Mountain View City Council
December 17, 2024

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 92 0 170 106 238 0 0 0 0 0 320 74 1000 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 9 34 43 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 95 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 10
600 Ellis St (MV) 35 0 82 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 141
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 38 0 104 89 51 0 0 0 0 0 46 36 364 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 18
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 3 5 26 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 47 Total Approved Trips 77 0 200 154 127 0 0 0 0 0 77 53 688 Background Conditions 169 0 370 260 365 0 0 0 0 0 397 127 1688 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 61 68 16 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 158
Background + Project Conditions 169 0 431 328 381 0 0 0 0 0 410 127 1846 0 Intersection Number: 8
Traffix Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Logue Ave and Middlefield Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 75 0 29 10 266 15 3 0 0 0 475 28 901 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 95 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 99
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 70 0 6 9 71 0 0 0 0 0 45 105 306 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 47 Total Approved Trips 72 0 6 9 210 0 0 0 0 0 170 106 573 Background Conditions 147 0 35 19 476 13 0 0 0 0 645 134 1469 Proposed Project Trips 0 13 0 0 0 51 73 20 84 74 0 0 315 Retail Pass-by 0 0 0 0 -1 1 1 0 1 1 -1 0
Background + Project Conditions 147 13 35 19 475 65 74 20 85 75 644 134 1786 0 Intersection Number: 9
Traffix Node Number: 10
Intersection Name: Ferguson Dr and Middlefield Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 254 89 78 0 18 46 471 0 956 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 95 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 99
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 0 0 0 0 64 12 2 0 15 10 41 0 144 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 47 Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 203 12 2 0 15 11 165 0 408 Background Conditions 0 0 0 0 457 101 80 0 33 57 636 0 1364 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 51 49 70 0 0 0 73 0 243
Background + Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 508 150 150 0 33 57 709 0 1607 0 10/18/23
11/15/22
10/18/23
11/15/22
10/18/23
11/15/22
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
4/16/2024
PM
675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_2024-04-15
Intersection Number: 10
Traffix Node Number: 11
Intersection Name: SR 237 WB Ramps and Middlefield Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 122 244 128 0 211 159 0 0 0 129 426 0 1419 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 37 137 2 0 40 23 0 0 0 0 18 0 257 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
600 Ellis St (MV) 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 35 47 0 98
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 32 48 5 0 44 0 0 0 0 8 35 0 172 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 2 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 26
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 8 0 31 7 0 0 0 0 15 0 61 Total Approved Trips 71 185 17 0 143 41 0 0 0 43 124 0 624 Background Conditions 193 429 145 0 354 200 0 0 0 172 550 0 2043 Proposed Project Trips 53 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 51 93 0 245
Background + Project Conditions 246 429 145 0 402 200 0 0 0 223 643 0 2288 0 Intersection Number: 11
Traffix Node Number: 12
Intersection Name: SR 237 EB Ramps and Middlefield Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 0 0 128 288 0 193 159 82 0 339 194 1383 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 0 0 64 0 3 30 0 0 12 8 117 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 35 12 61
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 0 0 0 5 21 0 0 42 23 0 25 15 131 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 13 22 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 41
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 0 18 37 0 3 0 0 0 24 0 82 Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 36 154 0 8 72 30 0 107 35 442 Background Conditions 0 0 0 164 442 0 201 231 112 0 446 229 1825 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 34 0 20 72 140
Background + Project Conditions 0 0 0 164 456 0 201 231 146 0 466 301 1965 0 Intersection Number: 12
Traffix Node Number: 13
Intersection Name: Bernardo Ave and Middlefield Rd
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 17 8 18 15 269 47 25 1 105 26 475 27 1033 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 29 5 31 2 35 5 0 2 0 0 5 10 124 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 42
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 10 12 0 45 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 6 0 0 40
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Total Approved Trips 30 5 31 2 57 5 0 5 44 17 57 11 264 Background Conditions 47 13 49 17 326 52 25 6 149 43 532 38 1297 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 34
Background + Project Conditions 47 13 49 17 340 52 25 6 149 43 552 38 1331 0 10/18/23
11/15/22
10/18/23
11/15/22
10/18/23
04/04/23
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
4/16/2024
PM
675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_2024-04-15
Intersection Number: 13
Traffix Node Number: 5320
Intersection Name: Mary Ave and Central Expy*
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 74 130 141 38 838 349 407 91 164 398 1386 59 4075 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 32 39 0 0 96 4 1 13 4 8 45 6 248 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 12 23 0 42
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 0 8 0 0 13 0 0 2 0 1 11 0 35 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 22
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 12
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 26 12 45 0 177 Total Approved Trips 32 47 0 0 235 4 1 15 32 36 135 9 546 Background Conditions 106 177 141 38 1073 353 408 106 196 434 1521 68 4621 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 2 8 30 0 64
Background + Project Conditions 106 177 141 38 1097 353 408 106 198 442 1551 68 4685 0 Intersection Number: 14
Traffix Node Number: 5315
Intersection Name: Ferguson Dr and Central Expy*
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 72 0 25 59 958 0 0 0 0 0 1244 82 2440 Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 156 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 26 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 0 4 8 49 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 84 Total Approved Trips 15 0 4 8 210 0 0 0 0 0 50 11 298
Background Conditions 87 0 29 67 1168 0 0 0 0 0 1294 93 2738 Proposed Project Trips 20 0 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 70
Background + Project Conditions 107 0 47 79 1168 0 0 0 0 0 1294 113 2808 0 Intersection Number: 15
Traffix Node Number: 101
Intersection Name: Ferguson Dr and Internal Road
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 231
Approved Project Trips
EWPP List of Approved Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 777 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 Ellis St (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Google Middlefield Park Master Plan (MV) 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 39 555 W Middlefield Rd (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
189 Bernardo Ave (MV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Downtown Specific Plan (SV) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total Approved Trips 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 40
Background Conditions 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 271
Proposed Project Trips 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 38 0 70 188
Background + Project Conditions 49 158 0 0 0 0 0 113 31 38 0 70 459 0 10/18/23
01/00/00
10/18/23
11/15/22
10/18/23
11/15/22
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
4/16/2024
PM
675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_2024-04-15
Appendix D
Signal and Stop Warrant Analysis

FOUR WAY STOP SIGN WARRANT
FOR
Ferguson Drive & Internal Road (Background Plus Project Condition) I. VOLUME WARRANT
Min. 300 vph on ALL APPROACHES for highest 8 hrs AND min. 100 vph on MINOR STREET for the same 8 hrs.

OR
Min. 300 vph on ALL APPROACHES for highest 8 hrs AND min. 100 pedestrians per hour at the intersection for the same 8 hrs.
*If intersection is located in residential area, then decrease above volumes by 40% Time [hr] 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19
Major
Street 367 392 230 286 300 397 318 301
Minor
Street 34 30 62 71 75 108 78 74
Total 461 482 292 357 375 505 396 375
Meet
Warrant? No No No No No Yes No No
Pedestrian
Counts <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Meet Ped.

Warrant? No No No No No No No No
WARRANT MET? No. Project trips were added to each peak hour based on the hourly proportion of volumes on Ferguson Drive. The Internal Road volumes for the highest 8 hours would only be greater than 100 vph for only one hour. The total intersection pedestrian volumes would be fewer than 100 pedestrians per hour based on the peak-hour pedestrian counts at Ferguson Drive/Middlefield Road. (The intersection does not qualify as a residential area.)
II. ACCIDENT WARRANT:
3 or more reported accidents in last one (1) year
Number of actual correctable accidents in the last year: 0 on Ferguson or at Ferguson/Middlefield (1/01/2022 - 12/31/2022)
WARRANT MET? No
III. LINE OF SIGHT WARRANT:
150 feet or less on one or more approaches of the MAJOR STREET Actual field conditions: Vehicles on the internal road would have at least 150 feet looking both ways on Ferguson Drive.

WARRANT MET? No
An intersection qualifies as a residential one, if ALL of the following conditions exist:
- Both streets have residential frontage and have a 25 mph speed limit. - Neither street is an adopted through street as defined in the CVC. - Neither street has more than one travel lane in each direction. - No existing stop sign or traffic signal within 500’ along the major street. - The installation of a 4-way stop sign is compatible with overall traffic circulation. No, Ferguson Drive is considered a collector street connecting Middlefield Road and Central Expressway and provides access to developments on the street, while the side street is just a private internal road for the project.

CONCLUSION: The intersection does not meet any warrant.

Date: October 18, 2023 Study done by: Hexagon Transportation Consultants 4/15/2024
675-685 E Middlefield Rd

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 4/15/24
Major Street: Ferguson Dr Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Internal Road Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 20 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB
Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 10.2
Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 90
Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.3
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 434

1. No

2. No

3. No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Ferguson Dr X 344
Minor Street - Highest Approach Internal Road X 90
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No
Approach
Lanes
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Background+Prj
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Rural (R)
AM PEAK PERIOD Background+Prj
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND or
File: Signal Warrant - Ferguson & Internal Rd 2024-04-15 Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
4/15/2024
675-685 E Middlefield Rd
Ferguson Dr & Internal Road AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Ferguson Dr X 344
Minor Street - Highest Approach Internal Road X 90
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) .
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

AM PEAK PERIOD
Approach
Lanes
Background+Prj
Background+Prj
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: Signal Warrant - Ferguson & Internal Rd 2024-04-15 Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
4/15/2024
675-685 E Middlefield Rd

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 4/15/24
Major Street: Ferguson Dr Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Internal Road Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 20 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB
Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 10.9
Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 108 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.3
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 459

1. No

2. No

3. No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Ferguson Dr X 351
Minor Street - Highest Approach Internal Road X 108
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Background+Prj
Approach
Lanes
Rural (R)

PM PEAK HOUR
Background+Prj
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:
or
File: Signal Warrant - Ferguson & Internal Rd 2024-04-15 Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
4/15/2024
675-685 E Middlefield Rd
Ferguson Dr & Internal Road PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Ferguson Dr X 351
Minor Street - Highest Approach Internal Road X 108
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above. * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) . Background+Prj
Approach
Lanes
Background+Prj
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: Signal Warrant - Ferguson & Internal Rd 2024-04-15 Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
Appendix E
Local Parking Surveys
Office Building Parking Counts
Building Address City TOD features
Parking Count
Date1
Building Floor
Area (s.f.)2
Peak Parking
Demand
Parking Ratio
(spaces/ksf)
TOD Buildings
3050 S. Delaware St (Station 4)
San Mateo Next to Hillsdale Caltrain
Station
February 2018 216,428 456 2.11
Franklin Templeton Campus
San Mateo 0.6 mile to Hillsdale Caltrain
Station and shuttles between station and campus
November 2016 380,843 862 2.26
200 & 250 S. Mathilda Ave
(Nokia & Apple)3
Sunnyvale 1,800 feet to Sunnyvale
Caltrain Station
February 2018 291,145 482 1.66
Average 2.03

1. Parking survey for each site was conducted on regular weekdays between 10 AM and 2 PM, when office parking demand peaks.2. Building floor area for buildings in Sunnyvale and Fremont and at 181 2nd Avenue in San Mateo was estimated based on Google Earth. Building area for Franklin Templeton was estimated based on 67% occupancy of total existing 568,423 s.f. The parking count was conducted for the Franklin Templeton Campus Expansion TIA, when the existing Franklin Templeton buildings were 67% occupied.3. Only employee parking, excludes visitor parking.

