(X); AM Peak Hour: T=0.32(X) (56% in, 44% out); PM Peak Hour: T=0.29(X) (43% in, 57% out) where T is the number of trips generated and X is the number of dwelling units

2. ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) provides an average rate and a best fit curve equation for trip generation estimates.

The following average rates were used for ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k):

Daily: T=54.45(X); AM Peak Hour: T=2.36(X) (60% in, 40% out); PM Peak Hour: T=6.59(X) (50% in, 50% out) where T is the number of trips generated and X is the development size in 1,000 square feet

3. ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) provides an average rate and a best fit curve equation for trip generation estimates.

The following average rates were used for ITE Land Use 944: Gasoline/Service Station:

Daily: T=172.01(X); AM Peak Hour: T=10.28(X) (50% in, 50% out); PM Peak Hour: T=13.91(X) (50% in, 50% out) where T is the number of trips generated and X is the number of vehicle fueling positions Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition); Fehr & Peers, 2022. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

6. Traffic Calming
Under the guidance of the Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook (February 2021), both the Existing and Project Conditions of the Project site should be evaluated for potential traffic calming. The evaluation may include connections to nearby parks, schools, and transit stations and stops under Existing Conditions, and causation or exacerbation of existing neighborhood cut-through and speeding under Project Conditions. The Handbook cites both the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) and the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (revised 2021) report (NTMP) as references for evaluation.

The SAPP policy CIRC-1.7’s objective is to, “identify traffic-calming opportunities to limit cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets and create comfortable shared roadways for bicycles and vehicles.” Similarly, the NTMP’s primary purpose is to “address neighborhood concerns and to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on local residential and residential collector streets.” Existing Conditions
The Project frontage is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of San Antonio Road and California Street. San Antonio Road is considered an arterial road, and thus does not need to be evaluated for potential traffic calming. Under Existing Conditions, California Street is a local road that provides access to residential, commercial and office developments and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It provides access to the Rengstorff Park, located approximately one mile to the east from the Project site, as well as to the San Antonio Caltrain Station (via San Antonio Road and San Antonio Circle) located less than one mile of the Project site. The VTA local bus route 21 operates on California Street, with several stops (for both eastbound and westbound buses) being located within a half-mile from the Project site.

California Street also includes a Class II bike lane and sidewalks, in both directions, along the Project site frontage.

Project Conditions
Based on the City’s NTMP the traffic calming thresholds for Collector Streets with posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, such as California Street is related to the observed 85th percentile speed and percent of cut-through traffic.

Under Project Conditions, California Street is expected to see a decrease in vehicle traffic from Existing Conditions of approximately 323 average daily trips (as seen in Table 3) because of the conversion from a gas station to a residential land use with supporting retail. As a result, Project Conditions are not expected to increase vehicle volumes or contribute to cut-through traffic. The Project represents 9.5% of the daily traffic on California Street and is unlikely to cause excessive speeding on the street. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Adverse Effect Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are three adverse effect criteria for the traffic calming and neighborhood intrusion evaluation:
• Criteria #3: A project meets the threshold set by the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP).
• Criteria #4: Traffic calming devices or other traffic control is identified in an adopted plan. • Criteria #5: In conformance with the City’s Vision Zero Policy, projects proactively implement traffic calming devices to meet the City’s multi-modal and safety goals.

Criterion 3 considers a project to have an adverse effect if it meets the threshold set by the City’s adopted NTMP, which is “[a]n increase of up to 25% of existing vehicles or 500 vehicles per day, whichever is less, would trigger an automatic analysis of that street.” As this project generates fewer trips than the existing use, the Project does not meet the threshold set by the City’s adopted NTMP and is not considered to have an adverse effect.

Criterion 4 considers a project to have an adverse effect if traffic calming devices or other traffic control is identified in an adopted plan. While the SAPP describes proposed improvements to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility along California Street, the only traffic calming device or traffic control identified is to include a new planting/amenity zone to separate pedestrians on the sidewalk from the main roadway. The Project does propose to install a new planter/amenity zone along its California Street frontage and thus is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 4.

Criterion 5 requires a project to conform with the City of Mountain View’s Vision Zero Policy (codified in Council Policy K-24 and dated December 10, 2019) by proactively implementing traffic calming devices to meet the City’s multi-modal and safety goals as described in SAPP policies CIRC-2.5 and CIRC 2.6. As mentioned previously, the Project proposes to install a new planter/amenity zone along its California Street frontage, which is considered a traffic calming device. As a result, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 5.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Active Transportation and
Transit Operations Analysis
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

7. Pedestrian Operations
Existing Conditions
The off-site existing pedestrian facilities are described in Chapter 2. Along the existing Project frontage there are four driveways and 6 to 10 foot wide sidewalks with tree wells that narrow the sidewalk for short distances. Under Existing Conditions, the Project site’s San Antonio Road frontage includes two driveways, each approximately 36 feet in width. These two driveways make up the majority of the 120 feet of the 6- foot-wide sidewalk on the San Antonio frontage. The Project site’s California Street frontage also includes two driveways, under Existing Conditions, between 35 and 40 feet in width at the driveway throat. The two driveways comprise the majority of the 150 feet of the sidewalk on the California Street frontage. The sidewalk is generally 10 feet wide, although it narrows to 6 feet wide at certain locations where trees have been planted.

Pedestrian Quality of Service
Pedestrian Quality of Service (QOS) is rated from 1 to 5, with 1 being the best quality and 5 the lowest.

AccessMV provides pedestrian QOS maps that use a combination of WalkScore, Missing Sidewalks, Posted Speed Limits, and Road Type to determine pedestrian quality. Based on the Pedestrian QOS evaluation from AccessMV, the existing quality of service for San Antonio Road near the Project site is a QOS 4, while the QOS on California Street is the lowest at a QOS 5. See the Pedestrian Quality of Service on Figure 7 from AccessMV.

SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig07_PedQuality_2.ai Pedestrian Quality of Service from AccessMV
Figure 7
Source: AccessMV, Mountain View 2021 (Page 29)
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Project Conditions
ADA Compliance
The Project includes accessible path from the sidewalks into the building on California Street (refer to Figure 6). Along the Project frontage, the existing driveways will be removed or narrowed. The Project proposes two ADA ramps that the southwest corner of the intersection of San Antonio Road and California Street. While these two ramps help provide accessible paths to nearby streets and the building entrance, each ramp should be aligned directionally with the crosswalk. The design should be modified to be more inclusive of all users of the street.

Plan Consistency and Pedestrian Orientation
The areawide pedestrian improvements near the Project site include pedestrian circulation through a network of sidewalks. Primary pedestrian routes, as defined by the SAPP, are along San Antonio Road and California Street, both of which are within the Project area. Primary routes should be prioritized for improvement and align with open space, active building frontages with pedestrian-scaled features, and other important destinations. In the SAPP, key pedestrian objectives for all streets include:
• Continuous sidewalks wide enough to accommodate two or more people passing each other at one time.
• Pedestrian crossing improvements at current and future intersections. • Direct connections to transit and destinations, such as parking garages and home/work/shopping areas.
• Attractive streetscape landscaping, including new street trees.

The Project would remove the two existing driveways on San Antonio Road and expand the sidewalk to 8 feet wide. Additionally, 6 feet of planter space and trees are proposed to be installed, providing physical separation between the pedestrian walkway and the roadway. Along San Antonio Road, the total building frontage setback is proposed to be 19 feet wide, including 5 feet of exterior active space that includes landscaping, the entrance to the pedestrian plaza, and bicycle parking. All four measurements (sidewalk, width, planter width, and building frontage setback), meet their respective recommended minimum widths set by the SAPP on San Antonio Road. The Project will not allow parking along the San Antonio frontage. The removal of the existing driveways decreases the number of potential conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles, and along with the other mentioned improvements, would improve sidewalk continuity and promote a more comfortable walking environment.

The Project would remove the two existing driveways on California Street and replace them with one 20- foot-wide driveway along the western side of the frontage. A continuous 6-foot-wide sidewalk with a 4- foot planter space and trees are proposed to be installed along the entirety of the frontage. This new pedestrian facility would provide physical separation between the pedestrian walkway and roadway. The removal of the existing driveways and construction of one narrower driveway will decrease the number of 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

potential conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles, and along with the other mentioned improvements, would improve sidewalk continuity and promote walking.

Along California Street, the total building frontage setback is proposed to be 18 feet wide, including between 8 to 9 feet of exterior active space that includes landscaping, pedestrian plaza, and bicycle parking. The SAPP recommends a typical minimum width of 14 of exterior active space and 24 feet of building frontage setback. The proposed building frontage setback and exterior active space widths do not meet the recommended typical minimum widths for California Street. However, the SAPP also recognizes that implementation of the typical street standards does not need to take the exact form shown in the document, as long as the basic intent of the standards are met along the frontage. The intent to enhance the pedestrian realm via exterior amenities are still preserved by the proposed 8 to 9 feet of exterior active space.

Pedestrian Network Facilities
The San Antonio Precise Plan defines the cross-sections of streets and pathways in the plan area with a particular focus on improving the connectivity, directness of travel, and quality of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This future pedestrian and bicycle system will be comprehensive and low stress.

This pedestrian walkshed analysis shows the 5, 10, and 15-minute walk times of the Project under the existing and planned SAPP transportation network (see Figure 8).

Within a 15-minute walk of the Project site under Existing Conditions pedestrians are only able to access up to past El Camino Real, but with future walking conditions, the 10- and 15-minute walking sheds give pedestrians access to a greater area of Mountain View including the Mountain View Community Center.

These increases in walking access are due to the updates in the public circulation network from the SAPP, shown in Figure 9. Over time the quality of the walking access to the Project site will improve as the SAPP streets are constructed.
        
    
  
 
         ^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}
]
Œ

o



o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š

o
u
^
š
Œ




š
^
}
µ
š
ZZ


v
P
•
š
}
Œ
+
À


v
µ

E
}
Œ
š
ZZ


v
P
•
š
}
Œ
+
À


v
µ


Œ

•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}


^
Z
}
Á

Œ
•

Œ
]
À

t


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}


t


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
K
o
D
]


o


.


o
t

Ç
t


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


E
}
Œ
š
Z^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


t


•
š
Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ
}


>
}
•
š
o
}
•

À

v
µ

x
        
    
  
 
         ^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}
]
Œ

o



o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š

o
u
^
š
Œ




š
^
}
µ
š
ZZ


v
P
•
š
}
Œ
+
À


v
µ

E
}
Œ
š
ZZ


v
P
•
š
}
Œ
+
À


v
µ


Œ

•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}


^
Z
}
Á

Œ
•

Œ
]
À

t


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
K
o
D
]


o


.


o
t

Ç
t


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}


t


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


E
}
Œ
š
Z^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


t


•
š
Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ
}


>
}
•
o
š
}
•

À

v
µ

x
1 ?3URMHFWV?B6-B3URMHFWV?6-BBB6DQB$QWRQLRB07$?*UDSKLFV?*,6?6-B?6-BDSU[ ([LVWLQJDQG)XWXUH3H
3URMHFW6LWH
&LW\%RXQGDULHV
3HGHVWULDQ6KHG:DONLQJ7LPH
0LQXWH:DON
0LQXWH:DON
0LQXWH:DON
)LJXUH

Ó
Ô
ü
Ó
Ó
Ó
Õ
ü
Ó
Ó
Ó
 /
([LVWLQJZLWK6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ
([LVWLQJ
SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig09_PublicCirculationNetwork.ai Public Circulation Network from the San Antonio Precise Plan Figure 9
Source: San Antonio Precise Plan, Mountain View 2020 (Page 15) 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project site is located just off the intersection between San Antonio Road and California Street. This intersection features crosswalks across all four legs. Each crossing can be activated via pedestrian push buttons on each corner of the intersection, and wheelchair accessible curb ramps are proposed on the southwest corner of the intersection. Together, these features provide an accessible route for all users to local destinations, such as the San Antonio Caltrain Station, via San Antonio Road and/or California Street.

The intersection currently operates under six phases with protected left turns for each approach. California Street operates under split phasing, with westbound and eastbound pedestrians taking turns crossing the street.

The Project does not propose any sidewalk furniture or other features that would affect pedestrian travel paths. The Project is not likely to have any adverse effects on the City’s Vision Zero policy (codified in Council Policy K-24 and dated December 10, 2019), as the Project will reduce the number of driveways along the Project frontage as compared to those needed to serve the existing gas station and will reduce potential collision points between pedestrians and motor vehicles along the Project frontage.

Access to Transit
Access from the Project site to the San Antonio Caltrain station is provided by crossing the west side crosswalk of the San Antonio Road and California Street intersection, following the sidewalk on San Antonio Circle northwards, and then turning right at the San Antonio Circle T-intersection towards Showers Drive. The entirety of the described path may be traveled on minimum 5’-wide with marked crosswalks. A map illustrating the walking path from the Project Site to the San Antonio Caltrain Station is presented in Figure 10.

Pedestrian Demand
Pedestrian demand is expected to increase because of the land use change. As shown in Table 3, the gross number of project vehicle trips expected to be generated by the Project is 408 daily vehicles, with 25 trips in the AM peak hour and 31 trips in the PM peak hour. The expected pedestrian trip generation is expected to be lower than vehicle trip generation. While it is important to note that trip generation is not synonymous with the term demand, the patterns exhibited by vehicle and pedestrian trip generation serve as proxies in evaluating pedestrian demand. Using the total VTA TIA Guidelines trip reductions as presented in Table 3 as a proxy, the estimated pedestrian demand generated by the Project would be 43 daily pedestrian trips, with 3 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour. With sidewalks being present along both the California Street and San Antonio Road frontages, as well as the expected increase in quality of service to the pedestrian network upon construction of the SAPP streets, the pedestrian infrastructure will be sufficient in meeting the future pedestrian demand of the Project.

Pedestrian Quality of Service
As presented in Figure 6, the proposed pedestrian path throughout the site provides access to the California Street frontage and connectivity to the California Street sidewalk. The Project will also include new public open space that includes a supplemental pedestrian path for pedestrians on San Antonio Road 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

and California Street. This provides additional connectivity to both the San Antonio Road and California Street sidewalks. The pedestrian facilities within the Project site are consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the SAPP. The quality of service to the pedestrian network will improve once these are constructed.

