Mountain View City Council
June 13, 2023

560 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94105
United States
www.arup.com
t + 415 957 9445

Project title North Bayshore Logistics Masterplan Job number 282535 -00
cc City of Mountain View Public Works File reference
TN-03
Prepared by Spencer Paret
Melody Ablola
Date
May 25, 202 3
Subject Delivery & Loading Requirements
The following technical note has been prepared to provide details and justification regarding the overall delivery and loading requirements for North Bayshore , in comparison to the requirements set out by city municipal code. It should be noted that the loading recommendations made in this document are meant to serve deliveries only and are exclusive of any spaces required for the storage and collection of waste and waste equipment.
1 Loading Spaces by Municipal Code & Precise Plan
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code Section 36.32.60. states the minimum number of loading spaces that shall be provided for each non -residential use unless modified by the zoning administrator is as follows:

Table 1: City of Mountain View Municipal Code Loading Space Requirements for Non-Residential Uses Type of Land Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required Commercial, industrial,
institutional, and service
uses
10,000 to 30,000 square feet 1 space
30,001 square feet and more 1 space per additional 20,000 square feet The total projected floor area for all non -residential uses of the North Bayshore project is 3,876,921 square feet. Applying this square footage to the rate provided in the table above, a total of 173 loading spaces would be required. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the non-residential loading spaces required per building which have been aggregated to the parcel level .

Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Table 2: North Bayshore Loading Space Requirements by Code for Non -Residential Uses Development
Block Building Commercial Area
(Square Feet) Loading Spaces Required
SB-BO-1 SB-O-1 Office – 235,936
Retail – 14,950 12
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2A Office – 137,762
Retail – 6,400 6
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2B Office – 137,561
Retail – 12,361 6
SB-BO-2 SB-O-3 Office – 155,914 7
SB-BO-2 SB-O-4 Office – 187,430 8
SB-BO-2 SB-O-5 Office – 205,351 9
SB-BO-2 SB-O-6 Office – 189,461 8
SB-BO-3 SB-O-7 Office – 140,187 6
SB-BO-3 SB-O-8 Office – 177,501 8
SB-BO-3 SB-O-9 Office – 72,491 3
SB-FLEX SB-C-1201 Community – 55,000
Utility – 35,000 4
Green Way Park West SB-K-1 Retail – 1,000 0
Green Way Park West SB-K-2 Retail – 1,000 0
Green Way Park West SB-K-3 Retail – 1,000 0
SB-BH SB-H-1 Hotel – 160,000
Retail – 16,731 8
SB-PR-6 SB-P-1 Retail – 4,550 0
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 Retail – 8,699 0
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 Retail – 18,493 1
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 Retail – 18,510 1
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 Retail – 21,197 1
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 Retail – 18,552 1
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 Retail – 12,825 1
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 Retail – 16,732 1
SB-DCP SB-CUP Utility – 95,000 4
JS-BO-1 JS-O-1 Office – 250,000
Retail – 3,990 12
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 Retail – 7,000 0
JS-FLEX JS-P-1 Retail – 4,000 0
JS-FLEX JS-H-1 Hotel – 180,000 8
JN-BO-1 JN-O-1 Office – 181,374 8
JN-BO-1 JN-O-2 Office – 190,715 9
JN-BO-1 JN-O-3 Office – 192,553 9
JN-BO-1 JN-O-4 Office – 190,067 9
JN-BO-2 JN-O-5 Office – 236,754 11
JN-BO-2 JN-O-6 Office – 236,874 11
Joaquin Portal Park JN-K-1 Retail – 1,000 0
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 Retail – 7,748 0
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 Retail – 3,299 0
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Building Commercial Area
(Square Feet) Loading Spaces Required
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 Retail – 20,655 1
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 Retail – 3,298 0
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 Retail – 10,000 0
Totals: 3,876,921 173
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code Section 36.32.60. defines loading space requirements for commercial, industrial, institutional and service uses, but does not explicitly define residential loading requirements. Per Section 36.32.60. ,“requirements for uses not specifically listed shall be determined by the zoning administrator based upon the requirements for comparable uses and upon the part icular characteristics of the proposed use .” Given that the North Bayshore Precise Plan also does not define residential loading requirements, they have been noted as zero until further direction from the City of Mountain View zoning administrator is provi ded. Table 3 below specifies the expected number of dwelling units and the corresponding number of loading spaces required by Section 36.32.60. .

Table 3: North Bayshore Loading Space Requirements by Code for Residential Buildings Development
Block Residential Building Number of
Units
Residential Loading Spaces
Required
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 160 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 206 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 177 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 251 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 211 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 297 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 176 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-6 SB-R-8 159 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-7 SB-R-9 172 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-6 SB-R-10 61 0 (TBD)
SB-BR-8 SB-R-11 215 0 (TBD)
JS-BR-1 JS-R-1 253 0 (TBD)
JS-BR-1 JS-R-2 156 0 (TBD)
JS-BR-2 JS-R-3 83 0 (TBD)
JS-BR-2 JS-R-4 193 0 (TBD)
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 318 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-2 JN-P-1 195 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-1 JN-R-1 415 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-1 JN-R-2 167 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-2 JN-R-3 432 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-1 JN-R-4 340 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-2 JN-R-5 254 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 375 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 331 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-7 JN-R-8 200 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 391 0 (TBD)
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 240 0 (TBD)
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Residential Building Number of
Units
Residential Loading Spaces
Required
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 341 0 (TBD)
PE-BR-2 PE-R-2 231 0 (TBD)
Totals: 7,000 0 (TBD)
Therefore, the total loading space requirements by individual buildings, as set out by city municipal code for both residential and non -residential, is 173 loading spaces , as demonstrated in Table 4.

Table 4: North Bayshore Loading Space Requirements for Residential and Non -Residential Buildings Development
Block Building Residential Loading
Spaces Required
Commercial Loading
Spaces Required
Total Loading
Spaces Required
SB-BO-1 SB-O-1 0 12 12
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2A 0 6 6
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2B 0 6 6
SB-BO-2 SB-O-3 0 7 7
SB-BO-2 SB-O-4 0 8 8
SB-BO-2 SB-O-5 0 9 9
SB-BO-2 SB-O-6 0 8 8
SB-BO-3 SB-O-7 0 6 6
SB-BO-3 SB-O-8 0 8 8
SB-BO-3 SB-O-9 0 3 3
SB-FLEX SB-C-1201 0 4 4
Green Way
Park West SB-K-1 0 0 0
Green Way
Park West SB-K-2 0 0 0
Green Way
Park West SB-K-3 0 0 0
SB-BH SB-H-1 0 8 8
SB-BR-6 SB-P-1 0 0 0
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 0 0 0
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 0 1 1
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 0 1 1
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 0 1 1
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 0 1 1
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 0 1 1
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 0 1 1
SB-BR-6 SB-R-8 0 0 0
SB-BR-7 SB-R-9 0 0 0
SB-BR-6 SB-R-10 0 0 0
SB-BR-8 SB-R-11 0 0 0
SB-DCP SB-CUP 0 4 4
JS-BO-1 JS-O-1 0 12 12
JS-BR-1 JS-R-1 0 0 0
JS-BR-1 JS-R-2 0 0 0
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Building Residential Loading
Spaces Required
Commercial Loading
Spaces Required
Total Loading
Spaces Required
JS-BR-2 JS-R-3 0 0 0
JS-BR-2 JS-R-4 0 0 0
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 0 0 0
JS-FLEX JS-P-1 0 0 0
JS-FLEX JS-H-1 0 8 8
JN-BO-1 JN-O-1 0 8 8
JN-BO-1 JN-O-2 0 9 9
JN-BO-1 JN-O-3 0 9 9
JN-BO-1 JN-O-4 0 9 9
JN-BO-2 JN-O-5 0 11 11
JN-BO-2 JN-O-6 0 11 11
Joaquin Portal
Park JN-K-1 0 0 0
JN-BR-2 JN-P-1 0 0 0
JN-BR-1 JN-R-1 0 0 0
JN-BR-1 JN-R-2 0 0 0
JN-BR-2 JN-R-3 0 0 0
JN-BR-1 JN-R-4 0 0 0
JN-BR-2 JN-R-5 0 0 0
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 0 0 0
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 0 0 0
JN-BR-7 JN-R-8 0 0 0
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 0 1 1
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 0 0 0
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 0 0 0
PE-BR-2 PE-R-2 0 0 0
Totals: 0 173 173
2 Demand-based Loading Recommendations
As opposed to a loading space per square footage or per unit metric, a demand -based approach was applied that uses standard generation rates from local and global data surveys , specific to individual land uses. This demand -based approach has been agreed upon by the City in lieu of the municipal code for other precedent projects , including Charleston East and Landings. The demand -based forecast shown in Table 5 outlines anticipated daily delivery vehicle arrivals by land use :

Table 5: Demand -based Daily Delivery Vehicle Arrivals by Program Type Program Type Area (Square Feet) Deliveries per Day
Office 3,117,931 319
Residential 7,187,342 468
Hotel 340,000 53
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Retail 233,990 179
Community 55,000 5
Utility 130,000 12
Totals: 11,064,263 1,036
Given that some buildings have mixed land uses, a breakdown of daily delivery vehicle arrivals by program type for each building is provided in Table 6. It is expected that office will require dedicated loading bays for security reasons, and thus daily delivery arrivals ha ve been split between office and non-office land uses.

Table 6: Deman d-based Daily Delivery Vehicle Arrivals by Building and Land Use Development
Block Building
Average Daily Arrivals
Office
Non-Office Office
and
Non-Office
Total
Residential Hotel Retail Community Utility
Non-
Office
Total
SB-BO-1 SB-O-1 24 0 0 11 0 0 11 35
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2A 14 0 0 5 0 0 5 19
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2B 14 0 0 9 0 0 9 23
SB-BO-2 SB-O-3 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
SB-BO-2 SB-O-4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
SB-BO-2 SB-O-5 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
SB-BO-2 SB-O-6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
SB-BO-3 SB-O-7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
SB-BO-3 SB-O-8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
SB-BO-3 SB-O-9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

SB-FLEX SB-C-
1201 0 0 0 0 5 3 8 8
Green Way
Park West SB-K-1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Green Way
Park West SB-K-2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Green Way
Park West SB-K-3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
SB-BH SB-H-1 0 0 25 13 0 0 38 38
SB-BR-6 SB-P-1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 0 10 0 7 0 0 17 17
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 0 14 0 14 0 0 28 28
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 0 13 0 14 0 0 27 27
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 0 19 0 16 0 0 35 35
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 0 13 0 14 0 0 27 27
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 0 19 0 10 0 0 29 29
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 0 12 0 13 0 0 25 25
SB-BR-6 SB-R-8 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10
SB-BR-7 SB-R-9 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10
SB-BR-6 SB-R-10 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4
SB-BR-8 SB-R-11 0 16 0 0 0 0 16 16
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Building
Average Daily Arrivals
Office
Non-Office Office
and
Non-Office
Total
Residential Hotel Retail Community Utility
Non-
Office
Total
SB-DCP SB-CUP 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9
JS-BO-1 JS-O-1 26 0 0 3 0 0 3 29
JS-BR-1 JS-R-1 0 17 0 0 0 0 17 17
JS-BR-1 JS-R-2 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 11
JS-BR-2 JS-R-3 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5
JS-BR-2 JS-R-4 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 14
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 0 21 0 5 0 0 26 26
JS-FLEX JS-P-1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3
JS-FLEX JS-H-1 0 0 28 0 0 0 28 28
JN-BO-1 JN-O-1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
JN-BO-1 JN-O-2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
JN-BO-1 JN-O-3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
JN-BO-1 JN-O-4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
JN-BO-2 JN-O-5 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
JN-BO-2 JN-O-6 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Joaquin Portal
Park JN-K-1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
JN-BR-2 JN-P-1 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 14
JN-BR-1 JN-R-1 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 27
JN-BR-2 JN-R-2 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 11
JN-BR-2 JN-R-3 0 30 0 0 0 0 30 30
JN-BR-1 JN-R-4 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 25
JN-BR-2 JN-R-5 0 18 0 0 0 0 18 18
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 0 24 0 6 0 0 30 30
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 0 23 0 3 0 0 26 26
JN-BR-7 JN-R-8 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 13
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 0 25 0 15 0 0 40 40
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 0 16 0 3 0 0 19 19
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 0 19 0 8 0 0 27 27
PE-BR-2 PE-R-2 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 15
Totals: 319 468 53 179 5 12 717 1,036
Daily deliveries are then used to forecast peak hour deliver y volumes , and the associated peak hour loading bay requirements. For all land uses , it is assumed that 15% of all deliveries will arrive during the peak hour and each vehicle will have a 30-minute turnaround time. Table 7 demonstrates how daily delivery volumes are used to forecast peak hour delivery vehicle arrivals, which are then used to approximate peak hour loading bay requirements . Given the office security concerns discussed above, loading requirements are separated between office and non -office land uses. It is assumed that loading areas can be shared between non -office land uses. Under this demand -based approach, 112 loading spaces are required.

Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Google is investigating logistics interventions that could further reduce demand -based office loading requirements in the future, but those interventions have not been assumed for this technical analysis to maintain a conservative analysis until those interventions are confirmed.

Table 7: Deman d-based Loading Bay Requirements by Building Development
Block Building
Office Non-Office Office and
Non-Office
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays
Average
Daily
Arrivals
Peak Hour
Arrivals*
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays**
Average
Daily
Arrivals
Peak Hour
Arrivals*
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays**
SB-BO-1 SB-O-1 24 3.6 2 11 1.7 1 3
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2A 14 2.1 2 5 0.8 1 3
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2B 14 2.1 2 9 1.4 1 3
SB-BO-2 SB-O-3 16 2.4 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-2 SB-O-4 19 2.9 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-2 SB-O-5 21 3.2 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-2 SB-O-6 19 2.9 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-3 SB-O-7 14 2.1 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-3 SB-O-8 18 2.7 2 0 0.0 0 2
SB-BO-3 SB-O-9 7 1.1 1 0 0.0 0 1

SB-FLEX SB-C-
1201 0 0.0 0 8 1.2 1 1
Green Way
Park West SB-K-1 0 0.0 0 1 0.2 1 1
Green Way
Park West SB-K-2 0 0.0 0 1 0.2 1 1
Green Way
Park West SB-K-3 0 0.0 0 1 0.2 1 1
SB-BH SB-H-1 0 0.0 0 38 5.7 3 3
SB-BR-6 SB-P-1 0 0.0 0 3 0.5 1 1
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 0 0.0 0 17 2.6 2 2
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 0 0.0 0 28 4.2 3 3
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 0 0.0 0 27 4.1 3 3
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 0 0.0 0 35 5.3 3 3
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 0 0.0 0 27 4.1 3 3
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 0 0.0 0 29 4.4 3 3
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 0 0.0 0 25 3.8 2 2
SB-BR-6 SB-R-8 0 0.0 0 10 1.5 1 1
SB-BR-7 SB-R-9 0 0.0 0 10 1.5 1 1
SB-BR-6 SB-R-10 0 0.0 0 4 0.6 1 1
SB-BR-8 SB-R-11 0 0.0 0 16 2.4 2 2
SB-DCP SB-CUP 0 0.0 0 9 1.4 1 1
JS-BO-1 JS-O-1 26 3.9 2 3 0.5 1 3
JS-BR-1 JS-R-1 0 0.0 0 17 2.6 2 2
JS-BR-1 JS-R-2 0 0.0 0 11 1.7 1 1
JS-BR-2 JS-R-3 0 0.0 0 5 0.8 1 1
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Building
Office Non-Office Office and
Non-Office
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays
Average
Daily
Arrivals
Peak Hour
Arrivals*
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays**
Average
Daily
Arrivals
Peak Hour
Arrivals*
Peak Hour
Loading
Bays**
JS-BR-2 JS-R-4 0 0.0 0 14 2.1 2 2
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 0 0.0 0 26 3.9 2 2
JS-FLEX JS-P-1 0 0.0 0 3 0.5 1 1
JS-FLEX JS-H-1 0 0.0 0 28 4.2 3 3
JN-BO-1 JN-O-1 19 2.9 2 0 0.0 0 2
JN-BO-1 JN-O-2 20 3.0 2 0 0.0 0 2
JN-BO-1 JN-O-3 20 3.0 2 0 0.0 0 2
JN-BO-1 JN-O-4 20 3.0 2 0 0.0 0 2
JN-BO-2 JN-O-5 24 3.6 2 0 0.0 0 2
JN-BO-2 JN-O-6 24 3.6 2 0 0.0 0 2
Joaquin Portal
Park JN-K-1 0 0.0 0 1 0.2 1 1
JN-BR-2 JN-P-1 0 0.0 0 14 2.1 2 2
JN-BR-1 JN-R-1 0 0.0 0 27 4.1 3 3
JN-BR-1 JN-R-2 0 0.0 0 11 1.7 1 1
JN-BR-2 JN-R-3 0 0.0 0 30 4.5 3 3
JN-BR-1 JN-R-4 0 0.0 0 25 3.8 2 2
JN-BR-2 JN-R-5 0 0.0 0 18 2.7 2 2
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 0 0.0 0 30 4.5 3 3
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 0 0.0 0 26 3.9 2 2
JN-BR-7 JN-R-8 0 0.0 0 13 2.0 1 1
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 0 0.0 0 40 6.0 3 3
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 0 0.0 0 19 2.9 2 2
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 0 0.0 0 27 4.1 3 3
PE-BR-2 PE-R-2 0 0.0 0 15 2.3 2 2
Totals: 319 48 33 717 109 79 112
*The total arrivals in the peak hour were calculated by taking the sum of the daily arrivals and multiplying it by a factor of 15%
**It is assumed a single loading space can accommodate two deliveries during the peak hour, applying an average turnaround time of 30 minutes per vehicle.

Table 8 below compares the recommended demand -based load ing bay count versus the loading bay requirement by code for office spaces. When comparing the code requirement to the demand -based loading approach, there is a delta of -61 loading spaces .

Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Table 8: Office Demand -based Recommendati ons vs. Code Requirements Development
Block Building
Total Bays
Recommended at Peak
(Demand-based)
Total Bays
Recommended by
Code
Delta
SB-BO-1 SB-O-1 3 12 -9
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2A 3 6 -3
SB-BO-1 SB-O-2B 3 6 -3
SB-BO-2 SB-O-3 2 7 -5
SB-BO-2 SB-O-4 2 8 -6
SB-BO-2 SB-O-5 2 9 -7
SB-BO-2 SB-O-6 2 8 -6
SB-BO-3 SB-O-7 2 6 -4
SB-BO-3 SB-O-8 2 8 -6
SB-BO-3 SB-O-9 1 3 -2
SB-FLEX SB-C-1201 1 4 -3
Green Way Park
West SB-K-1 1 0 +1
Green Way Park
West SB-K-2 1 0 +1
Green Way Park
West SB-K-3 1 0 +1
SB-BH SB-H-1 3 8 -5
SB-BR-6 SB-P-1 1 0 +1
SB-BR-1 SB-R-1 2 0 +2
SB-BR-1 SB-R-2 3 1 +2
SB-BR-2 SB-R-3 3 1 +2
SB-BR-2 SB-R-4 3 1 +2
SB-BR-3 SB-R-5 3 1 +2
SB-BR-4 SB-R-6 3 1 +2
SB-BR-5 SB-R-7 2 1 +1
SB-BR-6 SB-R-8 1 0 +1
SB-BR-7 SB-R-9 1 0 +1
SB-BR-6 SB-R-10 1 0 +1
SB-BR-8 SB-R-11 2 0 +2
SB-DCP SB-CUP 1 4 -3
JS-BO-1 JS-O-1 3 12 -9
JS-BR-1 JS-R-1 2 0 +2
JS-BR-1 JS-R-2 1 0 +1
JS-BR-2 JS-R-3 1 0 +1
JS-BR-2 JS-R-4 2 0 +2
JS-BR-3 JS-R-5 2 0 +2
JS-FLEX JS-P-1 1 0 +1
JS-FLEX JS-H-1 3 8 -5
JN-BO-1 JN-O-1 2 8 -6
Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Development
Block Building
Total Bays
Recommended at Peak
(Demand-based)
Total Bays
Recommended by
Code
Delta
JN-BO-1 JN-O-2 2 9 -7
JN-BO-1 JN-O-3 2 9 -7
JN-BO-1 JN-O-4 2 9 -7
JN-BO-2 JN-O-5 2 11 -9
JN-BO-2 JN-O-6 2 11 -9
Joaquin Portal
Park JN-K-1 1 0 +1
JN-BR-2 JN-P-1 2 0 +2
JN-BR-1 JN-R-1 3 0 +3
JN-BR-1 JN-R-2 1 0 +1
JN-BR-2 JN-R-3 3 0 +3
JN-BR-1 JN-R-4 2 0 +2
JN-BR-2 JN-R-5 2 0 +2
JN-BR-4 JN-R-6 3 0 +3
JN-BR-7 JN-R-7 2 0 +2
JN-BR-7 JN-R-8 1 0 +1
JN-BR-6 JN-R-10 3 1 +2
JN-BR-7 JN-R-11 2 0 +2
PE-BR-1 PE-R-1 3 0 +3
PE-BR-2 PE-R-2 2 0 +2
Totals: 112 173 -61
3 Typical Loading Bay Dimensions & Sizing
A 40’ long box truck (SU-40) is proposed as the design vehicle for the site. To accommodate this vehicle, l oading bays will be sized at 1 2’ W x 40’ L with 15’ of vertical clearance . Per City of Mountain View Municipa l Code Section 36.32.75, minimum required dimensions for a loading s pace set by the City of Mountain View: 10’ W x 2 5’ L with 12’ of vertical clearance . An example loading dock layout at a typical building is shown in Figure 1. Section 3.3.11 of the North Bayshore Precise Plan and Section 36.32.75 of City of M ountain View Municipal Code further prescribe location, screening, and other off -street loading design requirements.

Technical Note

282535 -00 May 25, 2023

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\AMERICAS\JOBS\S-F\280000 \282535 -00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA \4-05 REPORTS & MEMOS\2021 -10-21 NBS LOADING BAY MEMO\2023 -05-26 ISSUE\2023 -05-26 LOGISTICS MEMO.DOCX

Figure 1: Example Loading Dock Layout
Table 9 outlines the various minimum height clearance s required for the various delivery and service vehicles that will be accessing the site .

Table 9: Minimum Height Clearances by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type Length Clear Height Requirement
Van < 24’ 12’
Box Truck 30’ – 40’ 15’
Tractor-trailer (Articulated) > 40’ 15’
Waste Collection Truck 40’ 15’ for traveling , 22’ for tipping

© LENDLEASE
D. TRANSORTATION TECHNICAL MEMO
Appendix J
Parking technical memo

04.2023

60 S. Market Street | Suite 700 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: May 31, 2023
To: Neil Smolen, Lendlease
From: Robert Eckols, PE, and Kevin Zamzow-Pollock; Fehr & Peers Subject: Parking Technical Evaluation for Google’s North Bayshore Framework Master Plan in Mountain View, California
SJ21-2074
This memorandum presents the results of a technical evaluation of the parking proposed in Google’s North Bayshore Framework Master Plan (Master Plan) development located in the North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP) area in Mountain View, California.