Mountain View Apartment Parking Counts on Wednesday March 15, 2022 Building Names Street Address
Mixed
Use
Parking
Spaces
Parking
Residential
Shared
Retail
Parking
Occupied
Spaces
Parking
Unbundled
Parking
Cost
Monthly
Available
Parking
Per Unit
Available
Parking
Per Bdrm
Occupied
Parking
Per Unit
Occupied
Parking
Per Bdrm Units Bedrooms
Park Place 851 Church St Yes 561 493 68 343 unknown unknown 1.50 0.98 0.92 0.60 373 571The Dean 458 San Antonio Rd
Yes 837 668 169 507 1st space
included
with rent
$100 1.44 1.01 0.87 0.61 583 830
Madrone 111 Rengstorff
Ave
No 415 415 284 1st space
included
with rent
unknown 1.53 1.04 1.04 0.71 272 398
Elan 801 W El
Camino Real
Yes 303 248 55 187 1st space
included
with rent
$75 1.85 1.46 1.14 0.90 164 208
Eaves 555 W
Middlefield Rd
No 670 670 385 Bundled 1.67 1.39 0.96 0.80 402 483

0.99 0.72
Average Parking Demand Rate
Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
4699 Old Ironsides Dr, Ste 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1860
(408) 246-4848
September 19, 2024
Nick Towstopiat
Project Manager
David J Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
Subject: 675-685 East Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study Dear Mr. Towstopiat:

Schaaf & Wheeler (S&W) acknowledges the project description revisions for the 675-685 East Middlefield Road Project. Schaaf & Wheeler has received the Revision 6 Project Data Comparison dated 9/11/2024 and the Revision 6 Project Drawings dated 8/22/2024. S&W compared the updated project information to the project description used as a basis for S&W’s Utility Impact Study dated April 2024; total office space square footage does not change, total retail space does not change, and residential dwelling units decrease by 22 dwelling units. The overall square footage of the project increases by 39,000 square feet.

Based on the provided information in Revision 6, the findings of the 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study (Schaaf & Wheeler, April 2024) do not change. The Project revisions result in a decrease in total water demand and sewer generation. In addition, the changes in square footage do not result in an increase in required fire flows per the California Fire Code.

The findings of the study are there for conservative and do not require revisions due to the Project changes outlined in Revision 6.

Sincerely,
Schaaf & Wheeler
Leif M. Coponen, PE
Vice President

APPENDIX F

675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Table of Contents

April 4, 2024 ii Schaaf & Wheeler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 2-2

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

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

2.3. Future Cumulative Condition ............................................................................................................... 2-3

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

2.3.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand ............................................................................................... 2-3 Water System Impact ................................................................................................................... 3-1

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

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

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

3.4. Existing Condition Results .................................................................................................................... 3-3

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

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

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

3.4.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project .............................................................................................. 3-4

3.5. Future Cumulative Condition Results................................................................................................... 3-4

3.5.1. Hydraulic Model Information ....................................................................................................... 3-4

3.5.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project ....................................................................... 3-5

3.5.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project .................................. 3-5

3.5.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project .............................................................................................. 3-5 Sewer Flow Projections ................................................................................................................ 4-1

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

4.2. Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.3. Future Cumulative Condition ............................................................................................................... 4-2

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

4.3.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand ............................................................................................... 4-3 Sewer System Impact ................................................................................................................... 5-1

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

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

5.3. Existing Condition Results .................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1. Hydraulic Model Information ....................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project ............................................. 5-3 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Table of Contents

April 4, 2024 iii Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

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

5.4. Future Cumulative Condition Results................................................................................................... 5-3

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

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

5.4.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project .............................................................................................. 5-4

5.5. Project Contribution to Deficient Sewer Pipes .................................................................................... 5-4 List of Figures
Figure 1: Water System Model Simulations
Figure 2: Sewer System Model Simulations
Figure B-1: Project Location
Figure B-2: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure B-3: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure B-4: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure B-5: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure B-6: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-7: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-8: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-9: MDD with Fire Flow (MDD + FF) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-10a: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure B-10b: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Existing Condition Figure B-11a: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure B-11b: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Existing Condition Figure B-12a: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-12b: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – Without Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-13a: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition Figure B-13b: Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) – With Project – Future Cumulative Condition List of Tables
Table 2-1: Project Estimated Water Demand .................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Anticipated Project Fire Flow Requirement ..................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Baseline Demand for Existing Condition (Based on Model) .............................................................. 2-2 Table 2-4: Incremental Project Demand for Existing Condition.......................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-5: Baseline Demand for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model) ............................................. 2-3 Table 2-6: Incremental Project Demand for Future Cumulative Condition ........................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1: Peaking Factors ................................................................................................................................. 3-1 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Table of Contents

April 4, 2024 iv Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 3-2: Water System Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-3: Future Cumulative Demand Versus Supply ........................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-4: DDW Storage Requirements .............................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-5: Existing Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes....................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-6: Selected Existing Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project .................................. 3-4 Table 3-7: Future Cumulative Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes ..................................................... 3-5 Table 3-8: Selected Future Cumulative Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project ................. 3-6 Table 4-1: Project Estimated Sewer Flow ........................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Baseline Flow for Existing Condition (Based on Model) .................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-3: Incremental Project Flow for Existing Condition................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-4: Baseline Demand for Future Cumulative Condition .......................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-5: Incremental Project Flow for Future Cumulative Condition .............................................................. 4-3 Table 5-1: Sewer System Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 5-1 Table 5-2: Sewer System Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 5-1 Table 5-3: RWQCP Joint Facilities Capacity Rights .............................................................................................. 5-2 Table 5-4: Capacity Rights Comparison ............................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-5: Existing Condition Model Results – Pre- and Post- Project ................................................................ 5-5 Table 5-6: Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre- and Post- Project .............................................. 5-7 Table A-1: Not Used .......................................................................................................................................... A-2 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Executive Summary

April 4, 2024 ES-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Executive Summary
Schaaf & Wheeler has been retained by David J. Powers and Associates to determine impacts from the 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Project (Project) on the City of Mountain View's (City) water and sanitary sewer systems.

The Project site at 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road is currently developed with 163,638 square feet of office/R&D space. The site encompasses one existing parcel, APN 160-60-013. The Project proposes to demolish the existing office buildings and construct one new office building totaling 277,600 square feet and three new multi-family residential buildings totaling 858 dwelling units with 2,344 square feet of retail space.

Project impacts are analyzed for both Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions for the water system. Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing Condition and Future Condition are based on the 2022 Water Master Plan (WMP; HydroScience, August 2022) models. The Future Cumulative Condition model includes capital improvement projects identified in the 2022 WMP and future water demand projections based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Year 2030.

Project impacts are analyzed for both Existing and Future Cumulative for the sewer system. Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing Condition and Future Condition are based on the 2022 Sewer Master Plan (SMP; HydroScience, August 2022). The Future Cumulative Condition sewer model includes capital improvement projects identified in the 2022 SMP and sewer flow projections based on adjusted water demands from the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Year 2030.

Water System Project Impacts
The Project development does not significantly impact the water system under peak hour demand (PHD) at Existing Condition. Under the Future Cumulative Condition assuming all of the recommended CIPs in the 2022 WMP have been constructed, the system meets performance criteria under PHD. There are no new deficiencies resulting from the additional demands associated with the Project.

The Project specific fire flow requirement is based on the California Fire Code, 2022; the Project-specific fire flows range from 1,625 to 3,000 gpm and are met during Existing Condition and during Future Cumulative Condition. There are some deficient fire nodes within Pressure Zone 2; including multiple nodes near the Project; however, the demands at the Project site do not impact the fire flows at those nodes. No new deficiencies are created as a result of adding the incremental Project-specific water demands.

The actual fire flow requirement may change as the planning process continues and Project specific requirements are determined by the City Fire Marshal. If Project conditions require higher fire flow than what is analyzed, revised modeling should be conducted.
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Executive Summary

April 4, 2024 ES-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Sewer System Project Impacts
The Project development does not significantly impact the sanitary sewer system under peak wet weather flow conditions for Existing Conditions and Future Cumulative Conditions. The Project is served by the City’s East Trunk sewer which has capacity to serve the new development. There are no projected CIPs along the sewer conveyance path.
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 1: Introduction

April 4, 2024 1-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Introduction

1.1. Project Description
The 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Project (Project) is located on a 10.58-acre site on E Middlefield Road, between Ferguson Drive and the VTA light rail as shown on Figure B-1. The Project is located within the East Whisman Precise Plan area. The Project proposes to construct one new office building, totaling about 277,600 square feet and three new multi-family residential apartment buildings totaling 858 dwelling units and 2,344 square feet of retail space. The Project also includes demolition of an existing office/R&D building totaling 163,638 square feet.