Adverse Effects Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are four adverse effect criteria for the pedestrian operations evaluation:
• Criteria #6: The project fails to provide accessible and safe pedestrian connections between buildings and adjacent streets and transit facilities.
• Criteria #7: A project disrupts existing or planned pedestrian facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. • Criteria #8: The project adds trips to an existing transportation facility (e.g., sidewalk) that does not meet current design standards.
• Criteria #9: The project increases vehicle trips to a roadway with a Pedestrian Quality of Service (PQOS) score of 3 or more.

Criterion 6 states that a project is considered deficient if it fails to provide accessible and safe pedestrian connections between buildings and adjacent streets and transit facilities. The Project proposes to construct a new patio that provides safe access and connectivity from the building to the San Antonio Road and California Street frontages. Additionally, the Project proposes to install additional curb ramps at the intersection of San Antonio Road and California Street which would provide access to adjacent streets and transit facilities. As a result, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion

6. A project is considered deficient if it disrupts existing or planned pedestrian facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, according to criterion 7. San Antonio Road and California Street are both proposed to include expanded public sidewalks and new planting/amenity zones to improve the pedestrian environment along the high-traffic roadway in the SAPP. According to the site plan, the sidewalks and planter areas proposed by the Project would meet the minimum widths set by the SAPP for these facilities and thus would not conflict with its planned pedestrian facilities.

Furthermore, the Project does not conflict with other adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, and is thus not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 7.

Criterion 8 considers a project deficient if it adds trips to an existing transportation facility that does not meet current design standards. As shown in Chapter 5, the Project has a negative trip generation; therefore, the Project would not be considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 8.     
  
 
        

)
)/*)$*

'/-
$)
/
/$*)
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ
D
]
o
o


Œ
À




oD



]
}
À

^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z



o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z

6-B)LJB$'$B3DWK
$'$3DWKIURP3URMHFW6LWHWR6DQ
)LJXUH

Ó
Ó
û
Ó
Ø
Ó
û
Ô
$' .

)
)/*)$*
-
$.
'
)
-

$/4
*0)
-$ .

/#
-*..$)"
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

8. Bicycle Operations
Existing Conditions
The off-site existing bicycle facilities are described in Chapter 2. Bicycle lanes exist along both the San Antonio Road and California Street Project frontages.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is closely related to the Four Types of Cyclists theory with the following types:
• strong and fearless,
• enthused and confident,
• interested and concerned, and
• no-way no-how.

The majority of cyclists are generally considered to be interested and concerned.

Whereas the Four Types of Cyclists theory highlights people’s willingness to bicycle, LTS measures the quality of a person’s experience while bicycling. Low stress bikeways (LTS 1 and 2) are generally tolerated by most cyclists; in contrast, high stress bikeways are only tolerated by Strong and Fearless cyclists. The development of a low-stress network and elimination of high-stress barriers is critical to broaden the appeal of bicycling, especially for Enthused and Confident and Interested but Concerned cyclists.

An LTS analysis was conducted as part of AccessMV using the existing and future network to assess changes in LTS ratings. Under Existing Conditions, San Antonio and California are both an LTS 3, but with Future Conditions, both roadways improve to an LTS 2. With these bicycle facilities, the Level of Traffic Stress is shown to be less stressful for most bicyclists within the Plan area. Figure 11 shows the Existing LTS Network from AccessMV.

SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig11_Exsiting_Bike_LTS.ai AccessMV – Existing Conditions Bicycle Level of Stress Map Figure 11
Source: AccessMV, Mountain View 2021 (Page 35)
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Project Conditions
Plan Consistency
The SAPP proposes a secondary bicycle route along California Street and San Antonio Road. Secondary bicycle facilities are to be considered for potential improvements to existing facilities and new bicycle facilities to provide additional linkages to surrounding areas. These facilities are shown in Figure 12, from the SAPP.

The Project does not propose onsite or off-site bicycle pathways. The SAPP’s typical standards list San Antonio Road as having three travel lanes in each direction with a 6-foot Class II bicycle lane, and California Street with one 11 foot travel lane in each direction, an optional 6-foot Class II bicycle lane, and an 8-foot parking lane. San Antonio Road meets the typical requirements as it proposes to maintain 3 travel lanes and a 6-foot Class II bicycle lane near the Project site. California Street proposes to re-stripe and maintain one left turn lane, one travel lane, one right turn pocket, and a Class II 6-foot bicycle lane near the Project site. Although the SAPP directly lists only one travel lane and an 8-foot parking lane, it recognizes that these standards are typical, and would vary depending on each specific site at locations like corner parcels. As a result, with respect to minimum roadway standards, the Project is consistent with the SAPP.

The SAPP lists four primary objectives in prioritizing bicycle connections:
• Integrated bicycle network, with facilities that close existing gaps. • Improved existing bike facilities and new connections through large blocks. • Clear wayfinding signage and well-marked routes
• Bicycle crossing improvements at current future intersections Signs would need to be posted at the Project driveways directing bicyclists to dismount and walk their bikes around the Project site.

Bicycle Parking Supply and Facilities
The SAPP states that bicycle parking standards must be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

According to the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.50b parking standards, 69 bicycle parking spaces are required by the Project. The Project proposes 72 bicycle parking spaces with 64 spaces being long-term parking spaces, and 8 being short-term parking spaces, thus meeting City requirements. Further discussion and calculations of the proposed parking supply’s consistency with City requirements is elaborated on in Chapter 10.

With a total supply of 64 long-term bicycle parking spaces, a total of 1 bicycle per unit would be allowed per dwelling unit. 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces would also allow an additional 8 bicycles during peak demand time periods.

SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig12_PublicCirculationNetwork.ai San Antonio Precise Plan Future Bicycle Facilities
Figure 12
Source: San Antonio Precise Plan, Mountain View 2020 (Page 17) 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project’s 64 long-term bicycle parking spaces will be indoors, in a secure facility. Bicyclists would access the bicycle storage room via building access along the California Street frontage. The Project also includes outdoor public bicycle parking facilities, with one parking facility on the California Street frontage and two facilities on the San Antonio Road frontage. The two facilities on San Antonio Road are planned to be placed within the 6 foot designated for planters, away from the main pedestrian pathway, thus will not obstruct pedestrian travel. The facility on California Street is proposed to be placed along the inner edge of the new public walkway and patio and should not obstruct pedestrians travelling in the sidewalk.

Bicycle Network Facilities
The San Antonio Precise Plan defines the cross-sections of streets and pathways in the plan area with a particular focus on improving the connectivity, directness of travel, and quality of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This future bicycle system will be comprehensive and low stress and will include connections to the light rail stations. This bicycle walkshed analysis shows the 5, 10, and 15-minute bicycle times of the Project under existing and planned SAPP transportation network (see Figure 13).

The quality of the bike ride changes for the existing and future conditions comparing 10- and 15-minute bicycle sheds. In future conditions, cyclists can access Downtown. The streets go from being high stress to low stress, therefore making cyclists more comfortable.

Access from the Project site to the San Antonio Caltrain station is provided traveling northbound on San Antonio Road, slighting right onto San Antonio Circle, and then crossing Showers Drive. However, under Existing Conditions, this path does not use any bicycle facilities. This secondary bicycle route on San Antonio Road may be selected for future bicycle facility improvements. Alternatively, cyclists can access San Antonio Caltrain station from the Project site by first traveling eastbound on California Street, followed by turning onto Pacchetti Way, and crossing Showers Drive. This alternative path would utilize the existing Class II bicycle lane on California Street.

The Project does not propose any furniture or other features that would affect any existing or planned bicycle facilities. The Project is not likely to have any adverse effects on the City of Mountain View’s Vision Zero policy (codified in Council Policy K-24 and dated December 10, 2019), as the Project will reduce the number of driveways along the Project frontage as compared to those needed to serve the existing gas station and will reduce potential collision points between cyclists and motor vehicles along the Project frontage.
6KRUHOLQH
DW0WQ
9LHZ3DUN
  
    
    
  
 
        
   
   


v
š


‰
Œ
Œ
]
•

t

Ç
E
}
Œ
š
Z^
Z
}
Œ


o
]
v


}
µ
o


À

Œ

^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}



^
š


v
(
}
Œ



À

v
µ


•
š
Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ
}


D

µ



À


v
µ

&


Œ
Œ
ÇD
}
Œ
•

t

Ç


o



Œ
}
v
À


v
µ

^


Œ
Œ
^
š
Œ




š
t


•
š


]
š
Z
À


v
µ


u
‰
Z
]
š
Z



š
Œ

W

Œ
l
Á

Ç
,



v
}
À

Œ^
š
Œ

š
D
]
Œ

v


À


v
µ

'
Œ

v
šZ
}


D

Œ
Ç


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š
D
}
+


©
}
µ
o


À

Œ

&


Œ
P
µ
•
}
v
Œ
]
À


µ


•
š

Œ
]
À



Ç
•
Z
}
Œ

W

Œ
l
Á

Ç
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ
]
À


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
,


v
•


vt

Ç


u
‰
µ
•
Œ
]
À




•
š

o
u

^
š
Œ

š
E
}
Œ
š
Z^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


t



•
š

o


u
]
v
}Z


o


Œ


•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}



K
o
D
]


o


.


o
t

Ç
W

Œ
l
}
µ
o


À

Œ


o
u
}
v

À


v
µ

:
µ
v
]
‰


Œ
}^


Œ
Œ

}
µ
o


À

Œ

D

v
]
o

À


v
µ


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}


E
}
Œ
š
ZD

Œ
Ç
À


v
µ



•
š
Œ
}^
š
Œ




š
t


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}







Œ
Œ




lZ
}


&

]
Œ

Z
]
o

Œ
]
À

^
}
µ
š
Z

o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]

À


v
µ

D
]
Œ

u
}
v
š


À


v
µ

t


•
š

À


o
Ç
v
À


v
µ

&


]

vt

Ç
t


•
št

•
Z
]
v
P
š
}
v
À


v
µ

W

i

Œ
}
À


v
µ

t


•
šD




}
Á
Œ
]
À

'

o
À


Ì^
š
Œ




š >
}
u

s

Œ




À

v
µ



Œ


•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}


W

P

D
]
o
oZ
}

 E
}
Œ
š
Z

oD
}
v
š


À


v
µ

t


•
š/
}
Á

À


v
µ



u
‰
µ
•
Œ
]
À

>
}
µ
]
•Z
}


>
}
•
š
o
}
•
À


v
µ

t



•
š&
Œ


u
}
v
šZ
}



x
x
x


6KRUHOLQH
DW0WQ
9LHZ3DUN
  
    
    
  
 
        
   
   


v
š


‰
Œ
Œ
]
•

t

Ç
E
}
Œ
š
Z^
Z
}
Œ


o
]
v


}
µ
o


À

Œ

^


v

v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}



^
š


v
(
}
Œ



À

v
µ


•
š
Z

Œ
o


•
š
}
vZ
}


D

µ



À


v
µ

&


Œ
Œ
ÇD
}
Œ
•

t

Ç


o



Œ
}
v
À


v
µ

^


Œ
Œ
^
š
Œ




š
t


•
š


]
š
Z
À


v
µ


u
‰
Z
]
š
Z



š
Œ

W

Œ
l
Á

Ç
,



v
}
À

Œ^
š
Œ

š
D
]
Œ

v


À


v
µ

'
Œ

v
šZ
}


t


•
š/
}
Á

À


v
µ

D

Œ
Ç


o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]
^
š
Œ




š
D
}
+


©
}
µ
o


À

Œ

&


Œ
P
µ
•
}
v
Œ
]
À



Ç
•
Z
}
Œ

W

Œ
l
Á

Ç
^
Z
}
Á


Œ
•
Œ
]
À

,


v
•


vt

Ç


u
‰
µ
•
Œ
]
À




•
š

o
u

^
š
Œ

š
E
}
Œ
š
Z^

v
v
š
}
v
]
}Z
}


t



•
š

o


u
]
v
}Z


o


Œ


•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}



K
o
D
]


o


.


o
t

Ç
W

Œ
l
}
µ
o


À

Œ


o
u
}
v

À


v
µ


µ


•
š

Œ
]
À

:
µ
v
]
‰


Œ
}^


Œ
Œ

}
µ
o


À

Œ

D

v
]
o

À


v
µ


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}


E
}
Œ
š
ZD

Œ
Ç
À


v
µ



•
š
Œ
}^
š
Œ




š
t


•
šD
]


o


.


o
Z
}







Œ
Œ




lZ
}


&

]
Œ

Z
]
o

Œ
]
À

^
}
µ
š
Z

o
]
(
}
Œ
v
]

À


v
µ

D
]
Œ

u
}
v
š


À


v
µ

t


•
š

À


o
Ç
v
À


v
µ

&


]

vt

Ç
W

P

D
]
o
oZ
}


t


•
št

•
Z
]
v
P
š
}
v
À


v
µ


•
š

o

u
]
v
}Z



o
W

i

Œ
}
À


v
µ

^
}
µ
š
Z

oD
}
v
š


À


v
µ

>
}
u

s

Œ




À

v
µ

E
}
Œ
š
Z^
‰
Œ
]
v
P


ŒZ
}


t


•
šD




}
Á
Œ
]
À

'

o
À


Ì^
š
Œ




š


Œ


•
š
Œ




Œ
}Z
}




u
‰
µ
•
Œ
]
À

>
}
µ
]
•Z
}


>
}
•
š
o
}
•
À


v
µ

t



•
š&
Œ


u
}
v
šZ
}



x
x
x


??)SVMISDLQFORFDO?GDWD?3URMHFWV?B6-B3URMHFWV?6-BBB6DQB$QWRQLRB07$?*UDSKLFV?*,6?6-B?6-BDSU[ ([LVWLQJDQG)XWXUH
3URMHFW6LWH
&LW\%RXQGDULHV
%LF\FOH6KHG%LF\FOLQJ7LPH
0LQXWH%LNH
0LQXWH%LNH
0LQXWH%LNH
)LJXUH

Ó
Ó
û
Ú
Ô
û
×
$' .
([LVWLQJ3OXV6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ
([LVWLQJ
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
As shown in Figure 11, the Project frontage boarders both California Street and San Antonio Road, which have BLTS scores of 3. While potential improvements, such as the addition of a protected bike lane on California Street, would improve the BLTS the constraints set by the limited width of the residential road, the existing intersection, and the lane configuration would make such an effort challenging to complete.