Key Findings
The following key findings resulted from the analysis presented in this memorandum:
• The NBS Framework Master Plan will provide up to 6,236 parking spaces for office uses, 4,550 parking spaces for residential uses, and 1,612shared parking spaces for retail, hotel, residential guests, and community uses. The district central plant will provide 5 parking spaces. The combined total parking supply for all Master Plan land uses is 12,403 parking spaces.
• Based on the parking supply requirements outlined in the NBPP, the Master Plan can supply up to a maximum of 14,802 parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan parking supply is below the NBPP parking supply maximums. • For the shared parking analysis, the parking demand rates for the Master Plan land uses were assumed to be as follows:
◦ The parking demand rate for market-rate office uses is estimated to be 1.85 vehicles per 1,000 square feet. This rate was calculated using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) base office parking demand rate of 2.80 vehicles per 1,000 square feet that was Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

adjusted to account for Google’s proposal to achieve a single-occupant vehicle mode share of 35%.
◦ The parking demand rate for residential uses is estimated to be 0.65 vehicles per unit based on the anticipated mix of unit types (studios, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, & 3- bedroom). The residential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program will be used to meet these reduced parking standards as described in the North Bayshore Residential Parking TDM and Demand Analysis, Nelson-Nygaard, August 2022. ◦ The peak parking demand rate for residential guests was assumed to be 10% of the residential parking rate, or 0.065 vehicles per unit. The residential guest demand rate is consistent with the assumptions in the ULI for residential studio-efficiency parking. ◦ Parking demand rates for retail, hotel, and community uses were also based on the ULI baseline parking demand rates, which are derived from data collected by ULI and data presented in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, Fifth Edition.
• Without shared parking, the total parking demand for Master Plan is 11,479 vehicles. This demand accounts for the 35% SOV mode choice for office and adjustments to the other uses for TDM and internalization within the planning area. Key assumptions in the weekday analysis were:
◦ 60% of the weekday retail trips would be internalized to the Master Plan Area and not require parking, 40% of weekend retail trips would be internalized. ◦ 50% of the community trips would be internalized to the Master Plan Area and would not require parking, and
◦ 60% of the hotel trips would not arrive in a vehicle that would park on-site. • Comparing the weekday peak shared parking demand to the proposed Master Plan shared parking supply results in a parking surplus of 452 spaces. The office parking has a surplus of 467 spaces; however, these uses have dedicated (reserved) parking and these spaces are not available to the other land uses.
• For the remaining uses including retail, hotel, residential guests, and community uses, the unshared weekday peak parking demand is 1,160 vehicles and the proposed parking supply is 1,612 spaces. Therefore, without accounting for the time-of-day variation of the shared land uses there is a surplus of 452 spaces.
• With shared parking for the retail, hotel, residential guests, and community uses, the weekday peak demand with shared parking in place is 954 vehicles and the shared parking surplus is 6658 spaces. On the weekends the peak parking demand with shared parking in place is 939 vehicles, and the surplus is 673 spaces.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Project Description
The Master Plan is a mixed-use community complete with stores, services, and restaurants for residents, neighbors, and workers, and a range of plazas and open spaces. The Master Plan Area is located near the center of the NBPP Area. Primary vehicular access into the Master Plan Area is provided by Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, and Amphitheater Parkway.

Table 1 summarizes the planned land uses for the Master Plan. The office component includes a total of 3,117,931 square feet of office space. The residential portion of the Project includes a total of 7,000 dwelling units. There will also be a total of 525 hotel rooms between two buildings, 233,990 square feet of neighborhood supporting retail space located on the ground floors of mixed-use buildings, and 55,000 square feet of community uses.

The Master Plan area includes parks and open space that will serve residents and workers as well as visitors. Parking for local serving parks will be provided in the shared parking and on-street parking areas.

The Project will provide up to 6,236 parking spaces for office uses and 4,550 parking spaces for residential uses. The Project will provide 1,612 shared parking spaces for retail, hotel, and community uses. Residential guests will also use the shared parking supply. Five parking spaces will be provided at the central district plant. The central district plant spaces were not included in the shared parking analysis. In total, the Project’s parking supply for all land uses will be 12,403 parking spaces.

Table 1: Master Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Amount
Office Use 3,117,931 square feet
Total Residential Units 7,000 units
Retail Use 233,990 square feet
Hotel 525 rooms
Community Use 55,000 square feet
Source: Lendlease, 2022
Table 2 summarizes the parking supply proposed for the Master Plan. The purpose of this master plan-level evaluation is to estimate the project parking demand to validate if demand can be adequately accommodated at, or below, the NBPP maximum supply limits.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Table 2: Master Plan Proposed Parking Supply
Land Use Amount Proposed Parking
Supply Rate1 Proposed Parking Supply
Office 3,117,931 sq ft 2.00 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 6,236 spaces Residential2 7,000 du 0.65 spaces per du 4,550 spaces
Residential Guests 7,000 du
Shared Parking 1,612 spaces
Retail 233,990 sq ft
Hotel 525 rooms
Community Use 55,000 sq ft
District Central Plant NA NA 5 spaces
Total Supply 12,403 spaces

1. These rates are an approximation of the parking supply maximums reported in the project description of the Master Plan.

2. The residential parking supply during Phase 1 would be 1.25 spaces per unit that would be provided at a temporary off-site location(s) within the Master Plan area, however the specific location(s) have not been identified. At build out, residential parking would be provided at 0.65 spaces per unit.

Source: Lendlease, 2022.

Table 3 shows the parking capacities and assumed type of parking of the district parking garages.

The parking counts presented are spaces associated with the Master Plan. The SA-P-1 garage may accommodate additional parking stalls to support City/public uses (i.e., non-Master Plan uses).

Master Plan Mode Share Targets & Parking
Master Plan Mode Share Targets & Parking
To minimize the number of vehicle trips into and out of North Bayshore, the NBPP includes a district-wide, single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode share target of 45%. However, Google’s Master Plan commits to achieving a 35% SOV mode share at Project build out through TDM measures and progressive site design features. Therefore, it is possible that the calculations and conclusions presented in this memorandum may differ from the observed parking demand at Project buildout based on the effectiveness of the overall TDM plan. The Project’s ability to meet this aggressive 35% SOV mode share target and the associated parking demand will be regularly monitored as part of the TDM Plan. If spillover parking is observed, it will be the developer’s responsibility to adjust their parking policies and TDM programs to meet their transportation commitments.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Table 3: Parking Distribution & Users
District / Location Uses Served Capacity1 Office Residential Hotel & Active Uses
District Parking
SA-P-1
Amphitheatre2 Office parking 4,334 4,334
SB-P-1 Shorebird Retail, hotel, community,
and visitor parking 600 600
JN-P-1 Joaquin
North residential, retail,
hotel, community, and
visitor parking
500 500
JS-P-1 Joaquin
South Office, retail, hotel 700 404 296
MW-P-1 &
MW-P-2 Marine
Way
Office 890 890
District Central
Plant3 District Central Plant 5
District Parking Subtotal: 7,029 5,628 1,396
On-site Parking
On-site Parking Subtotal: 5,374 608 4,550 216
Totals 12,403 6,236 4,550 1,612
1 The final number of parking spaces per building and how many will be housed in a district parking garage will be determined during the design phase for each building.
2 SA-P-1 may accommodate additional parking stalls to support City/public uses (i.e., non-Master Plan uses). 3 The surface parking provided at the District Central Plant is considered insignificant and not considered in the shared parking analysis.

Source: NBS Framework Master Plan, Table 6.1.1 - March 2022, Page 53, Google-Lendlease (updated October 19, 2022) NBMA Phasing
During early phases of the Master Plan, parking demand rates are expected to exceed the build out parking supply rates presented in Table 2. During the phased development of the Master Plan, parking demand rates would gradually reduce to the build out parking supply rates presented in Table 2 as a result of changes to the built environment, expansion of the multimodal transportation network, and TDM that results in a mode shift away from drive alone vehicles.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Temporary off-site parking would be provided at existing lots within the Master Plan area as buildings are vacated for redevelopment. No new permanent parking would be constructed to support the temporary near-term parking demand.

For residential uses, it is anticipated that early phases of the Master Plan would generate a total parking demand of 1.25 stalls per dwelling unit, which would result in a temporary off- site residential parking demand of 0.6 stalls per dwelling unit. The anticipated reduction in residential parking demand by phase is presented in Figure 1 below.

For hotel and active uses, existing surface parking lots may also be utilized until multi- story garages are constructed.

NBPP Parking Supply Requirements
The NBPP outlines various policies to encourage multimodal travel and discourage travel by SOV, including implementing parking supply maximums for most land uses. Table 4 shows the parking requirements for all land uses in the Master Plan based on the NBPP. For office use, the maximum parking supply is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. For residential uses, maximum parking supply rates of 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 spaces per unit for micro/studios, 1-bedroom, and 2+-bedroom units, respectively. The NBPP does not set minimum or maximum parking standards for retail, hotel, and community use. The parking supplies will be equivalent to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation manual peak period parking demand for the most comparable land use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

Table 4: North Bayshore Precise Plan Parking Standards Land Use Maximum Parking Requirement
Office/Research and Development 2.70 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of gross building floor area Retail/Commercial greater than 1,000 sq. ft. No maximum1 Residential – Micro-units2 0.25 spaces per unit
Average residential rate =
~0.65 spaces per unit3 Residential - 1-bedroom 0.50 spaces per unit Residential – 2-bedroom and up 1.00 spaces per unit
Residential Guests No maximum1
Hotel No maximum1
Community No maximum1
Notes:

1. For uses with no maximum, the equivalent to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation manual peak period parking demand for the most comparable land use as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

2. Up to 450 square feet and without a separate bedroom. For this assessment, all studios are considered micro-units.

3. Varies based on the unit mix, but cannot exceed 0.65 per unit.

Source: North Bayshore Precise Plan, 2019.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Since the NBPP does not set a maximum parking supply for retail uses, for this evaluation we relied on information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation manual. Land Use: 820 Shopping Center was the most comparable use based on the size of the retail space. The ITE Shopping Center parking demand rate combines multiple retail, food & beverage, and entertainment uses into a single rate. It accounts for internal trips between the uses (park once for multiple activities). Additional adjustments will be made to these rates to account for the mixed-use setting, which are described later in this document. For this parking evaluation, the 85th-percentile peak parking demand rates for Land Use 820: Shopping Center of

3.68 spaces per 1,000 square feet was used.

The NBPP does not set a maximum parking supply rate for hotels. For this evaluation, it was assumed that the maximum parking standard for hotels would be 0.70 spaces per key. This assumption is based on hotel occupancy surveys conducted by three traffic consultants for the City of Mountain View in 2016 and 2017. These memorandums documented a rate of less than one space per key. The hotels surveyed were business hotels and did not have ancillary uses provided on-site. The current assumption is that the proposed Master Plan hotels will not have ancillary uses such as ballrooms or conference centers.

The NBPP does not provide a maximum parking supply rate for community uses. The nature of the community uses has not been clearly defined; however, we understand that the community uses will not include recreational facilities and will function more like office space with meeting rooms and other amenities. Therefore, for the analysis the parking supply was assumed to be the same as the office maximum supply rate of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Ultimately, the parking supply requirements for the retail, hotel, and community uses will be determined by the zoning administrator.

Table 5 estimates the maximum parking allowed based on the land use summary in Table 1 and the parking supply rates in Table 4. Based on these assumptions, the Project would need to provide no more than 14,802 parking spaces for land uses with NBPP maximums (i.e., non- community uses). The Master Plan proposes to provide 12,403 parking spaces for all land uses.

Therefore, the Master Plan parking supply is within the NBPP maximum parking supply requirements.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Table 5: NBPP Requirements and Master Plan Proposed Supply Land Use Size NBPP Maximum or ITE
Parking Demand Rate
NBPP Parking
Requirements
(spaces)
Master Plan
Proposed Parking
Supply(spaces)
Office 3,117,931sq. ft. 2.70 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 8,419 6236 Residential 7,000 units 0.65 spaces per unit 4,550 4,550 Residential Guests1 7,000 units 0.065 spaces per unit 455 1,612
Retail2 233,990 sq. ft. 3.68 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 861 Hotel3 525 keys 0.70 spaces per key 368
Community4 55,000 sq. ft. 2.70 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 149 District Central Plant NA NA NA 5
Total 14,802 12,4035
`Notes:

1. Used the ULI Shared Parking default rate for guest parking of 10% of the resident parking supply.

2. Used the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual’s 85th percentile peak demand rate for Land Use 820: Shopping Center.

3. Hotel rate was derived from local hotel parking studies prepared for the City of Mountain View, 2016 & 2017.

4. Community parking supply was assumed to be provided at the same rate as office parking.

5. SA-P- 1 may accommodate additional parking stalls to support City/public uses (i.e., non-Master Plan uses).

Source: North Bayshore Precise Plan, 2019 & Lendlease, 2023.

Parking Demand Assessment
Fehr & Peers conducted a parking demand assessment for the Master Plan both with and without shared parking. Since Google is proposing to occupy the office space, the office parking demand rates used in the analysis reflect that of typical Google employees based on meeting the SOV mode share target of 35% at buildout. The parking demand rates for the other land uses are discussed below.

Shared Parking Analysis Methods
Urban Land Institute Methodology
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) sponsored a national study in 1984 that established basic methods for analyzing parking demand in mixed-use developments and developed average parking rates by land use. Fehr & Peers staff participated in the 2004 update of this national study sponsored by ULI. In 2020, a third update of the report was published. The analysis presented in this memorandum utilizes the data from the updated Shared Parking, Third Editio n report.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

In the shared parking methodology, the base parking rate and daily, hourly, and seasonal patterns for each land use are established, and the overall parking demand is calculated by considering the unique travel characteristics of the Project being analyzed. For land uses without large seasonal fluctuations (i.e., non-retail land uses), hourly parking demand patterns are primarily used to identify the highest parking demand for a typical weekday.

For this assessment, peak parking demand rates for all land uses are as discussed in the following sections and, for some land uses, the rates are based on more site-specific data than presented in Shared Parking, Third Edition. Daily/hourly/seasonal patterns from Shared Parking were used to calculate the shared parking demand reduction for all land uses.

Shared Parking & Land Use Assumptions
Upon completion, the parking configuration at Master Plan will be similar to what is described below:
• Office employees will have dedicated parking facilities. Office employees will be discouraged from using the shared parking facilities for other land uses by implementing physical controls, time limits, or parking fines.
• Residential land uses will have dedicated parking facilities on site. Similar to office employees, residents will be discouraged from using the shared parking facilities for other land uses by implementing physical controls, time limits, or parking fines. • Retail, hotel, community, and residential guest parking will use a collective shared parking supply consolidated in the district parking. Additionally, the retail land uses may have up to 136 on-site dedicated parking spaces within the Shorebird neighborhood. • There will be on-street parking spaces within the Master Plan Area. These spaces were not considered a part of the parking supply; however, they would be available to short-term Master Plan resident guests, retail customers, institution users, and park/open space visitors. On-street parking will be managed such that it will not be available for overnight parking.

As stated previously, the nature of the community uses has not been finalized; however, the uses are not proposed as recreational in nature. Instead, the space may function more like office uses, meeting spaces, or other working space. The parking supply for community uses is not constrained by a NBPP parking maximum. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that community uses are part of the shared parking demand and would use the shared parking supply .

The remainder of this assessment estimates the parking demand for office, residential, retail, hotel, and community uses in the Master Plan.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Parking Demand Rate Assumptions
Parking Demand Rates for Office Employees
ULI’s Shared Parking, Third Edition provides a base parking demand rate of 2.80 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office uses larger than 500,000 square feet. This parking demand rate includes the demand for both employees and visitors, and it is based on empirical observations at var ious suburban office developments in the United States. Since ULI’s parking demand rate does not account for the effects of NBPP’s trip cap for office uses and Google’s 35% SOV commitment (requiring aggressive TDM programs), additional adjustments to the base parking demand rate are included.

For office uses, vehicle trip generation and parking demand are directly related. If the number of vehicles arriving on-site decreases, the number of parking spaces needed to store those vehicles decreases. Conversely, providing more parking spaces than needed may encourage employees to shift from non-vehicular modes to vehicular modes (i.e., single-occupancy vehicles) as the ease of finding parking exceeds the benefits of using non-vehicular modes (including those provided through TDM programs).

The Master Plan has an objective to achieve a 35% SOV mode share upon Project completion. To evaluate how achieving a 35% SOV mode share will affect trip generation rates (and subsequently parking demand) for office development, methods used in both the Charleston East Transportation Impact Analysis and the Landings Site Specific Transportation Analysis were employed for the Master Plan.

Table 6 compares the morning peak-hour inbound trip generation for the Master Plan (including a 35% SOV mode share) to the trip generation for General Office Buildings (Land Use 710) as reported in the ITE Trip Generation, 11
th Edition. Like the ULI parking demand rates, ITE trip generation rates are based on empirical observations at various suburban office developments in the United States and do not fully account for aggressive TDM programs or the effects of peak hour trip caps. As Table 6 shows, the ITE Trip Generation estimates are 34% greater than the Master Plan trip generation assuming a 35% SOV mode share.

Table 6: NBPP SOV Target and ITE Trip Generation Rate Comparison Source AM Peak Hour Inbound Vehicle Trip Generation
Master Plan Trip Generation with 35% SOV
mode share (A) 1,879
ITE General Office Building (710) (B) 2,837
% Difference1 (C = (B - A) / B) +34%

1. Percent difference compared to ITE office trip rates. (% Difference = (ITE Rate – NBPP trip rate) / NBPP trip rate) Source: NBPP; Trip Generation 11th Edition, ITE.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

The NBPP acknowledges the direct relationship between trip generation and parking demand through parking supply maximums. Offices within the NBPP area are subject to a parking supply maximum of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, as shown in Table 4 earlier in this document. The NBPP office approximate parking supply maximum is lower than the office parking supply minimum for office uses of 1 space per 300 square feet (3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet) identified in the City of Mountain View Municipal Code §36.32.50b. In addition, the NBPP approximate parking supply maximum is approximately 5% lower than the ULI base office parking demand rate of 2.80 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which also does not account for the effects of a 35% SOV mode share. To account for the effects of the 35% SOV target and the peak hour trip cap, further reductions are warranted.

As shown in Table 6, office development in the Master Plan will reduce its trip generation by 34% through TDM measures compared to ITE trip generation rates to meet a 35% SOV mode share. By reducing trip generation via TDM measures, the Master Plan will also reduce its peak parking demand as compared to ULI parking demand rates. ULI’s hourly parking distribution percentages for office uses indicate that parking demand increases the most during the AM peak hour when employees arrive at work, whereas parking demand decreases during the PM peak hour when employees leave work. Therefore, the ULI peak parking demand rate occurs in the AM peak period.

The peak hour trip generation reduction was applied to ULI’s base parking demand rate to account for the trip cap’s effect on parking demand. Therefore, the total peak parking demand for this assessment is estimated to be 1.85 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space (2.80 spaces per 1,000 square feet [ULI demand rate] X (1 – 34% AM peak hour trip generation reduction) =

1.85 spaces per 1,000 square feet).

Parking Demand Rates for Residential Units
The Project proposes to supply residential parking at 0.65 spaces per residential dwelling unit .

This reduced level of residential parking supply is needed to accommodate the residential peak parking demand, even with implementation of robust residential TDM programs that includes unbundled residential parking. For additional justification on the parking demand rates for residential land uses, refer to the North Bayshore Residential Parking TDM and Demand Analysis, Nelson-Nygaard, August 2022. The proposed 0.65 spaces per unit ratio complies with the NBPP maximum residential parking supply requirement. The Master Plan’s proposed residential parking supply rates are lower than the published ITE and ULI peak parking demand rates for residential units.

It is noted that an on-site parking supply rate of 0.65 spaces per residential dwelling unit will not be achieved during Phase 1 of Project construction. The residential parking supply during Phase 1 will be 1.25 spaces per unit using temporary off-site (remote) parking. However, at buildout the Master Plan will achieve the ultimate parking supply rate of 0.65 spaces per unit. Regular Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

monitoring will be conducted consistent with NBPP policies to observe the actual parking supply rates for residential uses in the Master Plan.

Based on the data presented in the ULI Shared Parking Manual, residential guest peak parking demand is 10% of the resident demand. The peak guest demand increases through the evening and the peak guest demand occurs between midnight and 5:00 AM. For the shared parking analysis, we assumed that the residential guests would utilize the shared parking supply. However, it is worth noting that the Master Plan will provide on-street parking spaces that would be available to residential guests for short term parking within the time limits place on the on-street parking.

Parking Demand Rates for Retail, Hotel, and Community Uses The parking demand rates for retail and hotel uses were derived from the ITE Parking Generation, 5 th Edition, published in 2019. Parking Generation provides parking demand rates for various land uses based on empirical parking surveys. These surveys are from various parts of the nation, and the observed developments are primarily located in urban or suburban areas. For planning purposes, the 85
th percentile demand rates are used to determine a project’s parking supply. The 85th percentile demand rates provide adequate parking supply for 85 percent of developments surveyed for each land use.

Parking demand rates for Land Use 820: Shopping Center was used to estimate parking demand for retail uses. The parking demand rate for Land Use 310: Hotel uses is 1.14 spaces per room including employee parking. The parking demand rate for Community uses is assumed to have a demand rate of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Mode Adjustment and Internalization Adjustments
The ULI Shared Parking Analysis methodology includes adjustments to account for variation in the mode of travel other than single-occupancy vehicles (typically associated with TDM) and internalization that occurs when a person parks once and visits multiple land uses o n the site. The mode adjustments were applied to the peak parking demand rates to reflect use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicles, including carpooling, bicycling, walking, and using transit. The internalization adjustments were applied to the peak parking demand rates to account for the percentage of parkers at one land use who are already counted as being parked at another land use. For example, when employees of one land use visit a nearby restaurant, there is no additional parking demand generated.

All mode adjustments and internalization adjustments for office and residential uses are intrinsic to the base parking demand rates defined earlier in this document. Therefore, no mode adjustments were made in the shared parking analysis to the office and residential uses.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Mode adjustments and internalization adjustments for retail, hotel, and community uses were determined following standard guidance from Shared Parking, Third Edition. Key mode adjustment and internalization assumptions for the weekday analysis were:
◦ 60% of the retail trips would be internalized to the Master Plan Area and not require parking,
◦ 50% of the community trips would be internalized to the Master Plan Area and would not require parking, and
◦ 60% of the hotel trips would not arrive in a vehicle that would park on site.

Table 7 presents the unadjusted peak-hour parking demand rates by land use and the adjusted peak-hour parking demand rates considering mode adjustment and internalization adjustments.

In general, all land uses assume adjusted parking demand rates that are lower than standard market-rate, or code-required parking supply rates.

Table 7: Unadjusted and Adjusted Peak Parking Demand Rate Summary Land Use Unadjusted Peak Parking
Demand Rate
Adjusted Peak Parking
Demand Rate¹
Office 2.80 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 1.85 spaces per 1,000 sq ft Residential - Resident 0.65 spaces per unit 0.65 spaces per unit Residential - Guest 0.065 spaces per unit 0.065 spaces per unit2 Retail 3.68 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 1.47 spaces per 1,000 sq ft Hotel 1.14 spaces per room 0.55 spaces per room
Community 2.70 spaces per 1,000 sq ft 1.35 spaces per 1,000 sq ft Notes:

1. Adjusted peak parking demand rate includes mode adjustments and noncaptive ratio adjustments following standard guidance from Shared Parking, Third Edition for retail, community, and park and open space uses.