1.2. Water System Analysis Approach
Project impacts are analyzed using the City’s water models for two conditions: Existing and Future Cumulative.

As a baseline for system performance, each condition is evaluated pre-Project for existing hydraulic deficiencies.

The estimated incremental water demand resulting from Project development is added to the model and postProject deficiencies are examined. In total, four model simulations of the water system are performed, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Water System Model Simulations
The Existing Condition model consists of the existing distribution system and operating parameters along with water demands based on existing land use from the 2022 Water Master Plan (WMP; HydroScience, August 2022). The Future Cumulative Condition model includes capital improvement projects identified in the 2022 WMP and future water demand projections based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Year 2030.

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

Water System
Existing (2020)
Condition
Pre-Project
(Baseline)
Post-Project
Future Cumulative
(2030) Condition
Pre-Project
(Baseline)
Post-Project
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 1: Introduction

April 4, 2024 1-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

Figure 2. Sewer System Model Simulations
The Existing Condition model consists of the existing collection system and operating parameters along with sewer flow based on existing land use from the 2022 Sewer Master Plan (SMP; HydroScience, August 2022).

The Future Cumulative Condition sewer model includes capital improvement projects identified in the 2022 SMP and sewer flow projections based on adjusted water demands from the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Year 2030.

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

Chapter 4 discusses the sewer flow estimates and Chapter 5 covers the capital improvements recommendations for the sewer system.

Sewer System
Existing (2020)
Condition
Pre-Project
(Baseline)
Post-Project
Future Cumulative (2030)
Condition
Pre-Project
(Baseline)
Post-Project
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 2: Water Demand Projections

April 4, 2024 2-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Water Demand Projections
This chapter discusses the estimated water demand and required fire flow for the Project development. Water demand in this section represents Average Daily Demand (ADD). The ADD is an estimated daily average of water use patterns that varies by season and customer type.

Project impact is evaluated by adding the incremental increase in water demand at the Project site post-Project and comparing to the pre-Project baseline demand. The pre-Project baseline demand in the Existing and Future Cumulative Condition follows the methodology described in the 2022 WMP. The water unit duty factor for estimating total Project demand is taken from previous technical studies where detailed factors are not available in the 2022 WMP.

2.1. Project Water Demand
Project water demand is estimated from square footage of the proposed office building, retail, and number of multi-family residential dwelling units in the Project Plans and water unit duty factors developed for the City.

Water unit duty factors used in this report were developed as part of the North Bayshore Precise Plan Phase II (Table 2-2, NBSPPII) from water meter records of recent developments throughout the City. The duty factors applied are representative of multi-family residential, retail, and office/R&D demands for the proposed Project.

Table 2-1 provides the Project specific demand.

Table 2-1: Project Estimated Water Demand
Project Building DU / sq. ft. Land Use
Type
Water Duty
Factor
(gpd/DU or
gpd/1000 sf)
Water Demand (gpd)
675 & 685 E.

Middlefield
MFR 858 MFR 100 85,800
Office/R&D 277,600 R&D 130 36,088
Retail 2,344 Retail 130 305
Total - - - 122,193

2.1.1. Project Required Fire Flow
The anticipated Project-specific fire flow requirement at the site is based on the 2022 California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, which gives the minimum fire flow requirement based on fire-flow area and building construction type. Construction type and estimated floor area for the Project and existing buildings are taken from the Project Plan Sets received by Mountain View November 7, 2023. The proposed residential buildings are identified as mixed Construction Type I-A and Type III-A. Based on the California State Fire Marshal Code Interpretation 11- 015 for mixed use construction, the fire flow requirement for the proposed buildings is estimated using a percentage approach between Type I-A construction proposed for the lower floors and Type III-A for the upper floors. Using this method, the residential building fire-flows range from 4,624 to 5,838 gpm. The proposed office building is identified as Construction Type IIIA, resulting in a fire flow of 6,000 gpm. The proposed parking garage is identified as Construction Type IIA, resulting in a fire flow of 3,250 gpm. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 2: Water Demand Projections

April 4, 2024 2-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

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

Therefore, the required fire flow at the residential buildings ranges from 2,312 gpm to 2,863 gpm, the required fire flow at the office building is 3,000 gpm, and the required fire flow at the parking garage is 1,625 gpm. This is a conservative assumption since a 75 percent reduction is allowed upon approval on an approved automatic sprinkler system according to CFC Section B105.2.

Existing fire flow requirements for the adjacent properties planning level fire flows in the Project area are 3,500 gpm based on the model and are higher than the project specific fire flows and therefore, the existing required fire flow governs at the hydrant junctions and will remain in the hydraulic models.

Table 2-2 – Anticipated New Building Project Fire Flow (FF) Requirement Building FF Calculation
Area (sq ft)
Construction
Type
CFC Required FF
(gpm)
FF with 50%
Reduction (gpm)
FF with 75%
Reduction (gpm)
Residential North 548,124 IA/IIIA 5,723 2,861 1,431
Residential South 530,329 IA/IIIA 5,727 2,863 1,432
Residential BMR 158,607 IA/IIIA 4,624 2,312 1,500
Office 260,000 IIIA 6,000 3,000 1,500
Parking 82,200 IIA 3,250 1,625 1,500
*Based on 2022 CFC minimum reduced Fire Flow requirement

2.2. Existing Condition

2.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand
The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level demand adopted from the City’s hydraulic model, developed as part of the 2022 WMP. The demand in the model is calibrated against water billing records from 2015 through 2020, as further explained in the 2022 WMP. Table 2-3 details the model’s existing demand at the parcels, which were designated as Office/R&D land use.

Table 2-3: Baseline Demand for Existing Condition (Based on Model) Address APN
2022 Master Plan
Existing Land Use
Designation
Acreage Water Demand
(gpd)
675 & 685 E. Middlefield 160-60-013 R&D 10.58 8,698
TOTAL 8,698
*Water Demand allocated to the specific parcels in the Existing Condition hydraulic model

2.2.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand
For the Project impact analysis in the Existing Condition, total post-Project demand is added to the Existing Condition model as an incremental increase in demand to the pre-Project demand. The incremental increase in demand in the Existing Condition is given in Table 2-4. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 2: Water Demand Projections

April 4, 2024 2-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 2-4: Incremental Project Demand for Existing Condition Water Demand (gpd)
Pre-Project (Baseline) Demand 8,698
Total Post-Project Demand 122,193
Incremental Increase in Demand + 113,495

2.3. Future Cumulative Condition

2.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline) Land Use and Demand
Future Cumulative (baseline) demand for the Project is adopted from the City’s hydraulic model developed as part of the 2022 WMP. In the 2022 WMP model, water demands are based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water projections for future years. Table 2-5 presents the parcel level pre-project demand from the model. Whereas the Existing Condition model was populated with demand based on billing records, the Future Cumulative Condition model has a higher projected future demand for the parcels based on the water duty factors developed as part of the 2022 WMP.

Table 2-5 – Baseline Demand for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model) Address APN Future Land Use
Designation Acreage Water Demand (gpd)
675 & 685 E. Middlefield 160-60-013 Mixed-Use 10.58 63,014 TOTAL 63,014
*Water Demand allocated to the specific parcel in the Future Cumulative hydraulic model

2.3.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand
Total post-Project demand is added to the model as an additional increase in water demand to the pre-Project demand. The incremental increase in demand in the Future Cumulative Condition is given in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6: Incremental Project Demand for
Future Cumulative Condition
Water Demand
(gpd)
Pre-Project (Baseline) Demand 63,014
Total Post-Project Demand 122,193
Incremental Increase in Demand +59,178
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

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

3.1. Demand Scenarios and Performance Criteria
Hydraulic performance within the water system are evaluated under two demand scenarios: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) and Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD + FF). The MDD and PHD peaking factors from the 2022 Water Mater Plan (WMP) are used for this analysis. As detailed in the 2022 WMP, MDD peaking factors are developed using SCADA data from peak usage months in 2015 and 2020. PHD is determined based on the diurnal curve of each representative zone developed based on SCADA data. The peak hour of each zone’s diurnal pattern is applied to the MDD as outlined in the 2022 WMP. The calculated peaking factors, presented in Table 3-1, are applied to Average Day Demand (ADD). Established system performance criteria used to evaluate the Project impact for all scenarios are summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-1: Peaking Factors
Category Peaking Factor
Maximum Day 1.25
Peak Hour Z1 & Z2 1.72
Peak Hour Z3 2.39
Table 3-2: Water System Performance Criteria
Criteria PHD MDD + FF
Minimum Allowable Pressure (psi) 40 20
Maximum Allowable Velocity (fps) 7 15

3.2. Water Supply Analysis
The increased water demand from Project development in the Future Cumulative Condition is compared with the City's supply turnouts and groundwater well capacities to ensure demand can be met. The Mountain View water system is divided into three pressure zones to maintain reasonable pressures throughout the City’s rising topography moving south, further from the Bay.

Water demand versus supply capacity of the turnouts by Pressure Zone is given in Table 3-3. Total capacity for Pressure Zone 1 includes peak hour turnout capacity from SFPUC Turnout #5 and can be supplements by additional supply supplemented from Wells #21, #22, and #23, if needed. Demand in Pressure Zone 1 can be sufficiently supplied by the current supply operation; however, as discussed in the 2022 WMP, surplus supply in Pressure Zone 2 could be routed to Pressure Zone 1. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) moving water from Pressure Zone 2 (Turnout #14) to Pressure Zone 1 at North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue is currently planned as 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
a portion of the Annual Water and Sewer Replacements, Project 19-21. Demand in Pressure Zone 2 can be sufficiently supplied by SFPUC Turnouts #7 and #14 based on the supply capacity provided in Table 3-1 of the 2022 WMP. Total capacity for Pressure Zone 2 includes peak hour turnout capacity from SFPUC Turnouts #7 and #14 and can be supplemented with additional supply from Wells #19, Well #22 and #23, if needed. Demand in Pressure Zone 3 can be sufficiently supplied by the VW Turnouts based on the supply capacity provided in Table 3-1 of the 2022 WMP.