The City does not yet have a scheduled project to implement Class IV protected bikeways along California Street. However, the project is within one block of Miller Avenue, which has a BLTS score of 1.5. This connection is less than 250 feet south of the Project site and would provide further connection to the City’s low-stress network via Del Medio Avenue, which has a BLTS score of 2. Figure 14 shows the future LTS Network from AccessMV. As mentioned previously, the Project site will connect to the City’s low-stress network via the sidewalk on the west side of San Antonio Road to Miller Avenue.

SJ21_2137_334_San_Antonio_MTA\ADOBE\Fig14_Future_Bike_LTS.ai AccessMV – Future Conditions Bicycle Level of Stress Map Figure 14
Source: AccessMV, Mountain View 2021 (Page 37)
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Adverse Effects Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are three adverse effect criteria for the bicycle operations evaluation:
• Criteria #10: The project disrupts existing or planned bicycle facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. • Criteria #11: The project adds trips to an existing transportation facility (e.g., bikeway) that does not meet current design standards. The project increases vehicle trips to a roadway with a BLTS score of 3 or 4.
• Criteria #12: The project does not connect to the City’s low-stress (LTS 1 to 2) bike network.

A project is considered deficient if it disrupts existing or planned pedestrian facilities or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, according to criterion 10. The SAPP proposes Class II bicycle lanes on both California Street and San Antonio Road. The Project does not disrupt these plans, as the site plan proposes to include striping for a Class II bicycle lane on both California Street and San Antonio Road. As a result, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 10.

Criterion 11 considers a project deficient if it adds trips to an existing facility that does not meet current design standards or to a roadway with a BLTS score of 3 or 4. As mentioned in Chapter 5, the Project has a negative trip generation and thus is not considered to have an adverse effect per criterion 11.

Criterion 12 evaluates the projects connection to the City’s low-stress (BLTS 1 or 2) bicycle network.

Because the project connects to the City’s low-stress network via Del Medio Avenue, which has a BLTS score of 2, there is not an adverse effect per criterion 12. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

9. Transit Operations
Existing Conditions
The off-site existing transit facilities are described in Chapter 2. The Project is within a half-mile walk of rail and bus transit stops. The San Antonio Caltrain Station is north of the Project site on Showers Drive.

The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) operates bus service within and surrounding the Plan Area. The San Antonio Transit Center on Showers Drive at Latham Street is the transfer station for four regional bus routes that serve Santa Clara County which are routes 21, 22, 40, 522. Currently, the site is served by the following providers:

Caltrain
Caltrain provides inter- and intra-county commuter rail service from San Francisco County to the north, through San Mateo County, to Santa Clara County in the south. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board operates Caltrain 365 days a year, with reduced schedules on weekends and major U.S. holidays.

Weekday trains are a mix of Baby Bullet, Limited, and Local trains. Caltrain currently operates 46 northbound and 46 southbound (total of 92) trains per day between San Jose and San Francisco during the week. The San Antonio Station is approximately 1/4 mile to the north of the Plan area. The San Antonio Station serves approximately 943 boardings per weekday (Caltrain, 2018).

VTA Bus
Route 21 operates on Middlefield Road and California Road with two bus stops in the Project area at the intersection of California Street and San Antonio Road and California Street and Pachetti Way. Route 22 runs on El Camino Real with one stop to the west of the Project area on El Camino Real and Showers Drive. Route 40 operates on Foothill Expressway and Rengstorff with one stop to the east of the Project area at California Street and Showers Drive. Route 522 provides twice daily northbound and twice daily southbound transit trips along Manila Drive and Ellis Street all other Route 120 trip terminate at the Lockheed Martin Transit Center. The existing transit service is summarized in Chapter 2.

Project Conditions
Plan Consistency
The SAPP’s primary transit objectives include:
• Direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations and stops. • Coordination with associated transit agencies to integrate pedestrian and bicycle facilities with station and stop designs.
• Building and site design oriented to transit connections and transit stations/stops. • Transportation demand management programs and standards supporting transit use. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project site must follow the SAPP’s primary transit objectives to increase transit accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. As the area develops, public shuttle route coverage and service frequency should be increased, including increased access to regional transit, according to the SAPP.

Within the San Antonio Precise Plan there are not any additional transit priority improvements. In the Mountain View General Plan mobility section, the Street Types Table 4.2 shows Street Types with mode priority. San Antonio Road is considered a flexible street, while California Street is considered a residential street to the west of San Antonio Road, and a residential collector to the east of San Antonio Road. All three of these street types feature mode priorities of bicycles and pedestrians, and none of them include transit as a mode of priority.

The guidelines from the General Plan are to provide access and safe crossings for all travel modes along a regional transportation corridor, including transit. To emphasize transit and accommodate regional vehicle trips to discourage such trips on nearby local roadways, the Project team and City staff should collaborate with other cities and agencies where facilities cross jurisdictional boundaries. Transit passes could be provided to residents and employees by the Project developer, which may increase the likelihood of transit usage and enhance transit ridership. One option includes providing transit subsidies to each new resident for 1 year, for the first 10 years of the Project. The Project developer may also participate in the VTA’s Eco Pass, or an equivalent program, for the first 3 years of the Project.

Transit Orientation
The SAPP describes access to transit as existing pedestrian and bicycle access to stations and public bus stops will be enhanced with new connections.

The Project site is within ¼ mile walk of the San Antonio Caltrain station, and ½ mile walk of the San Antonio Transit Center and Proposed VTA Bus Rapid transit station. The Project site will have access to these transit stations with new connections such as increased sidewalk access and bike lanes.

Adverse Effects Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are two adverse effect criteria for the transit operations evaluation:
• Criteria #13: A project decreases the number of housing or jobs within one-half mile of existing active transit stop or transit corridor. This applies to all active transit stops in Mountain View.
• Criteria #14: The project disrupts existing or planned transit facilities and services or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

The existing land use to be demolished by the Project is a gas station and will be replaced with 62 multifamily dwelling units. As a result, the Project will not decrease the number of housing or jobs within onehalf mile of existing active transit stops or corridors and is an adverse effect per criterion 13. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

The Project does not disrupt existing or planned transit facilities and services or conflicts with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, and does not have an adverse effect per criterion

14. 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Parking Assessment
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

10. Parking Assessment
Existing Conditions
Under Existing Conditions, the Project site does not feature any formal parking spaces on-site. Parking is also prohibited along both the San Antonio Road and California Street Project frontages.

Project Conditions
Motor Vehicle Parking
The parking facilities on the Project site will contain a total 97 spaces. The SAPP requires parking consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.50b parking standards. A potential reduction can be received if the Project proposes parking for uses with different peak periods (20 percent reduction), is within 1,000 feet walking distance of Caltrain or proposed Rapid Bus Access (10 percent reduction), or the Applicant has a parking or TDM program (10 percent reduction).

Table 4 outlines the vehicle parking requirements by land use type according to the City of Mountain View’s Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b. The City of Mountain View Code requires:
• Two spaces per multi-family dwelling 1-bedroom units greater than 650 square feet (all 1- bedroom units in the Project will be greater than 650 square feet). • Two spaces per multi-family dwelling 2-bedroom units. • An additional 15% of the combined total number of parking spaces from the 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units is required for residential guest parking. • A variable number of spaces depending on the retail, restaurant, or service use tenant for the commercial space.

The City of Mountain View Code states to follow the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 in determining the number of accessible parking spaces required. Table 11B-208.2 in the California Code lists the number of accessible parking spaces required based on the total number of non-accessible parking spaces. Finally, The City of Mountain View Code requires 1 loading space for commercial zones between 10,000 to 30,000 square feet and 1 additional loading space per each additional 20,000 square feet above 30,000 square feet. The Project’s proposed commercial space is only 2,000 square feet, thus no loading spaces are required.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Table 4: Vehicle Parking Requirements: SAPP
Land Use Land Use Sub-Type Quantity Parking Requirements Parking Supply (spaces) Residential Multi-family dwellings
1-bedroom unit > 650 sqft 17 DU1 2 spaces per unit 34
Residential Multi-family dwellings
2-bedrooms or more
45 DU1 2 spaces per unit 90
Residential Guest - 15% of parking spaces 19
Residential Accessible Parking - Table 11B-208.23 5
Restaurants,
Retail,
Service Use4
Depends on Future Tenant 2,000 GFA2 Depends on Future Tenant5 1 - 25 Restaurants Accessible Parking - Table 11B-208.23 1
Total Vehicle Parking Spaces Required 150 - 174
Notes:

1. DU stands for “Dwelling Units”

2. GFA stands for “Gross Floor Area”

3. Table 11B-208.2 from California Code of Regulations Title 24

4. A tenant that falls under the fast-food counter service land use sub-type will not meet the parking requirements because a minimum of 25 parking spaces are required.

5. Parking requirements vary depending on the selected land use. Refer to the City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b for parking requirement rate table.

Source: City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Fehr & Peers, 2022.

The Project does not meet any of the reduction opportunities listed in the SAPP. Based on the amount of residential and retail use, the Project is required to provide between 150 to 174 parking spaces. However, the Project is only providing 97 parking spaces, netting between 77 fewer parking spaces than stated in the City’s regulations and thus, not meeting the SAPP requirements. However, the applicant has applied for a California State Density Bonus law allowing additional parking incentives that would reduce the total number of parking spaces required by the Project. Under section 65915(d) and further amended by Assembly Bill 744, the proposed development would be allowed to implement a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per unit. The State Density Bonus would prohibit the City from requiring anything more than the eligible parking standards in the Density Bonus statute. Error! Reference source not found. outlines the vehicle parking requirements under the parking ratios listed in the State Density Bonus law.

Incorporating the parking ratios listed in the State Density Bonus, the Project would be required to provide between 40 and 64 total parking spaces, depending on the selected tenant for the commercial space. The Project proposes to provide 97 parking spaces which meets the total requirements set by the state and overrides the requirements set by the City. As seen in Error! Reference source not found., the Project will provide 19 parking spaces for retail, restaurant, or service use, with 10 of these spaces to be used for residential guest parking after business hours. As listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.50b, varies the parking requirement based on the retail, restaurant, or service use. Based on the City parking requirements, the Project meets the required number of residential parking spaces set by the 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

City and the number of parking spaces required for tenants of retail, restaurant, or service land use types, except if the commercial space were to be occupied by a fast-food counter service tenant.

The SAPP also lists enabling a “park once” environment and encouraging shared parking and efficient standards as guiding principles for the Plan’s area. The Project will enable a “park once” environment as the proposed parking garage will be directly adjacent to the entrance of the commercial unit. The Project will also encourage shared parking and provide access to parking across multiple sites, as visitors will be able to reach neighboring businesses such as China Wok and Bank of America from the Project’s underground garage.

Table 5: Vehicle Parking Requirements: State Density Bonus Land Use Land Use Sub-Type Quantity Parking Requirements Parking
Supply
(spaces)
Proposed
Parking Spaces
Residential Multi-family
dwellings 62 DU1 0.5 spaces per unit 31 75
Residential Guest - 15% of parking spaces 5 106
Residential Accessible Parking - Table 11B-208.23 2 2
Restaurants,
Retail,
Service Use4
Depends on Future
Tenant
2,000
GFA2 Depends on Future Tenant5 1 - 25 196
Restaurants Accessible Parking - Table 11B-208.23 1 1
Total Vehicle Parking Spaces Required 40 - 64 97
Notes:

1. DU stands for “Dwelling Units”

2. GFA stands for “Gross Floor Area”

3. Table 11B-208.2 from California Code of Regulations Title 24

4. A tenant that falls under the fast-food counter service land use sub-type will not meet the parking requirements because a minimum of 25 parking spaces are required.

5. Parking requirements vary depending on the selected land use. Refer to the City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b for parking requirement rate table.

6. 10 Residential Guest parking spaces are proposed, however, will only be available as dedicated guest parking after business hours. 19 commercial parking spaces will be available during business hours.

Source: City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Assembly Bill No. 744 Chapter 699, Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Bicycle Parking
The City-recommended bicycle parking supply for residential uses is 1 space per unit for non-guest parking and 1 space per 10 units for guest parking. Additionally, the City-recommended bicycle parking supply for retail uses is a number equal to 5% of vehicle spaces. The Project is providing 8 short term bicycle parking spaces and 64 long-term bicycle parking spaces. Total bicycle parking spaces for the Project site amounts to 72 bicycle stalls. This meets the City’s requirements set by the City’s Zoning Ordinance §36.32.50b. The calculation of required bicycle parking spaces is shown in Table 6. All bike 334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

parking should be conveniently located in well-lit locations, near entrances and consistent with VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (December 2012).

Table 6: Bicycle Parking Requirements
Land Use Land Use Sub-Type Bicycle Parking
Requirements
Quantity/Required Vehicle
Parking Supply (spaces)
Bicycle Parking
Supply (spaces)
Residential
Multi-family dwellings
1-bedroom unit > 650
sqft
1 space per unit 17 Dwelling Units 17
Residential Multi-family dwellings
2-bedrooms or more
1 space per unit 45 Dwelling Units 45
Residential Guest 1 space per 10 units 62 Dwelling Units 6 Retail Fast food
(counter service) 5% of vehicle spaces 25 Vehicle Spaces 1 Total Bicycle Parking Spaces Required 69
Source: City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances §36.32.50b, Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Adverse Effect Evaluation
As shown in Table 1 and listed below, there are five adverse effect criteria for the parking evaluation:
• Criteria #15: The project increases off-site parking demand in the project area. • Criteria #16: The project proposes more parking than allowed by the City's Zoning Code. • Criteria #17: The project parking results in significant spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. • Criteria #18: Parking reduction—requires parking study to demonstrate effective parking management and adequate parking to serve project.