2. Residential guest parking is assumed to use the shared parking supply default of 10% of resident parking.

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018; Urban Land Institute, 2020; Fehr & Peers, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan Parking Demand
Allowing multiple uses to utilize shared parking facilities reduces a Project’s overall peak parking demand by accounting for the hourly demands of each use throughout the day. To demonstrate the effects of sharing parking between different land uses, this section estimates the Master Plan ’s peak parking demand both without (unshared) and with shared parking facilities.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Unshared Parking Demand
Regardless of the presence of shared parking, the Master Plan would still qualify for mode adjustments based on the Project’s TDM programs and internalization adjustments based on the mixed-use nature of the Project. The unshared peak parking demand was calculated for the Master Plan using the unadjusted and adjusted parking rates presented in Table 7. Table 8 presents a summary of the peak parking demand assuming no shared parking within the Master Plan. Therefore, each land use must provide enough offsite parking to meet its own peak parking demand.

Table 8: Master Plan Weekday Unadjusted & Adjusted Parking Demand without Shared Parking
Land Use Amount Unadjusted Parking Demand
w/o Sharing (vehicles)
Adjusted Parking Demand
w/o Sharing (vehicles)
Office 3,117,931 sq ft 8,731 5,769
Residential -Resident 7,000 units 4,550 4,550
Residential – Guest 7,000 units 455 455
Retail 233,990 sq ft 861 344
Hotel 525 keys 599 287
Community 55,000 sq ft 149 74
Total Parking Demand: 15,345 11,479
Notes:

1. Unadjusted and adjusted peak parking demand rates as presented in Table 7. The adjusted rates consider mode adjustments and internalization reductions for mixed-use projects as described in Shared Parking, Third Edition. The adjusted office demand rate accounts for the 35% SOV target proposed by Google.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.

The total unshared parking demand without mode or internalization adjustments is 15, 345 spaces. This calculation does not account for the 35% SOV rate for the office uses. After applying the appropriate driving mode split and internalization adjustments, the total unshared peak parking demand for all land uses in the Master Plan is 11,479 vehicles.

The results presented in Table 8 above assume that there are no shared parking facilities, and each use would provide enough parking to meet their peak demand. Table 9 compares the peak parking demand without shared parking as shown in Table 8 to the proposed maximum parking supplies for the Master Plan as shown in Table 4.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

Table 9: Master Plan Adjusted Unshared Parking Demand & Proposed Supply Land Use Adjusted Parking Demand
w/o Sharing (vehicles)
Master Plan
Proposed Parking Supply
Parking Supply
(spaces)
Parking Surplus or
Shortfall
Office1 5,769 6,236 +467
Residential - Resident 4,550 4,550 0
Residential - Guest 455
1,612 +452
Retail 344
Hotel 287
Community 74
District Central Plant2 NA 5 +5
Total Supply 11,479 12,403 +924
Shared Parking Only3 1,160 1,612 +452

1. Proposed Office supply includes 5 spaces provided at the District Central Plant.

2. District Central Plant not estimated, but are included in the total parking supply.

3. Share parking land uses include Retail, Hotel, Community and residential guest parking demand and supply.

Source: Lendlease, 2021.

Compared to the Master Plan proposed parking supply, the unshared parking demand for office uses and residential (resident) uses are adequately served by the Master Plan proposed parking supply. For the retail, hotel, residential guests, and community uses there is a 452-space surplus of parking for these uses. By considering the shared parking time-of-day and monthly variation of the retail, hotel, residential guest, and community uses, the overall parking demand and supply comparison is substantially better.

Shared Parking Demand
For this scenario, peak-period parking demand was calculated for the Master Plan using the adjusted parking rates presented in Table 9. The retail, hotel, residential guest, and community uses would share parking facilities. The office and residential uses would have dedicated/unshared parking facilities. This estimate includes mode and internalization adjustments for all land uses, and shared parking reductions accounting for the daily, hourly, and seasonal parking demand variations by land use. Table 10 presents a summary of the unshared parking demand, shared parking reduction, and net parking demand for Master Plan .

The total adjusted peak parking demand without shared parking for all land uses in the Master Plan is 11,479 vehicles. After accounting for the hourly variation for each use, the net peak parking demand with shared parking is 11,273 vehicles. Because the office and residential uses will not share parking facilities with any other land uses, there is no shared parking reduction for Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

the residential parking facilities; however, applicable mode adjustments and internalization adjustments still apply to unshared parking facilities.

Table 10: Master Plan Weekday Shared Parking Demand - Percent Reduction Land Use Amount Unshared Peak
Demand1 (vehicles)
Shared Parking
Demand2 (vehicles)
Percent
Reduction
Office 3,117,931 sq ft 5,769 5,769 0%
Residential - Resident 7,000 units 4,550 4,550 0%
Residential - Guest 7,000 units 455 455 0%
Retail 233,990 sq ft 344 299 -13%
Hotel 525 keys 287 163 -43%
Community 55,000 sq ft 74 37 -50%
Total All Uses 11,479 11,273 -2%
Shared Parking
Uses Only3 1,160 954 -18%
Notes:

1. Unshared parking demand using the adjusted peak parking demand rates as presented in Table 6.

2. Shared parking reduction considering daily, hourly, and seasonal variations as described in Shared Parking, Third Edition.

3. Share parking land uses include Retail, Hotel, Community, and residential guest parking.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

The shared parking facilities serving the other land uses can expect parking reductions between 50% and 60% during the peak parking periods due to mode adjustments, internalization, and the hourly, daily, and monthly variations in parking demand patterns for each land use. The overall reduction for the shared parking is 18% when the residential guest parking is included in the shared parking demand. The shared parking component of the Master Plan is a small portion of the overall parking demand (less than 10% of all parking). Therefore, the Master Plan can expect an overall shared parking reduction of 2% of the total parking demand.

The combined peak parking demand occurs at 7:00 PM on a weekday based on the types of land uses that are being shared. The residential guest demand is the highest demand at this time of the day accounting for 48% of the demand. Retail uses are the second highest demand accounting for 31% of the demand and the hotel is 17% of the demand.

Table 11 compares the Master Plan shared parking demand to the proposed parking supply.

There is a 518-space surplus for the office parking, which is not shared with other land uses. The residential parking has no surplus as it is all reserved parking. There is a 662-space surplus for the shared parking used by the hotel, retail, residential guests, and community uses. Since there is a Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

surplus in the current Master Plan parking supply, there may be opportunities to reduce the number of spaces during the design document development.

Table 11: Master Plan Weekday Shared Parking Demand – Vehicle and Spaces Land Use Amount Shared Parking
Demand2 (vehicles)
NBS MP Parking
Supply (vehicles)
Surplus or
Shortfall (Spaces)
Office Use 3,117,931 sq ft 5,769 6,236 +467
Residential Use 7,000 units 4,550 4,550
Residential Guest 7,000 units 455
1,612 +658
Retail Use 233,990 sq ft 299
Hotel 525 keys 163
Community Use 55,000 sq ft 37
District Central Plant NA NA 5 +5
Total All Uses 11,273 12,403 +1,130
Shared Parking Only3 954 1,612 +658
Notes:

1. Unshared parking demand using the adjusted peak parking demand rates as presented in Table 6.

2. Shared parking reduction considering daily, hourly, and seasonal variations as described in Shared Parking, Third Edition.

3. Share parking land uses include Retail, Hotel, Community, and residential guest parking.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Managing Parking Demand
As part of the Master Plan TDM program, both peak hour trips and parking occupancy will be monitored regularly to ensure that the Master Plan is both meeting its trip cap and meeting its actual parking demand. If parking occupancy monitoring reveals that parking demand exceeds the parking supply at Master Plan, mitigating measures will be implemented to address the discrepancy. Two key strategies that may be used to alleviate any shortfall are discussed below.

North Bayshore Master Plan TDM Plan & Parking
All projects within the NBPP that are subject to maximum parking requirements and must operate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The Master Plan TDM Plan outlines programs that will incentivize multimodal travel and disincentivize traveling by car, and, by extension, car ownership. Master Plan will provide various TDM programs for its office employees and residents to encourage non-vehicular travel. For office employees, TDM programs will primarily encourage commuting by using employee shuttles, biking, walking, or taking transit. For the office demand Google has committed to achieving a SOV rate of 35%, which substantially reduces parking demand. To reach this SOV target, Google provides their workers with an extensive package of TDM incentives including the “door to door” shuttle service.

Neil Smolen
May 31, 2023

For Master Plan residents, TDM programs will both encourage commuting by non-vehicular modes and disincentivize vehicular ownership. See the North Bayshore Transportation Demand Management Plan to see the TDM programs planned for Master Plan along with a quantitative evaluation of their total effect on residential parking demand.

Expanding the TDM program for office and residential uses can reduce parking demand. As discussed previously, an SOV/carpool target of 50% must be established for future non-Google office tenants to manage demand at 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of offices or lower. By comparison, approximately 46% of Google’s Mountain View employees drove alone or carpooled as their primary commute mode in 2019.

Right-Sizing Parking Supply
Since the reduction in SOV rate applies to both existing and new Google offices within North Bayshore, it is reasonable to assume a future reduction in parking demand at existing lots outside the Master Plan area. Preliminary analysis indicates that the reduction in parking demand at these existing lots may be substantial enough to displace the need for the Marine Way Garage. To right-size parking facilities, Google may opt to not build the Marine Way Garage, subject to review and approval by the City.

E. TRANSORTATION TECHNICAL MEMO
Appendix K
District systems concept plan
© GOOGLE

04.2023
Google
District Systems Concept Plan
Noh Bayshore
March 2023
Prepared by:

Lendlease
Integral Group
Sherwood Design Engineers
Arup
District Systems Concept Plan
Contents
K1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Project District System Description 1

1.1.1. Origin Of The District Systems 1

1.1.2. Design Intent 1

1.1.3. Summary Of Utility Services 2

1.1.4. Construction Phasing 3

1.2. Concept Plan Purpose 4

1.3. Concept Plan Purpose 5

1.4. Modifications To The Concept Plan 5
K2. PUBLIC UTILITIES OPTION 6

2.1. Sanitary Sewer System 6

2.1.1. Existing Gravity Collection System 6

2.1.2. Existing Sewer Flows 7

2.1.3. Proposed Connections 7

2.1.4. Sanitary Sewer Capacity Model 8

2.2. Recycled Water System 8

2.2.1. Existing Recycled Water System 8

2.2.2. Future Recycled Water System 9

2.3. Utility Relocations In The Public Rights Of Way 9

2.4. Energy Systems 10

2.4.1. Existing Electric 10

2.4.2. Proposed Electricity System 10
K3. DISTRICT SYSTEMS OPTION 12

3.1. District Central Plant 12

3.2. Electrical System (Microgrid) 13

3.2.1. Facility Design 13

3.2.2. Conceptual Layout 14

3.2.3. Proposed Electrical System Phasing 14

3.3. Thermal Systems 14

3.3.1. Facility Design 14

3.3.2. Conceptual Layout 15

3.3.3. Building Integration 16

3.3.4. District Thermal Systems Phasing 16

3.4. Wastewater Collection & Treatment System 16

3.4.1. Collection Areas 16

3.4.2. Facility Design 17

3.4.3. Private Collection Conceptual Layout 19

3.4.4. Building Integration 20

3.4.5. Proposed Collection System Phasing 20

3.5. Non-Potable Water Distribution System 20

3.5.1. Proposed Non-Potable Water Supply 20

3.5.2. Non-Potable Water Distribution Conceptual Layout 21

3.5.3. Buildings Integration 21

3.5.4. Non-Potable Water Distribution System Phasing - Private Option 21 District Systems Concept Plan

3.6. District Water: Collaborative Option 22

3.6.1. Wastewater Collection System & Buildings Integration 22

3.6.2. Facility Design 22

3.6.3. Non-Potable Water Distribution 22

3.6.4. Asset Ownership 22

3.7. Waste Collection System 22

3.7.1. Facility Design 22

3.7.2. Conceptual Layout 23

3.7.3. Buildings Integration 24

3.7.4. Proposed Awcs Phasing 24

3.8. District Systems Corridor 25
K4. ANTICIPATED PERMITTING AND LICENSING 28

4.1. Microgrid 28

4.1.1. Anticipated Permits And Agreements 28

4.2. Thermal 29

4.2.1. Anticipated Permits And Agreement 29

4.3. Water Reuse Facility 29

4.3.1. Future Regulations 30

4.3.2. City Permitting 31

4.3.3. Anticipated Permitting Agencies 31

4.4. Sanitary Sewer Collection System 32

4.5. Non-Potable Water Systems 32

4.5.1. Anticipated Permitting Agencies 33

4.6. Waste Collection System 33

4.6.1. Anticipated Permitting Agencies 33
K5. DISTRICT SYSTEMS DESIGN STANDARDS 35

5.1. Use Of The District Systems Design Standards 35

5.1.1. Standards And Specifications Applicable To The Project 35

5.1.2. Ancillary Documents Providing Standards 35

5.1.3. Future Modifications To Dsds 35

5.2. District Systems Applicable Standards 36

5.2.1. Overview 36

5.2.2. District Central Plant 36

5.2.3. District Systems Corridors 36

5.2.4. District Wastewater Collection 37

5.2.5. District Non-Potable Water Distribution 38

5.2.6. District Thermal Systems 38

5.2.7. Electrical And Microgrid 38

5.3. Horizontal Improvements 39

5.3.1. Site Preparation 39

5.4. Public Rights Of Way/City-Owned Properties 40
K6. FUTURE SUBMITTALS TIMELINE AND CONTENT 41

6.1. Introduction 41

6.2. Submittals And Phasing 42

6.2.1. Zoning Permit Submission 42

6.2.2. District Systems Implementation Plan Submission 42 District Systems Concept Plan

6.3. District Systems Implementation Plan 42

6.3.1. Overview 42

6.3.2. Procedure For Subsequent City Review Of District Systems 43 K7. APPENDICES 48

7.1. Wastewater Production Estimates 48

7.2. Non-Potable Project Demands 48

7.3. Preliminary Operations & Maintenance 49

7.3.1. Operation, Maintenance, And Monitoring Plan (Ommp) 49

7.3.2. Standard Operating Procedures 49

7.3.3. Preventative Maintenance And Replacement Schedules 49

7.3.4. Staffing Requirements 50

7.3.5. Record Keeping Requirements 50

7.3.6. Spill Prevention And Emergency Response 50

7.3.7. Redundancy And Backups 50
District Systems Concept Plan
K1. Introduction

1.1. Project District System Description

1.1.1. ORIGIN OF THE DISTRICT SYSTEMS
The proposed North Bayshore Master Plan (“Project”)is generally located to the north of US 101, west of Stevens Creek, south of Charleston Road, and east of Alta Avenue. The Master Plan is within the Shorebird, Joaquin, and Pear Complete Neighborhood Character Areas of the North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP).

The NBPP establishes a vision for the Project to create an innovative and sustainable district that protects and stewards ecology and open space, while maintaining its role as a major technology hub for small businesses, start-ups, and established companies that serve the local and global economies. At its core, the NBPP sets out a vision and guiding principles for new development and prioritizes ecological enhancement, sustainable transportation, green building design, as well as strategies to reduce per-capita water and energy use. The Project Applicant (de fined below in Section

1.2) is seeking to create a sustainable place through integrated design. The Project aims to achieve this goal through a number of sitewide and building specific sustainability strategies. These may include District Systems, energy efficient all-electric buildings, onsite renewable energy, ecological improvements, mixed income housing, and measures to reduce vehicular traffic and emphasize transit, biking, and walking. The Project plans to design office buildings to meet LEED Platinum Certification and residential buildings to meet 120 points under the GreenPoint Rated system. The Project is also committed to full electrification in place of natural gas, consistent with the City of Mountain View Ordinance No. 17.19, dated November 12, 2019 (“REACH Code”), which prohibits new natural gas infrastructure in all new construction and requires deployment of rooftop solar photovoltaic for new construction.

The Project Applicant is considering options to enhance the performance of North Bayshore, with a focus on creating a sustainable framework that is underpinned by private infrastructure systems and improvements, including centralized all-electric thermal heating and cooling including ground coupling, electrical power, wastewater and non-potable water (“District Systems”, as described more fully in Section 3). The District Systems have been conceptualized to support and accelerate the achievement of the Google’s sustainability goals in addition to those outlined in the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

1.1.2. DESIGN INTENT
District Systems form a key strategy in reducing emissions and resource consumption. District Systems essentially entail the development of an onsite generation or treatment facility with accompanying networks separate from, though sometimes linked to, the City or regional utility networks.

The Project is proposing a District Systems approach to deliver resources via systems for energy, wastewater, non-potable water, and waste that are located on-site. District Systems are most commonly used for building space heating and cooling, but may also be employed to generate and distribute electricity, collect and treat wastewater, produce and distribute non-potable water, and manage stormwater, and consolidate resources such as solid waste and the like.

District Systems Concept Plan | 1
District Systems have additional benefits for the Project. For instance, district thermal systems deliver heating and cooling resources more efficiently as compared to individual and building-specific systems. District wastewater and non-potable water services enable local management of the Project’s resource demands, thereby reducing demands on existing municipal systems while increasing Project resiliency. District waste consolidation strategies reduce truck trips, and centralized infrastructure streamlines the sorting and pick-up of waste generated by the Project.

Business-as-usual utility connections will be developed in tandem with the District Systems to meet the domestic and
fire water demands of the Project, with joint trench services provided and maintained by service providers. Additionally, in some cases buildings within the Project Area may not connect to the proposed District Systems and instead connect to existing utilities; these limitations are noted in the private utilities section within this document.

The District Systems would serve the Project via interconnected, accessible vaults, conduits, and related distribution networks (collectively, “District Systems Corridor”, of which there will be multiple in the Project), which would be routed within private parcels to the maximum extent feasible and will cross the public Rights of Way at certain locations, as shown in Fig. 3.1. The District Systems Corridor may have different forms, from a direct buried trench to a building-integrated structure as further described in the following sections. Business-as-usual utility systems will be run within the public Rights of Way and joint trench as normal.

Integral to the District Systems approach would be the construction and operation of a District Central Plant (“DCP”), currently contemplated to be in the SB-PCUP parcel on the Project Area. The approximately 130,000 total square-foot DCP would house mechanical, electrical, wastewater treatment, waste consolidation infrastructure, solid waste management equipment, and any ancillary equipment to service the proposed Project Area. Each system is further described in the following sections.

The Project Applicant is proposing to connect District Systems to the majority of buildings within the Project's boundaries. However, due to phasing and property ownership, the scope of connections may be restricted in certain areas of the Project.

1.1.3. SUMMARY OF UTILITY SERVICES
A summary of the extent of service and options for each District System is summarized below. See Section 3 for a full description of all systems.

Wastewater and Non-potable Recycled Water. The Project is maintaining three distinct options for wastewater and non-potable recycled water servicing, outlined below.

The District Systems option consists of a private, onsite district water reuse facility (“WRF”), which will collect wastewater from the development for treatment, producing non-potable water for non-potable uses, such as for water closet and urinal
flushing, potential laundry facilities, irrigation,
and cooling. A private wastewater collection system and a private non-potable water distribution network will be installed to facilitate operations. Individual buildings will have backup connections to the municipal wastewater system via typical sewer lateral connections. A private, onsite wastewater residuals management facility will process wastewater residuals for bene ficial reuse.

The Collaborative option consists of an onsite water reuse facility, which will act as a regional satellite facility, treating wastewater to produce recycled water for non-potable uses. Individual buildings will connect to the municipal wastewater systems via typical sewer lateral connections. Wastewater will be mined from the municipal wastewater system for treatment at the water reuse facility. The Project will connect to the City of Mountain View’s recycled water network and extend the network, as needed, to individual buildings and systems within the Project's boundaries. Recycled water produced at the water reuse facility will be stored onsite and then added to the regional recycled water network to meet non-potable demands. An onsite wastewater residuals management facility will process wastewater residuals for bene
ficial reuse.

District Systems Concept Plan | 2
A City option is also being considered, which will connect individual buildings to the municipal wastewater system via typical sewer lateral connections. In this option, the Project will connect to the City of Mountain View’s recycled water network and extend the network, as needed, to individual buildings and systems within the Project's boundaries.

Microgrid. The Project is proposing to service the Project with electricity from PG&E service lines, distributing 12 kV electrical networks across the Project Area to service the Project.

Additionally, PG&E’s CMET Microgrid is intended to service all properties within the Project Area, subject to the Project’s phasing, cost, and engineering limitations, including potential service limitations for some buildings.

Thermal Heating and Cooling. The Project is proposing to service the Project with an all-electric thermal heating and cooling District System, distributing energy via a thermal network contained within the District Systems Corridor. The production of heating and cooling energy will be achieved at the DCP . The District Heating and Cooling systems are intended to service all properties within the Project Area, subject to the Project’s phasing, cost, and engineering limitations, including potential service limitations for some buildings.

Solid Waste Consolidation. The Project is proposing a pneumatic waste collection system to sort and deliver a number of waste streams to a single location, while maintaining conventional City programs for bulky waste and other streams that cannot be accommodated by the automated waste collection system.

1.1.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASING
If approved, construction of the Project’s proposed buildings and infrastructure would likely occur in eight phases, as outlined in the Phasing Plan included in the Implementation Plan of the NBS Master Plan (Exhibit C, Implementation Plan) and shown below.

Figure 1.1. NORTH BAYSHORE MASTER PLAN - PHASING PLAN
The Project phasing strategy may require temporary equipment (including heating and cooling equipment) for some buildings while the DCP is constructed. Temporary equipment will be required for parcels where entitlements and construction precede construction of the DCP . This may be due to early construction on some parcels, the additional required regulatory approvals for the combined DCP parcel, or the need to complete civil infrastructure connecting the DCP to the larger Project Area .

Temporary equipment will be removed when DCP construction is complete.

District Systems Concept Plan | 3

1.2. Concept Plan Purpose
The District Systems Concept Plan (DSCP) serves various purposes:

1. To provide a high-level overview of the District Systems being considered as part of the Project;

2. Describe how District Systems would interface with existing utility systems, streets, networks and other portions of the public realm;

3. Identify potential oversight agencies and permit requirements relevant to the design, construction, and operation of the District Systems;

4. Describe future submittals and associated timelines relative to District Systems;

5. Establish the bases for the review and approval process for implementation of District Systems.

The DSCP is part of the Master Plan and vested through a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”). The DSCP uses the term “Project Applicant” to collectively refer to Google, LendLease, or any other entity consistent with the Development Agreement that may ultimately be seeking the permits for, and performing the development and construction of, District Systems discussed herein.

The DSCP works in tandem with the Review and Approval Framework (“RAF”) included in Section M of the Implementation Plan, Supplemental Document of the Master Plan and the Master Encroachment Agreement (“MEA”) governing the placement of District Systems in public Rights of Way and property.

The RAF details the review and approval process for all Master Plan entitlements and permitting, including District Systems, and covers processing and reviewing documents for the design, construction, and operation and maintenance of District Systems. If the District Systems option is pursued, the City and the Project Applicant will enter into an MEA, which will establish the rights, obligations, and other provisions and requirements that will govern any and all District Systems encroachments of the City’s Public Rights of Way and property. The MEA signed by the Project Applicant and the City shall include the key terms in the Term Sheet attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit N, and shall be
finalized and executed according to the timeline and terms established in the Development Agreement.

Additionally, this document describes the interface of the proposed District Systems with existing City systems, networks, and other portions of the public realm. It also describes the submission requirements and review process for the entitlement of District Systems alongside Zoning Permits, as de
fined in Section 6.2.1, that the Project Applicant will submit for City approval.