The Project site is located in Pressure Zone 2, which is, at this time, supplied by two San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) turnouts (Turnout #7 and #14). The additional Project demand does not impact the City's ability to meet total system demand.

Table 3-3: Future Cumulative Condition Demand Versus Supply Pressure
Zone
Future Cumulative Demand
Total
Capacity
(mgd)*
Pre-Project Post-Project
ADD (mgd) PHD (mgd) PHD (mgd)
1 4.29 7.40 7.40 10.08
2 5.83 10.07 10.17 30.24
3 0.69 1.64 1.64 5.04
Total 10.80 19.11 19.21 45.36
* Total Capacity from Table 3-1 in the Water Master Plan (HydroScience Engineers, Inc., 2022)

3.3. Water Storage Analysis
Project impact to water storage volume requirements is evaluated according to the 2022 WMP storage analysis.

The 2022 WMP requires storage based on California Waterworks Standards requiring a public water system to have the capacity to meet the systems MDD + FF and separately it must meet four hours of PHD. The system shall meet these requirements in each individual pressure zone. MDD + FF is the most conservative approach to analyzing system storage. The 2022 WMP outlined four scenarios to analyze the system with various supply sources offline, Base Scenario all sources are online, Scenario 1 Valley Water is offline, Scenario 2 SFPUC is offline, and Scenario 3 all wholesale supply sources are offline. For the purposes of this Study, Scenario 2 is analyzed as it has the largest impact on Zones 1 and 2. The required storage versus active storage in the City is detailed in Table 3-4 pre- and post-Project. The minimum required storage pre- and post- Project is shown in Table 3-4 as Storage Consumed. The maximum active storage in the City is 17.3 MG.

The fire flow in Table 3-4 outlines the requirement in the 2022 WMP and is estimated from the largest fire flow requirement in each pressure zone. Based on CFC requirements the fire flow volume is calculated as 5,000 gpm for 4 hours. Pressure Zone 3 has a reduced fire flow since the controlling fire flow requirement is the hospital along Grant Road, which has a planning-level fire flow requirement of 3,500 for 3 hours. Pressure Zone 1 and 2 have many shared sources and were considered together in the 2022 WMP. To maintain consistency, this report considers Zone 1 and 2 together. Volumes for the MDD demands are considered for a full day (24 hours) in the analysis and fire flow volumes are based on their CFC duration. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Since the City has the storage volume available to meet CA-WW requirements in the Future Cumulative Condition pre- and post-Project, no additional storage improvements are recommended.

Table 3-4: Water Storage Requirements
Pressure
Zone
Max
Active
Storage*
(MG)
Max Flow
from
Storage*
(gpm)
Available
Supply
(gpm)
Fire
Flow
(gpm)
Future Cumulative Condition Demand
Pre-Project Post-Project
MDD
(gpm)
Storage
Pumped
(gpm)
Storage
Consumed
(MG)
MDD
(gpm)
Storage
Pumped
(gpm)
Storage
Consumed
(MG)
1 & 2 14.00 13,700 3,235 5,000 8,768 10,533 9.17 8,788 10,553 9.20 3 3.30 3,769 729 3,500 599 3,370 0.65 599 3,370 0.65
Total 17.30 17,469 3,964 - 9,367 13,903 9.82 9,387 13,923 9.85 * Maximum Active Storage and Maximum Flow from Storage from Table 6-3 and Appendix C in the 2022 WMP (HydroScience Engineers, Inc., 2022)

3.4. Existing Condition Results

3.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information
Existing water system performance is analyzed with the demands and land use type in the City’s hydraulic model developed for the City’s 2022 WMP. Domestic and fire services for the Project will connect to the existing 12- inch water mains in Ferguson Drive and E Middlefield Road. For this analysis, only City-owned utilities are modeled; interior site piping is not evaluated.

The Existing Condition pre-Project fire flow requirement is based on the planning level fire flow of 3,500 gpm governed by adjacent parcels. The proposed fire flow requirements for the Project’s new buildings are identified in Table 2-2, but the existing required planning level fire flows of 3,500 gpm are controlling as discussed in Section 2.1.1.

3.4.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project
System pressures are evaluated under Peak Hour Demand (PHD) pre-Project (Figure B-2) and post-Project (Figure B-3). At Existing Condition the system meets performance criteria system-wide. The Project development does not impact the system hydraulic performance under PHD.

3.4.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project The pre-Project planning-level required fire flows of 3,500 gpm are met at the existing hydrant locations at the proposed Project site (Figure B-4).

After Project development, the anticipated project-specific fire flow requirements, outlined in Table 2-2, and the existing fire flow of the adjacent properties, 3,500 gpm, are met at the site as illustrated in Figure B-5 and detailed in Table 3-5. The other existing deficiencies in Pressure Zone 2 shown on Figures B-4 and B-5 are not near the Project site and are independent of the Project. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-4 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 3-5: Existing Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes Node ID Location
Required Fire Flow
Rate (gpm)*
Available Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project
(gpm)
J-4362 Project Location – Ferguson Drive
Pre-Project: 3,500
8,319 8,267
Post-Project: 3,500
J-4386 Project Location – E Middlefield Road
Pre-Project: 3,500
8,742 8,681
Post-Project: 3,500
*Existing fire flows govern at the project site due to adjacent buildings required fire flows as discussed in Section 2.1.1.

3.4.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
With Existing Condition demand, the water system meets system design criteria at PHD and is able to adequately supply the increased Project demand.

Existing fire flow nodes are evaluated within the Project Pressure Zone (Zone 2) for Project impact. There are several deficient fire nodes within Pressure Zone 2 near the Project site. The increase in water demand results in less than a 1% decrease in available fire flow at the nearest deficient nodes; therefore, the impact is not considered significant. The existing deficiencies in National Avenue and Circuit Way are due to an artificial model constraint limiting velocity to 15 ft/s. Due to modeling nuance, the further away from a larger water main, the higher the available fire flow due to how the model handles reducing flows to reduce pipe velocities. The deficiencies along W Evelyn Avenue are due to flows being on a dead-end pipe.

Table 3-6: Selected Existing Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project Node
ID
Location
Required Fire
Flow Rate (gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project
(gpm)
J-4461 National Avenue 3,500 2,760* 2,760*
J372 Circuit Way 3,500 3,057* 3,057*
J-4277 W Evelyn Avenue 3,500 2,345 2,345
Note: Red font indicates available fire flow that does not meet the required fire flow rate. *Velocity constraints due to modeling nuance, does not reflect actual available fire flow.

3.5. Future Cumulative Condition Results

3.5.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Future Cumulative Condition model is created using water demand based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand projections for future years. System performance is analyzed under the assumption that all recommended CIPs in the 2022 WMP been constructed. Domestic and fire services for the Project will connect to the 12-inch water mains in Ferguson Drive and E Middlefield Road.

The Future Cumulative Condition pre-Project fire flow requirement is not changed from the updated Existing Condition pre-Project fire flow requirement. The pre-Project fire flow requirements of 3,500 gpm are based on planning level fire flow requirements governed by adjacent parcels. The proposed fire flow requirements for 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-5 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Project’s new buildings are identified in Table 2-2, but the existing required fire flows, 3,500 gpm, are controlling as discussed in Section 2.1.1.

3.5.2. Peak Hour Demand (PHD) – Pre and Post Project
The system has adequate pressures pre-Project (Figure B-6) under Peak Hour Demand (PHD) conditions. At Future Condition the system meets performance criteria system-wide. The Project development does not impact the system hydraulic performance under PHD.

3.5.3. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow (MDD+FF) – Pre and Post Project The pre-Project planning-level required fire flows of 3,500 gpm are met at the existing hydrant locations at the proposed Project site. The adjacent properties have fire flows of 3,500 gpm, which govern the fire flows at the Project site nodes, that are met (Figure B-8).

In the Future Cumulative Condition, the system is able to meet the project-specific fire flow requirements at the site post-Project as shown on Figure B-9. The other existing deficiencies in Pressure Zone 2 shown on Figures B4 and B-5 are not near the Project site and are independent of the Project.

Table 3-7: Future Cumulative Condition Evaluated Project Fire Flow Nodes Node
ID
Location
Required Fire Flow Rate
(gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project
(gpm)
J-4362 Project Location – Ferguson Drive
Pre-Project: 3,500
8,189 8,173
Post-Project: 3,500
J-4386 Project Location – E Middlefield Road
Pre-Project: 3,500
8,812 8,794
Post-Project: 3,500

3.5.4. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
With Future Cumulative Condition demand, the water system meets system design criteria at PHD and is able to adequately supply the increased Project demand.

Future Condition fire flow nodes are evaluated within the Project Pressure Zone (Zone 2) for Project impact.

There are several deficient fire nodes within Pressure Zone 2 near the Project site. The increase in water demand results in less than a 1% decrease in available fire flow at the nearest deficient nodes; therefore, the impact is not considered significant. The City is currently evaluating approaches to water CIPs to prioritize which water mains are upgraded as a result of new developments while also considering existing non-sprinklered buildings that do not meet the 4,000 gpm threshold throughout the City. The existing deficiencies in National Avenue and Circuit Way are due to an artificial model constraint limiting velocity to 15 ft/s. Due to modeling nuance, the further away from a larger water main, the higher the available fire flow due to how the model handles reducing flows to reduce pipe velocities. The deficiencies along W Evelyn Avenue are due to flows being on a dead-end pipe.
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 3: Water System Impact

April 4, 2024 3-6 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP) proposed additional roads through the Precise Plan area. Additional piping was proposed throughout the EWPP in the proposed right-of-ways to create a more networked pipe system.

The City should continue looking into the ability to install additional piping as discussed in the EWPP UIS.