Criterion 15 states that the Project would be considered deficient if it increases off-site parking demand in the Project area. The Project does not increase off-site parking demand in the Project area, as the Project will provide enough on-site parking spaces to accommodate the increased demand to the Project. As a result, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 15. Criterion 16 considers a project deficient if it proposes more parking than allowed by the City’s Zoning Code. The Project proposes less parking than what is required by the City’s Zoning Code and is thus does not have an adverse effect based on criterion 16.

Criterion 17 states that a project would be considered deficient if it results in significant spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. The Project provides enough on-site parking to accommodate the future demand of the Project area. As a result, the Project is not considered to have an adverse effect based on criterion 17.
334 San Antonio Road Multimodal Transportation Analysis September 2022

Criterion 18 considers a project deficient if it utilizes a parking reduction that would require a parking study to demonstrate effective parking management and adequate parking to serve the Project. The Project does not utilize any parking reductions and would not have an adverse effect per criterion 18.

Appendix A: Sight Distance Analysis
Figures

Appendix B: VTA Auto Trip Reduction
Statement
UPDATED: October 2014
Size (net new):

Density:
% Trips
Transit
Mixed-Use
Financial Incentives
Shuttle
% Trips

TRIP REDUCTION APPROACHES
A. STANDARD APPROACH

TOTAL REDUCTION CLAIMED

TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Is the project required to meet any trip reduction requirements or targets? If so, specify percent:

Relevant TIA Section:

Type of Reduction
Specify reduction. See Table 2 in TIA Guidelines
% Reduction
from ITE Rates
Total Trips
Reduced
(AM/PM/Daily)
Located within 2000 feet walking distance of an LRT, BRT, BART or Caltrain station or major bus stop? Reference code or requirement:

PROJECT AUTO TRIP GENERATION
Auto Trips Generated: AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Total Weekday
Methodology (check one) ITE Other (Please describe below) Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

AUTO TRIP REDUCTION APPROACH
Standard
Complete Table A below
Peer/Study-Based
Complete Table B below
Target-Based
Complete Table C below
None Taken

AUTO TRIP REDUCTION STATEMENT

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name:

Location:

Description:

D.U. Residential Sq. Ft. Comm. Acres (Gr.)
D.U. / Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Relevant TIA Section:

B. PEER/STUDY-BASED APPROACH Relevant TIA Section:

Basis of Reduction TOTAL REDUCTION CLAIMED
Last updated 11/4/2014
% Trips
Full Day

Data Sharing
Monitoring
Enforcement
Have the project sponsor and Lead Agency agreed to any of the following measures? TDM Program

IMPLEMENTATION
Site Planning and Design Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

Transit
Parking Management
Relevant TIA Section:

Peak Hour Peak Period
 

OTHER TDM/REDUCTION MEASURES
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

Relevant TIA Section:

C. TARGET-BASED APPROACH
Type of Reduction (check all that apply) TOTAL REDUCTION CLAIMED % Trip Reduction % SOV mode share Trip Cap
Description
Time period for
reduction
Last updated 11/4/2014
Appendix UIS
Utility Impact Study
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
Prepared for
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
and
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
FIDEL T. SALAMANCA, California RCE No. 84851
July 28, 2022
4699 Old Ironsides Dr., Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 246-4848
FAX (408) 246-5624
[email protected]
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 (iii) Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1. Project Description...............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2. Water System Analysis Approach ........................................................................................................1-1

1.3. Sewer System Analysis Approach.........................................................................................................1-2

1.4. Report Organization.............................................................................................................................1-3 Chapter 2. Water Demand Projections..........................................................................................................2-1

2.1. Project Water Demand.........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1. Project Fire Flow Requirement.....................................................................................................2-1

2.2. Existing Condition (2010) .....................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand .............................................................................2-2

2.2.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand...............................................................................................2-2

2.3. Future Cumulative Condition (2030)....................................................................................................2-3

2.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand .............................................................................2-3

2.3.2. Post-Project Land Use and Demand.............................................................................................2-3 Chapter 3. Water System Impact...................................................................................................................3-1

3.1. Demand Scenarios and Performance Criteria......................................................................................3-1

3.2. Water Supply Analysis..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.3. Water Storage Analysis........................................................................................................................3-2

3.4. Existing Condition (2010) Results.........................................................................................................3-2

3.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information.......................................................................................................3-2

3.4.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project .......................................................................3-3

3.4.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project..................................3-3

3.4.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project..............................................................................................3-3

3.5. Future Cumulative Condition (2030) Results.......................................................................................3-3

3.5.1. Hydraulic Model Information.......................................................................................................3-3

3.5.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project .......................................................................3-4

3.5.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project..................................3-4

3.5.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project..............................................................................................3-4 Chapter 4. Sewer Flow Projections................................................................................................................4-1

4.1. Project Sewer Flow...............................................................................................................................4-1

4.2. Existing Condition (2010) .....................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)...................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.2. Post-Project..................................................................................................................................4-2

4.3. Future Cumulative Condition (2030)....................................................................................................4-2

4.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)...................................................................................................................4-2

4.3.2. Post-Project (Baseline).................................................................................................................4-3 Chapter 5. Sewer System Impact...................................................................................................................5-1

5.1. Scenarios and Performance Criteria ....................................................................................................5-1

5.2. Sewer Treatment, Joint Interceptor, and San Antonio Interceptor Capacity ......................................5-1

5.3. Existing Condition (2010) Results.........................................................................................................5-3

5.3.1. Hydraulic Model Information.......................................................................................................5-3 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 (iv) Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

5.3.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project.............................................5-3

5.3.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project..............................................................................................5-3

5.4. Future Cumulative Condition (2030) Results.......................................................................................5-3

5.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information.......................................................................................................5-3

5.4.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project.............................................5-3

5.4.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project..............................................................................................5-3

5.4.4. Alma Recorder Contractual Limit.................................................................................................5-4 List of Figures
Figure 1R: Water Model Simulations
Figure 2R: Sewer Model Simulations
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure 3: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure 4: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure 5: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure 6: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure 7: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure 8: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure 9: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure 10: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure 11: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure 12: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure 13: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition List of Tables
Table 2-1: Project Water Demand ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Anticipated Project Fire Flow Requirement ...................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Baseline Demand for Existing Condition (Based on Model) .............................................................. 2-2 Table 2-4: Incremental Project Demand for Existing Condition.......................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-5: Baseline Demand for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model)............................................. 2-3 Table 2-6: Incremental Project Demand for Future Cumulative Condition........................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1: Peaking Factors ................................................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-2: Water System Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-3: Future Cumulative Condition Demand versus Supply ....................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-4: DDW Storage Requirements.............................................................................................................. 3-2 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 (v) Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 3-5: Existing Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes ...................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-6: Existing Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project................................................. 3-3 Table 3-7: Future Cumulative Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes..................................................... 3-4 Table 3-8: Selected Future Cumulative Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project................. 3-5 Table 4-1: Project Sewer Flow............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2: Baseline Flow for Existing Condition (Based on Model) .................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-3: Incremental Project Flow for Existing Condition................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-4: Baseline Flow for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model)................................................... 4-3 Table 4-5: Incremental Project Flow for Future Cumulative Condition.............................................................. 4-3 Table 5-1: Sewer System Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 5-1 Table 5-2: RWQCP Join Facilities Capacity Rights ............................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-3: Capacity Rights Comparison............................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-4: Existing Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project.................................................................. 5-5 Table 5-5: Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project................................................. 5-6 Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects for Future Cumulative Condition ................................................... A-1 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 ES-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Executive Summary
Schaaf & Wheeler has been retained by RNCN to determine impacts from the 334 San Antonio Road Development (Project) on the City of Mountain View's (City) water and sanitary sewer systems. The Project site is located within the San Antonio Precise Plan Area at the southwest corner of the intersection of San Antonio Road and California Street (Figure 1). The Project proposes to build a single five story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking, 62 multi-family dwelling units and up to 2,000 square feet of retail/restaurant. The Project will demolish one existing single-story building on-site, currently utilized as a gas station. The Project is also within the City’s Sanitary Sewer System Alma Recorder Tributary Area; flow from this area is contractually limited to two million gallons per day of peak wet weather flow (PWWF). The Project is located in the San Antonio Change Area which was studied in the San Antonio Change Area Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which analyzed the change in allowable development beyond what was analyzed in the 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Project impacts are analyzed for both Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030) Condition for the sewer and water system. Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing Condition water model is based on the 2010 Water Master Plan (WMP) and the Future Cumulative Condition is created from the 2030 General Plan – Updated Water System Modeling (GP-UWSM; Schaaf & Wheeler, June 2014) model. Both the Existing Condition model and the Future Condition model include the land use and corresponding water demands from the San Antonio Change Area SEIR. The Future Cumulative Condition model also includes City approved projects since the 2030 General Plan Update UIS (GPUUIS) was adopted. The Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition sewer models are based on the model developed as part of the Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017) model. The Future Cumulative Condition sewer model includes recommended improvement projects from the West Yost (2017) and Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) in the 2010 SMP or 2030 GPUUIS.

Water System Project Impacts
The Project development does not significantly impact the water system at Existing Condition or during Future Cumulative Condition assuming all the recommended CIPs in the GP-UWSM have been constructed. The Project specific fire flow requirement is anticipated to be 2,060 gpm based on building square footage, construction type, and a 50% reduction to be approved by the City Fire Marshal based on the installation of an approved fire sprinkler system. This is a conservative reduction assumption, as buildings have the potential for a 75% reduction of the required fire flow according to the California Fire Code (2019), if approved. The required fire flow is met during Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition. The actual fire flow requirement may change as the planning process continues and Project specific requirements are determined by the City Fire Marshal. If Project conditions require higher fire flow than what is analyzed, revised modeling should be conducted.
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 ES-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Sewer System Project Impacts
In the Existing Condition, the sewer system has sufficient capacity downstream of the Project with the preProject and post-Project flows.

In the Future Cumulative Condition, the sewer system has adequate capacity pre- and post-Project with the CIPs recommended in the Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017) and in the GPUUIS. In the report, the capacity of the sewer system within the Alma Recorder tributary area was evaluated and new infrastructure was recommended. With the recommended CIP pipes, all pipes meet the d/D criteria in both pre- and post-Project conditions. The Project contribution to the recommended CIPs are all below 1%.

The Project is located within the portion of the City referred to as the Alma Recorder Area that contributes flow to the Los Altos’ San Antonio Inceptor Sewer and has a contractual limitation of two million gallons per day of PWWF. In the Existing Condition flow to the Alma Recorder during PWWF is 14% below the contractual limit for pre-Project and post-Project. In the Future Cumulative Condition, flow to the Alma Recorder is 7.47% and 7.45% below the contractual limit both pre- and post-Project respectively.

334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 1-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Project Description
The 334 San Antonio Road Project (Project) proposes the construction of a mixed-use development and the demolition of the existing building based on the Project Plan Set and Project Description. The Project includes a constructing a new 5-story building, with two levels of underground parking on a 0.62 acre site. The building will provide up to 62 multi-family dwelling units and 2,000 square feet of retail/restaurant. The Project will demolish 1 existing building within the San Antonio Precise Plan Area (adopted December 2014), which provides detailed development standards set forth in the 2030 General Plan Update. The Project impact uses the incremental difference in demands from the Existing and assumed Future Cumulative Conditions. The incremental increase is larger than the demands assumed in the future cumulative condition for the parcel specific demand; however, the new total does not exceed the total development assumed for the San Antonio Precise Plan Area. The incremental increase of the development is removed from other areas within the Mixed Use Subarea Corridor of the San Antonio Precise Plan that have not been redeveloped.

1.2. Water System Analysis Approach
Project impacts are analyzed using the City’s water model for two conditions: Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030). As a baseline for system performance, each condition is evaluated pre-Project for existing hydraulic deficiencies. The estimated incremental water demand resulting from Project development is added to the model and post-Project deficiencies are examined. In total, four model simulations of the water system are performed, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1R. Water Model Simulations
The Existing Condition model consists of the existing distribution system and operating parameters along with water demands based on existing land use from the 2010 Water Master Plan (WMP). The Future Cumulative Condition water demand is based on the 2030 General Plan Update (GPU) land use and has since been revised to include recent City approved projects not accounted for or in exceedance of the 2030 GPU projections.

Table A-1 in Appendix A provides a list of the additional considered development projects for the Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions. The Future Cumulative Condition model includes the operating parameters Water System
Existing (2010) Condition
Pre-Project
(BASELINE)
Post-Project
Future Cumulative (2030)
Condition
Pre-Project
(BASELINE)
Post-Project
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 1-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
from the 2030 General Plan Update (GPU) – Updated Water System Modeling (GP-USWM; Schaaf & Wheeler, June 2014) model and assumes all of the recommended CIPs in the GP-UWSM have been constructed.

1.3. Sewer System Analysis Approach
Project impacts to the sewer system are analyzed using the City’s sewer model for two conditions: Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030). As a baseline for system performance, each condition is evaluated pre-Project for existing hydraulic deficiencies. The estimated incremental sewer flow resulting from Project development is added to the model and post-Project deficiencies are examined. In total, four model simulations of the sewer system are performed, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2R. Sewer Model Simulations
The Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition models for the sewer system are based on the model developed as part of Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017). This model is used in this analysis because it was developed to model the Alma Recorder tributary area in more detail than previous studies. Both the Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition models have been updated to reflect incremental flow increases from recent development along El Camino Real within the Alma Recorder tributary area. Table A-1 in Appendix A provides a list of the additional considered development projects for the Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions. The Future Cumulative Condition model includes incremental increases in flow from the Greystar MVSA Project and assumes the CIPs recommended in the West Yost (2017) report have been constructed per the Showers Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 35% Design Submittal (2017), which includes the relocation of the Alma Recorder further north of Alma Street. The Future Cumulative Condition also assumes a portions of the CIPs from the GPUUIS are included.