District Systems Concept Plan | 4

1.3. Concept Plan Purpose
The DSCP is composed of the following sections:
● Section 1: Introduction - this section establishes the connection between district systems and the project context
● Section 2: Public Utilities Option - this section provides a description of the public utilities required to deliver the Project, should the Project Applicant decide to not implement the District Systems
● Section 3: District Systems Option - this section provides an overview of the proposed District Systems for the Project
● Section 4: Anticipated Permitting and Licensing - this section provides an overview of the future approvals and permits required for the implementation of District Systems ● Section 5: District Systems Design Standards - this section provides an overview of the engineering standards that complement the existing City’s specifications for the implementation of District Systems
● Section 6: Future Submittals Timeline And Content - this section describes the set of documents and MEA that will be submitted starting in Phase 1 of the Project, concurrent with the first Zoning Permit application. The section also establishes the guidelines and criteria against which the final District Systems buildout can be reviewed and approved through the City permitting and outside agencies approval processes.
● Section 7: Appendices

1.4. Modi
cations to the Concept Plan
Modifications to the DSCP are categorized as either Minor Modifications, which can be approved by City Staff or the Zoning Administrator, or Major Modifications, which may require changes to previously executed agreements, Project conditions of approval, or additional permitting by the City or outside agencies. Where applicable, further environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act may also be required. As this is a conceptual plan, modifications to this plan may be necessary to incorporate new or modified information. Any modifications to the DSCP can be proposed by the Project Applicant and reviewed by the City during subsequent permit review of this Project.

District Systems Concept Plan | 5
K2. Public Utilities Option
The existing Project Area is currently served by several public utilities including domestic (potable) water (DW), sanitary sewer (SS), recycled water (RW), storm drain (SD), PG&E electrical (ELEC), natural gas, and telecommunications (COMM). The Project as a result of an intensi fication of use will
require new connections to these public systems, which will necessitate upgrades to the utilities, and may require development of new thermal, electric, sanitary sewer and non-potable water private District Systems. The Project is committed to full electri fication in place of natural gas, consistent
with City of Mountain View Code, Section 8.20.14, Table 101.10, which prohibits new natural gas infrastructure in all new construction and requires deployment of rooftop solar photovoltaic for new construction.

The Project proposes several options for how private District Systems and the City’s municipal systems would interface. In the event the Project Applicant decides not to implement any component of the District Systems described in the DSCP , the following Public Utilities work should be completed.

See Section 3 for a description of how District Systems could be implemented if that option is pursued.

For Sanitary Sewer and Recycled Water services, the Applicant intends to connect and rely on the City systems described in sections 2.1 and 2.2. In the event the Applicant can justify to the City why the City’s recycled water quality is not acceptable, in terms of potential impacts on landscaping or plumbing systems, the City and the Applicant shall reconvene to discuss options for the Applicant to improve the quality on-site through additional treatment, blending, or other processes. If such processes are inadequate or otherwise impractical, the City and Applicant will discuss if and how private and collaborative options for wastewater collection, treatment, and recycled water distribution described in sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 may be deployed in the Project.

2.1. Sanitary Sewer System
The existing sanitary sewer system in the Project Area is owned and operated by the City of Mountain View.

The Project will connect to existing sanitary sewer mains within the development boundary and implement any required upgrades to service the Project. The City is responsible for maintenance of the public sanitary sewer system supporting the Project, inclusive of any improvements installed by the Project Applicant upon acceptance, unless the City, at its discretion, agrees to an alternate arrangement.

2.1.1. EXISTING GRAVITY COLLECTION SYSTEM
The Project area is currently served by the City’s existing sanitary sewer network, which flows
northwest to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), as shown in Figure 2.1.

Under the City option as well as the District Water - Collaborative option, the Project would connect to existing sanitary sewer mains within the Project. It is expected that the City would be responsible for maintenance of the public sanitary sewer system supporting the Project, inclusive of any improvements installed by the Project Applicant upon acceptance, unless the City, at its discretion, agrees to an alternate arrangement.

District Systems Concept Plan | 6
Figure 2.1. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION NETWORK

2.1.2. EXISTING SEWER FLOWS
The City of Mountain View maintains a citywide sanitary sewer model, which includes the Project.

2.1.3. PROPOSED CONNECTIONS
Individual buildings will connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system via typical sewer lateral connections with a minimum of one sewer lateral per parcel.

District Systems Concept Plan | 7

2.1.4. SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY MODEL
Schaaf & Wheeler prepared a utility impact study (UIS) based on their North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study Assumptions Memorandum (dated January 11, 2022) The UIS analyzed the Project’s impact on the City’s wet utility infrastructure, including the potable water, sanitary sewer, and recycled water systems. In the NBS UIS Assumptions Memorandum, Schaaf & Wheeler outlined the options and assumptions that would be used for the UIS. The memorandum noted that the UIS will analyze the following three utility system options:

1. City Utilities, no Private District Utility System

2. City Utilities with Private District Utility System (no private sewage treatment or recycled water)

3. City Utilities with Private District Utility System (includes private sewage treatment and recycled water)
The results of the sanitary sewer UIS are included in the Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”).

2.2. Recycled Water System
The City has prepared a 2022 feasibility study for expanding the recycled water network citywide, including into the North Bayshore area. When the City’s recycled water network is expanded, additional environmental review and network design may be required. The Project is maintaining an option to connect to the City’s recycled water system once extended to the Project Area. The potential impacts to the existing recycled water system are discussed below. The Project Applicant is required to dual-plumb buildings per the NBPP and in accordance with city requirements to allow for future connection to non-potable water sources for use in toilet flushing or irrigation.

2.2.1. EXISTING RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The existing recycled water system in the Project Area is owned and operated by the City of Mountain View and is supplied with recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), as shown in Figure 2.2.

Under the City option, the Project would connect to existing recycled water mains within the Project Area to serve non-potable uses, such as for water closet and urinal flushing, potential laundry
facilities, irrigation, and cooling. The City would be responsible for maintenance of the public recycled water system supporting the project, inclusive of any improvements installed by the Project Applicant upon acceptance, unless the City, at its discretion, agrees to an alternate arrangement. Under the Collaborative option, the onsite water reuse facility would contribute non-potable water to the existing recycled water network.

District Systems Concept Plan | 8
Figure 2.2. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW EXISTING RECYCLED WATER NETWORK

2.2.2. FUTURE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The City’s 2022 Recycled Water Feasibility Study proposed upgrades (including storage, pressurization, and pipelines) in the Project Area, but did not indicate a project timeline or construction schedule.

If needed to meet the water quality needs of the Project, the Project Applicant would investigate options such as potable water blending or desalination systems to further treat the recycled water supplied by the City at the point-of-use within the Project area. If constructed, it is anticipated that the Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS), including reverse osmosis, may be online at the Palo Alto RWQCP in the next few years. However, the City cannot guarantee the timeline for when this facility will be brought online. The target water quality for the City recycled water is 400 to 500 mg/l total dissolved solids (TDS) based on the AWPS Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report.

2.3. Utility Relocations In The Public Rights Of Way
The Project proposes street improvements within the Project Area. As part of this effort, some existing utilities within the public Rights of Way may require relocation in order to avoid conflicts between proposed streetscape elements and existing utilities. Existing City utilities likely will not require relocation to accommodate District Systems given that no District Systems alignments are currently proposed within or parallel to the ROW.

District Systems Concept Plan | 9

2.4. Energy Systems

2.4.1. EXISTING ELECTRIC
Existing electrical systems in the Project Area are owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). Proposed modifications, upgrades, and any potential undergrounding of the existing systems are proposed to extend beyond the Project . It is expected that PG&E and SVCE will continue to own and operate these upgraded systems.

The Project Area is served with power from Paci
fic Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean
Energy (SVCE). SVCE is a community choice energy agency governed by the cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Mountain View, and the County of Santa Clara (unincorporated county areas). SVCE purchases clean energy directly from the energy source and delivers to customers through existing PG&E infrastructure.

The Project has a single available distribution voltage of approximately 12kV from the Ames distribution network, a PG&E electrical substation outside the Project Area and located on the east side of Stevens Creek. Just outside the Project Area there are overhead and underground PG&E distribution systems along with overhead and underground secondary distribution and service systems. Overhead lines run parallel to Stevens Creek, extending to the Project Area. Additional overhead lines within the network are located in the northern portion of the Project Area, extending west across Crittenden Lane. These circuits serve customers both within the Project Area and elsewhere in the City.

2.4.2. PROPOSED ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
Electrical services will be provided from the adjacent existing electrical distribution network. The existing electrical network has insu
fficient capacity to serve the Project from solely the Ames Substation, so an extension of PG&E feeder(s) to the Project is required to be constructed.

PG&E SERVICE UPGRADES
The Project has an existing Distribution service at multiple meters with a total load of 6.2 MW.

Construction for Phase 1 of the project is expected to start around 2024 and the Project’s load is expected to ramp up from the existing 6.2 MW to 35.6 MW over the next few years, per the Preliminary Engineering Study (PES) report submitted to PG&E in October 2021. PG&E will provide a new transformer and 12 kV connections to the Project Area to facilitate a point of electrical service distribution to the building parcels from the existing electrical network.

The existing adjacent lines are the Whisman 1101, 1104, 1109, 1105 & AMES 1101 feeders, which have insufficient capacity to serve the loads projected for the Project. Therefore, additional feeders are required. To serve the Project, PG&E has identified option “D1” and proposes to study how this option could connect the Ames Distribution Substation to the Project. ● Option D1: Expanding Ames Distribution Substation to 6 breaker Ring Con figuration & adding new
distribution transformer and feeders. To serve Google at medium voltage level and for the estimated MW load, a second 3-phase transformer, rated 115 kV/12 kV, 45 MVA, will be installed so that half of the new 12 kV feeders will come from this new Bank 2 and half of the other new feeders will come from the existing Bank 1, vial two separate sets of switchgear. Adding a new element will require the bus upgrade at Ames Distribution Substation to Ring configuration, initially built as 4-breaker Ring with a potential to expand to 6-breaker Ring.

The option would accommodate the Project’s anticipated load growth and would enable PG&E’s CMET Program either by facilitating a single point of connection for the Project parcels or by extending the proposed lines to each new connection within the Project Area, with PG&E responsible for installing secondary service transformers (if desired) and metering.

District Systems Concept Plan | 10
If a single point of connection is preferred for the site, PG&E’s service will terminate at a primary service meter at the proposed DCP location to a metering room within the DCP . Access to the metering room for PG&E personnel will be provided in accordance with the latest PG&E Electrical and Gas Service Requirements (Greenbook). For a PG&E-integrated microgrid, PG&E will furnish and install meters at each building and, as desired, secondary transformers. Access to each transformer and meter will be provided in accordance with PG&E’s Electrical and Gas Service Requirements (Greenbook).

UNDERGROUNDING OF DISTRIBUTION LINES
The existing PG&E overhead transmission circuits, as part of this development and other developments, will be placed underground at certain locations on PG&E’s network. Undergrounding the transmission lines will take place according to PG&E standards and will typically be in underground duct banks with associated vaults and access points.District Systems Concept Plan | 11 K3. District Systems Option
As outlined in the introduction, the Project proposes a District Systems approach to deliver resources via centralized systems for thermal and electrical energy, wastewater and non-potable water, and waste collection, located on-site in the Project area. The proposed District Systems are designed to serve only privately owned parcels within the Project, with the option of serving public Parks within the Project, and will predominantly run within private parcels within the Project. Portions of the District Systems are proposed to be located in the public Rights of Way.

The optional, proposed District Systems would be fully owned and operated by the Project Applicant.

The maintenance of both the DCP assets (including the WRF) and the private distribution / collection networks will be managed by the Project Applicant. The Project Applicant will appoint a quali fied
operator to manage the District Systems and service delivery, including billing. The District Systems services will be provided to the individual buildings at a primary level via a landlord/tenant arrangement. The individual buildings will manage individual billing to residents and tenants.

For Sanitary Sewer and Recycled Water services, the Applicant intends to connect and rely on the City systems described in sections 2.1 and 2.2. In the event the Applicant can justify to the City why the City’s recycled water quality is not acceptable, in terms of potential impacts on landscaping or plumbing systems, the City and the Applicant shall reconvene to discuss options for the Applicant to improve the quality on-site through additional treatment, blending, or other processes. If such processes are inadequate or otherwise impractical, the City and Applicant will discuss if and how private and collaborative options for wastewater collection, treatment, and recycled water distribution described in sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 may be deployed in the Project.

This section provides a description of the conceptual design of each of the systems proposed for the Project.

3.1. District Central Plant
The Project proposes to consolidate district utility services via the construction of one District Central Plant (DCP). The Project’s phasing strategy includes construction of the DCP during Phase 1 of the Project.

The DCP will provide a consolidated location for the following utilities:
● Water reuse facility to treat wastewater and produce non-potable water for non-potable uses.

This facility would meet California Code of Regulations Title 22 disinfected tertiary (unrestricted reuse) recycled water standards.
● A residuals management facility to process wastewater and potentially organic food waste residuals for bene
ficial reuse.
● All-electric District Thermal Plant to generate the heating hot water and cooling chilled water to be distributed via the District Systems Corridor. Equipment in this facility would comply with Title 24 energy code requirements and the City’s codes.
● The electric utility infrastructure necessary to distribute power to the District, received from the electric grid and to control the assets serving the Microgrid. Equipment would include electrical gear to support the thermal and water systems and controls to manage power throughout the site.
● Automated waste collection system to sort and consolidate various waste streams across multiple parcels into a centralized location.

All buildings within the Project Area may be connected to the DCP , except the following parcels due to phasing or land contiguity constraints: PE-BR-1 and PE-BR-2, JS-BR-2, JS-FLEX, JS-BR-3, JS-BO-1. The plant may also include back-up facilities for resilience and life safety including battery storage.

District Systems Concept Plan | 12

3.2. Electrical System (Microgrid)
The Project Applicant proposes to develop a microgrid system to enable sharing of renewable power and storage (“Distribution Energy Resources (DER)”) among buildings and provide resiliency to critical functions in the event of an outage on the utility network.

The Project Applicant may pursue the following options for the Microgrid:
● Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) Community Microgrid Enablement Program (“CMEP”): PG&E may own or operate components of the Microgrid, including particularly the distribution component, consistent with PG&E’s status as a regulated public utility.

If the Project Applicant elects to proceed with the Microgrid, the Project Applicant will identify when it would seek to implement it as part of its District Systems Implementation Plan submission, as described in 6.2.

3.2.1. FACILITY DESIGN
Renewable generation technologies including photovoltaic arrays and building-integrated photovoltaic products may be located on building rooftops, facades, and nearby structures to comply with the City’s REACH code requirements. In addition, storage technologies such as batteries may also be deployed at the DCP , or at buildings throughout the development. Such storage technologies could be used to provide both resilience and/or backup power services. Both storage and generation on-site would allow the realization of Project bene
fits such as:
● Provide power to key critical loads in the event of a utility wide grid outage; ● Allow renewable energy to be shared between buildings (with limitations to islanded mode or utility grid outage in the case of the PG&E option;
● Allow the DER owners to choose between optimizing carbon or economic performance.

The Project is proposing localized 12 kV infrastructure from a dedicated switching station to connect participating buildings within the Project in a microgrid with one or more connections to the PG&E distribution system. The microgrid would include controls to share power between buildings across the microgrid distribution, and controls to operate any generation and storage disconnected from the grid in the event of an outage. It is not anticipated, however, that the microgrid will have su fficient
renewable energy and storage to operate for an extended period in an islanded scenario due to the density of the Project. The intent of a microgrid topology is primarily to enable sharing of renewable power and storage and provide limited resilience to critical functions in the event of an outage on the utility network.

For a PG&E-CMEP microgrid, PG&E will furnish and install meters at each building and, as desired, secondary transformers. Access to each transformer and meter will be provided in accordance with PG&E’s Electrical and Gas Service Requirements (Greenbook).

District Systems Concept Plan | 13

3.2.2. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
If a Community Microgrid arrangement is selected, connections to each building will be provided by PG&E from distribution lines located within PG&E’s existing easements. This microgrid option includes private
fiber distribution for controls. The microgrid operation control location(s) shall be determined by PG&E islanding sections.

Figure 3.1. CONCEPTUAL MICROGRID & CONTROLS LAYOUT.ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

3.2.3. PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PHASING
The electrical distribution system will be built out as buildings come online through the phases of construction as described in Section 1.1.4 Project Phasing. Laterals and all required switching stations in buildings would be constructed on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

3.3. Thermal Systems
The District Thermal Systems are composed of 3 main components; a generation facility located at the DCP , a series of distribution networks deployed in the District Systems Corridor and Energy Transfer Stations (“ETS”) located in each building. The proposed thermal systems would serve the Project at full buildout, with some buildings being serviced by standard business-as-usual systems depending on phasing and ownership constraints, as noted below.

The proposed thermal systems would serve the full proposed Project, with some buildings being serviced by standard BAU systems depending on phasing constraints, as noted below. The DCP and distribution of heating hot water and chilled water would be owned and managed by the Project Applicant.

3.3.1. FACILITY DESIGN
The approach for the thermal system is based on the consolidation of capacities, leveraging non coincidental demand pro
files across the asset mix as well as taking advantage of resource demand peaks occurring at different times for each building typology. Centralizing the thermal equipment provides greater operational e
fficiency while providing a means to exchange heat between residential and commercial buildings, and reducing water consumption required for cooling towers.

District Systems Concept Plan | 14

Central cooling generation for most buildings in the Project Area is currently proposed via heat recovery chillers and air source heat pumps supplemented by water cooled chillers. Heat rejection will be via ground loops utilizing geobores or structural piles within the Project Area, supplemented by cooling towers mounted on the roof of the DCP building. Heating is proposed to be all-electric via the heat recovery chillers connected to the ground loop, supplemented by air source heat pumps located on the roof of the DCP building. Centralizing thermal equipment provides greater operational e
fficiency as well as a means to exchange heat between residential and commercial buildings, as well as reduce water consumption required for cooling towers. The Project may also include thermal energy storage located at the DCP building, in the form of vertical tanks located adjacent to the DCP (above grade). Further design development will investigate the size as well as con figuring the storage
to be switchable between heating and cooling on a seasonal basis.

All buildings within the Project Area may be connected to the DCP , except the following parcels due to phasing or land contiguity constraints: PE-BR-1 and PE-BR-2, JS-BR-2, JS-FLEX, JS-BR-3, JS-BO-1.

These include certain residential buildings, and certain dedicated affordable parcels which may be constructed prior to the DCP and hot and chilled water lines being completed. Where appropriate, temporary thermal service may be located at these parcels with a connection to the DCP replacing the temporary service. In other cases, the parcels will maintain stand-alone thermal equipment unconnected to the DCP . In all cases, non-DCP thermal equipment will meet all required standards under California’s Title 24 building Energy E
fficiency Standards and City codes and standards.

3.3.2. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
There is no existing heating hot water or chilled water system serving the site. Thermal energy for the Project is proposed to be served from the DCP . The DCP would provide heating hot water and chilled water to the all of the buildings within the Project Area except the ones with any of the constraints described above, via underground heating hot water and chilled water pipes located within the District Systems Corridor and/or direct-buried, as shown in Figure 3.2. Buried district piping would be fused-joint virgin high density polyethylene or equivalent.

Figure 3.2. CONCEPTUAL THERMAL ENERGY LAYOUT.ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

District Systems Concept Plan | 15

3.3.3. BUILDING INTEGRATION
The proposed District Thermal Systems would eliminate much of the mechanical production equipment that would typically be installed in each building. To ensure the provision of the service, an Energy Transfer Station would be designed and constructed in each building to fit out the appropriate heat exchangers, metering, controls and pumping circulation systems to ensure the connection to the hot and chilled water networks. Each building would be responsible for the determination of their loads and the District Systems Operator would be responsible for the sizing and installation of the ETS equipment. The ETS rooms might also be accommodated to include the manifolds for the connection of the geobores at each building to the primary networks.

3.3.4. DISTRICT THERMAL SYSTEMS PHASING
The thermal distribution system will be built out as buildings come online through the phases of construction as described in Section 1.1.4 Project Phasing. Laterals and all required energy transfer stations in buildings would be constructed on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The District Systems Operator would deliver the energy transfer stations including the incoming district piping, valves and connections to the heat exchangers that serve the buildings’ loads. The heat exchangers themselves are district components, with all connections on the building side (piping, valves, etc.) under the individual building owner / operator responsibility.

Certain residential buildings on parcels dedicated to the City, may opt not to connect to the thermal system, depending on parcel-speci
fic considerations and/or if the DS owner(s) and owner(s) of the parcels are unable to reach an agreement to connect those parcels to the DS. In those cases, the parcels will maintain stand-alone thermal equipment unconnected to the DCP , owned and operated by the building owner. Stand-alone equipment would be determined by the individual building design teams, however it would be expected to consist of small to medium sized air cooled condensers to support local hot water and refrigeration needs. There is also the likelihood of exhaust fans to support small cafes and similar commercial tenants. In the event that some parcels are constructed prior to the DCP and before hot and chilled water lines are completed, temporary thermal equipment would be installed on the buildings with an ETS ready for future connection to the District Thermal Systems once commissioned. Once the service has switched over to District Systems, the temporary thermal equipment would be removed from the buildings and transferred to the DCP . These arrangements would be described in the corresponding planning permits.

3.4. Wastewater Collection & Treatment System
The District Wastewater Collection and Treatment System is composed of two main components: a water reuse facility (WRF) located at the DCP and a wastewater collection system deployed in the District Systems Corridor. The collection system would be located in the Project Area and within the proposed District Systems Corridor. The WRF and private wastewater collection system will be owned and maintained by the Project Applicant.

For details on the Collaborative option, refer to Section 3.6 District Water: Collaborative Option.

3.4.1. COLLECTION AREAS
The proposed sewer system would collect wastewater from the Project’s participating development parcels in the Shorebird neighborhood via a private collection network owned by the Project Applicant and connected to the WRF. Some development parcels (eg parcels in the Joaquin neighborhood and dedicated affordable parcels PE-BR-1 and PE-BR-2) may not connect to the District System and WRF.

District Systems Concept Plan | 16

3.4.2. FACILITY DESIGN
One private onsite district WRF would be proposed to treat Project-generated wastewater for reuse to meet non-potable demands. The WRF would meet California Code of Regulations Title 22 disinfected tertiary (unrestricted reuse) recycled water standards through a multi-stage treatment process, including screening, primary filtration, secondary biological treatment, tertiary filtration, and disinfection. The WRF would be sized to treat up to a maximum wastewater production flow of 0.9 million gallons per day, based on the flows estimated by the Project Applicant’s design engineer and as detailed in Section 7.1 of the Appendices. The WRF would include influent equalization tank(s) of up to 0.45 million gallons, which would be able to provide flow attenuation and short-term storage.

Water that has been tertiary filtered and disinfected would be stored in non-potable storage tank(s) of up to 0.45 million gallons before being distributed for residential and commercial uses such as water closet and urinal flushing, laundry facilities, irrigation, and cooling. Treated non-potable water would be distributed via a pressurized non-potable water distribution network within the District Systems Corridor.

TREATMENT STANDARDS
As noted above, the proposed onsite district WRF would treat wastewater to the same public health standards met by the recycled water produced by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and distributed via the City of Mountain View recycled water network.

The non-potable water produced at the WRF will be regulated by the State similar to the RWQCP system. This level of treatment would allow for unrestricted reuse for approved non-potable end uses, including spray irrigation. The Project will have the capacity to irrigate public areas (which could include publicly-owned parks and/or privately-owned open spaces with public access) with non-potable water produced at the WRF thereby leaving potable water available for other uses.