Table 3-8: Selected Future Condition Fire Flow Deficient Nodes Pre- and Post-Project Node
ID
Location
Required Fire
Flow Rate (gpm)
Available Flow
Pre-Project
(gpm)
Available Flow
Post-Project
(gpm)
J-4461 National Avenue 3,500 2,763* 2,763*
J372 Circuit Way 3,500 3,054* 3,054*
J-4277 W Evelyn Avenue 3,500 2,344 2,344
Note: Red font indicates available fire flow that does not meet the required fire flow rate. *Velocity constraints due to modeling nuance, does not reflect actual available fire flow. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 4: Sewer Flow Projections

April 4, 2024 4-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Sewer Flow Projections
This chapter discusses the sewer flow estimate for Project development and provides a comparison to preProject baseline conditions. The incremental Project flow is determined for both Existing and Future Cumulative Condition, as discussed in the following sections. The sewer generation factor for estimating Project sewer flow is taken from previous technical studies (2022 SMP and NBPPII) to remain consistent with the City-wide flow projections used in the hydraulic models.

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

Base wastewater flow (BWF) is from residential, commercial, institutional, office, and industrial sources. As described in the 2022 SMP, BWF is developed on an individual parcel level using water billing records from 2015 through 2020 and applying a return-to-sewer (RTS) ratio calculated for land use type. Change in BWF throughout the day due to daily use patterns is known as diurnal variation and is accounted for by applying residential and non-residential diurnal curves. BWF and diurnal curves used in this analysis are taken from the 2022 SMP to remain consistent with previous City-wide modeling. The sewer flows discussed in this section are the BWF values representing average daily flows and are not peaked.

4.1. Project Sewer Flow
Project generated sewer flow is estimated from the square footage of office space, retail space and number of multi-family residential dwelling units provided in the Project Plan Set. A return-to-sewer (RTS) ratio is applied to the water duty factors from Table 2-1 to estimate sewer flow. An RTS ratio of 0.75 was used for multi-family residential use and 0.77 was used for Office/R&D and Retail land uses based on the NBPPII UIS water and sewer demand analysis. Table 4-1 provides the sewer flow estimation for each building.

Table 4-1: Project Estimated Sewer Flow
Project Building DU/sf Land Use
Type
Sewer Duty
Factor (gpd/DU
or gpd/1000 sf)
Water
Demand (gpd)
675 & 685 E.

Middlefield
MFR 858 MFR 75 64,350
Office/R&D 277,600 R&D 100 27,760
Retail 2,344 Retail 100 234
Total - - - 92,344

4.2. Existing Condition

4.2.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)
The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level sewer flow adopted from the City’s hydraulic model, developed as part of the 2022 SMP. Table 4-2 details the parcel-level sewer flow in the model; the model’s sewer flows are based on the sewer generation rates used in the 2022 SMP. The parcel specific demand is based on 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 4: Sewer Flow Projections

April 4, 2024 4-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
the weighted contribution to a specific model node and may be lower than the actual parcel sewer generation rate.

Table 4-2: Baseline Flow for Existing Condition (Based on Model) Address APN
2022 Master Plan Existing
Land Use Designation
Acreage
Sewer Flow
(gpd)
675 & 685 E. Middlefield 160-60-013 R&D 10.58 5,976
TOTAL 5,976
*Flow allocated to specific parcel within the Existing Condition hydraulic model

4.2.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand
For the Project impact analysis in the Existing Condition, total post-Project sewer flow is added to the Existing model pre-Project flow as an additional increase in sewer flow. The incremental increase in flow is given in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Incremental Project Flow for Existing Condition Sewer Flow (gpd)
Pre-Project (Baseline) Flow 5,976
Total Post-Project Flow 92,344
Incremental Increase in Flow + 86,368

4.3. Future Cumulative Condition

4.3.1. Pre-Project (Baseline)
Future Cumulative (baseline) flow for the Project is adopted from the City’s hydraulic model, developed as part of the 2022 SMP. In the Future Condition model, sewer flows are based on factored 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand projections.

Table 4-4 presents the parcel-level pre-project flow from the Future Cumulative hydraulic model. The specific parcel demand is based on the weighted contribution to a specific model node in the hydraulic model.

Table 4-4: Baseline Flow for Future Cumulative Condition (Based on Model) Address APN Future Land Use Designation Acreage
Sewer Flow
(gpd)
675 & 685 E. Middlefield 160-60-013 Mixed-Use 10.58 41,290 TOTAL 41,290
*Flow allocated to specific parcel within the Future Cumulative hydraulic model 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 4: Sewer Flow Projections

April 4, 2024 4-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

4.3.2. Post-Project Incremental Demand
Total post-Project flow from Table 4-1 is added to the Future Cumulative Condition model as a net change in sewer flow from pre-Project flow. The incremental increase in sewer flow in the Future Cumulative Condition is given in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Incremental Project Flow for Future Cumulative Condition Sewer Flow (gpd)
Pre-Project (Baseline) Flow 41,290
Total Post-Project Flow 92,344
Incremental Increase in Flow + 51,054
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact

April 4, 2024 5-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Sewer System Impact
The impact of Project development on the sewer system is analyzed under Existing and Future Cumulative conditions. The specific affected area of the gravity system evaluated for Project impact begins at the Project site along East Middlefield Road. The sewer system then flows west along East Middlefield Road, then turns north into Ellis Street, then west into Fairchild Drive, then north at Leong Drive to cross Hwy 101 and continues north to the Shoreline Sewer Pump Station (SPS) via the East Trunk. The City’s SPS conveys flow to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP).

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

PWWF is used to determine hydraulic deficiencies according to the performance criteria outlined in the 2022 SMP. The sewer system is considered to have sufficient capacity if the freeboard in the upstream manhole is greater than 5 feet below the ground surface outlined in Table 5-1. Once pipes are considered deficient, the design criteria outlined in Table 5-2 shall be used to size the improvements necessary to correct the deficiency.

ADWF is used to determine adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity.

The ADWF is developed in the model by adding BWF and GWI. Since the ADWF models average daily flows, BWF is not peaked. The PWWF condition applies the diurnal peaking curves for residential and non-residential flows and simulates system response to rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration. The diurnal peaking curves are adopted from the City’s 2022 SMP. Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) and rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I) are included, but are not peaked.

Table 5-1: Sewer System Performance Criteria
Criteria
Min Depth BGS
(ft)
Minimum Freeboard in Each Manhole 5.0
Table 5-2: Sewer System Design Criteria
Criteria
Pipe Diameter
≤ 12 inch
Pipe Diameter
> 12 inch
Maximum Flow Depth/Pipe Diameter (d/D) 0.50 0.75

5.2. Sewer Treatment, Joint Interceptor, and San Antonio Interceptor Capacity Sewage generated within the City is treated at the RWQCP in Palo Alto. The sewer collection system is a gravity system with most of the flow discharging into three main trunk lines that convey flow from the south to the north and terminate at the SPS located within the City’s Shoreline Park. Flow is then pumped to the gravity Joint Interceptor Sewer that conveys flow to the RWQCP. The remaining flow not received at the SPS is discharged to the Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor that also conveys flow into the Joint Interceptor. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact

April 4, 2024 5-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
The City entered into a joint agreement, referred to as the Basic Agreement, with the cities of Palo Alto and Los Altos in 1968 for the construction and maintenance of the joint sewer system addressing the need for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of wastewater to meet Regional Board requirements. In accordance with the Basic Agreement, Palo Alto owns the RWQCP and administers the Basic Agreement with the partnering agencies purchasing individual capacity rights in terms of an average annual flow that can be discharged to the RWQCP. Capacity rights of the three cities can be rented or purchased from other neighboring agencies and each partnering agency can sell their capacity to others. Contractual capacity is based upon the 1985 Addendum No. 3 of the 1968 Joint Sewer System agreement that revised capacity rates in relationship to facility expansion and is based upon Average Annual Flow (defined as 1.05 times Average Dry Weather Flow). Separate service agreements with the RWQCP have since reallocated current capacity rights to include six partnering agencies.

Table 5-3 presents the current capacity rights for each agency.

Table 5-3: RWQCP Joint Facilities Capacity Rights
Partner Agency
Treatment Capacity
72-inch Joint
Interceptor Capacity
Average Annual Flow
(MGD)
Peak Wet Weather
Flow (MGD)
Palo Alto 15.3 14.59
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 3.06 0
Los Altos Hills 0.63 3.41
Stanford University 2.11 0
Mountain View 15.1 50
Los Altos 3.8 12
Total 40 80
Source: Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (City of Palo Alto, May 2012) The City’s total capacity rights include flow leaving the City through the SPS and the amount of flow that the City discharges into the Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor, per the 1970 Los Altos San Antonio Trunk Sewer Capacity Agreement between the two cities. The total system-wide contractual capacity for Mountain View is evaluated in the Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions with increased Project flow. Table 5-4 shows the City’s projected flows compared to the RWQCP Joint Facilities capacity rights.

Per the Basic Agreement, the partnering agencies agree to conduct an engineering study when their respective service area reaches 80% of their contractual capacity rights. The Future Cumulative Condition estimates that the projected demand pre-Project and post-Project will not exceed the 80% capacity threshold. The required engineering study when the City reaches 80% of their capacity shall redefine the anticipated future needs of the treatment plant.
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact

April 4, 2024 5-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-4: Capacity Rights Comparison
RWQCP
Joint
Facility
Mountain
View
Contractual
Capacity
(MGD)
Pre-Project Post-Project
2020 Existing
(MGD)
2030 Future
Cumulative
(MGD)
2020 Existing
(MGD)
2030 Future
Cumulative
(MGD)
Treatment 15.1 6.64 7.86 6.73 7.91
Joint
Interceptor
50 17.84 20.93 17.99 21.02
*Treatment = Average Annual Flow (AAF), Joint Interceptor = PWWF

5.3. Existing Condition Results

5.3.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Existing Condition sewer system is modeled using the City’s hydraulic model developed as part of the 2022 SMP. The Project connects to an existing 16-inch HDPE pipe within East Middlefield Road and drains west to Ellis Street sewer main. A MH on East Middlefield Road is the nearest MH to the Project site, and sewer flows are assumed to discharge into this existing manhole in the hydraulic models. The flow from the project site reaches the SPS approximately 4.3 miles downstream via the Eastern Trunk Sewer System.