Sewer System
Existing (2010)
Condition
Pre-Project
(BASELINE)
Post-Project
Future Cumulative (2030)
Condition
Pre-Project
(BASELINE)
Post-Project
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 2-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

2.3. Future Cumulative Condition (2030)

2.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand
Future Cumulative (baseline) demand for the Project is adopted from the City’s InfoWater model developed as part of the 2030 GPUUIS. In the 2030 GPUUIS model, water demands are based on the 2030 General Plan Update (GPU) land use; these demands have since been updated to include recent City approved projects which were not accounted for or were in exceedance of the 2030 GPU projections. Table 2-5 presents the parcel level preproject demand from the model. Whereas the Existing Condition model was populated with demand based on billing records, the Future Cumulative Condition model has a higher projected future demand for both parcels.

Table 2-5: Baseline Demand for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model) *Water Demand allocated to the specific parcels in the Future Cumulative Condition hydraulic model

2.3.2. Post-Project Land Use and Demand
The Project demand is added to the Future Cumulative Condition model as an incremental difference from the pre-Project scenarios as shown in Table 2-6. Demands previously allocated to future projects within the San Antonio Mixed Use Corridor area are reduced in order to not increase the total future cumulative demand to above those previously studied in the San Antonio Precise Plan study area.

Table 2-6: Incremental Project Demand for
Future Cumulative Condition
Future Cumulative Condition
Demand (gpd)
Pre-Project Demand 1,885
Project Demand 7,530
Incremental Project Demand +5,645
Address APN Zoning Acreage Existing Condition
Water Demand (gpd)
334 San Antonio Ave 147-39-043
(P)-40 San
Antonio Precise
Plan

0.62 1,885*
Total 0.62 1,885
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 1-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

1.4. Report Organization
This report is organized into five following sections. Chapter 2 discusses the water demand estimates for the Project and Chapter 3 covers the impacts and capital improvement recommendations for the water system.

Chapter 4 provides the sewer demand estimates and Chapter 5 presents the sewer system impacts. 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 2-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Chapter 2. Water Demand Projections
This chapter discusses the water demand estimates and required fire flow for the Project development and provides a comparison to pre-Project baseline conditions. The incremental Project demand is determined for both Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030) Condition, as discussed in the following sections. To remain consistent with the City-wide model, this analysis uses the estimated water demand and duty factors at the Project site from the City’s hydraulic models.

Water demand in this section represents Average Daily Demand (ADD). Water use patterns vary for different customers and at different times of the day and year. The ADD is an estimated daily average of these variations by land use type.

2.1. Project Water Demand
Parcel-level water demand for the proposed Project is estimated using the maximum square footage of multifamily residential and retail/restaurant identified in the Draft Project Description. The proposed building will include a maximum of 62 multifamily residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail/restaurants. The water demands are determined by taking the dwelling units and square footage for each type of usage and multiplying by the correct duty factor. The multi-family residential demand factors are taken from the NBPPII, which developed revised water demand factors based on meter records from recent residential developments throughout the City. The restaurant and retail demand factor is taken from the 2030 GPUUIS. Table 2-1 details the estimated Project demand.

Table 2-1: Project Water Demand
Usage Type
Square Feet
Or Dwelling
Units
Duty Factor (gpd/du &
gpd/1000 sq ft)
Water Demand
(gpd)
Multifamily
Residential 62 100 6,200
Retail 1,000 130 130
Restaurant 1,000 1,200 1,200
Total 7,530

2.1.1. Project Fire Flow Requirement
The anticipated project-specific fire flow requirement at the site is based on the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, which gives the minimum fire flow requirement based on the fire-flow area and building construction type. Construction type and floor area for the Project is based on the Project Description. Based on the California State Fire Marshal Code Interpretation 11-015 for mixed use construction, the fire flow requirement for the proposed buildings is estimated using a percentage approach between Type III-A construction proposed for the multi-family residential levels (Floors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and Type I-A for the two floor parking garage. After Project development, the Project specific required fire flow at the site is anticipated to be a fire flow of 2,060 gpm, utilizing a 50% reduction in fire flow as discussed in Section 2.1.1. 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 2-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Building-specific fire flow requirements based on the CFC are presented in Table 2-2. Because the proposed buildings will have fire sprinklers, a 50 percent reduction is applied to the required fire flow rates from the CFC.

This is a conservative assumption since a 75 percent reduction is allowed upon approval of an approved automatic sprinkler system according to CFC Section B105.2.

Table 2-2 – Anticipated Project Fire Flow Requirement
Construction
Type
Fire-Flow
Calculation Area
(sf)
CFC Required Fire
Flow (gpm)
Fire Flow with
50% Reduction
(gpm)
Fire Flow with 75%
Reduction (gpm)
I-A & IIA 124,458 4,120 2,060 1,500

2.2. Existing Condition (2010)

2.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand
The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level demand adopted from the City’s InfoWater model, developed as part of the 2010 WMP. The demand in the model is calibrated against water billings records from 2005 and 2006, as further explained in the 2010 WMP. Table 2-3 details the model demands at the parcels, which were zoned as commercial-retail. Parcel numbers have been revised, the parcel numbers from the GPU and the newly revised parcel numbers are provided on Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Baseline Demand for Existing Condition (Based on Model) *Water Demand allocated to the specific parcels in the Existing Condition hydraulic model

2.2.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand
For Project impact analysis in the Existing Condition, Project demand is added to the Existing model as an incremental difference from the pre-Project demand, as shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Incremental Project Demand for Existing Condition Existing Condition
Demand (gpd)
Pre-Project (Baseline) Demand 1,187
Project Demand 7,530
Incremental Project Demand + 6,343
Address APN
2010 Master
Plan Land Use
Designation
Acreage Existing Condition
Water Demand (gpd)
334 San Antonio Rd 147-39-043 Commercial 0.62 1,187*
Total 0.62 1,187
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 3-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Chapter 3. Water System Impact
Project impacts to water supply, water storage, hydraulic conveyance, and fire flow requirements are evaluated in this chapter to ensure the Project demand can be adequately met. Hydraulic conveyance and available fire flow are assessed for both Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030) Condition. Water supply and water storage are evaluated for the Future Cumulative Condition.

3.1. Demand Scenarios and Performance Criteria
Hydraulic deficiencies within the water system consider two demand scenarios: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) and Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD + FF). The MDD and PHD peaking factors from the 2010 Water Mater Plan (WMP) are used for this analysis. As detailed in the 2010 WMP, MDD and PHD peaking factors are developed using SCADA data from peak usage months in 2006 and 2007. The peak hour occurred on the day with the largest daily demand, which was observed to be August 8, 2007. The calculated peaking factors, presented in Table 3-1, are applied to Average Day Demand (ADD).

Table 3-1: Peaking Factors
Category Peaking Factor
Maximum Day 1.71
Peak Hour 2.79
Established design criteria used to evaluate the Project impact for all scenarios are summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Water System Performance Criteria
Criteria PHD MDD + FF
Minimum Allowable Pressure (psi) 40 20

3.2. Water Supply Analysis
The water demand from Project development in the Future Cumulative Condition is compared with the City's supply turnouts and well capacities to ensure demand can be met. The Mountain View water system is divided into three pressure zones to maintain reasonable pressures throughout the City’s rising topography moving south, further form the Bay. The Project is located in Pressure Zone 2, which is supplied by two San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) turnouts.

Water demand versus supply capacity by Pressure Zone is given in Table 3-3. Total capacity for Pressure Zone 2 includes peak hour turnout capacity from SFPUC Turnouts #7 and #14 and additional supply from Wells #17, #19, #22, and #20. Demand in Pressure Zone 2 can be sufficiently supplied by the turnouts; however, as discussed in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (IEC, 2011) surplus supply in Pressure Zone 2 will need to be routed to Pressure Zone 1 to make-up the supply deficiency in the lower Zone. The Project demand does not exceed the SAPP demand allocations, therefore it does not impact the City's ability to meet total system demand.
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 3-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 3-3: Future Cumulative Condition Demand Versus Supply Pressure Zone
2030 Future Cumulative Demand
Total Capacity
(mgd)* Pre-Project Post-Project
ADD (mgd) PHD (mgd) PHD (mgd)
1 7.98 22.34 22.34 16.56
2 8.41 23.60 23.60 30.53
3 1.62 4.48 4.48 5.10
Total 18.01 50.42 50.42 52.19
* Total Capacity from Table 3-8 in the General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (IEC, 2011)

3.3. Water Storage Analysis
Project impact to water storage volume requirements is evaluated according to the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW). DDW requires storage equal to 8 hours of Maximum Day Demand (MDD) plus fire flow storage in each pressure zone. The required storage versus active storage in the City is detailed in Table 3-4 pre- and post-Project. The maximum active storage in the City is 17 MG. However, the City currently operates with only the operational active storage of 14.3 MG. Since the City has the storage volume available to meet DDW requirements in the Future Cumulative Condition pre- and post-Project, no additional storage improvements are recommended. In the future, when City demand and storage requirements exceed the current operating storage, the City may need to alter reservoir operation schemes.

Table 3-4: DDW Storage Requirements
Pressure
Zone
Maximum
Active
Storage*
(MG)
Operational
Active
Storage
(MG)
Fire
Flow
(MG)
Future Cumulative Condition Demand
Pre-Project Post-Project
ADD
(mgd)
8 Hours
of
MDD
(MG)
DDW
Requirement
(MG)
ADD
(mgd)
8 Hours
of MDD
(MG)
DDW
Requirement
(MG)
1 6.00 5.1 1.2 7.98 4.55 5.25 7.98 4.55 5.25
2 8.00 6.5 1.2 8.41 4.79 6.30 8.41 4.79 6.30
3 3.00 2.7 1.2 1.62 0.92 2.12 1.62 0.92 2.12
Total 17.00 14.3 3.6 18.01 10.27 13.67 18.01 10.27 13.67 * Active Storage from Table 4-2 in the General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (IEC, 2011)

3.4. Existing Condition (2010) Results

3.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information
Existing water system performance is analyzed with the demands and land use type in the City’s InfoWater model developed for the City’s 2010 WMP. It is assumed domestic and fire services for the Project will connect to the existing 8-inch diameter water main in California Street.

The Existing Condition pre-Project fire flow requirement is taken from the 2010 WMP model. The planning level (non-reduced) fire flow requirement for the pre-Project land use classification of (P)-40 San Antonio Precise Plan 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 3-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
is 1,500 gpm. After Project development, the Project specific required fire flow at the site is anticipated to be 2,060 gpm with an applied 50% reduction for the assumed approval of an approved automatic sprinkler system.

3.4.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project
At Existing Condition, the system meets performance criteria system-wide pre-Project. The Project development does not impact system hydraulic performance under PHD.

3.4.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project The pre-Project fire flow is set to 1,500 gpm based on parcel specific fire flows identified in the 2010 WMP. After Project development, the anticipated Project-specific fire flow requirement of 2,060 gpm can be met at the evaluated locations as detailed in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Existing Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes Node
ID
Location Required Fire Flow
Rate (gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project (gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project (gpm)
J-267 Project Location – California Street
Pre-Project: 1,500
3,994 3,994
Post-Project: 2,060

3.4.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
With Existing Condition demands, the water system meets system design criteria under PHD and is able to adequately supply the increased Project demand. Available fire flow pre- and post-Project at selected deficient nodes is presented in Table 3-6. These deficiencies are independent of the Project and show minimal (<1%) impact with Project development.

Table 3-6: Selected Existing Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project Node ID Location
Required
Fire Flow
Rate
(gpm)
Available
Flow
Available
Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
PostProject
(gpm)
J-279 2630 California Street 5,000 3,669 3,662
J-259 San Antonio Rd and California St 5,000 4,521 4,512 J-246 California St 5,000 4,401 4,394
J-229 San Antonio Rd and Miller Ave 5,000 4,591 4,584
J-254 Miller Ave 5,000 4,112 4,107

3.5. Future Cumulative Condition (2030) Results

3.5.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Future Cumulative Condition model is created using water demand based on the 2030 General Plan Update (GPU) land use and includes the additional projects which were not accounted for or were in exceedance of the 2030 GPU projections. System performance is analyzed under the assumption that all recommended CIPs in the 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 3-4 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
2030 General Plan – Updated Water System Modeling (GP-UWSM; Schaaf & Wheeler, June 2014) have been constructed.

Domestic and fire services for the Project are assumed to connect to the existing 8-inch diameter water main in California Street. The Future Cumulative Condition pre-Project fire flow requirement is set to 5,000 gpm based on planning level fire demandsin the San Antonio Precise Plan. The planning level flow requirement is met under pre-Project conditions. After Project development, the Project specific required fire flow at the site is anticipated to be 2,060 gpm with an applied 50% reduction for the assumed approval of an approved automatic sprinkler system. The Project specific fire flow requirement can be met under post-Project conditions.

3.5.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project
In the Future Cumulative Condition, the system meets performance criteria system-wide Pre-Project. The Project development does not impact system hydraulic performance under PHD.

3.5.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project The pre-Project fire flow of 1,500 gpm is met at existing hydrant location on California Street and San Antonio Road (Model Node ID J-267). After Project development, the anticipated Project-specific fire flow requirement of 2,060 gpm can be met at the evaluated locations as detailed in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7: Future Cumulative Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes Node
ID
Location Required Fire Flow
Rate (gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project (gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project (gpm)
J-267 Project Location – California Street
Pre-Project: 5,000
5,098 5,098
Post-Project: 2,060

3.5.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
With the Future Cumulative Condition demand, the water system meets system design criteria at PHD and is able to adequately supply the increased Project demand. Available fire flow pre- and post-Project at selected deficient nodes is presented in Table 3-8. These deficiencies are independent of the Project development.

Several CIPs from the GPU are in the vicinity of the Project and provide additional conveyance to the system, including CIP #31 on Miller Avenue and CIP #32 on California Street which include upsizing 405 LF of 10-inch diameter pipe to 12-inch diameter pipe, and upsizing 375 LF of 8-inch diameter pipe to 12-inch diameter pipe respectively.