DISCHARGE CONNECTION
The proposed WRF would tie into the City’s sanitary sewer network to discharge excess wastewater, potentially, for disposal to the City sewer system of wastewater treatment residuals (sludge). This connection would allow the WRF to discharge excess wastewater to the City’s sanitary sewer system in case of a lower demand for non-potable water or if the WRF is o ffline for any reason. This sanitary
sewer discharge connection would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer in Charleston Road.

The point of connection would be similar to a typical wastewater lateral connection.

In the proposed arrangement, with the discharge connection to the City’s sanitary sewer, the WRF would be operating similar to a “satellite” facility and would thus avoid the need for the Project Applicant to get a permit for a treated water discharge to the environment. If the WRF wasn’t connected to the City's sanitary sewer, then any excess treated wastewater would need to be permitted for discharge (eg. to surface water or for land application).

Refer to Section 4.3.2 City Permitting for additional details.

WASTEWATER RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
California Senate Bill 1383 requires a 50 percent reduction in organic waste (including biosolids) disposal from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. Onsite beneficial reuse would align with the City’s existing efforts to meet that goal by diverting organic waste from the landfill. Any products of the onsite solids management will be used within the Project boundaries or as close to the Project Area as possible; the hauling distance will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Industry standards typically referenced by the State Water Quality Control Board, define ‘sludge’ as the solid, semisolid, and liquid residues removed during primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes. Solid waste refers to grit and screening material generated during preliminary treatment. Biosolids refers to sludge that has been treated and tested and shown to be capable of being bene
ficially used as soil amendment pursuant to federal and state regulations.

District Systems Concept Plan | 17
The sludge from the WRF treatment plant would include waste activated sludge (WAS) from the secondary biological treatment process and primary solids from the primary filtration process. WAS is preliminarily estimated to be 1% (10,000 mg/L) total solids flow. Primary solids are estimated to have up to 50% (500,000 mg/L) total solids content.

The Project is considering two options for sludge management. One option would be to process the sludge at an onsite residuals management facility for beneficial reuse. The second option would be to discharge these flowable solids to the City’s sanitary sewer network, via the WRF’s discharge connection. If the latter approach is pursued, the Project team will coordinate with the City on the permanent discharge. Residuals would be mixed with the excess non-treated wastewater flow and
sent to the City’s sanitary sewer network, which processed through the Palo Alto RWQCP .

The Project is proposing an onsite residuals management facility that could process wastewater residuals and organics (food) waste for beneficial reuse and is studying onsite residuals management alternatives. Any product of onsite treatment would be beneficially reused and would not be sent to the City’s sanitary sewer. For example, the solids produced as a residual from the WRF treatment processes could be managed onsite through pyrolysis, a thermochemical decomposition process that generates biochar (a high-quality soil amendment) and biogas (which is consumed within the reactor chamber during the pyrolysis process).The onsite residuals management facility would have the capacity to treat all wastewater residuals produced by the Project and would still have further capacity to process additional wastewater residuals and/or organics (food) waste.

Desalination is not proposed at the WRF and as such a brine discharge is not anticipated.

ODOR CONTROL
At the initial stage of treatment, raw wastewater is screened to remove inorganic solids, which are collected in a roll-off bin and periodically hauled off-site. Preliminary screening of wastewater is intended to remove large materials from the
flow stream that may damage or clog subsequent
treatment equipment and reduce overall treatment reliability. Screens can either be coarse or fine depending on the size of material intended for removal. Materials captured by the screens are called screenings and can include rags, plastics, and paper. Screenings are composed primarily of inorganic wastes that are not biodegradable and not beneficial for post processing and resource recovery. As such, screenings are typically washed, compacted and hauled off site at regular intervals for disposal in a permitted landfill.

Grit such as sand, gravel, coffee grounds and eggshells are removed to prevent their accumulation in downstream processes such as aeration basins and anaerobic digesters. These materials are typically removed via gravity settling; scour air or another abrasion process can be used to more effectively separate grit from other suspended solids. Similar to screenings, grit does not have a resource recovery value and is hauled off site.

The screenings and grit would need to be managed to not create nuisance odors; wastewater treatment plant odors are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Handling and disposal would require screenings and grit to be washed and drained, and the wash water may be recycled to the front of the treatment train. Once washed and dewatered, the screenings and grit will be stored in refuse containers to the satisfaction of the City’s requirements, and routinely hauled offsite to a permitted landfill. Refuse containers would have to be odor proof and contained within an area draining to the sanitary sewer in the case of a rain event. Odor control measures may also include housing primary screenings in a ventilated enclosure at the WRF.

Primary treatment and management of primary and secondary solids also have the potential to produce odors. The WRF will have appropriate odor controls to manage any objectionable odors from these processes. The headspace of tanks with the potential to produce odors will be vented. If needed, air blowers and odor control units (eg. carbon filters) may be incorporated into the wastewater treatment design. Specific solutions will be developed as the Project moves into design.

District Systems Concept Plan | 18

COLOR CONTROL
Advanced treatment may be included to achieve color removal and to reduce the risk of microorganism re-growth in the distribution system. This advanced treatment can be achieved via ozonation and/or granular activated carbon (GAC) contact. Ozone is a powerful oxidant that is commonly used for color removal and breakdown of recalcitrant organics. Ozonation, when followed by contact with a GAC bed, would provide removal of trace organics made bioavailable by the ozonation process and further reduce color. As a pre-treatment stage to disinfection, ozonation followed by GAC contact has the added benefit of reducing the required disinfection dosage.

3.4.3. PRIVATE COLLECTION CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
The proposed design for the wastewater collection system includes a private, low-pressure sanitary sewer (SS) collection network which would be integrated into the proposed District Systems Corridor alignment, as shown in Figure 3.4.

Each building or parcel connected to the private SS network would discharge their sanitary waste via a small pump station at basement-level. The pump stations would each include a pump, a collection tank, and potentially an over
flow tank to feed into a low-pressure force main, routed within the proposed District Systems Corridor. Pumps would be selected to adequately transfer wastewater solids through the SS network to the WRF. All parcels will require a connection to the City’s conventional gravity collection network for emergency back-up use. Refer to Section 7.3.7.1 Redundancy and Backups - Water Reuse Facility for additional details on the system redundancy and backup power.

A low-pressure collection system (also known as a pressure sanitary sewer [PSS]) is proposed for the Shorebird neighborhood as it allows for the controlled transfer of sewage in a more e fficient footprint
than conventional gravity systems. A pressurized system would allow for wastewater to be collected in smaller diameter pipes within the District Systems Corridor whereas a gravity system would require that a dedicated trench be constructed with larger diameter pipes to achieve adequate slope for flow.

A PSS operates through a sealed system, eliminating leakages (exfiltration) and stormwater inflow and infiltration (I/I) while also reducing odor issues. Additionally, a PSS allows for system optimization, as the operator can program the system’s operating periods and stagger peak loads.

This
flexibility could potentially reduce the discharge volume that would be sent to the City SS.

The in-building pump station wet wells associated with the PSS will be vented as required by California Plumbing Code (CPC) to prevent odorous conditions. If needed, air blowers and odor control units (eg. carbon
filters) may be incorporated into the pump station design.

District Systems Concept Plan | 19
Figure 3.4. CONCEPTUAL DISTRICT WASTEWATER COLLECTION NETWORK (SHOREBIRD ONL Y). ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

3.4.4. BUILDING INTEGRATION
The proposed District Wastewater Collection & Treatment System would connect to the participating buildings in the Shorebird neighborhood via a connection room at each parcel would be composed of a wet well, over
flow tank, pumps, and odor control for the pumped connections and, as emergency backup, a typical sewer lateral for the gravity connections. Pumps would be selected to adequately transfer wastewater solids through the network to the WRF. Refer to Section 7.3.7.3 Redundancy and Backups - Water Reuse Facility for additional details on the system redundancy and backup power.

3.4.5. PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM PHASING
The sanitary sewer collection system will be built out as buildings come online throughout the construction phases as described in Section 1.1.4 Construction Phasing. Sewer laterals and all required pumps would be constructed on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

3.5. Non-Potable Water Distribution System
The district non-potable water distribution system is proposed to serve only parcels within the Project Area. This includes the possibility of serving public parks and open spaces within the Project Area.

The non-potable system will be located on Project Applicant property to the maximum extent feasible and within the proposed District Systems Corridor system. The Project Applicant will own and maintain the non-potable water systems.

For details on the Collaborative option, refer to Section 3.6 District Water: Collaborative Option.

3.5.1. PROPOSED NON-POTABLE WATER SUPPL Y
The non-potable water supply to the Project Area would be provided by the onsite district WRF, which would treat wastewater
flows produced by the Project for non-potable reuse throughout the Project.

City-supplied recycled water would be the primary non-potable backup supply. City-supplied potable water would act as the secondary backup supply.

District Systems Concept Plan | 20

3.5.2. NON-POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT Treated non-potable water would be distributed to all participating Project development parcels through a private non-potable water distribution network, as shown in Figure 3.5. The non-potable pipe would be routed through the District Systems Corridor and connect to all participating parcels as a non-potable supply for water closet and urinal flushing, laundry, and irrigation. The non-potable supply would also be used in the proposed district central plant (DCP) as a makeup water supply for heat rejection in cooling towers.

Figure 3.5. CONCEPTUAL NON-POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION.ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

3.5.3. BUILDINGS INTEGRATION
The proposed Non-Potable Water Distribution System would connect to individual buildings via a connection room at each parcel composed of a backflow preventer, non-potable water submeter, break tank, and booster pumps, along with any piping, valving, electrical, and controls required to serve the building interiors. Irrigation demands would be served either directly off the main distribution line or from the building’s break tank.

Break tanks would be provided in the connection room at each parcel. Each break tank would have at a minimum, a supply connection from the Non-Potable Water Distribution network and from the City potable water network. A supply connection from the City recycled water network could also be included. All supply connections would have an air gap at the break tank.

3.5.4. NON-POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PHASING - PRIVATE OPTION The non-potable water distribution network will be built out as buildings come online throughout the construction phases as described in Section 1.1.4. Non-potable laterals and any required booster pumps would be constructed on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The district WRF would be built during an early phase of the proposed Project.

District Systems Concept Plan | 21

3.6. District Water: Collaborative Option
In addition to the private District Systems option detailed in the sections above, a Collaborative option is also being proposed by the Project. The details of the Collaborative option are covered in this section.

3.6.1. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM & BUILDINGS INTEGRATION Project wastewater will be collected via the City’s SS network. Individual buildings will connect to the municipal wastewater system via typical sewer lateral connections. The WRF will mine wastewater from the City’s SS network.

3.6.2. FACILITY DESIGN
The Collaborative option consists of an onsite WRF sized to treat up to a maximum wastewater production
flow of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD) , which will act as a regional satellite facility, treating wastewater to produce recycled water for non-potable uses. An onsite wastewater residuals management facility would process wastewater residuals for beneficial reuse. Refer to Section

3.4.1.2 Facility Design for details on the proposed onsite WRF and wastewater residuals management facility, including treatment standards, wastewater discharge connection, and odor control measures.

3.6.3. NON-POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
Recycled water produced at the Collaborative WRF will be stored onsite and then added to the regional recycled water network to meet non-potable demands on- and off-site.

3.6.4. ASSET OWNERSHIP
Under the Collaborative option, the onsite WRF could be owned and maintained by the Project Applicant, or alternative ownership models could be explored with the City. Project Applicant will meet with the City to determine the most appropriate model and work through the agreement details.

The wastewater collection network and recycled water distribution network would be owned and maintained by the City.

3.7 . Waste Collection System
An Automated Waste Collection System (AWCS) is proposed for the collection of solid non-hazardous waste from privately owned parcels within the Master Plan area. The AWCS consists of a network of pneumatic below-grade tubes that connect buildings with a central transfer facility or AWCS terminal.

The system supports the collection of up to four primary waste streams: garbage, paper recycling, container recycling and organics.

3.7.1. FACILITY DESIGN
An AWCS is a system that applies pneumatic technology to create e fficiencies in waste management
in buildings. An AWCS places the majority of waste operations underground through a network of pipes connected to a central transfer facility, reducing space requirements at grade. The technology has a design life of 30-40 years, though its longevity depends on the conditions of use/maintenance and the custom design of the pipe network.

District Systems Concept Plan | 22
Some of the benefits of implementing an AWCS include:
● reducing noise, odors, and visual clutter on the street; ● reducing the number of collection points per waste truck trip; ● reducing the number of waste vehicle trips to individual buildings, and subsequently, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution;
● mitigating traffic impacts of waste truck idling and queuing; and ● reducing the overall space take of waste storage at the building level, freeing valuable space.

Mixed-use and Commercial land use types will be principally served by the AWCS for their primary waste streams, segregated at source. In most circumstances, janitorial staff or residents will place waste into the AWCS after collecting each stream from each floor.

The key elements of the system are:
● Inlet points: consist of a user accessible inlet door per stream, into which waste is deposited.

Generally, each
floor will have AWCS inlets at appropriate locations to facilitate the safe and efficient disposal of waste into gravity chutes. Access to gravity chutes will be restricted, and will be locked by default. A card reader will grant access to those who hold appropriate credentials. ● Building Valves: once deposited at the inlet points, waste drops into a section of pipe (valves) used to temporarily hold it until the system is ready to collect it. In lieu of standard valves, a screw tank may be installed in buildings with a high density of occupants, to provide increased capacity for waste holding before collection.
● Pipe network: consists of a network of pneumatic tubes that connect the building or group of buildings to a central collection point. These pipes run below ground and use air to transport waste.
● AWCS terminal(s): The AWCS terminal is a transfer facility that serves as a centralized point of collection for waste transported via the pipe network. Waste is stored as bulk in sealed containers until collection by the City’s waste hauler.

The AWCS is operated through a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) Controls system located at the terminal. The SCADA system enables initiating collection from the different buildings (1) by sensor, (2) on a schedule, or (3) by manual activation.

In accordance with City standards, this system is expected to support four primary waste streams:
garbage, paper recycling, container recycling, and organics. Waste streams remain separate via the automated process that evacuates one stream at a time. Most of the site’s waste will be hauled away from the AWCS terminal(s), where large, stream-speci
fic containers will be loaded onto flatbed trucks
daily.

All other waste streams not supported by the AWCS will be collected by staff or residents, and transferred to one or more centralized waste storage rooms at each building. The waste streams not supported by AWCS are: bulky items, cardboard, e-waste, kitchen grease, and other hazardous materials. These streams will be hauled from each building using traditional waste management techniques.

3.7.2. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
The Project’s AWCS terminal would be housed within the District Central Plant (DCP), and the pipe network would run within the proposed District Systems Corridors, as shown in Figure 3.6.

Connections between the building and the AWCS pipe network will be designed and provided at each building.

District Systems Concept Plan | 23
Figure 3.6. CONCEPTUAL WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT.ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

3.7.3. BUILDINGS INTEGRATION
An AWCS starts at the base of the building with a system of indoor inlet valves that store waste temporarily until it’s ready for collection. There is one indoor inlet valve for each stream transported by the AWCS, and valves are provided by sets of three or four (3-4) depending on the number of streams collected by the system. Multiple sets are allocated per building depending on the floor plate size, the number of chute locations and estimated daily waste generation.

Waste originating in buildings will be collected by residents or janitorial staff at each level and then transferred to a building waste holding area. The typology of the building waste holding area depends on the building height:
● In buildings with chutes, selected waste streams are transferred via vertical chutes connected directly to an inlet indoor valve set at the base of the building; or ● In buildings without chutes, waste is transferred via service elevator to the building waste holding area, where the indoor inlet valve sets are located. Janitorial staff is responsible for depositing waste into the system.

All other waste streams not captured by AWCS (eg. cardboard, bulky waste, e-waste, etc.) will be transported via service elevators to the building waste holding area(s), to be stored until collection.

3.7.4. PROPOSED AWCS PHASING
The Automated Waste Collection System will be built out as buildings come online through the eight phases of construction as described in Section 1.1.4 Project Phasing. The system would rely on the finalization of the AWCS terminal, as part of Phase 1 of the Project. Building AWCS infrastructure and lateral connections to the main AWCS pipe network would be constructed on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

3.8. District Systems Corridor
The Project proposes to include new District Systems Corridors for the conveyance of private utilities to serve the Project Area. The District Systems Corridors will be constructed as a combination of direct-bury utility trenches and structure embedded within basement parking, if applicable. The proposed District Systems alignments are predominantly within private parcels, only encroaching into the public Rights of Way to reach other participating project parcels. Portions of the alignment routing within the proposed public parks (Shorebird Wilds, The Portal) are kept to a minimum and are maintained at the periphery of open space areas to minimize impacts to trees and public spaces.

District Systems Concept Plan | 24

A deep District Systems Corridor structure based on the jack and bore methodology described in

5.2.3 allows for under-crossing of public Rights of Way with minimal disturbance or relocation to the existing City-owned and franchise utilities. Refer to Figure 3.9 for a conceptual section of the Jack and Bore method, and how the District System utilities could be accommodated in a single or multiple bores. A direct bury construction method at existing Rights of Way crossings would create con flicts
with the existing utility systems and would require significant existing utility protections and relocations. At a maximum, the District Systems Corridor is expected to have an outer width of 30 feet (including 1.5’ of outside clearances on either side). Its size is based on a conceptual design and is subject to change through detailed design, including a reduction in width where appropriate. Refer to Figure 3.7 for the Conceptual District Systems Corridor Plan and Figures 3.8 and 3.9 for conceptual District Systems Corridor sections. No trees or structures would be allowed directly on top of or within at least 5’ of where the District Systems Corridors are buried.

These private utilities may include but are not limited to thermal systems (chilled and hot water), sanitary sewer collection, non-potable water distribution, microgrid and solid waste conveyance equipment. The District Systems Corridors will be constructed as a combination of direct-bury utility trenches or tunnels, or utilities within basement parking.

Jack and bore is the preferred construction method for public Rights of Way crossings. A direct bury construction method at these ROW crossings would result in con flicts with the existing utility systems
and would require significant existing utility protections and relocations.

Figure 3.7. CONCEPTUAL DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR LAYOUT. ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

District Systems may connect and be made available to any dedicated affordable sites that fall within the District Systems utility corridor, subject to agreement between (i) the District Systems owner(s) and (ii) the owner(s) of the dedicated affordable sites, as applicable, and any required regulatory approvals and/or phasing constraints.

The District Systems Corridor sections in Figures 3.7 to 3.9 are for illustrative purposes only and are subject to change as the District Systems design advances.

District Systems Concept Plan | 25

Figure 3.8 shows the typical section of the District Systems Corridors, when they are directly buried.

This section proposes that all District Systems would be buried in a “joint trench” and share the same alignment, but maintain a constant separation as shown. Exceptions to the separation requirements are likely to occur, when access or appurtenances for these District Systems are needed.

Figure 3.8. CONCEPTUAL DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR SECTION - TYPICAL EXTERIOR ROUTING. ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

Figure 3.9 shows a conceptual section for when the District Systems Corridor crosses Rights of Way.

This option assumes the construction of a tunnel via a Jack and Bore method.

Figure 3.9. CONCEPTUAL DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR SECTION - PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY CROSSING JACK AND BORE OPTION
District Systems pipes may also be routed inside private property making use of the potential basements. In this condition, the wet utilities would hang from the walls or ceilings of said basements and dry utility conduits would be hung from the ceilings supported by trapeze mounts, and traverse across the parcels, with smaller service pipes providing a connection to each building. Minimum height clearances for vehicular parking and aisles would be maintained per City regulations.

District Systems Concept Plan | 26

K4. Anticipated Permi ing And Licensing
The proposed District Systems are an innovative way to provide district level infrastructure services.

Most of the regulatory approval pathways currently exist with some unknowns primarily regarding the electrical, sewer, and water systems. This section provides an overview of the approvals that would be required for the implementation of District Systems. A complete Permitting Plan would be submitted along with the District Systems Implementation Plan as described in Section 6.2 to confirm the selection of systems and associated timelines for the City to review at the time of the Zoning Permit submission.

4.1. Microgrid
To operate the microgrid, the project will be required to follow connection procedures through PG&E.

In addition to the microgrid operating agreement and entity, solar and storage interconnection will be permitted through PG&E. This includes a Grid Facility Interconnection Application (GFIA), which will be submitted to and approved by the utility, resulting in a Permission to Operate (PTO) for solar and storage located on the project. The applicable tariff and interconnection, operation, and metering requirements will be determined through coordination with PG&E. For the microgrid option in collaboration with PG&E, solar and storage interconnections for some or all buildings will be less than 3 MW and therefore subject to the Rule 21 interconnection procedure. If under 1 MW, permitting for net metering-based projects may be fast-tracked.

4.1.1. ANTICIPATED PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME
City of Mountain View Permitting & Inspecting ● Planning permit per Phase
● Building permits for
each phase
● Certificate of
Occupancy of each
phase
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) & San
Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (“Regional Board”)
Approval of SMP ● Soil & Groundwater
Management Plan
(SMP) &
Project-Specific
Agency Submittal
(PSAS) by Geotech
● Must be approved and
supplied to City of
Mountain View prior to
building permit
issuance.
6 - 12 months for agency
coordination
Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E)
Operational agreement CMEP: Rule 21
Interconnection
Application
6 - 12 months for
application approval.

Must be installed within 2
years from application
approval
District Systems Concept Plan | 27

4.2. Thermal
The City of Mountain View will issue a standard building permit for the DCP related to district thermal systems.

The permit and approval requirements for the thermal systems at the DCP are regulated under the following sections of Chapter 8 of the City Code:
● Title 24, Part 4 - California Mechanical Code (Title 24) ● Title 24, Part 5 - California Plumbing Code (Title 24) ● Title 24, Part 6 - California Energy Code (Title 24)
● Title 24, Part 9 - California Fire Code/City of Mountain View Fire Code ● Title 24, Part 11 - California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green) Additionally, Santa Clara Valley Water District will issue a standard well permit for construction of the geobores as part of the vertical buildings.

4.2.1. ANTICIPATED PERMITS AND AGREEMENT

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME
City of Mountain View Planning
Permitting
Inspecting
● Planning permit per
Phase
● Building permits of
each phase
● Certificate of
Occupancy of each
phase
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) & San
Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (“Regional Board”)
Approval of geothermal
ground source wells & SMP
● Soil & Groundwater
Management Plan
(SMP) &
Project-Specific
Agency Submittal
(PSAS) by Geotech
● Must be approved and
supplied to the City of
Mountain View before
building permit
issuance
6 - 12 months for agency
coordination
Santa Clara Valley Water
District
Permitting for geothermal
ground source wells
construction
Well construction (& permit
by installing contractor)
2-3 months for permitting

4.3. Water Reuse Facility
The WRF will be designed to meet current regulations and can be designed to meet anticipated pathogen log reduction targets (LRTs) for Future Regulations, as discussed further in Section 4.3.1.

The current design includes the following processes that can be used to meet pathogen LRTs: tertiary filtration, ozonation, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. If needed to meet Future Regulations, these processes can be upsized (eg. higher UV dose).

The WRF will be located within a private parcel and under the current regulations, is expected to be permitted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) and the State Water Resource Control Board (“State Water Board”) Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The Regional Board will issue the operational permit, or Order, while the State Water Board DDW will review the engineering report and provide technical comments on tertiary filtration and disinfection
unit processes.