5.3.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project The sewer system meets the City’s performance criteria along the Project flow path. All pipes along the flow path remain below surcharged-pipe conditions. Pre-Project and post-Project system performance along the flow path in the Existing Condition are shown in Figures B-10a, B-10b, B-11a, and B-11b.

5.3.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
Existing Condition model results comparing pre- and post-Project d/D are presented in Table 5-5. The system meets City performance criteria in all pipes downstream of the Project.

5.4. Future Cumulative Condition Results

5.4.1. Hydraulic Model Information
The Future Cumulative Condition model is modeled using sewer flows based on the 2022 SMP projections for future years. System performance is analyzed under the assumption that all recommended CIPs in the 2022 SMP have been constructed. The Project connects to the City’s sewer system similar to the Existing Condition and the downstream flow path remains the same as the Existing Condition. No CIPs or portions thereof in the 2022 SWMP are downstream of the Project.

5.4.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) Scenario – Pre and Post Project The sewer system meets the City’s performance criteria along the Project flow path. All pipes along the flow path remain below surcharged-pipe conditions. Pre-Project and post-Project system performance along the flow path in the Future Cumulative Condition are shown in Figures B-12a, B-12b, B-13a, and B-13b. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact

April 4, 2024 5-4 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

5.4.3. Deficiencies – Pre and Post Project
Future Cumulative Condition model results comparing pre- and post-Project d/D are presented in Table 5-6. The system meets City performance criteria in all pipes downstream of the Project.

5.5. Project Contribution to Deficient Sewer Pipes
When deficient sewer mains are identified and a capital improvement project is recommended, the percentage of project contribution to the recommended CIPs is determined. Typically, this is considered by the City when determining the development impact fees for fair share impact to the sewer system. The City has determined contributions of less than 1% fall within the City’s margin of error for variability within the hydraulic model.

There are no sewer projects identified for capacity improvement downstream of the Project site. There are no pipes downstream along project sewer flow path that are recommended to be upsized as part of the 2022 SMP.

Therefore, a fair share analysis is not performed.
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-5 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-5: Existing Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project ID U/S MH D/S MH Existing Diameter (inch) Length (ft) Slope (%)

ADWF PWWF
Pre-Project Post-Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
H6-026.1 H6-026 H6-024 16 280 0.31 0.213 0.338 0.531 0.34 - 0.676 0.40 - H6-024.1 H6-024 H6-012 10 340 0.45 0.220 0.342 0.543 0.55 - 0.688 0.64 - H6-012.1 H6-012 H6-010 12 366 1.47 0.220 0.342 0.544 0.42 - 0.688 0.47 - H6-010.1 H6-010 G6-039 16 306 0.36 0.255 0.368 0.634 0.42 - 0.779 0.46 - G6-039.1 G6-039 G6-021 16 378 0.15 0.270 0.380 0.675 0.42 - 0.821 0.46 - G6-021.1 G6-021 G6-019 12 394 0.39 0.282 0.390 0.708 0.50 - 0.854 0.56 - G6-019.1 G6-019 G6-040 12 490 1.71 0.287 0.394 0.721 0.55 - 0.868 0.60 - G6-040.1 G6-040 G6-016 15 344 0.37 0.403 0.490 1.017 0.44 - 1.164 0.48 - G6-016.1 G6-016 G6-014 15 365 0.41 0.408 0.496 1.031 0.44 - 1.178 0.47 - G6-014.1 G6-014 F6-039 15 426 0.40 0.415 0.502 1.046 0.44 - 1.194 0.47 - F6-039.1 F6-039 F6-037 15 80 4.97 0.420 0.507 1.055 0.49 - 1.203 0.53 - F6-037.1 F6-037 F6-035 18 231 0.24 0.466 0.553 1.159 0.41 - 1.307 0.44 - F6-035.1 F6-035 F6-033 18 242 0.26 0.470 0.557 1.169 0.52 - 1.317 0.56 - F6-033.1 F6-033 F6-031 18 228 0.12 0.470 0.557 1.168 0.56 - 1.316 0.60 - F6-031.1 F6-031 F6-029 18 384 0.09 0.500 0.587 1.228 0.56 - 1.376 0.59 - F6-029.1 F6-029 F6-027 18 196 0.13 0.500 0.587 1.228 0.51 - 1.375 0.55 - F6-027.1 F6-027 F6-025 18 123 0.12 0.500 0.587 1.227 0.51 - 1.375 0.55 - F6-025.1 F6-025 F6-023 18 293 0.12 0.500 0.587 1.227 0.50 - 1.375 0.53 - F6-023.1 F6-023 F6-019 21 81 1.33 0.500 0.587 1.227 0.55 - 1.375 0.57 - F6-019.1 F6-019 F6-010 24 360 0.12 0.902 1.036 2.314 0.50 - 2.462 0.51 - F6-010.1 F6-010 F6-008 24 189 0.11 0.907 1.041 2.320 0.50 - 2.468 0.52 - F6-008.1 F6-008 F6-006 24 498 0.09 0.907 1.041 2.318 0.50 - 2.466 0.52 - F6-006.1 F6-006 F6-002 24 502 0.15 0.909 1.044 2.320 0.46 - 2.469 0.47 - F6-002.1 F6-002 F5-038 27 401 0.25 1.366 1.515 3.458 0.41 - 3.607 0.42 - F5-038.1 F5-038 F5-036 27 391 0.42 1.366 1.515 3.458 0.41 - 3.606 0.42 - 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-6 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-5 (Continued): Existing Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project ID U/S MH D/S MH Existing Diameter (inch) Length (ft) Slope (%)

ADWF PWWF
PreProject Post- Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
F5-036.1 F5-036 F5-012 27 317 0.45 2.091 2.240 4.716 0.45 - 4.865 0.46 - F5-012.1 F5-012 E5-005 27 536 0.32 2.091 2.240 4.716 0.45 - 4.864 0.46 - E5-005.1 E5-005 E5-003 27 492 0.41 2.102 2.251 4.745 0.42 - 4.893 0.43 - E5-003.1 E5-003 E5-001 27 263 0.43 2.102 2.251 4.745 0.42 - 4.893 0.43 - E5-001.1 E5-001 E5-016 27 493 0.43 2.102 2.251 4.744 0.43 - 4.893 0.43 - E5-016.1 E5-016 E5-014 27 498 0.41 2.102 2.251 4.744 0.42 - 4.892 0.43 - E5-014.1 E5-014 D5-015 27 489 0.57 2.102 2.251 4.744 0.39 - 4.892 0.40 - D5-015.1 D5-015 D5-027 30 304 0.48 2.103 2.252 4.759 0.42 - 4.907 0.42 - D5-027.1 D5-027 D5-025 30 213 0.24 2.103 2.252 4.759 0.41 - 4.907 0.42 - D5-025.1 D5-025 D5-029 30 212 0.47 2.103 2.252 4.758 0.39 - 4.907 0.39 - D5-029.1 D5-029 D5-008 33 346 0.29 2.103 2.252 4.758 0.40 - 4.906 0.41 - D5-008.1 D5-008 D5-016 33 459 0.18 2.103 2.252 4.756 0.40 - 4.905 0.41 - D5-016.1 D5-016 D5-014 33 549 0.21 2.103 2.252 4.755 0.39 - 4.903 0.40 - D5-014.1 D5-014 C5-013 33 389 0.20 2.103 2.252 4.753 0.40 - 4.902 0.40 - C5-013.1 C5-013 C5-011 33 463 0.18 2.103 2.252 4.752 0.42 - 4.900 0.43 - C5-011.1 C5-011 C5-004 33 502 0.17 2.333 2.482 5.123 0.43 - 5.271 0.43 - C5-004.1 C5-004 C5-002 33 495 0.16 2.333 2.482 5.121 0.43 - 5.269 0.43 - C5-002.1 C5-002 B5-009 33 511 0.19 2.333 2.482 5.119 0.41 - 5.268 0.41 - B5-009.1 B5-009 B5-005 36 417 0.18 2.333 2.482 5.118 0.37 - 5.267 0.37 - B5-005.1 B5-005 B5-003 36 421 0.20 2.332 2.482 5.117 0.36 - 5.266 0.37 - B5-003.1 B5-003 B5-011 36 156 0.19 2.332 2.482 5.117 0.36 - 5.265 0.37 - B5-011.1 B5-011 B5-001 36 478 0.19 2.332 2.481 5.115 0.36 - 5.264 0.37 - B5-001.1 B5-001 B5-008 36 549 0.19 2.332 2.481 5.114 0.36 - 5.262 0.37 - B5-008.1 B5-008 B5-006 36 496 0.18 2.332 2.481 5.112 0.36 - 5.261 0.37 - B5-006.1 B5-006 B5-004 36 500 0.31 2.332 2.481 5.110 0.48 - 5.258 0.48 - 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-7 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-5 (Continued): Existing Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project ID U/S MH D/S MH Existing Diameter (inch) Length (ft) Slope (%)

ADWF PWWF
PreProject Post- Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
B5-004.1 B5-004 B5-002 36 573 0.05 2.332 2.481 5.106 0.48 - 5.254 0.48 - B5-002.1 B5-002 B4-020 39 426 0.10 2.331 2.481 5.105 0.37 - 5.253 0.37 - B4-020.1 B4-020 B4-018 39 418 0.26 2.331 2.480 5.104 0.31 - 5.252 0.32 - B4-018.1 B4-018 B4-016 39 573 0.24 2.330 2.479 5.106 0.54 - 5.253 0.55 - B4-016.1 B4-016 B4-014 42 594 0.06 4.149 4.298 8.565 0.50 - 8.717 0.51 - B4-014.1 B4-014 B4-012 42 368 0.04 4.149 4.297 8.563 0.48 - 8.715 0.48 - B4-012.1 B4-012 B4-010 42 450 0.17 4.149 4.297 8.562 0.39 - 8.714 0.39 - B4-010.1 B4-010 B4-006 42 474 0.46 4.149 4.297 8.560 0.54 - 8.712 0.54 - B4-006.1 B4-006 B4-004 39 155 -0.14 4.149 4.297 8.560 0.58 - 8.712 0.58 - 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-8 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-6: Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project