Table 3-8: Selected Future Cumulative Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project Node ID Location Required Fire Flow
Rate (gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project
(gpm)
J-279 2630 California Street 5,000 4,981 4,980
J-254 Miller Ave 5,000 4,919 4,919
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 4-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Chapter 4. Sewer Flow Projections
This chapter discusses the sewer flow estimate for Project development and provides a comparison to preProject baseline condition and post-Project conditions in sewer flow generation. The incremental Project flow is determined for both Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative Condition, as discussed in the following sections. The sewer generation factor for estimating Project sewer flow is taken from previous technical studies (2010 WMP, 2030 GPUUIS, and NBPPII) to remain consistent with the City-wide flow projections used in the hydraulic models.

Three types of sewer flow loading are used to model the sewer system: base wastewater flow, groundwater infiltration (GWI), and rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I). GWI includes base infiltration (BI) and pumped groundwater discharged to the sewer system. RDI/I is stormwater that enters the sewer system. GWI and RDI/I values are modeled as constant flows.

Base wastewater flow (BWF) is from residential, commercial, institutional, office, and industrial sources. As described in the 2010 Sewer Master Plan (SMP), BWF is developed on an individual parcel level using the 2005 and 2006 water billing records and applying a return-to-sewer (RTS) ratio calculated for land use type. Change in BWF throughout the day due to daily use patterns is known as diurnal variation and is accounted for by applying residential and non-residential diurnal curves. BWF and diurnal curves used in this analysis are taken from the 2010 SMP to remain consistent with previous City-wide modeling. The sewer flows discussed in this section are the BWF values representing average flows and are not peaked.

4.1. Project Sewer Flow
Project generated sewer flow is estimated from the square footage provided in the Project Description as shown in Table 4-1. A return-to-sewer (RTS) ratio of 0.75 is applied to the multifamily residential, retail and restaurant water duty factor in Table 2-1 based on the 2010 Sewer Master Plan (SMP) RTS ratio. Project sewer flow is assumed to discharge to the 8-inch public main in California Street and the 8-inch sewer main within San Antonio Road.

Table 4-1: Project Sewer Flow
Usage Type
Square Feet
Or Dwelling
Units
Duty Factor (gpd/du &
gpd/1000 sq ft)
Sewer
Generation (gpd)
Multifamily
Residential 62 75 4,650
Retail 1,000 100 100
Restaurant 1,000 900 900
Total 5,650
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 4-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

4.2. Existing Condition (2010)

4.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)
The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level sewer flow developed as part of Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017). Table 4-2 presents the Existing Condition pre-Project sewer flows.

Table 4-2: Baseline Flow for Existing Condition (Based on Model) *Sewer Demand allocated to the specific parcels in the Existing Condition hydraulic model

4.2.2. Post-Project
For the Project impact analysis in the Existing Condition, Project sewer flow is added to the Existing Condition model as an incremental difference from Pre-Project demand. The Project incremental sewer flow is given in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Incremental Project Flow for Existing Condition Sewer Flow
(gpd)
Pre-Project Flow 1,099
Project Flow 5,650
Incremental Project Flow +4,551

4.3. Future Cumulative Condition (2030)

4.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)
The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level sewer flow developed as part of Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017). Table 4-4 presents the Future Cumulative Condition pre-Project sewer flows.

Address APN
2010 Master
Plan Land Use
Designation
Acreage Existing Condition
Sewer Demand (gpd)
334 San Antonio Ave 147-39-043 Commercial 0.62 1,099*
Total 0.62 1,099
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 4-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 4-4: Baseline Flow for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model) *Sewer Demand allocated to the specific parcels in the Future Cumulative Condition hydraulic model

4.3.2. Post-Project (Baseline)
For the Project impact analysis in the Future Cumulative Condition, Project sewer flow is added to the Future Cumulative Condition model as an incremental difference from Pre-Project demand. Demands previously allocated to future projects within the San Antonio Mixed Use Corridor area are reduced in order to not increase the total future cumulative demand to above those previously studied in the San Antonio Precise Plan study area. The Project incremental sewer flow is given in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Incremental Project Flow for Future Cumulative Condition Sewer Flow (gpd)
Pre-Project Flow 1,896
Project Flow 5,650
Incremental Project Flow +3,754
Address APN Zoning Acreage Existing Condition
Sewer Demand (gpd)
334 San Antonio Ave 147-39-043
(P)-40 San
Antonio Precise
Plan

0.62 1,896*
Total 0.62 1,896
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Chapter 5. Sewer System Impact
The impact of Project development on the sewer system is analyzed under both Existing (2010) and Future Cumulative (2030) Conditions. The specific affected area of the sewer system begins at the Project site and is collected by two manholes. The first is collected north of the project site in California Street and continues west along California Street, north along Del Medio Ave, east at the end of Del Medio Ave toward San Antonio Rd, north along San Antonio Rd, ultimately flowing to the Alma Recorder. The second is collected east of the Project site in San Antonio Road and continues north along San Antonio Rd, ultimately flowing to the Alma Recorder.

5.1. Scenarios and Performance Criteria
Sewer capacity is analyzed under Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) and Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF).

PWWF is used to determine hydraulic deficiencies according to the performance criteria in Table 5-1. ADWF is used to determine adequacy of treatment capacity.

The ADWF scenario is developed in the model by adding BWF and GWI. Since the ADWF scenario models average daily flows, BWF and GWI are not peaked. The PWWF scenario applies the diurnal peaking curves for residential and non-residential flows and simulates system response to rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration. The diurnal peaking curves are adopted from the City’s 2010 SMP. Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) and rainfalldependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I) are included, but are not peaked.

Table 5-1: Sewer System Performance Criteria
Criteria Pipe Diameter
≤ 12 inch
Pipe Diameter
> 12 inch
Maximum Flow Depth/Pipe Diameter (d/D) 0.50 0.75

5.2. Sewer Treatment, Joint Interceptor, and San Antonio Interceptor Capacity Sewage generated within the City is treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in Palo Alto.

The sewer collection system is a gravity system with the majority of flow discharging into three main trunk lines that convey flow from the south to the north and terminate at the Shoreline Pump Station (SPS) located within the City’s Shoreline Park. Flow is then pumped to the gravity Joint Interceptor Sewer that conveys flow to the RWQCP. A large portion of the sewer flows generated within the San Antonio Precise Plan drain to the San Antonio Interceptor, which flows through the City of Los Altos and also conveys flow into the Joint Interceptor.

Flows are recorded at the Alma Recorder to determine the total flows to the San Antonio Interceptor. The sewer flows generated within the San Antonio Precise Plan that drain through the San Antonio Interceptor are limited by the capacity agreement between the City of Los Altos and the City of Mountain View. Per the capacity agreement, the maximum allowable Mountain View flow into the San Antonio Interceptor is 2 million gallons per day under PWWF conditions.

The City of Mountain View entered into a joint agreement, referred to as the Basic Agreement, with the cities of Palo Alto and Los Altos in 1968 for the construction and maintenance of the joint sewer system addressing the need for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of wastewater to meet Regional Board requirements. In accordance with the Basic Agreement, Palo Alto owns the RWQCP and administers the Basic Agreement with the partnering agencies purchasing individual capacity rights in terms of an average annual flow that can be 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
discharged to the RWQCP. Capacity rights of the three cities can be rented or purchased from other neighboring agencies and each partnering agency can sell their capacity to others. Contractual capacity is based upon the 1985 Addendum No. 3 of the 1968 Joint Sewer System agreement that revised capacity rates in relationship to facility expansion and is based upon Average Annual Flow (defined as 1.05 times Average Dry Weather Flow).

Separate service agreements with the RWQCP have since reallocated current capacity rights to include six partnering agencies. Table 5-2 presents the current capacity rights for each agency.

Table 5-2: RWQCP Joint Facilities Capacity Rights
Partner Agency
Treatment Capacity
72-inch Joint
Interceptor Capacity
Average Annual Flow
(MGD)
Peak Wet Weather
Flow (MGD)
Palo Alto 15.3 14.59
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 3.06 0
Los Altos Hills 0.63 3.41
Stanford University 2.11 0
Mountain View 15.1 50
Los Altos 3.8 12
Total 40 80
Source: Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Carollo, May 2012) The City’s total capacity rights include flow leaving the City through the SPS and the amount of flow that the City discharges into the Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor, per the 1970 Los Altos San Antonio Trunk Sewer Capacity Agreement between the two cities. The total system-wide contractual capacity for Mountain View is evaluated in the Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions with increased Project flow. Table 5-3 shows the City’s projected flows compared to the RWQCP Joint Facilities capacity rights.

Per the Basic Agreement, the partnering agencies agree to conduct an engineering study when their respective service area reaches 80% of their contractual capacity rights. The Future Cumulative Condition estimates that the projected demand pre-Project and post-Project will exceed the 80% capacity threshold. The required engineering study when the City reaches 80% of their capacity shall redefine the anticipated future needs of the treatment plant. The San Antonio Interceptor exceeds the 80% capacity threshold in the existing system and any increase is studied to ensure the treatment capacity is not exceeded.

Table 5-3: Capacity Rights Comparison
RWQCP Joint Facility
Mountain View
Contractual
Capacity
(MGD)
Pre-Project Post-Project
2010
Existing
(MGD)
2030 Future
Cumulative
(MGD)
2010
Existing
(MGD)
2030 Future
Cumulative
(MGD)
Treatment 15.1 10.51 14.15 10.53 14.15
Joint Interceptor 50.0 17.3 21.91 17.34 21.91
San Antonio Interceptor 2.0 1.72 1.85 1.72 1.85
* Treatment = Average Annual Flow (AAF), Joint Interceptor & San Antonio Interceptor = PWWF 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

5.3. Existing Condition (2010) Results

5.3.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Existing Condition sewer system is modeled using the Wastewater Capacity and Alignment Study El Camino Real & San Antonio Change Areas Project 14-48 (West Yost, 2017). Project sewer flow is assumed to discharge into the 8-inch diameter public sewer main in California Street and the 8-inch diameter public sewer in San Antonio Rd and the flow paths ultimately flow to the Alma Recorder.

5.3.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project The sewer system has sufficient capacity downstream of the Project with the pre-Project or post-Project flows in the Existing Condition, as shown in Figure 10.

5.3.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
Existing Condition model results comparing pre- and post-Project d/D are presented in Table 5-4. The sewer system has sufficient capacity downstream of the Project with the pre-Project or post-Project flows in the Existing Condition, as shown in Figure 10. Multiple pipes are reaching their capacity along the flow path but have not exceeded their d/D capacities.

5.4. Future Cumulative Condition (2030) Results

5.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Future Cumulative Condition model is created based on the West Yost (2017) model assuming the CIPs recommended in the West Yost (2017) report have been constructed per the Showers Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 35% Design Submittal (2017), which includes the relocation of the Alma Recorder further north of Alma Street. CIP P-34 and P-35 under the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (2030 GPUUIS; IEC, October 2011) are assumed to be constructed for the Future Cumulative Condition. Project sewer flow is split and discharges into the 8-inch diameter public main in California Street and the 8-inch sewer main within San Antonio Road.

5.4.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project The system meets d/D performance criteria downstream of the Project in the Future Cumulative Condition pre-Project and post-Project with the CIPs recommended in the West Yost (2017) report and with CIP P-34 and P-35 from the GPUUIS constructed.

5.4.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
Table 5-4 presents the comparison of d/D criteria pre- and post-Project for pipes downstream of the Project development in the Future Cumulative Condition. The West Yost (2017) report identified several sewer mains along the flow path to be upsized, including pipes along Del Medio Ave and crossing Central Expressway.

Additional pipes from CIP P-34 and P-35 of the GPUUIS has been recommended for upsizing to meet d/D requirements under pre-Project conditions. West Yost (2017) recommended pipe diameters are given in bold purple font in Table 5-5, the recommended pipe diameter for GPUUIS CIPs are given in bold green font. 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-4 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

5.4.4. Alma Recorder Contractual Limit
The Project is located in the Alma Recorder tributary area; flow from this area is contractually limited to two million gallons per day of PWWF. In the Existing Condition, flow to the Alma Recorder during PWWF is 14% below the contractual limit for pre-Project and post-Project. In the Future Cumulative Condition, flow to the Alma Recorder is 7.5% below the contractual limit both pre- and post-Project.