District Systems Concept Plan | 28
It is anticipated that the Regional Board will issue an Individual Order for the WRF as there are no known General Orders that would cover a facility of the capacity proposed1. If a smaller WRF is built (<100,000 gpd), then the proposed system could fall under one or more General Orders (collection, treatment, distribution). The Regional Board has considered a “low risk” General Order previously to include facilities that do not have an environmental discharge. All wastewater treated at the WRF will be used for bene
ficial reuse onsite, any untreated wastewater will go to the City's sanitary sewer and treated wastewater will not be discharged to the City's sanitary sewer. Should such a General Order become available, the project will seek to enroll in it to leverage the streamlined permit process.

The City of Mountain View will issue a building permit and possibly a wastewater discharge permit.

The permit and approval requirements for the WRF are regulated under the following2:
● California Water Code, Section 7 (Porter-Cologne Act) ● California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water (“The Purple Book”) ● California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4. Environmental Health ● California Plumbing Code (CPC)
● City of Mountain View Wastewater Discharge Permit requirements ● Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements ● EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule

4.3.1. FUTURE REGULATIONS
Senate Bill 966 (SB 966), signed into law in September 2018, requires the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) to adopt regulations for risk-based water quality standards for the onsite treatment and reuse of non-potable water by December 2022. The bill would also require local jurisdictions that elect to establish a program for onsite treated non-potable water systems to adopt a local program that includes the risk-based water quality standards established by the Water Board.

The goal of SB 966 is to increase recycled water use in California by helping local jurisdictions implement onsite water reuse and by streamlining the existing permitting process.

SB 966 changes the way that onsite non-potable water systems will be regulated in the future. Instead of permitting these systems via the California Plumbing Code (CPC) Chapter 15 or California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, which was written with municipal-scale facilities in mind, SB 966 requires “local programs” to be formed and adopted. The local programs championed by SB 966 will be formed by cities, counties, and utilities and will be required to utilize a “risk-based framework” that establishes treatment performance targets (pathogen log reduction targets) based on the alternate water source and end use of the non-potable water. Design criteria and requirements are included in this framework to establish a basis for the reduction and inactivation of bacteria, viruses, and protozoa that could be present in alternate water sources (eg. wastewater).

Any permitting for the WRF that occurs prior to January 2025, would be under the current California Water Code and the CCR Title 22 regulatory structure, which is administered locally by the Regional Board. Therefore, based on the timeline for the Project, this shift in regulatory framework may affect design requirements for the treatment system. It is not clear whether, given the scale of this WRF, if the system will be regulated as an “onsite” system or not. As such, the Project is building in flexibility
to adapt to SB 966 when it becomes law and the WRF treatment system will be designed to meet the risk-based framework requirements in preparation for future regulatory enforcement. 2 This list is not intended to be exclusive should other regulations apply at time of permitting, based on scope of permit.
1 The Small Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems General Order WQ 2014-0153-DWQ covers systems treating less than 100,000 gallons per day.

District Systems Concept Plan | 29

4.3.2. CITY PERMITTING
As a control authority for the Palo Alto RWQCP , the City of Mountain View is required by state, federal, and local laws to regulate wastewater discharges of specified commercial businesses and industrial users to the RWQCP . Through its Pretreatment Program, the City permits and inspects specified commercial and industrial facilities. Through Discharge Permits, the City authorizes wastewater discharges to the sanitary sewer and the RWQCP .

The wastewater flow discharged from the WRF would be governed under a City of Mountain View wastewater discharge permit and, if required, the City’s discharger self-monitoring program and any applicable pretreatment regulations. Connections to the City's sanitary sewer with monitored flows will include flow monitoring equipment, such as flow meters, as required in the City of Mountain View’s City Code.

The City charges wastewater users a one-time Sewer Capacity Charge (based on increased impacts to the City’s sanitary sewer).

The City charges wastewater users monthly Wastewater Service fees for Residential customers (calculated based on dwelling units) and for Commercial customers (calculated based on estimated flow volume). The Wastewater Service fees for Commercial customers vary based on the usage type (eg. base commercial, commercial / industrial, restaurant, etc.).

4.3.3. ANTICIPATED PERMITTING AGENCIES

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMELINE
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board (“Regional
Board”)
Permitting Agency Will issue operational
permit
2 years for agency
coordination
Report of Waste Discharge
(ROWD), Title 22
Engineering Report, Waste
Discharge Requirements
(WDRs), Notice of
Applicability (NOA) to
General Order (if using)
1 year for operational
permit and state process
State Water Resource
Control Board (“State Water
Board”) Division of Drinking
Water (DDW)
Technical Permit Reviewer Will review engineering
report and provide
technical comments on
tertiary filtration and
disinfection unit processes
2 years for agency
coordination
Title 22 Engineering Report
(treatment)
6 months for engineering
reports and Title 22 permit
Santa Clara County
Department of Public
Health (DPH)
Potential Stakeholder Could play a role in
adoption of a local
program to administer
statewide risk-based
standards (SB966)
2 years for agency
coordination
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) & San
Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (“Regional Board”)
Approval of SMP Soil & Groundwater
Management Plan (SMP) &
Project-Specific Agency
Submittal (PSAS) by
Geotech
6 - 12 months for agency
coordination
District Systems Concept Plan | 30

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMELINE
Must be approved and
supplied to the City of
Mountain View prior to
building permit issuance.

City of Mountain View Permitting Agency Will issue a building permit and possibly a wastewater
discharge permit
2 years for agency
coordination

4.4. Sanitary Sewer Collection System
The current, adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ) makes no reference to private sewers and limits applicability to greater than one mile of sewer for public systems. The proposed private sanitary sewer network includes less than one mile of sewer collection pipelines.

The SWRCB is in the process of updating this General Order (Draft Order WQ 2022-XXXX-DWQ) and has conducted workshops and collected comments in early 2022. This draft states that, “A private company that owns and/or operates a sanitary sewer system of any size where the State Water Resources Control Board or a Regional Water Quality Control Board requires regulatory coverage under this Order, and that is not regulated under separate waste discharge requirements issued by a Regional Water Quality Control Board.”
It is anticipated that the WRF will be covered under a site speci fic Waste Discharge Order and
associated Waste Discharge Requirements or a General Order, if appropriate, as described above.

Once this new order is adopted, the Project could enroll under the Sanitary Sewer Systems General Order if the collection network is not covered by a site specific order. Whether that is the case is at the discretion of the Regional Board. The Sanitary Sewer Systems General Order may require a Sewer Management Plan (as is required for the City under their permit), audits, performance evaluations, annual reporting, and spill reporting through the State web portal.

4.5. Non-Potable Water Systems
The Project will include distribution of non-potable recycled water to individual buildings. The use of non-potable recycled water is governed by the City of Mountain View Customer Guidelines for Recycled Water Use. These Guidelines govern the implementation of dual plumbing, which is permitted as part of the building permit. The City works with DDW to review and approve dual plumbing plans as well as other end uses of recycled water as required under CRC Title 17 and Title

22. District Systems Concept Plan | 31

4.5.1. ANTICIPATED PERMITTING AGENCIES

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board (“Regional
Board”)
For Information Only N/A N/A
State Water Resource
Control Board (“State
Water Board”) Division of
Drinking Water (DDW)
Technical Permit Reviewer Review of initial plumbing
approach for individual
building permits.
3 months for agency
coordination
Dual Plumbing
Engineering Reports
6 months  for engineering
reports
City of Mountain View Permitting Agency Opportunity for a local entity such as the City to
take on primary role for
dual plumbing permitting
2 years for agency
coordination

4.6. Waste Collection System
The proposed waste collection system in North Bayshore would be the first facility of its kind to operate in California, and as such, the roadmap to achieve regulatory review and approval must be coordinated with relevant stakeholders. The following is a list of entities who are likely to require involvement in the permitting, construction and operation of an AWCS:

4.6.1. ANTICIPATED PERMITTING AGENCIES

AGENCY ROLE DOCUMENTATION ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME
Santa Clara County
Department of
Environmental Health,
Hazardous Material
Compliance Division (as
Local Enforcement
Agency [LEA] of
CalRecycle)
For Information Only Issuance of a registration
tier permit to operate a
facility for solid waste
transfer or processing,
composting,
transformation or
disposal; required for
facilities with medium
volume
transfer/processing
capacity (15 ≤ X ≤ 100
tons per day)
N/A
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District -
BAAQMD (In
representation of the
California Air Resources
Board [CARB])
City of Mountain View Permitting Agency Opportunity for a local entity such as the City to
take on primary role for
dual plumbing permitting
2 years for agency
coordination
District Systems Concept Plan | 32
● Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Material Compliance Division (as Local Enforcement Agency [LEA] of CalRecycle): Issuance of a registration tier permit to operate a facility for solid waste transfer or processing, composting, transformation or disposal; required for facilities with medium volume transfer/processing capacity (15 ≤ X ≤ 100 tons per day).
● Bay Area Air Quality Management District - BAAQMD (In representation of the California Air Resources Board [CARB]): Issuance of an Air District Permit that gives the holder authorization to build and/or to operate any stationery equipment that emits (pollutants) to the atmosphere. All projects are evaluated before the business can build and operate their equipment, to ensure that all air quality requirements are met.

Early engagement with these entities is required to ensure the permitting pathway aligns with the project construction plan and phasing. Engagement with other relevant entities may be required to enable timely permitting and appropriate coordination.

District Systems Concept Plan | 33
K5. District Systems Design Standards

5.1. Use of the District Systems Design Standards

5.1.1. STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT The District Systems Design Standards (hereafter “DSDS”) describe the standards and specifications used to evaluate District Systems within the Project Area. The list of standards includes, but is not limited to the following:
● City Of Mountain View Standard Provisions And Standard Details ● Mountain View City Code
● City of Mountain View Design Guidelines
● City of Mountain View Recycled Water Guidelines
These standards are to be used within the Project for purposes of evaluating District Systems. Any DSDS from the City of Mountain View Code shall be based on the City of Mountain View Code as provided in the Development Agreement. If not otherwise required by the Development Agreement, the Project Applicant may choose to apply a DSDS provision based on the City of Mountain View Code applicable and in effect at the time of the permit submittal for a District System phase. If a City of Mountain View Code, guideline, or standard does not address a speci fic improvement (eg. the
District Systems Corridors), this document identifies other sources of authority that provide standards to evaluate the installation of the subject improvements, such as the California Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications.

5.1.2. ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS PROVIDING STANDARDS
The DSDS described in this Section refers to certain ancillary documents to provide standards for horizontal improvements associated with the District Systems. Such ancillary documents are typically referred to herein by the name of the preparing agency, the name of the document, and the year the document was approved or most recently amended (eg. “Caltrans Speci fication (2018)”).

Ancillary documents may be amended or superseded in the future by the agencies responsible for their preparation and approval. With the exception of regulations, standards, and requirements in the Mountain View City Code, which are vested through the Development Agreement, regulations, standards and requirements in effect at the time of the first permit submittal for a District System
phase may be used to establish the applicable DSDS. The Project Applicant may submit a request for relief from a DSDS to the City pursuant to Section 5.1.3. Any standard and requirement regulated by another agency (other than the City) applies to the project at time of permitting, with any relief sought by the Project Applicant submitted directly to that oversight agency.

5.1.3. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS TO DSDS
The Project Applicant may submit a written request to the City for relief of regulatory requirements from any City of Mountain View Code, guideline, requirement, or standard applicable to the District System. If granted by the City, the exception can be documented in this plan, if deemed necessary, or incorporated into a City permit.

District Systems Concept Plan | 34

5.2. District Systems Applicable Standards

5.2.1. OVERVIEW
The proposed District Systems would conform to a combination of City of Mountain View standards as well as additional local, state, and national standards which are utility-specific. Where a District System would be regulated by an agency other than the City of Mountain View, the Project Applicant would obtain and comply with any necessary permits or approvals from the applicable agency, as noted below.

5.2.2. DISTRICT CENTRAL PLANT
The district central plant (DCP) and water reuse facility (WRF) are currently planned to be constructed during Phase 1 of the Project’s buildout and will be located on the eastern side of the project, within building(s) and/or screened outdoor areas. The physical structure of the DCP will be indicated in the Zoning Permit submitted for entitlement with detailed construction plans and submitted for building permit review.

5.2.3. DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDORS
The Project will include new utility corridors (“District Systems Corridors”) that contain and convey private systems to serve the Project Area. These private systems may include thermal systems (chilled and hot water), communications, electrical distribution, sanitary sewer collection, non-potable water distribution, and solid waste conveyance equipment.

The District Systems Corridors are proposed to be constructed as a combination of direct-bury trenches, systems integrated within basement parking structures, or underground tunnel structures.

When crossing public Rights of Way, the proposed District Systems Corridors may be constructed using a jack-and-bore method, or integrated into a structure. If any alternative construction method for the corridor system is considered, the Applicant will consult with the City of Mountain View and any other relevant agencies. District Systems Corridors that encroach in the public Rights of Way or on City land would be subject to the MEA between the City and Project Applicant.

DIRECT BURY DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR
In the direct bury method, no subterranean structure will be constructed. Each district system will be installed based on the City’s Standards for trenching.

District Systems will be constructed in a phased manner which ensures adequate provisions for tra
ffic to cross where required. Temporary utilities would be permitted as part of the individual parcels which they serve where required.

All direct bury segments within the public Rights of Way and on City land shall be subject to the MEA, and necessary City permits. Current City standards do not include standards private infrastructure within of the public Rights of Way, which are proposed at several locations (See Figure 3.7) throughout the proposed District Systems alignments. Other City Agreement(s) may be required for the proposed District Systems Corridor, depending on final design and location.

PARKING-INTEGRATED DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR
Where a private underground parking structure is available, the District Systems may be mounted on walls and ceilings, but would maintain required vehicle height clearances and parking space dimensions (unobstructed) as required by Mountain View City Code. California Building Code, including relevant Mountain View City Code, current at the time of permit submission, and would apply for all utility installation and related fencing or access structures. For individual utility-specific regulations, refer to the subsequent sections.

District Systems Concept Plan | 35

JACK AND BORE DISTRICT SYSTEMS CORRIDOR
The jack and bore construction method may be used to install District Systems at public Rights of Way crossings.

Jack and bore construction will follow design guidelines as provided in the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels - Civil Elements (2009), unless other specifications are provided as part of the approvals for these crossings. Additional interior access requirements including ventilation and lighting will be governed by OSHA requirements.

Protective measures will be required during construction to minimize disturbance of any existing utilities, and surface improvements including minimizing roadway pavement from lift or buckling.

Future detailed assessments will be required prior to completion of the design to limit adverse impacts from this construction method. Construction of jacking pits will be similar to the cut and cover method and utilize similar types of equipment. Temporary shoring will likely be required for jacking pits. Groundwater control will be needed during excavation and jacking operations. In addition, geotechnical exploration would be required to determine the appropriate shoring, dewatering, and soil management methodology at each crossing.

5.2.4. DISTRICT WASTEWATER COLLECTION
The proposed private wastewater collection system would convey wastewater from the Project’s participating development parcels in the Shorebird neighborhood to the proposed WRF. Wastewater would be discharged by pump stations within each building and conveyed via a series of private low-pressure sanitary sewer lines. The proposed sanitary sewer network would rely on a sewer system independent from the stormwater and rainwater collection systems, so the WRF would not be prone to in
filtration and inflow issues or wet weather surges. Private wastewater collection within the District Systems Corridor will be governed by the current California Plumbing Code at the time of permit submission in terms of design guidelines. See Section 4.3.4 Sanitary Sewer Collection System for a discussion of Regional Board oversight of this network. While current City standards do not include guidelines for private wastewater force mains, lift stations, or ejector pumps, nearby cities, including San Bruno, Redwood City, and Sunnyvale, feature such standards.

Any buildings which are not served by this private system will connect to the existing City-owned sewer system and will conform to public sanitary sewer requirements. All parcels are required to connect to the City sewer system as emergency back-up.

The applicable regulations for the wastewater collection infrastructure are:
● California Plumbing Code (CPC)
● City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details ● San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements (WRDs) If the City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details document does not provide standards for pressurized sanitary sewer and structures, sanitary sewer pumps, or sanitary sewer mining stations, the Project Applicant will develop a best practices guide based on other available codes and industry standards, and will submit to the City of Mountain View Public Works Department for review and approval.

District Systems Concept Plan | 36

5.2.5. DISTRICT NON-POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
Treated non-potable water is proposed to be distributed from the WRF to participating Project parcels through a private non-potable water distribution system. The non-potable water lines would be routed through the Project and connect to the proposed buildings as a non-potable supply for water closet and urinal flushing and laundry facilities. Where appropriate, separate laterals will be routed to outdoor landscape and open space areas for irrigation. The non-potable water will also serve thermal equipment located at the DCP and at other parcels, if needed.

The distribution of the non-potable water will be subject to review by the Regional Board and the Division of Drinking Water (DDW), similar to the WRF. The Regional Board administers Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use under General Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW for permitting of recycled water distribution networks. It is likely that the Project would enroll in this Order under a Notice of Applicability (NOA) issued by the Regional Board.

The current applicable regulations for the non-potable recycled water distribution infrastructure are3:
● California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1. State Department of Health Services ● California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4. Environmental Health ● California Plumbing Code (CPC)

5.2.6. DISTRICT THERMAL SYSTEMS
Thermal energy for the Project is proposed to be served from the DCP . The DCP would generate hot water and chilled water via mechanical equipment installed in the DCP . Hot water and chilled water would then be distributed to the majority of the buildings for cooling, heating, and domestic hot water preheat within the Project Area via underground heating hot water and chilled water pipes located within the District Systems Corridor.

The mechanical equipment in the DCP and connections to the thermal system will be submitted for plan review as part of the building permit review process.

Hydronic piping connecting throughout the site will be submitted as part of the District Systems Corridor approvals. Piping will comply with standards and regulations as described in the current version of the California Mechanical Code, Hydronic Piping section at the time of permit submission.

The applicable regulations for the mechanical equipment and associated connections at the DCP are:
● Title 24, Part 4 - California Mechanical Code (Title 24) ● Title 24, Part 5 - California Plumbing Code (Title 24) ● Title 24, Part 6 - California Energy Code (Title 24)
● Title 24, Part 9 - California Fire Code/City of Mountain View Fire Code ● Title 24, Part 11 - California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green)

5.2.7. ELECTRICAL AND MICROGRID

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
The Project includes renewable generation technologies including photovoltaic arrays and building-integrated photovoltaic products, as well the potential for storage technologies such as batteries.

In the private microgrid alternate, the Project will include localized 12 kV infrastructure from a single point of connection to PG&E, described in 3.2 to connect the majority of the buildings within the development area in a microgrid.The Project’s microgrid distribution would be housed within the proposed District Systems Corridor.
3 This list is not intended to be exclusive should other regulations apply at time of permitting, based on scope of permit.

District Systems Concept Plan | 37
Electrical feeders connecting throughout the site will be submitted as part of the District Systems Corridor approvals. Individual electrical connections at each building will be submitted as part of the building permit review process for the building in accordance with the requirements from the City of Mountain View for Building Plan Submission. Electrical equipment within the DCP will be submitted as part of the Building Plan Review and permit application for the DCP .

The standards applicable to the review and approval of the electrical and microgrid systems are:
● PG&E Electrical and Gas Service Requirements (Green Book) ● 2019 California Fire Code/City of Mountain View Fire Code (Batteries) ● NFPA 855 2020 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems ● Title 24, Part 3 - California Electrical Code (Title 24) ● Title 24, Part 6 - California Energy Code (Title 24)
● Title 24, Part 11 - California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green) ● NFPA 30 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids
● NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code 2020
● NFPA 72 - Fire Alarm Code
● NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code
● NFPA 110 - Emergency and Standby Power Systems
● National Electrical Safety Code, ANSI C2

5.3. Horizontal Improvements

5.3.1. SITE PREPARATION

GRADE-LEVEL SITE PREPARATION STANDARDS
Site preparation work shall comply with the City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details/City Code, project conditions of approval, the Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures, and where information is incomplete or does not exist, it is recommended that the current Caltrans Speci
fications be used. If conflicts exist within the two documents, the City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details/City Code and Project SEIR Mitigation Measures will govern the following criteria, unless otherwise expressed by the Public Works Department:
● Dust Control
● Mobilization
● Construction Area Traffic Control Devices
● Existing Facilities
● Clearing & Grubbing
● Dewatering
● Earthwork
● Finishing Roadway
● Noise Control
● Testing & Disposal of Materials

SUB-GRADE SITE PREPARATION STANDARDS
The Project will use site-specific geotechnical reports to determine subgrade preparation requirements. The current City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details/City Code, applicable Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures, and requirements from oversight agencies (such as, but not limited to, US EPA, and SFRWQCB) will govern, otherwise it is recommended that the Caltrans Speci fication (2018) is
used. The Project will be required to submit soils and geotechnical reports for review, for building permit review. Grading work will follow geotechnical report recommendations and City or oversight agencies t requirements.

District Systems Concept Plan | 38

5.4. Public Rights of Way/City-owned Prope ies
When installing improvements in the public Rights of Way or City-owned properties, the Project will comply with the latest version of the City of Mountain View Standard Provisions and Standard Details, and City Code as described in the Development Agreement. All District Systems encroaching into the public Rights of Way or City-owned properties shall be subject to the MEA and applicable City permits.

District Systems Concept Plan | 39
K6. Future Submi als Timeline And Content

6.1. Introduction
This section summarizes the entitlement and permitting process to implement District Systems in the Project. The review and approval processes for entitlements and permits are detailed in the Review and Approvals Framework in Section M of the North Bayshore Implementation Plan. For implementation of District Systems, the Project Applicant will submit a District Systems Implementation Plan for City review for purposes of con firming that the District Systems
Implementation Plan addresses the Performance Standards in Section 6.3, below, any applicable Master Plan conditions of approval, and the DSDS and City regulations, standards, and codes applicable to District Systems proposed for installation in the City’s public Rights of Way and property.

The articulation of the various submissions is detailed in the following figure:

Figure 6.1 DISTRICT SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Note:

Except for the entitlements and Mountain View City Code, regulations, guidelines, and standards vested under the Development Agreement all date-specific references to standards, city, state or federal codes, guidelines, greenbooks, or other manuals or details are to apply based on the adopted versions in place at the time of permit submittal, unless otherwise authorized by the governing agency.

District Systems Concept Plan | 40

6.2. Submi als And Phasing
The District Systems permit submissions will align with the Project’s phased buildout and associated phased Zoning Permit applications. Different Project phases will reflect the sequential design and development of District Systems in the Project.

6.2.1. ZONING PERMIT SUBMISSION
The RAF provides that a Zoning Permit application will be submitted for each Project development phase. As de
fined in the RAF, “Zoning Permit” refers to all zoning and development-related permits subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, including Planned Community Permits (“PCPs”) and Development Review Permits (“DRPs”).

To implement District Systems, the Project Applicant will submit a District Systems Implementation Plan (“DSIP”) as part of a Zoning Permit application for the Project development phase in which the Project Applicant proposes to begin implementation of District Systems. As part of the Zoning Permit application, the Project Applicant will include the required District Systems-related plans and other application materials speci
fied in the RAF.

6.2.2. DISTRICT SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUBMISSION
The DSIP included in the Zoning Permit application will identify the District Systems that the Project Applicant proposes for implementation in each development phase. The District Systems contemplated for installation in subsequent development phases will be described in concept form in the DSIP , and consistent with the RAF’s Zoning Permit application requirements for District Systems, will be subsequently detailed in the corresponding development phase Zoning Permit application, including how a given District System will interconnect with previously approved and/or constructed District Systems from prior phases.