ID CIP ID
Modeled
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)

ADWF PWWF
PreProject Post- Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
H6-026.1 16 280 0.31 0.269 0.351 0.598 0.37 - 0.688 0.41 - H6-024.1 10 340 0.45 0.274 0.355 0.611 0.59 - 0.701 0.65 -H6-012.1 12 366 1.47 0.274 0.355 0.611 0.49 - 0.701 0.51 - H6-010.1 16 306 0.36 0.425 0.509 0.830 0.48 - 0.921 0.51 -G6-039.1 16 378 0.15 0.451 0.535 0.888 0.48 - 0.980 0.51 - G6-021.1 12 394 0.39 0.458 0.542 0.922 0.59 - 1.014 0.63 -G6-019.1 12 490 1.71 0.474 0.558 0.948 0.67 - 1.040 0.69 - G6-040.1 15 344 0.37 0.692 0.776 1.391 0.53 - 1.483 0.55 -G6-016.1 15 365 0.41 0.695 0.779 1.405 0.53 - 1.497 0.55 - G6-014.1 15 426 0.40 0.699 0.783 1.421 0.53 - 1.513 0.54 - F6-039.1 15 80 4.97 0.703 0.787 1.430 0.58 - 1.522 0.60 - F6-037.1 18 231 0.24 0.727 0.815 1.536 0.48 - 1.628 0.50 -F6-035.1 18 242 0.26 0.731 0.820 1.548 0.62 - 1.639 0.65 - F6-033.1 18 228 0.12 0.731 0.819 1.547 0.66 - 1.638 0.68 -F6-031.1 18 384 0.09 0.749 0.839 1.608 0.66 - 1.699 0.68 - F6-029.1 18 196 0.13 0.749 0.839 1.607 0.60 - 1.699 0.62 -F6-027.1 18 123 0.12 0.749 0.839 1.607 0.60 - 1.698 0.62 - F6-025.1 18 293 0.12 0.749 0.839 1.607 0.58 - 1.698 0.60 -F6-023.1 21 81 1.33 0.749 0.839 1.606 0.61 - 1.698 0.63 - F6-019.1 24 360 0.12 1.312 1.400 2.742 0.55 - 2.833 0.56 -F6-010.1 24 189 0.11 1.318 1.406 2.748 0.56 - 2.839 0.57 - F6-008.1 24 498 0.09 1.319 1.407 2.746 0.56 - 2.837 0.57 -F6-006.1 24 502 0.15 1.322 1.410 2.749 0.50 - 2.840 0.50 - F6-002.1 27 401 0.25 1.887 1.972 3.964 0.44 - 4.056 0.45 -F5-038.1 27 391 0.42 1.887 1.972 3.964 0.44 - 4.055 0.44 - Note: Model Diameter in green text represents a 2022 SMP CIP pipe diameter. 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-9 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-6 (Continued): Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project

ID CIP ID
Modeled
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)

ADWF PWWF
PreProject Post- Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
F5-036.1 27 317 0.45 2.696 2.781 5.285 0.48 - 5.376 0.49 - F5-012.1 27 536 0.32 2.696 2.781 5.284 0.48 - 5.376 0.49 - E5-005.1 27 492 0.41 2.707 2.792 5.314 0.45 - 5.405 0.46 - E5-003.1 27 263 0.43 2.707 2.792 5.314 0.45 - 5.405 0.45 -E5-001.1 27 493 0.43 2.707 2.792 5.313 0.45 - 5.405 0.46 - E5-016.1 27 498 0.41 2.707 2.792 5.313 0.45 - 5.404 0.46 -E5-014.1 27 489 0.57 2.707 2.792 5.313 0.42 - 5.404 0.42 - D5-015.1 30 304 0.48 2.718 2.803 5.340 0.44 - 5.431 0.44 -D5-027.1 30 213 0.24 2.718 2.803 5.339 0.44 - 5.431 0.44 - D5-025.1 30 212 0.47 2.718 2.803 5.339 0.41 - 5.430 0.42 -D5-029.1 33 346 0.29 2.718 2.803 5.338 0.42 - 5.429 0.43 - D5-008.1 33 459 0.18 2.718 2.803 5.337 0.42 - 5.428 0.43 -D5-016.1 33 549 0.21 2.718 2.803 5.335 0.41 - 5.426 0.42 - D5-014.1 33 389 0.20 2.718 2.803 5.334 0.42 - 5.425 0.43 - C5-013.1 33 463 0.18 2.718 2.803 5.334 0.46 - 5.425 0.46 - C5-011.1 33 502 0.17 2.951 3.036 5.929 0.46 - 6.020 0.47 -C5-004.1 33 495 0.16 2.951 3.036 5.927 0.46 - 6.018 0.46 - C5-002.1 33 511 0.19 2.951 3.036 5.925 0.44 - 6.016 0.44 - B5-009.1 36 417 0.18 2.951 3.036 5.924 0.40 - 6.015 0.40 - B5-005.1 36 421 0.20 2.951 3.035 5.923 0.40 - 6.014 0.40 -B5-003.1 36 156 0.19 3.010 3.096 6.052 0.40 - 6.143 0.40 - B5-011.1 36 478 0.19 3.010 3.095 6.050 0.40 - 6.141 0.40 -B5-001.1 36 549 0.19 3.010 3.095 6.049 0.40 - 6.140 0.40 - B5-008.1 36 496 0.18 3.010 3.095 6.048 0.40 - 6.139 0.40 -B5-006.1 36 500 0.31 3.010 3.095 6.044 0.52 - 6.136 0.52 - Note: Model Diameter in green text represents a 2022 SMP CIP pipe diameter 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Chapter 5: Sewer System Impact
April 4, 2024 5-10 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Table 5-6 (Continued): Future Cumulative Condition Model Results – Pre and Post Project

ID CIP ID
Modeled
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)

ADWF PWWF
PreProject Post- Project Pre-Project Post-Project
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD)
Max Flow
(MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft) Max Flow (MGD) d/D FB U/S (ft)
B5-004.1 36 573 0.05 3.009 3.094 6.041 0.52 - 6.132 0.52 - B5-002.1 39 426 0.10 3.009 3.094 6.039 0.40 - 6.131 0.40 -B4-020.1 39 418 0.26 3.009 3.094 6.038 0.34 - 6.129 0.35 - B4-018.1 39 573 0.24 3.011 3.096 6.041 0.59 - 6.132 0.59 -B4-016.1 42 594 0.06 5.441 5.525 10.085 0.55 - 10.177 0.55 - B4-014.1 42 368 0.04 5.441 5.525 10.083 0.52 - 10.175 0.52 - B4-012.1 42 450 0.17 5.441 5.524 10.082 0.42 - 10.174 0.42 - B4-010.1 42 474 0.46 5.440 5.524 10.080 0.59 - 10.172 0.59 - B4-006.1 37 155 -0.14 5.440 5.524 10.080 0.67 - 10.172 0.67 - Note: Model Diameter in green text represents a 2022 SMP CIP pipe diameter 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Appendix A
April 4, 2024 A-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
APPENDIX A:
(NOT USED)
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study
Appendix B
April 4, 2024 B-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
APPENDIX B:

Figures

101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

LEVIN AVE

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE

CHARLESTON RD
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

GARCIA AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

ALVIN ST

OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY

L' AVENIDA AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

BAYSHORE PKWY

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

CRITTENDEN LN

DALMA DR

PEAR AVE

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MARINE WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

SHOREBIRD WAY

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

CASEY AVE

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

SALADO DR

INDEPENDENCE AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR

SPACE PARK WAY
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

TERMINAL BLVD

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

LANDINGS DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

N SHORELINE BLVD

VILLA ST

PARK DR

CHARLESTON RD

PLYMOUTH ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST
Permanente Creek

E DANA ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE
101
101
85 Stevens Creek

HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD

ARMAND AVE
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

ROCK ST

BEGEN AVE

ALTA AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE JOAQUIN AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD PARSONS AVE
$
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
FIGURE B-1: Project Location
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024

CITY OF

SUNNYVALE

CITY OF

LOS ALTOS
East Whisman Precise Plan Area
Project Location
City of Mountain View
Legend
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
Peak Hour Demand (PHD) - Without Project
Water System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-2: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 Project Location
Existing City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Legend
Pressure
Less than 40 psi
40 to 60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 100 psi
Greater than 100 psi
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
Peak Hour Demand (PHD) - With Project
Water System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-3: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Existing City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Legend
Pressure
Less than 40 psi
40 to 60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 100 psi
Greater than 100 psi
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
Fire Flow Analysis - Without Project
Water System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-4: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Existing City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Fire Flow Deficiency
Legend
J-4461
J-4386
J-4362
J372
J-4277
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
Fire Flow Analysis - With Project
Water System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-5: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Existing City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Fire Flow Deficiency
Legend
J-4461
J-4386
J-4362
J372
J-4277
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
AR 5
23 AR 5
19 AR 5
24 AR 2-2
AR 2-3
AR 2-2
16 AR 5
AR 2-3
26 AR 1-5
AR 2-1
AR 1-1
AR 1-4
15 AR 5
AR 5
AR5
14 AR 3-3
AR 5
AR 5
AR 5
20 AR 1-5
18 AR 5
AR 1-3
17 AR 1-2
AR 1-5
Water System Model - Future Cumulative Condition
FIGURE B-6: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) - Without Project $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Future City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Recommended CIP (Pressure Zone 2)
From 2022 WMP, August 2022
Legend
Pressure
Less than 40 psi
40 to 60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 100 psi
Greater than 100 psi
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
AR 5
23 AR 5
19 AR 5
24 AR 2-2
AR 2-3
AR 2-2
16 AR 5
AR 2-3
26 AR 1-5
AR 2-1
AR 1-1
AR 1-4
15 AR 5
AR 5
AR5
14 AR 3-3
AR 5
AR 5
AR 5
20 AR 1-5
18 AR 5
AR 1-3
17 AR 1-2
AR 1-5
Water System Model - Future Cumulative Condition
FIGURE B-7: Peak Hour Demand (PHD) - With Project $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Future City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Recommended CIP (Pressure Zone 2)
From 2022 WMP, August 2022
Legend
Pressure
Less than 40 psi
40 to 60 psi
60 to 80 psi
80 to 100 psi
Greater than 100 psi
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
AR 5
23 AR 5
19 AR 5
24 AR 2-2
AR 2-3
AR 2-2
16 AR 5
AR 2-3
26 AR 1-5
AR 2-1
AR 1-1
AR 1-4
15 AR 5
AR 5
AR5
14 AR 3-3
AR 5
AR 5
AR 5
20 AR 1-5
18 AR 5
AR 1-3
17 AR 1-2
AR 1-5
Fire Flow Analysis - Without Project
Water System Model - Future Cumulative Condition
FIGURE B-8: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Future City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Fire Flow Deficiency
Legend
Recommended CIP
From 2022 WMP, August 2022
52 CIP Number
J-4461
J-4386
J-4362
J372
J-4277
"a "a
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 237