5.5. Project Contribution to Deficient Sewer Pipes
The GPUUIS and West Yost report determined there are post development deficiencies in the sanitary sewer mains downstream as a result of the proposed projects within the SAPP. The UIS has determined the percentage of project contribution to the recommended CIPs, typically this is used to determine the development impact fees for fair share impact to the sewer system. Based on the results of this UIS, none of the pipes had a contribution of greater than 1%. The City has determined contributions of less than 1% fall within the City’s error of margin for variability within the model and therefore the project does not have a significant contribution to the recommended CIPs.
334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-5 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-4: Existing Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project Sewer
Main
ID
Upstream
MH ID
Downstream
MH ID
Existing
Diameter
(in)
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)

ADWF PWWF
Pre-Project Post-Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max
Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max
Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max
Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max Flow
(MGD)
d/D Pipe
Capacity
Remaining
(% of
Allowed
d/D)
735 F1-042 F1-040 8 139 0.548 0.008 0.0931 0.010 0.1005 0.012 0.1127 0.014 0.1199 76 689 F1-040 F1-010 8 12 0.475 0.012 0.1912 0.014 0.1956 0.018 0.2284 0.020 0.2351 53 656 F1-010 F1-008 8 256 1.051 0.136 0.2890 0.138 0.2908 0.200 0.3570 0.204 0.3597 28 632 F1-008 F1-006 8 320 1.014 0.153 0.3026 0.155 0.3043 0.233 0.3788 0.236 0.3814 24 602 F1-006 E1-025 8 119 1.097 0.166 0.3830 0.168 0.3847 0.256 0.4921 0.259 0.4946 1 574 E1-025 E1-027 12 329 0.267 0.243 0.3152 0.245 0.3164 0.400 0.4187 0.403 0.4206 16 560 E1-027 E1-029 12 254 0.163 0.244 0.3358 0.245 0.3371 0.402 0.4362 0.405 0.4380 12 588 E1-029 F1-014 12 308 0.343 0.244 0.3602 0.246 0.3616 0.403 0.4546 0.406 0.4565 9 600 F1-014 F1-016 12 124 0.029 0.250 0.4009 0.252 0.4025 0.409 0.4838 0.412 0.4862 3 748 F1-054 F1-052 8 105 0.675 0.183 0.3593 0.186 0.3622 0.259 0.4327 0.262 0.4357 13 680 F1-052 F1-102 10 245 0.586 0.186 0.2933 0.189 0.2954 0.263 0.3493 0.266 0.3515 30 643 F1-102 F1-020 10 354 0.584 0.198 0.2063 0.201 0.2077 0.283 0.2447 0.286 0.2461 51 637 F1-020 F1-022 12 490 28.334 0.199 0.1717 0.202 0.1729 0.284 0.2049 0.287 0.2060 59 636 F1-022 F1-016 12 27 0.406 0.201 0.2419 0.204 0.2437 0.288 0.2934 0.291 0.2952 41 599 F1-016 F1-012 12 261 0.789 0.452 0.4101 0.456 0.4101 0.636 0.4958 0.644 0.4973 1 580_2 F1-012 E1-033 15 108 0.554 1.198 0.4805 1.203 0.4805 1.697 0.5810 1.703 0.5831 22 570_2 E1-033 E1-037 15 13 0.171 1.196 0.3652 1.201 0.3652 1.706 0.4419 1.704 0.4424 41 567_2 E1-037 E1-035 15 23 10.448 1.200 0.2029 1.205 0.2029 1.704 0.2519 1.708 0.2523 66 564_2 E1-035 SPS 30 38 20.814 1.200 0.0708 1.205 0.0708 1.710 0.0866 1.715 0.0867 88 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 5-6 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-5: Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project Sewer
Main
ID
CIP Model
Diameter
(in)
Lengt
h (ft)
Slope
(%)

ADWF PWWF
Pre-Project Post-Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max
Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max
Flow
(MGD)
d/D Max Flow
(MGD)
d/D Pipe
Capacity
Remaining
(% of
Allowed
d/D)
735 8 139 0.55 0.0080 0.093 0.0090 0.097 0.0125 0.112 0.0135 0.116 77 689 8 12 0.48 0.0120 0.208 0.0129 0.210 0.0176 0.259 0.0187 0.263 47 656 8 256 1.05 0.1693 0.323 0.1703 0.324 0.2742 0.419 0.2759 0.421 16 632 8 320 1.01 0.1835 0.319 0.1844 0.320 0.3008 0.414 0.3025 0.416 17 602 WY-CIP 10 119 1.10 0.1934 0.325 0.1944 0.326 0.3188 0.428 0.3205 0.429 14 574 12 329 0.27 0.2844 0.343 0.2853 0.343 0.4876 0.443 0.4893 0.444 11 560 P-35 15 254 0.16 0.2850 0.291 0.2859 0.291 0.4889 0.351 0.4906 0.351 53 588 P-35 15 308 0.34 0.2904 0.308 0.2894 0.308 0.4989 0.368 0.4972 0.367 51 600 P-35 15 124 0.03 0.2963 0.333 0.2954 0.333 0.5046 0.385 0.5030 0.385 49 748 8 105 0.68 0.1740 0.362 0.1768 0.363 0.2455 0.420 0.2489 0.423 15 680 10 245 0.59 0.1768 0.295 0.1796 0.296 0.2495 0.341 0.2529 0.343 31 643 10 354 0.58 0.1892 0.208 0.1920 0.208 0.2694 0.239 0.2728 0.240 52 637 12 490 28.33 0.1896 0.173 0.1925 0.173 0.2707 0.200 0.2741 0.202 60 636 12 27 0.41 0.1917 0.244 0.1945 0.244 0.2743 0.284 0.2777 0.285 43 599 P-34 15 108 0.79 0.4911 0.355 0.4930 0.354 0.7281 0.436 0.7316 0.437 42 580 15 13 0.43 1.3005 0.520 1.3024 0.520 1.8475 0.654 1.8508 0.655 13 570 WY-01 15 18 0.33 1.3019 0.556 1.3038 0.556 1.8495 0.701 1.8528 0.702 6 567 WY-02 15 15 0.30 1.3024 0.483 1.3042 0.483 1.8507 0.599 1.8540 0.599 20 CDT-25 WY-03 15 214 0.84 1.3024 0.412 1.3043 0.412 1.8506 0.502 1.8539 0.502 33 CDT-23 WY-04 15 16 0.50 1.3024 0.457 1.3043 0.457 1.8506 0.548 1.8539 0.549 27 564 WY-05 30 38 17.32 1.3028 0.077 1.3047 0.077 13.8514 0.240 13.8547 0.240 68 Notes: Pipe diameter in purple denotes West Yost CIP and pipe diameter in green denotes CIPs from the GPUUIS 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 A-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
APPENDIX A:

Additional Considered Projects
334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects
Project Change Area/Planning Area Address Status*
1 Mountain View Co-Housing Community Central Neighborhood 445 Calderon Ave Completed 2 Hope Street Investors Downtown/Evelyn Corridor 231-235 Hope St Under Construction 3 Downtown Mixed Use Building Downtown/Evelyn Corridor 605 Castro St Completed 4 Residential Condominium Project Downtown/Evelyn Corridor 325, 333, 339 Franklin St Approved 5 St Joseph's Church Downtown/Evelyn Corridor 599 Castro St Completed 6 Bryant/Dana Office Downtown/Evelyn Corridor 250 Bryant St Completed 7 Quad/Lovewell East Whisman 369 N Whisman Rd Approved but Inactive 8 Renault & Handley East Whisman 625-685 Clyde Ave Completed 9 LinkedIn East Whisman 700 E Middlefield Rd Under Construction 10 National Avenue Partners East Whisman 600 National Ave Completed motecity 11 2700 West El Camino Real El Camino Real 2700 El Camino Real W Completed 12 SummerHill Apt El Camino Real 2650 El Camino Real W Completed 13 Alta Housing El Camino Real 950 West El Camino Real Under Construction 14 Lennar Multi-Family Communities El Camino Real 2268 El Camino Real W Completed 15 UDR El Camino Real 1984 El Camino Real W Completed
16 Residence Inn Gatehouse El Camino Real 1854 El Camino Real W Completed 17 Residence Inn El Camino Real 1740 El Camino Real W Completed 18 Tropicana Lodge - Prometheus El Camino Real 1720 El Camino Real W Completed 19 Austin’s - Prometheus El Camino Real 1616 El Camino Real W Completed 20 1701 W El Camino Real El Camino Real 1701 El Camino Real W Completed 21 First Community Housing El Camino Real 1585 El Camino Real W Completed 22 Harv's Car Wash - Regis House El Camino Real 1101 El Camino Real W Completed 23 Greystar El Camino Real 801 El Camino Real W Completed 24 Medical Building El Camino Real 412 El Camino Real W Completed 25 Lennar Apartments El Camino Real 865 El Camino Real E Completed *Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects (Continued)
Project Change Area/Planning Area Address Status*
26 Wonder Years Preschool El Camino Real 86 El Camino Real Completed 27 Evelyn Family Apartments Grant/Sylvan 779 East Evelyn Ave Completed 28 344 Bryant Ave Grant/Sylvan 344 Bryant Ave Under Construction 29 Adachi Project Grant/Sylvan 1991 Sun Mor Ave Completed 30 840 E El Camino Real Grant/Sylvan 840 El Camino Real E Approved 31 Loop Convenience Store Grant/Sylvan 790 El Camino Real E Completed 32 El Camino Real Hospital Campus Miramonte/Springer 2500 Grant Ave Completed 33 City Sports Miramonte/Springer 1040 Grant Ave Completed 34 Prometheus Moffett/Whisman 100 Moffett Blvd Completed 35 Hampton Inn Addition Moffett/Whisman 390 Moffett Blvd Completed 36 Calvano Development Moffett/Whisman 1075 Terra Bella Avenue Completed 37 Moffett Gateway Moffett/Whisman 750 Moffett Blvd Completed 38 Holiday Inn Express Moffett/Whisman 870 Leong Dr Approved 39 Warmington Residential Moffett/Whisman 660 Tyrella Avenue Completed 40 Dividend Homes Moffett/Whisman 111 and 123 Fairchild Dr Completed 41 133-149 Fairchild Dr Moffett/Whisman 133-149 Fairchild Dr Completed 42 Warmington Residential Moffett/Whisman 277 Fairchild Dr Completed 43 Hetch-Hetchy Property Moffett/Whisman 450 N Whisman Dr Completed 44 DeNardi Homes Moffett/Whisman 186 East Middlefield Road Under Construction 45 Tripointe Homes Moffett/Whisman 135 Ada Ave Completed 46 Tripointe Homes Moffett/Whisman 129 Ada Ave Completed 47 Robson Homes Moffett/Whisman 137 Easy St Completed
48 167 N Whisman Rd Moffett/Whisman 167 N Whisman Rd Completed 49 Antenna Farm (Pacific Dr) Moffett/Whisman Pacific Dr Completed 50 Pulte Homes Moffett/Whisman 100, 420-430 Ferguson Dr Completed 51 EFL Development Moffett/Whisman 500 Ferguson Dr Completed 52 Shenandoah Square Precise Plan Moffett/Whisman 500 Moffett Blvd On Hold *Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-4 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects (Continued)
Project Change Area/Planning Area Address Status*
53 1185 Terra Bella Ave Moffett/Whisman 1185 Terra Bella Ave Under Review 54 Linde Hydrogen Fueling Station Moffett/Whisman 830 Leong Dr Completed 55 Windsor Academy Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 908 N Rengstorff Ave Completed 56 D.R. Horton Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 827 N Rengstorff Ave Completed 57 ROEM/Eden Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 819 N Rengstorff Ave Completed 58 Paul Ryan Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 858 Sierra Vista Ave Completed 59 William Lyon Homes Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 1951 Colony St Completed 60 Dividend Homes Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 1958 Rock St Completed 61 Paul Ryan Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 2392 Rock St Completed 62 San Antonio Station Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 100 & 250 Mayfield Ave Completed 63 Northpark Apartments Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 111 N Rengstorff Ave Completed 64 333 N Rengstorff Ave Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 333 N Rengstorff Ave Completed 65 Classic Communities Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 1946 San Luis Ave Completed 66 1998-2024 Montecitio Ave Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 1998-2024 Montecito Ave Under Construction 67 Classic Communities Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 647 Sierra Vista Ave Completed 68 Dividend Homes Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 1968 Hackett Ave & 208-210 Sierra Vista Ave Completed
69 California Communities Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 2025 & 2065 San Luis Ave Completed 70 2044 and 2054 Montecito Ave Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 2044 & 2054 Montecito Ave Under Construction 71 Shorebreeze Apartments Monta Loma/Farley/Rock 460 North Shoreline Blvd Completed 72 Intuit North Bayshore 2600 Marine Way Completed
73 Sobrato Organization North Bayshore 1255 Pear Ave Approved 74 Charleston East North Bayshore 2000 North Shoreline Blvd Under Construction 75 LinkedIn and Sywest North Bayshore 1400 North Shoreline Blvd On Hold 76 Broadreach North Bayshore 1625 Plymouth Street Completed 77 Microsoft North Bayshore 1045-1085 La Avenida St Completed 78 Shashi Hotel North Bayshore 1625 North Shoreline Blvd Completed *Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-5 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects (Continued)
Project Change Area/Planning Area Address Status*
79 Community School of Music and Art San Antonio 250 San Antonio Circle Completed 80 Prometheus San Antonio 400 San Antonio Rd Completed
81 Octane Fayette San Antonio 2645 & 2655 Fayette Dr Approved 82 Merlone Geier Partners (MGP) San Antonio 405 San Antonio Rd Completed 83 Anton Calega San Antonio/Rengstorff/
Del Medio 394 Ortega Ave Completed
84 Barry Swenson Builder San Antonio/Rengstorff/
Del Medio 1958 Latham St Approved
85 2296 Mora Drive San Antonio/Rengstorff/
Del Medio 2296 Mora Dr Completed
86 St Francis High School Miramonte/Springer 1885 Miramonte Ave Approved 87 Franklin Central/Downtown 325 Franklin Street Approved 88 California Central/Downtown 756 California Street Under Review 89 North Shoreline Moffett/Whisman 1001 North Shorelin
Boulevard
Approved
90 555 West Middlefield Road Moffett/Whisman 555 West Middlefield Road Under Review 91 DeNardini San Antonio 1919-1933 Gamel Way, 574
Escuela Ave Approved
92 Tyrella Moffett/Whisman 294-296 Tyrella Avenue Approved 93 Logue Moffett/Whisman 400 Logue Avenue Approved
94 Google Landings North Bayshore
1860-2159 Landings Dr.,
1014-1058 Huff Ave, 900
Alta Avenue, 2000 North
Shoreline
Approved
95 Phan Moffett/Whisman 198 Easy Street Approved
*Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-6 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects (Continued)
Project Change Area/Planning Area Address Status*
96 Dana Street Downtown 676 West Dana Street Approved
97 Summer Hill Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 1555 West Middlefield Road Approved
98 Ambrosio El Camino Real 855-1023 West El Camino Real Approved 99 BPR El Camino Real 2300 West El Camino Real Approved 100 Dutchints San Antonio 570 South Rengstorff Avenue Approved 101 Ambra Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 901-987 N. Rengstorff Avenue Under Review 102 Hylan Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 410-414 Sierra Vista Avenue Under Construction 103 Maston Miramonte/Springer 982 Bonita Avenue Under Construction 104 McKim Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 2019 Leghorn Street Approved
105 Sand Hill Moffett/Whisman 189 North Bernardo Avenue Under Review 106 Maston El Camino Real 1313 and 1347 West El Camino Real Approved 107 Anderson El Camino Real 601 Escuela Ave and 1873 Latham Street Under Review
108 SummerHill Moffett/Whisman 355-418 E Middlefield Road Approved 109 Prometheus Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 1950 Montecito Avenue Under Construction 110 Dividend Homes Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock 2310 Rock Street Under Construction
111 Insight Realty Downtown 701 W. Evelyn Avenue Approved 112 Prometheus Downtown 1720 Villa Street Under Construction 113 Fortbay Moffett/Whisman 777 West Middlefield Road Approved *Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Appendix A
July 28, 2022 A-7 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table A-1: Additional Considered Projects (Continued)
Project Change Area/Planning
Area
Address Status*
114 Prometheus Real estate Moffett/Whisman 759 W. Middlefield Road Under Construction 115 Green Company Downtown Hope Street Lots 4 & 8 Approved 116 Dividend Homes Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock
2005 Rock Street Under Construction
117 Classic Communities Monta
Loma/Farley/Rock
315 & 319 Sierra Vista Completed
118 SummerHill Downtown 257-279 Calderon Ave Completed
119 SummerHill Moffett/Whisman 535 and 555 Walker Drive Under Construction 120 Google - Nasa Research Park Under Construction
121 Renault & Handly Moffett/Whisman 580-620 Clyde Avenue Completed 122 Flower Mart Grant Sylvan Park 525 East Evelyn Ave Under Construction 123 Greystar San Antonio 2580 and 2590 California St /
201 San Antonia Circle Under Construction
124 Eden Housing North Bayshore 1100 La Avenida St Approved 125 DeNardi Miramonte/Springer 773 Cuesta Dr Approved
126 Legend Colony Monta Loma/
Farley/Rock 828 & 836 Sierra Vista Avenue Approved
127 Jason Kim Lee San Antonio 1958 Latham St Approved
128 Colony Sierra Homes Moffett/Whisman 851-853 Sierra Vista Ave Approved 129 Lux Largo El Camino Real 1411-1495 West El Camino Approved 130 Sobrato Moffett/Whisman 600 Ellis St Approved
131 Zachary Trailer Moffett/Whisman 730 Central Ave Under Review *Source: City of Mountain View Planning Division Current Project List (City of Mountain View, December 2021) 334 San Antonio Road
Utility Impact Study
July 28, 2022 B-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
APPENDIX B:

Figures

&(175$/(;3<
˙˘
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
*5$175'
/(9,1$9(
02))(77%/9'
)$,5&+,/''5
6,(55$9,67$$9(
0217(&,72$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
$/9,167
2/'0,''/(),(/':$<
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
635,1*67+8))$9(
((/&$0,125($/
65(1*6725))$9(
3/<0287+67
<8%$'5
'$/0$'5
3($5$9(
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
6+25(%,5':$<
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
$35,&27/1
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
,1'(3(1'(1&($9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
$:$/7'5
63$&(3$5.:$<
/(('5
(/6,($9(
,9$1:$<
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
75<1$'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
3/<0287+67
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
3HUPDQHQWH
('$1$67
15(1*6725))$9(

˙˘ 6WHYHQV&UHHN
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
$50$1'$9(
ˆ
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
52&.67
%(*(1$9(
$/7$$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9( -2$48,1$9(
57-21(65' 3$56216$9(
&,7<2)
6811<9$/(
&,7<2)
/26$/726
   )HHW

3URMHFW/RF
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6W -XO\
),*85(%˛
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
&LW\RI0RXQWDLQ9LHZ
/HJHQG
6$1
$1721,2&,5
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
6$1$1721,25'
6DQ$QWRQLR3UHFLVH3ODQ
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`
_`
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXW
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU

3HDN+RXU'HPDQG
3+'
:LW
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%

6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
/HJHQG
3UHVVXUH
/HVVWKDQSVL
WRSVL
WRSVL
WRSVL
*UHDWHUWKDQSVL
   )HHW
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU

3HDN+RXU'HPDQG
3+'
:L
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%˛
   )HHW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
/HJHQG
3UHVVXUH
/HVVWKDQSVL
WRˇSVL
ˇWR˙SVL
˙WRSVL
*UHDWHUWKDQSVL
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
)LUH)ORZ'HILFLHQF\
/HJHQG
)LUH)ORZ$QDO\VLV:L
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%˛

   )HHW
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
-˝
-ˇ
-˘ -˘˝
-ˆ˝
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
6$1$1721,25'
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
)LUH)ORZ$QDO\VLV:
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%˘˛

   )HHW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
)LUH)ORZ'HILFLHQF\
/HJHQG
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
-˝
-ˇ
-˘ -˘˝
-ˆ˝
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
6$1$1721,25'
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
˘
˝





˙
˙
ˇ
˘

ˇ

˝˘
ˆ
˝



˙


 
ˇ
˝

ˆ


ˆ
˘
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3
3UHVVXUH=RQH

)URP*38:60$OW1RYHPEHU

/HJHQG
3UHVVXUH
/HVVWKDQSVL
WRˇSVL
ˇWR˙SVL
˙WRSVL
*UHDWHUWKDQSVL

3HDN+RXU'HPDQG
3+'
:LW
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%ˇ˛
   )HHW
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
˘
˝





˙
˙
ˇ
˘

ˇ

˝˘
ˆ
˝



˙


 
ˇ
˝

ˆ


ˆ
˘

3HDN+RXU'HPDQG
3+'
:L
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%ˆ˛
   )HHW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3
3UHVVXUH=RQH

)URP*38:60$OW1RYHPEHU

/HJHQG
3UHVVXUH
/HVVWKDQSVL
WRˇSVL
ˇWR˙SVL
˙WRSVL
*UHDWHUWKDQSVL
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'

˝
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
˘
˝





˙
˙
ˇ
˘

ˇ

˝˘
ˆ
˝



˙


 
ˇ
˝

ˆ


ˆ
˘
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
)LUH)ORZ'HILFLHQF\
/HJHQG
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3

)URP*38:60$OW1RYHPEHU

˘ &,31XPEHU

)LUH)ORZ$QDO\VLV:L
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%˙˛
   )HHW
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
-˘
-ˆ˝
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
6$1$1721,25' 

A A
[Z
&(175$/(;3<
_`˙˘
_`ˆ
:(/&$0,125($/
&$/,)251,$67
9,//$67
:0,''/(),(/'5'
($6<67
&$675267
/$7+$067
0,5$0217($9(
&8(67$'5
9,(:67
(0,''/(),(/'5'
*5$175'
1:+,60$15'
(//,667
02))(77%/9'
((9(/<1$9(
)$,5&+,/''5
0217(&,72$9(
6,(55$9,67$$9(
2$.67
15(1*6725))$9(
)$5/(<67
6</9$1$9(
+$16$9(
3(77,6$9(
6$15$021$9(
&/<'($9(
'$/($9(
&$/'(521$9(
/
$9(1,'$$9(
(81,&($9(
:(9(/<1$9(
6+2:(56'5
02817$,19,(:$9(
257(*$$9(
(6&8(/$$9(
7(55$%(//$$9(
0(5&<67
67,(5/,15'
66+25(/,1(%/9'
02253$5.:$<
&(175$/$9(
78/$1('5
)(5*8621'5
%85*2<1(67
6287+'5
&+,48,7$$9(
7+203621$9(
$/,&($9(
*5(7(//1
:5,*+7$9(
$1=$67
6$1$1721,25'
:$/187'5
+$&.(77$9(
*/$'<6$9(
0217$/72'5
2$./1
((/&$0,125($/
/2*8($9(
65(1*6725))$9(
%(51$5'2$9(
<8%$'5
5$9(1'$/('5
'$/0$'5
-$5',1'5 :'$1$67
&5,6$172$9(
3,21((5:$<
025*$167
0$57(16$9(
025721&7
*(67'5
1,/'$$9(
6$13,(55(:$<
0($'2:/1
1257+'5
6+(5/$1'$9(
*,/025(67
.$5(1:$<
<$/('5
-$1(/1
0$5,/<1'5
9(/$5'(67
(51(67,1(/1
)$<(77('5
*2/'(1:$<
1$7,21$/$9(
/,'$'5
25$1*(75((/1
+263,7$/'5
3,$==$'5
/,1&2/1'5
0,1$5(7$9(
&<35(6632,17'5
0,//(5$9(
&2//(*($9(
+,*+6&+22/:$<
0$',621'5
/(('5
(/6,($9(
(+5+251$9(
6$13$%/2'5
9$66$5$9(
0$<),(/'$9(
3$0(/$'5
3/$=$&7
/$66(1$9(
&2/80%,$'5
*/(1%2528*+'5
'2$1($9(
%/$&.),(/':$<
+2//,1*6:257+'5
9,1&(17'5
25&+$5'$9(
25021'('5
&+$7+$0:$<
&(175$/(;3<
'(9216+,5($9(
1:+,60$1'5
&251(//'5
&5$1($9(
326767
%21,7$$9(
&+85&+67
9,//$67
3$5.'5
/(21*'5
635,1*(55'
%$<67
/$7+$067
:'$1$67
('$1$67
[Z
`_˙˘
+23(67
02))(77%/9'
`_ˆ
&(175$/(;3<
6$1/8,6$9(
:0,''/(),(/'5'
%(*(1$9(
)$,50217$99(
<26(0,7($9(
&/<'($9(
57-21(65'

˝
7XUQRXWˆ
*UDKDP5HVHUYRLU
7XUQRXW
:KLVPDQ5HVHUYRLU
˘
˝





˙
˙
ˇ
˘

ˇ

˝˘
ˆ
˝



˙


 
ˇ
˝

ˆ


ˆ
˘

)LUH)ORZ$QDO\VLV:
:DWHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%˝˛
   )HHW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
([LVWLQJ&LW\:DWHU0DLQ
3UHVVXUH=RQH
)LUH)ORZ'HILFLHQF\
/HJHQG
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3

)URP*38:60$OW1RYHPEHU

˘ &,31XPEHU
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6WX -XO\
-˘
-ˆ˝
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
6$1$1721,25' 

ˇˆ
˘ˇB
˘ˆB
˘ˇˆB
ˇ
ˇ
˘˝˝
˘˙B
ˇ˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇˇ
ˇ˙
˘˙˙
˘ˇ
ˆ˘
ˇ˙˝
˘ˆ
ˆ˙
6,/9$$9(
'(/0(',2$9( &(175$/(;3<
6$1 $1721,2 &,5
'(/0(',2&7
6+2: (56' 5
3$&&+(77,
:
$<
6$1$1721,2 &,5
0,//(5$9(
&$/,)251,$67
$/0$67
6$1 $1721,2 5'
G'&ULWHULD0HW
G'&ULWHULD1RW0HW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
/HJHQG
UX\Z6HZHU0DLQ0RGHO,'
$IIHFWHG6HZHU&RQYH\DQFH3DWKZD\

   )HHW
3::):LWKRXW3U
6HZHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6W -XO\
$/0$675((7
5(&25'(5
ˇˆ
˘ˇB
˘ˆB
˘ˇˆB
ˇ
ˇ
˘˝˝
˘˙B
ˇ˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇˇ
ˇ˙
˘˙˙
˘ˇ
ˆ˘
ˇ˙˝
˘ˆ
ˆ˙
3$&&+(77,
:$<
6,/9$$9(
&(175$/(;3<
6$1 $1721,2 &,5
'(/0(',2&7
6+2:(56'5
'(/0(',2$9(
3$&&+(77,
:
$<
6$1 $1721,2 &,5
&$/,)251,$67
0,//(5$9(
$/0$67
6$1 $1721,2 5'

   )HHW
3::):LWK3UR
6HZHU6\VWHP0RGHO([LVW
),*85(%˛
G'&ULWHULD0HW
G'&ULWHULD1RW0HW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
/HJHQG
UX\Z6HZHU0DLQ0RGHO,'
$IIHFWHG6HZHU&RQYH\DQFH3DWKZD\
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6W -XO\
$/0$675((7
5(&25'(5
˘ˆ
ˇˆ
&'7
˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
˘˝˝
˘˙
&'7˘
ˇ˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇˇ
ˇ˙
˘˙˙
˘ˇ
˘ˇˆ
ˆ˘
ˇ˙˝
˘ˆ
ˆ˙
6,/9$$9(
'(/0(',2$9( &(175$/(;3<
6$1 $1721,2 &,5
'(/0(',2&7
6+2: (56' 5
3$&&+(77,
:
$<
6$1$1721,2 &,5
0,//(5$9(
&$/,)251,$67
$/0$67
6$1 $1721,2 5'
G'&ULWHULD0HW
G'&ULWHULD1RW0HW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
/HJHQG
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3

)URPWKH*388,62FWREHU

UX\Z6HZHU0DLQ0RGHO,'
:HVW<RVW&,3
$IIHFWHG6HZHU&RQYH\DQFH3DWKZD\
3::):LWKRXW3U

6HZHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%˛
   )HHW
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6W -XO\
*388,6&,3˘

:<&,3

:<
*388,6&,3

:<
:<
:<
:<˘






)URP:DVWHZDWHU&DSDFLW\ $OLJQPHQW
6WXG\$XJXVWˆ

˘ˆ
ˇˆ
&'7
˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
˘˝˝
˘˙
&'7˘
ˇ˘ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇˇ
ˇ˙
˘˙˙
˘ˇ
˘ˇˆ
ˆ˘
ˇ˙˝
˘ˆ
ˆ˙
3$&&+(77,
:$<
6,/9$$9(
6 &(175$/(;3<
$1 $1721,2 &,5
'(/0(',2&7
6+2:(56'5
'(/0(',2$9(
3$&&+(77,
:
$<
6$1 $1721,2 &,5
0,//(5$9(
&$/,)251,$67
$/0$67
6$1$1721,25'
3::):LWK3UR

6HZHU6\VWHP0RGHO)XWXUH&XP
),*85(%˛
   )HHW
6DQ$QWRQLR5G8WLOLW\,PSDFW6W -XO\
*388,6&,3˘

:<&,3

:<
:<
:<
:<
:<˘





*388,6&,3

G'&ULWHULD0HW
G'&ULWHULD1RW0HW
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
/HJHQG
5HFRPPHQGHG&,3

)URPWKH*388,62FWREHU

UX\Z6HZHU0DLQ0RGHO,'
:HVW<RVW&,3
$IIHFWHG6HZHU&RQYH\DQFH3DWKZD\

)URP:DVWHZDWHU&DSDFLW\ $OLJQPHQW
6WXG\$XJXVWˆ