The DSIP will also include key documents detailed in the following sections. The DSIP describes the implementation and operation of the District Systems, including how District Systems will comply with applicable DSDS discussed in Section 5 and the performance standards listed in this Section 6.

The City shall provide a complete draft of the MEA to the Project Applicant as part of the City’s first
round of written comments on a Zoning Permit application that includes submittal of the DSIP . The City and Project Applicant shall execute the MEA prior to issuance of construction permits for the District Systems proposed in said Zoning Permit. The MEA, which will re flect the terms included in the
Development Agreement, will establish the Project Applicant’s rights and obligations with respect to District Systems infrastructure located within public Rights of Way or on other City-owned property.

6.3. District Systems Implementation Plan

6.3.1. OVERVIEW
The Project Applicant is actively evaluating the implementation of the District Systems described in Section 3. These efforts include the pursuit of various regulatory authorizations and the analysis of the appropriate commercial structure, operational controls and covenants that will apply to the District Systems. As the City is aware, the pursuit of regulatory approvals and the drafting of governing documents will extend beyond the Project entitlement date. Accordingly, Project Applicant proposes the following conditions and process as a means of:

1. ensuring compliance with the District Systems Performance Standards (de fined and listed in

6.3.2.5 below);

2. establishing a process for the City to ensure the Performance Standards are re flected in the documents governing the District Systems;

3. preserving the optionality to implement several Microgrid options as described in Section 3.2 in recognition of the evolving regulatory status of that particular District System; District Systems Concept Plan | 41

4. Preserving the optionality to implement a number of wastewater and non-potable water options that consider various environmental and regional requirements as described in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.

6.3.2. PROCEDURE FOR SUBSEQUENT CITY REVIEW OF DISTRICT SYSTEMS

DISTRICT SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONFIRMATION
The Project Applicant will submit a “District Systems Implementation Plan” (DSIP) with the submittal of a Zoning Permit Application. The City will review the DSIP for purposes of confirming that the DSIP satisfies the Performance Standards detailed in Section 6.3.2.5 below, and applicable Master Plan conditions of approval, DSDS, City regulations, standards, and codes, and includes the components described below.

The City will verify the DSIP complies with this Plan, the conditions of approval, and City standards, codes and regulations. The City will notify the Project Applicant as part of the City’s standard application review process, if there is any incomplete or missing information. Following Zoning Permit approval, the Project Applicant will submit phased Final Maps and Improvement Plans that incorporate District Systems as described in the DSIP , and any District Systems distribution infrastructure that crosses public Rights of Way or other City property and will be subject to the MEA.

The City will review any phased Final Maps and Improvement Plans that rely on District Systems for consistency with the DSIP , conditions of approval and applicable City regulations.

IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED DISTRICT SYSTEMS
The Implementation Plan will identify any District System that the Project Applicant proposes to implement as part of a given development phase. For phases subsequent to the initial District Systems implementation phase, the DSIP will describe in concept form how the District System will interconnect with the same system as approved and/or constructed within prior phases.

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, STATUS AND SCHEDULE District Systems will be subject to all applicable federal, state, local and regional requirements at the time of implementation, except as provided in Section 5.1 and the Development Agreement. The DSIP will include a summary of any required regulatory authorizations necessary to construct or operate any District System, along with the status of any regulatory authorizations. To the extent that any authorizations have not been obtained at the time of the DSIP submittal, the summary will provide a schedule and any necessary supporting information to describe the timing of anticipated regulatory authorizations relative to Project Applicant’s schedule for completing improvement plans, filing a phased Final map,
and obtaining building permits.

INDEX OF “DISTRICT SYSTEMS TRANSACTIONAL DOCUMENTS”
An index describing the draft documents that will govern the operation of the District System and its relationship to the commercial and residential properties comprising the development phase.

This may include, for example, residential covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”), commercial CC&Rs, ground leases, licenses, supply contracts, and various deeds relating to real or personal property (collectively, the “District Systems Transactional Documents or DSTD”). It is anticipated that parties to the DSTD will include, but may not be limited to, the Project Applicant, Google, residential and commercial building owners, ground lessees, and the District Systems operator. The index will identify the speci fic documents that will
implement the respective Performance Standards.

District Systems Concept Plan | 42
“DRAFT DISTRICT SYSTEMS CONTRACTUAL TERMS”
A summary that includes a series of draft contractual terms to be reflected in the DSTD (“Draft District Systems Contractual Terms” or Draft DSCT), which will ultimately be included in
final versions of the District Systems Transactional Documents. The Draft DSCT will be evaluated for purposes of documenting satisfaction of the Performance Standards.

CONFIRMATION OF DISTRICT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Following Zoning Permit Approval, the Project Applicant will provide the following to the City concurrent with the submittal of applications for permits for the construction of District Systems:

PROPOSED FINAL DSTD
The Project Applicant will submit proposed forms of the DSTD to the Planning Division, as part of the building permit review, for the purpose of confirming that the proposed forms are consistent with the District Systems Performance Standards. City staff will review these materials - Planning, Public Works, and the City Attorney’s office. The forms may include redactions where necessary to avoid disclosure of nonpublic proprietary information.

CONFIRMATION OF REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS
The Project Applicant will submit copies of any regional, state or federal authorizations, approvals or acknowledgements identified in the DSIP , or to the extent not obtained by the time of initial Building Permit submittal, documentation to establish said authorizations, approvals or acknowledgments will be obtained before Project Applicant provides service to any end users to the Public Works Director’s reasonable satisfaction.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The Public Improvement Agreement prepared in conjunction with any phased final map for a subdivision that uses District Systems and associated improvement plans, will include an obligation for Project Applicant to provide a copy of the final version of any District Systems Transactional Document that is required to be recorded to the Planning Division for confirmation that the relevant terms are included prior to recordation of the subject District Systems Transactional Document.

DISTRICT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
To ensure Mountain View businesses and residents are provided reliable utility service at a reasonable cost this DSCP identifies “Performance Standards”, which the Project Applicant must address in the DSIP and which the City will confirm through its review of the DSIP .

INTENT OF SERVICE
The District Systems will provide consistent and continuous utility services equivalent to that which would be expected for comparable utility service otherwise available to Mountain View residents and commercial tenants (“Service Standard”).

Check Point
The consistent and continuous service will be con
firmed through the embedment of
a Service Standard equivalent to comparable utility service available in Mountain View. The Service Standard will be included in the DSTD.

RATE EQUITY
Rates for service charged to residential tenants or owners (ie. condominium), o ffice tenants
or owners, and other commercial tenants and owners, whether reflected in sales prices, utility charges, rent or other consideration, will be consistent with any rate schedule, limits or mechanisms established by any governing state or federal agency, or law, or, in the absence of an applicable control, rates will not exceed rates for comparable service from other utility providers available to Mountain View residents, tenants, or owners (“Rate Equity”) or comparable building level thermal service.

District Systems Concept Plan | 43
Check Point
Rate Equity will be confirmed and made enforceable by customers via a guarantee clause in the DSTD addressing supply arrangements. The City will not have any role in enforcing contractual terms in the DSTD. All serviced buildings shall be sub-metered for District System service.

CUSTOMER SERVICE ADMINISTRATION
The District Systems will ensure adequate communications channels and procedures are established to address and resolve issues such as customer service, billing, performance, and other issues, including with dispute resolution mechanisms and performance standards as appropriate.

Check Point
The DSTD will include terms to ensure that the DS operator will implement clear procedures for communication with customers to resolve issues raised by customers. This may include, for example, a structure included in the DSTD that requires the operator to respond to any questions or complaints concerning service or billing within an established time period (eg. 24-7 for immediate service failures, fifteen days for billing disputes), and to identify procedures for prompt resolution (and reimbursement where relevant) of customer service or billing issues.

EXCLUSIVITY AND TENURE
The District Systems operator/owner will have the exclusive right and obligation to service all buildings within the subdivision boundary. Owners and ground lessees in subject buildings will be required to exclusively contract with the District Systems operator/owner to procure available services. These same buildings will have redundant connectivity to the municipal sanitary sewer system to be used in case of emergency, which allows for City or other utility providers appointed by the City right to serve in such cases.

Check Point
The DSTD will include enforceable covenants that require the owners or lessees, including at both the building and unit or parcel level, as applicable, to contract with the District Systems operator/owner for electric service, sanitary sewer collection, non-potable water and thermal heating and cooling service if and when available from the District Systems operator/owner. The DSTD will require the District Systems operator/owner to exclusively supply services within the Project Area and to all owners or lessees within the Project Area, unless otherwise described in the District Systems Concept Plan, and identi
fied prior to approval of the applicable phased Final
map. The Project’s improvement plans will confirm that the District Systems are routed to each applicable building and sized to provide the necessary service.

SAFETY
The District Systems will be operated safely and in accordance with applicable law and industry standards and the requirements of any operational permits issued by the appropriate authorities.

Check Point
Inclusion of a safety statement and accompanying safety plan to address applicable City, regional, state and federal standards and guidelines relative to safe operation of the District Systems. The statement and plan will be included within the DSTD.

District Systems Concept Plan | 44

QUALIFIED OPERATOR
Each District System will be operated by a professional operator with the technical experience, qualifications and experience as required by any governing operational permits, to operate the District System safely and in accordance with applicable law and industry standards. This Performance Standard shall apply to the Project Applicant and to any successor operator the Project Applicant assigns.

Check Point
Inclusion of clauses within the DSTD con
firming minimum years’ experience, which
may be dependent on an outside permitting agency requirement, and the confirmation that all applicable certifications and qualifications will be required before contracting the operator .

CAPITAL REPLACEMENT
The District Systems owner/operator will be obligated to ensure that the systems have appropriate capital replacement schedules to maintain the equipment for continuous operation.

Check Point
Inclusion of a clause within the DSTD confirming the obligation of the District Systems operator to replace the capital plant in a timely manner to ensure continuous operation of the systems.

LIMITATIONS ON ASSIGNMENT
The Project Applicant’s right to assign the District Systems infrastructure and associated rights and obligations (each an “Assignment”) will be consistent with the following, and which will be re
flected in enforceable covenants and restrictions recorded on the development parcels that extend in perpetuity:
● Assignment and Assumption Agreement: Any Assignment will require execution of an “Assignment and Assumption Agreement” which evidences that the assignee has assumed all rights and obligations of the assignor pertaining to the subject District Systems as required by these Performance Standards and the operative DSTD. No Assignment shall be effective until the assignor or assignee provides an executed copy of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement to the City.
● Evidence of Quali
fied Operator: Concurrent with the submittal of the executed Assignment Assumption Agreement, the assignor or assignee shall provide documentation to the City confirming that the assigned District System will continue to be operated by a Qualified Operator subsequent to the Assignment. No Assignment shall be effective until the assignor or assignee provides the documentation required pursuant to this condition.
● Permitted Assignments: Project Applicant may assign to (i) a “Google A ffiliate,” which
means any entity that, directly or indirectly, controls Google, is under common control with Google, or is wholly-owned or controlled by Google; (ii) Alphabet, Lendlease or any Google / Alphabet / Lendlease a
ffiliates / related entities); or (iii) any third-party
assignees that is an owner/investor in the infrastructure sector, with appropriate operational and asset management capabilities, directly or via an operating partner. Any such assignments would not require City's consent but would require prior sixty (60) days written notice to City except assignment of permits or other regulatory obligations under federal, state or local laws must be in compliance with these laws. ● MEA Assignment: Project Applicant’s rights to assign the executed MEA are separately established in the Development Agreement.

District Systems Concept Plan | 45

PRIVATE SYSTEMS - NO CITY OBLIGATIONS / NOTICE TO OWNERS The Project Applicant’s decision to seek subsequent approvals from the City for the implementation and construction of the District Systems and buildings that rely on District Systems is at their sole discretion. Submittal of a Zoning Permit with any District System signals that the Project Applicant is voluntarily electing to proceed with these systems to meet the objectives of the Project. The Project Applicant acknowledges that the District Systems are private, and that the City has no role in funding, constructing, operating, maintaining, or replacing the District Systems. The Project Applicant shall be solely responsible for funding, constructing, operating, maintaining, replacing, and assuring continuity of service via the District Systems and for providing customer service and resolving disputes among the owner/operator and any entities receiving service from the owner/operator.

Check Point
The Project Applicant shall be required to document to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, and as part of the DSIP , that notice will be provided to future owners that includes the following:

1. a description of any service that is provided to the subject building by a District System;

2. a statement that the District System is privately owned and operated, and that the City of Mountain View has no responsibility for providing the service or to address disputes relating to the service; and

3. the identity of the District Systems owner/operator, the Quali fied Operator and all
necessary information regarding terms for service and dispute resolution.

District Systems Concept Plan | 46
K7. Appendices
7 .1. Wastewater Production Estimates
The Project wastewater flow estimates account for low-flow fixtures, as required by LEED and CalGreen, and are aligned with the Project’s sustainability commitments. A comparison of Mountain View’s typical demand factors and the Project’s proposed demand factors, including potable and non-potable water demands, are presented in Table 7.1. These factors are different from those presented in the Project EIR Utility Impact Study Assumptions Memorandum (January 2022) and are provided as additional context for further study at a future date.

Comparatively, the proposed unit demand factors represent a lower estimated total water use, which in turn represents a lower estimated wastewater production for the Project. Considering total wastewater production based on the proposed unit duty factors provided in Table 7.1 and projected non-potable water demands, the annual discharges to the City’s sanitary sewer are projected to be up to 200 million gallons per year.

Table 7.1: COMPARISON OF THE CITY’S AND THE PROJECT’S PROPOSED WATER DEMAND FACTORS Usage Type
City of Mountain View’s
Typical Water Demand Factors
Project’s
Proposed Water Demand Factors
Unit Duty Factor Note 1 Unit Duty Factor Note 2
gpd
per 1000 sq ft
gpd
per dwelling unit
gpd
per 1000 sq ft
gpd
per dwelling unit
Retail 130 13
Restaurant 1,200 635
Office 130 51
Residential 100 77
Hotel 100 69
Community / Civic 165 Included in Retail demands
Open Space & Parks n/a 2.7 AFY/acre
Notes:

1. Includes irrigation and cooling demands. Source: North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study Assumptions Memorandum. January 11, 2022.

2. Includes cooling demands. Irrigation demands are not included in the unit duty factors. 7 .2. Non-potable Project Demands
In the proposed development, non-potable recycled water may be used for water closet and urinal flushing, laundry facilities, irrigation, and cooling. Use of non-potable recycled water may help the Project comply with the City of Mountain View’s Green Building Code, which requires the Project to meet LEED Platinum to be awarded a Bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR). All Google office buildings will achieve LEED Platinum and water incentives will be a contributor to the overall performance. Refer to the Project Water Demands Memorandum for details on the Project’s non-potable demands.

District Systems Concept Plan | 47
The Project’s non-potable demands will be tracked using submeters at each parcel - one for building interiors (including per residential unit submeters, as required) and one for irrigation. In order to track overall Project water demands, submeters will also be included downstream of each City potable water meter (eg. at each building) or City recycled water meter (eg. at the WRF’s backup supply connection). All submeters will be downstream of City meters and will be privately owned and maintained.
7 .3. Preliminary Operations & Maintenance
Preliminary operations & maintenance information is provided in this section. Further details will be developed as the Project moves into design, and provided during the permitting process and documented in the associated engineering report.

7.3.1. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING PLAN (OMMP) The Project Applicant would be responsible for hiring an Operator who would be responsible for operating, maintaining, and monitoring the DCP including the WRF and the Microgrid, PV and battery storage equipment, the collection and distribution networks and building connections, as well as the district waste collection system. Industrial grade controls equipment and software would be installed at the DCP , enabling the Operator and design engineers to automate the processes to enable e fficient
operations. A building management system would be used to operate the central plant equipment as well as monitor and control the heat exchanger Energy Transfer Stations located in each served building and the distributed ground loop pumps and valves. All district energy control valves, flow meters, temperature sensors and pressure sensors will be networked for control and monitoring of the DCP side of the entire system. The Operator, with the help of a Microgrid Data Acquisition and Control System, would be able to operate the generating resources primarily under automatic control.

7.3.2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
The manufacturer of each piece of equipment at the DCP , including the WRF and the Microgrid, would provide an Owner’s Manual with the equipment. These manuals will contain necessary operations and maintenance information and procedures related to each piece of equipment. The Operator would review each set of documentation to determine the standard operating procedures (SOP) for each piece of equipment and system. The design engineers of the DCP , WRF and Microgrid would also provide design documentation for the plant and operational criteria. The Operator would adjust controls and
fine tune processes to achieve the most efficient operations while meeting service quality goals. Design engineers would develop a checklist for the Operator to follow during their daily walkthroughs of the DCP to ensure all the necessary equipment is checked.

7.3.3. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT SCHEDULES Preventative maintenance is one of the most important components of a District System operation. It is very important to keep all the components of each system at the DCP , including the WRF, the microgrid controls, the generation and storage resources in working order and ensure minimal operational disturbances. Each equipment will require different types of preventative maintenance at different time scales. As discussed above, manufacturers of each equipment would submit documentation with their equipment. This document would highlight necessary preventative maintenance frequency and the responsible party. The Operator would review the documentation and create a preventative maintenance schedule for the DCP , and would be responsible for either carrying out the maintenance or contacting quali
fied personnel to carry it out.

Replacement schedule of each equipment will be determined either by the replacement frequency recommended by the vendor or according to the Operator’s observations on the performance/e
fficiency of the equipment.

District Systems Concept Plan | 48

7.3.4. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
Even though the majority of the processes and equipment will be automated, onsite operator(s) are still needed. The District Systems Operator’s staff will either be located onsite or able to arrive onsite and respond to emergencies immediately. For the district thermal system, the typical emergency would be failure of major equipment that may result in not being able to supply enough heating.

7.3.5. RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
The controls system will include a data historian for data logging. The data loggers would record sensor data, operational settings, and any other other data required by the systems operation and the regulators. Data logging frequency will be determined according to the controls system designer’s recommendation. All data will be backed up onsite. An additional computer will be provided for the Operator to access and record any external data (eg. lab tests, observations, fault events etc).

7.3.6. SPILL PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The WRF design would include influent equalization tank(s) with a capacity of up to 0.45 million gallons. The equalization tank(s) would be able to provide flow attenuation and short term storage.

Therefore, any surge in flows would not overwhelm downstream processes. Each process tank would be designed with a side water depth and freeboard. Side water depth would be selected for optimal operating conditions. Freeboard would be selected to provide additional volume under surge conditions and prevent any over
flowing of the tanks. Any chemicals stored onsite would be placed in OSHA compliant, adequately sized secondary containment. Floor drains installed at the WRF would be configured to re-route all spillage back to the headworks of the plant and will prevent any environmental spillage.

Refrigerant monitoring and alarm systems would be installed in the DCP as required by code, including necessary exhaust and make-up air systems. Current refrigerant type is R-514A, however low GWP next generation refrigerants are under active development and a different low GWP refrigerant may be used for the air source heat pumps dependent upon market availability. The control system would issue alarms and notify operating personnel as noted above.

During the loss of normal grid power from upstream utilities, the microgrid operations shall attempt islanded functions based on currently existing energy storage reserves. Islanding events may require additional operators in the
field to ensure that microgrid controls remain functional, energy supply remains stable, and faults are resolved immediately. During this time, increased open lines of communication may be required with individual building operators to ensure the islanded microgrid stability.

7.3.7. REDUNDANCY AND BACKUPS

THERMAL SYSTEM
The system will be built with equipment redundancy (N+1) and operational redundancy, to ensure that maintenance procedures can be conducted without interrupting service. Planned maintenance that requires complete shut down will be scheduled outside business hours or on the weekend.

In the event of a power outage, then standby power would be supplied to circulating pumps at the DCP , plus at the buildings to maintain chilled water
flow to any areas that require cooling utilizing
available thermal mass in the distribution system. Note that chillers and heat pumps will not be on standby power.

District Systems Concept Plan | 49

MICROGRID
All buildings will be connected to the PG&E grid and draw power from the PG&E system as needed with the microgrid intended to create a level of additional resiliency in the event of a PG&E outage. In the event of a power outage, PV and battery storage within the microgrid will be utilized to provide up to 10% of the normal power load to standby loads for the thermal plant, water reuse facility, and critical loads at each building. Buildings are anticipated to manage power served to each appropriately with the ability to shed buildings as required to maintain outage load.

WATER REUSE FACILITY
In the event of a power outage, standby power would be supplied at the WRF to maintain biological treatment, wastewater discharge to the City sanitary sewer, and non-potable water distribution, plus at the buildings to maintain the booster pumps (to supply potable water and non-potable water) and the wastewater pumps.

In standby mode, the WRF will stop treating wastewater or producing additional non-potable water for the duration of the outage and supply the Project using water from the non-potable water storage tank(s) (up to 0.45 million gallons). If additional water is needed, makeup water can be supplied to the treated water tank at the WRF from the City of Mountain View’s recycled water and/or potable water systems. If backup power is not available to the WRF and additional supplies are needed, makeup water can be supplied to the non-potable water break tanks at the buildings from the City of Mountain View.

Additionally, the system will be built with equipment redundancy (N+1) and operational redundancy, to ensure that maintenance procedures can be conducted without interrupting service. Planned maintenance that requires complete shut down will be scheduled during weekday business hours in order to minimize impacts to residents. The WRF will have adequate storage onsite to meet wastewater storage needs and non-potable demands during planned maintenance.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION
The proposed design for the wastewater collection system includes a private, low-pressure sanitary sewer (SS) collection network. Each building or parcel connected to the private SS network would discharge their sanitary waste via a small pump station at basement-level. All parcels would also have a connection to the City’s conventional gravity collection network for emergency back-up use.

In the event of a power outage, backup power provided at the building-level would also power the basement-level wastewater pumps and the buildings would continue to discharge to the private, low-pressure SS collection network. If the building-level backup power were to also fail, then building wastewater would over
flow by gravity to the City’s sanitary sewer.

WASTE SYSTEM
Compared to a traditional waste collection system, AWCS has an improved ability to remain operational in adverse conditions. AWCS can be built to remain operational in the event of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and snowstorms, among others. An AWCS can generally remain operational because:
● the system is sealed from the building valves through the waste containers at the terminal, making the system
flood resilient;
● regardless of road conditions on-site, frequently collected waste streams are removed from a single collection point, allowing road clearing to prioritize access to the AWCS terminal; ● remote operation enables continuity of waste collection in the case staff attendance is interrupted by a pandemic, weather conditions, holidays or other circumstances; and ● the system can be designed with appropriate tolerances to provide earthquake resistance in geographies where this is a concern.

District Systems Concept Plan | 50
In the case of catastrophic events, AWCS infrastructure can be adapted for the temporary storage of waste and collection through traditional means:
● Failure at the terminals: If a terminal fails, waste could be collected directly from individual buildings.
● Failure at the pipe network: If one pipe branch or network fails, the remaining branches and networks remain operational. If a pipe branch or network should be rebuilt, the location of pipes along the District Systems Corridors allows for easy reconstruction of pipe sections. ● Failure at buildings: If one chute fails, the remaining chutes can remain operational (assuming independent chutes per stream). In the case that all chutes fail, waste can be manually transported via service elevators to the valve room.

If the operator cannot attend the system, the following modifications can be made to retain the functionality of spaces within the district:
● terminal building(s) can be renovated or repurposed;
● the pipe network in District Systems Corridors can be easily deconstructed; ● valve rooms can be converted to traditional waste storage rooms; and ● waste chutes can be converted to storage, janitorial closets, etc.