W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN AVE

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

CLYDE AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

EUNICE AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

SOUTH DR

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

E EL CAMINO REAL

LOGUE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

MORTON CT

GEST DR

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

LINCOLN DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

LASSEN AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

CHATHAM WAY

CENTRAL EXPY

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237 CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

BEGEN AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

CLYDE AVE

RT JONES RD
Turnout #7
Graham Reservoir
Turnout #14
Whisman Reservoir
AR 5
23 AR 5
19 AR 5
24 AR 2-2
AR 2-3
AR 2-2
16 AR 5
AR 2-3
26 AR 1-5
AR 2-1
AR 1-1
AR 1-4
15 AR 5
AR 5
AR5
14 AR 3-3
AR 5
AR 5
AR 5
20 AR 1-5
18 AR 5
AR 1-3
17 AR 1-2
AR 1-5
Fire Flow Analysis - With Project
Water System Model - Future Cumulative Condition
FIGURE B-9: $ 675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Location
Future City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Fire Flow Deficiency
Legend
Recommended CIP
From 2022 WMP, August 2022
52 CIP Number
J-4461
J-4386
J-4362
J372
J-4277
101
237

EASY ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

FAIRCHILD DR

GLADYS AVE

LOGUE AVE

SHERLAND AVE

NATIONAL AVE

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

LEONG DR
101

MOFFETT BLVD
F6-023.1 F6-027.1
F6-010.1
F6-029.1
F6-033.1
F6-037.1
F6-035.1
H6-026.1
F6-025.1
H6-010.1
F5-036.1
H6-024.1
G6-040.1
F6-019.1
G6-016.1
H6-012.1
G6-039.1
F6-031.1
F5-038.1
G6-021.1
F6-002.1
G6-014.1
G6-019.1
E5-005.1
F6-008.1 F6-006.1
F5-012.1
$
0 300 600 Feet
PWWF - Without Project
Sewer System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-10a:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 SEE FIGURE 10b FOR CONTINUATION
Surcharged
Not Surcharged
Surcharged - Deficient
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway

CHARLESTON RD

L' AVENIDA AVE

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

CRITTENDEN LN

PEAR AVE

MORGAN ST

SHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAY

N SHORELINE BLVD
101

ARMAND AVE
Stevens Creek

ALTA AVE

JOAQUIN AVE

RT JONES RD PARSONS AVE
B4-006.1
B5-003.1
D5-027.1 D5-015.1
E5-005.1 D5-029.1
B4-014.1
D5-014.1
B5-009.1
B4-020.1
B5-005.1
B5-002.1
B4-012.1
D5-008.1 C5-013.1
B4-010.1
B5-011.1
E5-014.1 E5-001.1 C5-004.1
B5-008.1
E5-016.1
B5-006.1
C5-011.1 C5-002.1
B5-001.1
D5-016.1
B4-018.1
B5-004.1
B4-016.1
$
0 360 720 Feet
PWWF - Without Project
Sewer System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-10b:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 SEE FIGURE 10a FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met
PS

SHORELINE

PUMP STATION
D5-025.1
E5-003.1
101
237

EASY ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

FAIRCHILD DR

GLADYS AVE

LOGUE AVE

SHERLAND AVE

NATIONAL AVE

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

LEONG DR
101

MOFFETT BLVD
F6-023.1 F6-027.1
F6-010.1
F6-029.1
F6-033.1
F6-037.1
F6-035.1
H6-026.1
F6-025.1
H6-010.1
F5-036.1
H6-024.1
G6-040.1
F6-019.1
G6-016.1
H6-012.1
G6-039.1
F6-031.1
F5-038.1
G6-021.1
F6-002.1
G6-014.1
G6-019.1
E5-005.1
F6-008.1 F6-006.1
F5-012.1
$
0 300 600 Feet
PWWF - With Project
Sewer System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-11a:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 Surcharged
Not Surcharged
Surcharged - Deficient
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
SEE FIGURE 11b FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met

CHARLESTON RD

L' AVENIDA AVE

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

CRITTENDEN LN

PEAR AVE

MORGAN ST

SHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAY

N SHORELINE BLVD
101

ARMAND AVE
Stevens Creek

ALTA AVE

JOAQUIN AVE

RT JONES RD PARSONS AVE
B4-006.1
B5-003.1
D5-027.1 D5-015.1
E5-005.1 D5-029.1
B4-014.1
D5-014.1
B5-009.1
B4-020.1
B5-005.1
B5-002.1
B4-012.1
D5-008.1 C5-013.1
B4-010.1
B5-011.1
E5-014.1 E5-001.1 C5-004.1
B5-008.1
E5-016.1
B5-006.1
C5-011.1 C5-002.1
B5-001.1
D5-016.1
B4-018.1
B5-004.1
B4-016.1
$
0 360 720 Feet
PWWF - With Project
Sewer System Model - Existing Condition
FIGURE B-11b:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 Surcharged
Not Surcharged
Surcharged - Deficient
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
PS

SHORELINE

PUMP STATION
SEE FIGURE 11a FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met
D5-025.1
E5-003.1
101
237

EASY ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

FAIRCHILD DR

GLADYS AVE

LOGUE AVE

SHERLAND AVE

NATIONAL AVE

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

LEONG DR
101

MOFFETT BLVD
F6-023.1 F6-027.1
F6-010.1
F6-029.1
F6-033.1
F6-037.1
F6-035.1
H6-026.1
F6-025.1
H6-010.1
F5-036.1
H6-024.1
G6-040.1
F6-019.1
G6-016.1
H6-012.1
G6-039.1
F6-031.1
F5-038.1
G6-021.1
F6-002.1
G6-014.1
G6-019.1
E5-005.1
F6-008.1 F6-006.1
F5-012.1
$
0 300 600 Feet
PWWF - Without Project
Sewer System Model - Future Condition
FIGURE B-12a:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 SEE FIGURE 12b FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Recommended CIP
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met

CHARLESTON RD

L' AVENIDA AVE

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

CRITTENDEN LN

PEAR AVE

MORGAN ST

SHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAY

N SHORELINE BLVD
101

ARMAND AVE
Stevens Creek

ALTA AVE

JOAQUIN AVE

RT JONES RD PARSONS AVE
B4-006.1
B5-003.1
D5-027.1 D5-015.1
E5-005.1 D5-029.1
B4-014.1
D5-014.1
B5-009.1
B4-020.1
B5-005.1
B5-002.1
B4-012.1
D5-008.1 C5-013.1
B4-010.1
B5-011.1
E5-014.1 E5-001.1 C5-004.1
B5-008.1
E5-016.1
B5-006.1
C5-011.1 C5-002.1
B5-001.1
D5-016.1
B4-018.1
B5-004.1
B4-016.1
$
0 360 720 Feet
PWWF - Without Project
Sewer System Model - Future Condition
FIGURE B-12b:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 PS

SHORELINE

PUMP STATION
SEE FIGURE 12a FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Recommended CIP
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met
D5-025.1
E5-003.1
101
237

EASY ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

FAIRCHILD DR

GLADYS AVE

LOGUE AVE

SHERLAND AVE

NATIONAL AVE

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

LEONG DR
101

MOFFETT BLVD
F6-023.1 F6-027.1
F6-010.1
F6-029.1
F6-033.1
F6-037.1
F6-035.1
H6-026.1
F6-025.1
H6-010.1
F5-036.1
H6-024.1
G6-040.1
F6-019.1
G6-016.1
H6-012.1
G6-039.1
F6-031.1
F5-038.1
G6-021.1
F6-002.1
G6-014.1
G6-019.1
E5-005.1
F6-008.1 F6-006.1
F5-012.1
$
0 300 600 Feet
PWWF - With Project
Sewer System Model - Future Condition
FIGURE B-13a:
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 SEE FIGURE 13b FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Recommended CIP
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met

CHARLESTON RD

L' AVENIDA AVE

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

CRITTENDEN LN

PEAR AVE

MORGAN ST

SHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAY

N SHORELINE BLVD
101

ARMAND AVE
Stevens Creek

ALTA AVE

JOAQUIN AVE

RT JONES RD PARSONS AVE
B4-006.1
B5-003.1
D5-027.1 D5-015.1
E5-005.1 D5-029.1
B4-014.1
D5-014.1
B5-009.1
B4-020.1
B5-005.1
B5-002.1
B4-012.1
D5-008.1 C5-013.1
B4-010.1
B5-011.1
E5-014.1 E5-001.1 C5-004.1
B5-008.1
E5-016.1
B5-006.1
C5-011.1 C5-002.1
B5-001.1
D5-016.1
B4-018.1
B5-004.1
B4-016.1
$
0 360 720 Feet
FIGURE B-13b: PWWF - With Project
Sewer System Model - Future Condition
675 and 685 E Middlefield Road Utility Impact Study April 2024 PS

SHORELINE

PUMP STATION
SEE FIGURE 13a FOR CONTINUATION
Sewer Pipe
Recommended CIP
Surcharged Sewer Pipe
Project Location
Legend
1486 Sewer Main Model ID
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
Freeboard Criteria Not Met
D5-025.1
E5-003.1