District Systems Concept Plan | 51

North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L1
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
© LENDLEASE
Appendix L
Review and approvals
framework

04.2023
L2 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
L1. Introduction
The Review & Approvals Framework (RAF) sets forth the review and approval process of key City permits, occupancy and licenses necessary to implement the North Bayshore Master Plan , which are identified as Subsequent Approvals (as defined in the Development Agreement). This is not an exhaustive list of all permits or requirements. All permits and licenses are subject to the City’s then current processing procedures and processing fees in place at time of submittal, unless otherwise provided for in the Development Agreement, Staffing Reimbursement Agreement or this document. Modifications to this framework must be mutually agreed upon by City staff and the Applicant.

Note: All checklist and application forms are available on the City’s website, unless otherwise noted.

Existing Approvals Subsequent Approvals
Project Sequential EIR
Development Agreement
Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Implementation Plan
Vesting Tentative Map
Subdivision Conditions of Approval
Street Vacation/Easement Vacation
POPA Credit
Zoning Permits Construction Permits
(offsite improvements)
Occupancy
Phased Final Maps
Business Licenses
North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L3
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
Defined terms
The following terms are used in this document:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: as defined
in the Development Agreement.

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS: refers to all required permits for construction activities by multiple City Departments, including Building, Public Works, and Fire and Environmental Safety. Examples include: (a) demolition and building permits (e.g. grading, shoring, site improvements, new construction, etc.) issued by the Building Division for work on a parcel; (b) encroachment and excavation permits with improvement plans issued by the Public Works Department for work within the public right of way or easement areas; and (c) hazardous materials permits and stormwater (C3) inspections on private property from the Fire and Environmental Safety Division.

COMMENTING DEPARTMENTS: any City Department that
reviews permit materials for completeness and accuracy
that is not the lead Department issuing the permit.

EXISTING APPROVALS: as defined in the Development
Agreement and shown in the graphic above.

PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT (PCP): a zoning permit (s36.50.30 CMV Zoning Code) that may be required for new construction, redevelopment or changes of use in the North Bayshore Precise Plan area that comply with the applicable North Bayshore Precise Plan and/or Master Plan development standards.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DRP): a zoning permit (s36.44.45 cmv Zoning Code) that may be required for new construction, redevelopment and changes of use to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments: (1) comply with city development requirements and policies; (2) maintain or enhance the appearance of the community; (3) maintain property values through quality development; (4) ensure compatibility of private development with surrounding properties and neighborhoods, public rights-of-way and other facilities; and (5) in reviewing new residential development, strong emphasis is given to the compatibility of the new development with the surrounding development, including its intensity, density, scale, bulk, height, setbacks, open space, building orientation and architectural style and design.

PROJECT SEIR: the Subsequent EIR, including the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, included in the Existing Approvals, as defined in the Development Agreement.

ZONING PERMITS: refers to all zoning and development-related permits subject to review and approval by the Planning Division (e.g. PCPs, DRPs, Provisional Use Permits, Heritage Tree Removal Permits, etc). The review process for all zoning permits is outlined in the Administration Article XVI of Chapter 36 of the City Code.

L4 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
Abbreviations
CC&Rs: Covenants, conditions and restrictions
City/CMV: City of Mountain View
DCP: District central plant
DRC: Development Review Committee
DRP: Development review permit
DSCP: District Systems Concept Plan
DSIP: District Systems Implementation Plan
DSCD: District Systems Contractual Document
DSTD: District Systems Transactional Document
EIR: Environmental impact report
Precise Plan: North Bayshore Precise Plan
PCP: Planned community permit
POPA: Privately-owned, publicly-accessible open space
MASTER PLAN: A mixed-use land use proposal
applicable to the Master Plan Area.

MASTER PLAN AREA: A ±153-acre land holding within
North Bayshore to which this Master Plan applies.

MTA: Multimodal transportation analysis
NBS: North Bayshore
RAF: Review and Approvals Framework
SEIR: Subsequent environmental impact report
TDM: Transportation demand management
VTM: Vesting tentative map
ZA: Zoning Administrator
North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L5
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
L2. Expedited planning
entitlement review process
The Master Plan will be implemented under a streamlined planning entitlement process permitted in Precise Plan s3.5.2.10 and provided for in the Development Agreement. As provided in the Precise Plan, at the time of Master Plan approval, the City Council may determine a subsequent development review process for Zoning Permits associated with the Master Plan Accordingly, Zoning Permits shall be reviewed by City Staff, the DRC, and decided upon at a ZA public hearing, in lieu of the City Council at a City Council public hearing (“Expedited Review Process”).

Following approval of Zoning Permit(s), projects follow the City’s standard permitting process for Construction Permits, which includes off-site improvements and building/fire permits.

L3. Zoning permit application
and review requirements
Zoning Permit (Planning) Application
Submittal Requirements
To assist in the Expedited Review Process of Subsequent Approvals, some materials will be submitted by the Applicant in advance of construction permits. This is intended to align design details early in the permitting process for the benefit of the City and Applicant.

These advanced materials may include, but are not limited to, Conceptual Improvement Plans, Preliminary Phased Final Maps, and District Systems. None of the materials provided in advance shall be considered submittal of the final materials for approval.

Each Zoning Permit application will include, as
of the submittal date of the application:

1. The information and materials required to be submitted on the City’s Formal Application Checklist.

2. Additional advanced materials and information, provided at the discretion of the Applicant, as applicable, including:
a. Conceptual Improvement Plans will include, but is not limited to:
• Cover Sheet: lists drawings (including future sheets to be submitted), abbreviations, and standard notes.
• Project Narrative: includes scope of project, site description, summary of infrastructure proposed for public dedication, and a preliminary schedule for design through construction.

Narrative will also include a phasing description of how proposed improvements align with the Master Plan and
integrate into prior and future development, as applicable. • Demolition Plan: Shows existing buildings
and trees to be removed.
• Site Grading and Drainage Plan: shows existing grades and proposed street grades at beginning of horizontal
curves (BC’s), end of horizontal curves (EC’s), grade
breaks, high points, low points, vertical curves (VC),
beginning of VC (BVC’s) and end of VC (EVC’s), pad
grades, overland release routes, grade conforms,
street centerline grades and drainage devices.
• Stormwater Management Plan (private): includes site
grading, drainage plan, and Stormwater Management
Plan that provides preliminary green stormwater
infrastructure calculations and typical details for
onsite private treatment control measures.
• Stormwater Management Plan (public streets): includes description, preliminary green infrastructure calculations, typical details and plan view layout of how stormwater
management can be achieved for public street(s).
• Utility Plans and Centerline Profiles (public streets):
includes existing utilities to be abandoned or relocated, all utilities and new or reconstructed water, storm
and sanitary mains with pipe slopes, inverts and rim
elevations at manholes, on both plan and profile sheets. • Typical Street Section Plan: includes lane dimensions, sidewalk dimensions, roadway materials, grades, curb
heights, and utilities, including all horizontal clearances.

L6 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
* Additional Zoning Permits may be required prior to new tenant occupancy or for other post-construction activities, which are not detailed here. • Street Improvement Plan: includes stationing, roadway dimensions, bulb-out locations, traffic calming measures, non-standard roadway conditions for acceptance, transit facilities, street lights, bikeway and trail dimensions, streetscape design and roadway materials. A separate
street layout site plan shall be provided for private streets. • Geometric (Signage and Striping) and Traffic Signal
Plan: includes final traffic lines and pavement markings including centerlines, lanelines, edgelines, crosswalks, limit lines (stop lines), arrows, words and other appropriate delineation; permanent project signing in the public right- of-way; and new and/or modified traffic signal locations. • Public Landscape Plan: included if median and/or
new landscaping in the public street is proposed.
• Street Light Plans: includes new street light locations, new street light electrical systems, existing street light locations and removal and/or modifications to existing
electrical systems. Also includes photometric analysis
showing all existing or proposed new streetlights (show height, arm length, and location) and calculate the
minimum, maximum, average illuminance values, as well
as uniformity ratios for each crosswalk shown separately. b. Preliminary Phased Final Map will include the information identified in City Code Sections 28.7 to 28.7.20 governing Final Maps, in substantial compliance with the Existing Approvals. Also submit the Vesting Tentative Map
Easement Table with the information required. Indicate
the extent of the easement vacations to be processed.

Zoning Permits/Entitlements
• Required Zoning Permit(s)
Application (e.g. Planned
Community, Development
Review, Provisional Use,
Heritage Tree Removal, etc.)
• Required Planning Application
Materials, incl. site-specific
For District Systems Implementation:
• DS Implementation Plan
• DS Contractual Terms

SUBMIT TO PLANNING DIVISION PERMIT REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Completeness and
Consistency Review
Community /
Neighborhood Outreach
Development Review
Committee (DRC)
Public Hearing Ready
Administrative Zoning
Referral to City Council
(if needed)
Figure L3.1 ZONING PERMITS/ENTITLEMENTS PROCESS
North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L7
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
c. District Systems information will be provided where the system is proposed and will include, but is not limited to:
• Layout/Plan Set: provide plans that show the proposed location and alignment of the District System serving
the building(s); location of pipe network, conduit, cables, other private utility connections to the District System; and which private utilities would be provided through
District Systems. Plans will also include a preliminary location map, plan view, and elevation showing the
dimensions, location, and alignment of the proposed
District Systems within the public right of way and its relationship to adjoining properties, and any structures, utilities or improvements, and show any district systems proposed to be located within the District Systems.
• District Systems Implementation Plan (DSIP): submit
the draft DSIP, which is limited to (1) the Performance Standards listed in the District Systems Concept
Plan (DSCP) and (2) the District Systems Design
Standards, as that term is defined in the DSCP, and
City regulations, standards, and codes applicable
to District Systems proposed for installation in
the City’s public right-of-way and property .
• District Central Plant (DCP): the design and development of the DCP will be included in aZoning Permit application.

The plans will show the location of the DCP, including
switching rooms, heating and cooling central plant,
energy storage and backup, wastewater treatment plant,
and district waste collection system. The plans also will show any interface with vertical buildings, landscaped
areas, roads, sidewalks, mid-block passageways, any
transit facilities, and open space areas. In addition to the applicable Precise Plan standards, city regulations, permitting agencies, and environmental requirements
per the Project SEIR, the DCP will be subject to any
applicable standards set forth in the DSCP.

L8 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK

PROCESS STEP ACTION
Pre Application
Meeting
The Applicant may request a pre application meeting with Planning staff at any mutually agreeable time prior to submission of an application.

City Review and
Determination of
Completeness
City staff will review the Zoning Permit application for completeness in accordance with state mandated requirements, including determining a status of complete or incomplete based on the submittal checklist and Existing Approvals. Additionally, consistency review with the Existing Approvals (including consistency with Project SEIR) will also be conducted. Application materials submitted are reviewed by all Commenting Departments simultaneously, such that the City’s response on the status of the application is comprehensive. This review cycle repeats until the incomplete items are provided and the application is deemed complete.

If the application is deemed incomplete, the City shall identify with specificity the remaining items Applicant must provide for the application to be deemed complete. The Applicant will resubmit revised materials and/or supplemental information as requested by the City. Once submitted, City staff will review the materials and confirm that the application is complete, in accordance with state mandated requirements.

Should additional environmental review or outside consultant review on the MTA be required, City staff will coordinate with the Applicant to fund completion of the necessary documents and materials.

Note: The community meeting and DRC meetings may occur prior to an application being deemed complete.

Project Meetings At any time throughout the review of the application, City staff and the Applicant can arrange meetings to discuss or resolve any aspects of the application.

Community/
Neighborhood
Meeting
The Applicant will host a community/neighborhood meeting on the application DRC
Recommendation
The DRC will review the application at a regularly scheduled meeting. The DRC will provide site and building design guidance and recommendations to the Applicant and City staff on the application. More than one DRC meeting may be necessary (e.g. informal and formal).

Zoning Permit Review Process
When a Zoning Permit application is submitted, the permit will follow the City’s development review process. While some Zoning Permit applications can be reviewed administratively by City staff, the table below outlines the review process for a PCP for proposed new building and site construction.

North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L9
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK

PROCESS STEP ACTION
ZA Public Hearing Once the application is deemed complete and the above process steps are complete, the project will be scheduled for a regularly scheduled ZA Public Hearing. The ZA is authorized to make a final decision on the Zoning Permit(s). The ZA also has the discretion to refer the decision to the City Council.

Note: All public hearings, actions and appeals must be conducted in accordance with Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 16 of the City Code.

1. Development Exceptions. The Applicant may apply for exceptions to development standards as provided in s3.5.6 of the Precise Plan), which have been considered for similar types of projects under a PCP or Provisional Use Permit, or described in the Master Plan. To be considered for such an exception, the Applicant will demonstrate the requested exception (a) meets the intent and purpose of the Precise Plan, including, but not limited to, its guiding principles and character area expectations and (b) results in a superior project design or outcome for the community.

Any exception to development standards will be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator as part of a Zoning Permit.

L10 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
Construction Permits

SUBMIT TO BUILDING DIVISION
• Required Building Permit Plan Check
Submittal (Based on Permit Scope/Type)
• Conditions of Approval Response
Matrix (Master Plan + PCP) and
Project SEIR Mitigation Measures
• Improvement Plans
• Phased Final Map
• Excavation Permit Application
• Easement Vacation Application (if
needed for subsequent vacations)
• Draft CC&Rs
• Stormwater C3 Inspections
• Necessary documents for legal agreements
or recordations or other DS documentation
For District Systems Implementation:
• Master Encroachment Agreement
• Excavation Permits

REVIEW PROCESS PERMITS ISSUED
Building Permits
(Demolition, Grading/Excavation,
Superstructure, etc.)
Fee Payments
Other Review
and Permitting
Agencies
Applicant /
Design Team
Revisions
City
Departments
Review
Non-Heritage Tree
Removal Permits
Other Required Agreements
(Encroachment agreement,
improvement agreement, etc.)
Note: For any scope of work requiring a Zoning Permit, a Building Permit for the development covered by the Zoning Permit cannot be issued by the City to the Applicant unless the Applicant has first obtained approval of the required Zoning Permit.

Figure L3.2 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PROCESS
North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L11
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK

3. Site and Façade Modifications. Exterior modifications to the site or façade, subsequent to the initial PCP approval for the new building, may require a DRP and PCP. Consultation with the project planner is advised prior to submission as some minor modifications may not require a Zoning Permit (e.g. like-for- like replacements), while others may be reviewed by City staff only or require consultation with the DRC. Minor alterations to the building or site may be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by the ZA through the development review process per City Code Sections 36.44.65 and 36.50.50.

Other Zoning Permits
Following permit approvals for new building and site design, there are additional Zoning Permits required for occupancy of a new commercial tenant space, building signage, or other minor site modifications or improvements. These permits will be processed in accordance with the Article XVI of Chapter 36 (Zoning Ordinance Administration) and the Precise Plan.

1. Signage. One or more Master Sign Programs and individual Sign Permits may be associated with each development
phase. A Sign Permit will be submitted to the Planning Division by the Applicant, or tenant, and reviewed and approved
administratively by City staff either after entitlement of a new building(s), or after, or in tandem, with approval of any use permit (e.g. Change of Use Permit, Provisional Use Permit) required for a new tenant. Separate sign permits must be obtained from the Planning and Building Divisions. A Sign Permit from the Building Division cannot be issued prior to the building permit for the associated commercial tenant space.

2. Use Permits. Use permits, such as a Change of Use or Provisional Use Permit, may be applied for, and reviewed in tandem with a PCP permit for new construction, if the tenant uses and operational details are known. Otherwise, a separate use permit can be submitted by the Applicant or tenant, following a PCP permit. Either way, the same City review process applies.

L12 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
L4. Construction permits

5. Depending on scope of work or deferred submittal:
a. Any supplemental Building/Fire application forms and materials, such as Alternate Materials and Methods
Application, Change of Address, Special Inspection and
Testing Form, Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
System, etc. Note, these forms are typically submitted
later in a building permit review process or after
issuance of a building permit for new construction.
b. Any information, insurance, or legal documents necessary to execute required agreements, permits, bonds, etc. for the permit scope or per the Development Agreement.
c. A completed CC&R Checklist and draft copy of CC&Rs for review by the City, as applicable, for purposes of confirming the CC&Rs address any associated Vesting Tentative Map
conditions of approval or Municipal Code requirements.

Consult the project planner for the checklist and submit directly to the Planning Division. The CC&R’s may also
include information pertaining to District Systems.
d. Provide copies of draft DSTD and DSCT documents
for City review. Draft DSTD and DSCT materials
may include redactions where necessary to avoid
disclosure of nonpublic proprietary information.

Building Application Submittal Requirements
(includes Improvement Plans and Phased Final Maps)
Each Building Permit Application will include, as
of the submittal date of the application:

1. A completed Building application form and the information and materials required on the Submittal Requirements
and Checklist for Plan Check for the specific scope of
work (e.g. New Mixed-Use Building, Commercial Tenant
Improvement, New Commercial Building, etc).

2. Concurrent with the Building application and submitted in tandem with building plans, provide information and materials required on the Submittal Requirements for Improvement
Plans checklist and Final Map materials, which includes off-site work (see items in section C of this document).

3. Any application, permit, inspection, or plan check information required for hazardous materials, food service uses, and stormwater and sanitary sewer (C3) requirements from
the City’s Fire and Environmental Protection Division.

4. Written response to comments on how (or where) each Condition of Approval on the Subsequent Approval Zoning Permit (and Existing Approval entitlement) has been addressed and Mitigation Measures from the Project SEIR, either of which may require additional documentation to be prepared and provided.

North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L13
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
Building Plan Check Review
All permits submitted for Building permits will follow the standard building plan check review process as outlined below.

TASK PROCESS STEP OR ACTION
Pre Application
Meeting
The Applicant can request a pre application meeting with Building staff and key Commenting Department staff at any mutually agreeable time prior to submission of a building application.

City Review City staff will review the Building Permit application and materials for completeness and consistency with Zoning Permit(s) and City Codes and regulations. Offsite improvements and Phased Final Maps are submitted and reviewed in tandem with Building permit applications. Application materials submitted are reviewed by all Commenting Departments simultaneously.

If a Commenting Department identifies corrections, missing or incomplete information, inconsistencies with prior approvals or noncompliance with City, State or Federal regulations, then the Commenting Department will deem the building plan check disapproved and provide written comments and/or redlines on the plans. Comments on Improvement Plans/Phased Final Map will be incorporated into the Building plan check comments.

The Applicant will resubmit revised materials and/or supplemental information to the Building Division as requested by the Commenting Departments to be rechecked. Once rechecked, Commenting Departments will either deem the submittal approved, disapproved or conditionally approved. The cycle of City review and Applicant revisions repeats until all materials are in good order.

Review timelines may be incorporated into a Staffing Reimbursement Agreement.

Note: Unless otherwise noted in the plan check comments or communicated by City staff, all materials should be resubmitted to the Building Division for recirculation and review by Commenting Departments.

Project Meetings At any time throughout building plan check review, Commenting Department staff and the Applicant can arrange meetings to discuss or resolve any aspects of the plan check review comments or materials.

Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
Prior to issuance of a building permit, all Commenting Departments must identify the building plan check materials, including Improvement Plans, Phased Final Map, signed agreements, to be complete and in good order. Some of the items that may be required to be completed prior to building permit issuance include, but are not limited to:

Improvement agreement
Payment of required permit, processing, or impact fees
Phased Final Map
The Applicant can request to “break out” scopes of work on the same project under multiple building permits (e.g. shoring/ excavation, foundation, superstructure, etc.) as necessary for construction sequencing and for purposes of complying with applicable Conditions of Approval. However, it is at the sole discretion of the Building Division to determine the appropriate permits to issue, including order of permits to be issued, minimum requirements for consideration, timing, etc.

Pre-Construction
Meeting
At, or just after, building permit issuance, the Building Division can arrange a pre-construction meeting with the Applicant’s Contractor (and subcontractors) to discuss City construction policies and requirements, City contacts for construction inspections, and other construction-related matters.

L14 | North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
Improvement Plan and Phased
Final Map Review Process
The Applicant shall prepare Improvement Plans in accordance with Chapter 28 of the City Code, the City's Standard
Design Criteria, Excavation Permit Application, Plan Review Checklist, and Improvement Plan Checklist as identified above, and in accordance with Conditions of Approval.

1. Improvement Submittal Requirements. The Improvement
Plans will represent design development since the
Conceptual Improvement Plans were submitted during
Zoning Permit review; or, if not submitted preliminarily during Zoning Permit review, then the complete Improvement
Plans will be provided at Building Plan Check review. The Applicant will submit the following, in accordance with the submittal requirements in place at time of submission:
a. Improvement Plans, including traffic control plans for work within the public roadway and/or easement areas per the Improvement Plans Checklist and Conditions of Approval. b. Utility potholing will be provided with a survey to
verify the preliminary design established in the
Conceptual Improvement Plans is feasible.
c. An Excavation Permit Application for all applicable
work within the public right- of-way.
d. Any supplemental Public Works application forms and
materials for water service, sewer service, excavations, encroachments, easement vacations, etc.
e. The Applicant will also provide a Conditions of Approval matrix documenting how each comment received as
part of the Conceptual Improvement Plans has been
addressed, or, why any particular comment has not been
incorporated, along with responding to Conditions of
Approval for the Subsequent Zoning Permit approval.

2. Phased Final Map Submittal Requirements. The Phased Final Map will substantially conform to the parcelization as shown in the Vesting Tentative Map. The Applicant will submit the following, in accordance with the submittal requirements in place at time of submission, unless otherwise provided for in the Development Agreement, or, for phased Final Maps of land to be conveyed to the City per the Existing Approvals:
a. Phased Final Map, closure calculations and other map references per the current Map Submittal Checklist
and pursuant to City Code Section 28.7.20
b. Current Title Report, less than six months old.
c. Plat and Legal descriptions of all easements to be vacated. d. Plat and Legal descriptions of all easement or land dedications to be provided as required in the Existing Approvals.
e. The Applicant will prepare a Subdivision Conditions of Approval Compliance matrix of the vesting tentative map conditions and identify in writing how the proposed Phased Final Map or other documents satisfy the Conditions of Approval.

City inspections will be required throughout construction. City Departments identify inspections that are required as part of the issued permit(s). Inspections are the responsibility of the Applicant to schedule with the appropriate City Department at the times noted on the issued permit(s), unless expressly scheduled by the City Department for routine inspections (e.g. monthly inspections). Outside agencies may also require inspections on permitted work or oversight responsibilities, which the Applicant is responsible to coordinate directly with the responsible agency.

L5. Inspection
North Bayshore Master Plan - April 2023 | L15
REVIEW + APPROVALS FRAMEWORK
L6. Occupancy
The Applicant may request occupancy of a building(s) where construction has been substantially completed, and may request phased occupancy. The Applicant will coordinate with the Building Division for requests for occupancy, including temporary or final.

Requests for occupancy are coordinated by the assigned City Building Inspector for the permit, who will coordinate with all appropriate City Departments. Any issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is at the sole discretion of the Chief Building Official.

L7. Business licenses
All businesses within the City of Mountain View, including contractors and subcontractors, are required to obtain a business license to operate, whether located within the City or completing work within it. Business licenses are administratively processed and can be obtained through the City’s Finance Department.

Business licenses are required to be renewed annually.

L8. Modifications to existing
approvals
Modifications to Existing Approvals will be considered per the process outlined in the Project Administrative Procedures.