Mountain View City Council
May 24, 2022

SENT VIA EMAIL
Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
March 16, 2022 650-253-0000 main
Google.com
Eric Anderson
Principal Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Re: 02/28/2022 East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Meeting Dear Mr. Anderson:

Based on our general understanding of what the East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP) Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Nexus Study) may cover, thank you for the oppo unity to provide our
general comments to the City prior to the City’s release of the Nexus Study in April. As you know, the California Mitigation Fee Act requires that City impact fees have a reasonable relationship to the impact created by new development. The following summarizes our general comments on the proposed Nexus Study.

I. Transpo
ation Project Comments
Comments on the proposed transpoation project list, cost allocation, and fee assessment methodologies are provided below.
(a) Transpoation Project List Comments
● We respecully request that the City provide a project description (scope) and an itemized cost estimate (i.e., rough order of magnitude (ROM)) for each of the transpoation projects listed in the Nexus Study. Our review of this information will assist in our overall evaluation and comments to the Nexus Study and ultimately to the proposed fee levels (as it will be based on these cost estimates).
● The proposed Nexus Study project list suggests that new development will fund 100% of improvements at the Ellis Street/Fairchild Drive intersection. However, as described on Page 107 of the Transpo
ation Analysis for East Whisman Precise Plan(Fehr & Peers, August 2019):
“the City considers these improvements infeasible due to several considerations including right-of-way, funding constraints, the limited space under the existing bridge structure to accommodate vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian use, and a need to accommodate light rail and freight rail tra
c.” Therefore, improvements at the Ellis Street/Fairchild Drive intersection should be excluded from the Nexus Study project list given the City of Mountain View’s recent determination that improvements at this intersection are infeasible.

Attachment 6
1 of 4
● Biggs Cardosa Associates (BCA) is currently preparing preliminary design concepts and rough-order of magnitude cost estimates for the planned pedestrian and bicycle bridge across the light-rail tracks just no
h of Middleeld Station. ROM cost estimates generated
from the BCA study should be used to inform the cost estimates assumed for the bridge project in the Nexus Study.
(b) Transpo
ation Project Cost Allocation Methodology Comments
● Does the cost allocation methodology dier between vehicle capacity projects (e.g., intersection improvements) and multimodal transpoation projects (e.g., active transpoation improvements)? How is vehicle miles traveled (VMT) incorporated into the cost allocation methodology?
● The Nexus Study determines that 100% of the costs for building improvements at intersections listed in Table 1 must be funded by new development. However, page 99 of theTranspo ation
Analysis for East Whisman Precise Plan(Fehr & Peers, August 2019) concludes that new development in the EWPP area would not trigger any Level of Service (LOS) adverse eects under Existing with Project conditions on any of the intersections identied in the Nexus Study.

Pages 101 - 111 of the EWPP transpoation analysis do however identify LOS adverse eects due to new development under Background with Project and Cumulative with Project Conditions, which indicates that background tra
c growth from new developments outside
the EWPP area also contribute to the adverse eects at the listed intersections (see Table 1).

Therefore, new development in the EWPP area should only be responsible for costs that bear a reasonable relationship to that development, but not 100% of the costs.

Table 1: Identi
ed Intersection LOS Adverse Eects in East Whisman Precise Plan ID Intersection
EWPP Intersection LOS Adverse Eects
Existing with
Project
Background
with Project
Cumulative
with Project
1 Ellis Street/Manila Avenue ✔ ✔
4 Ellis Street/Fairchild Drive ✔
9 Middleeld Road/Whisman Road ✔
10 Middleeld Road/Ellis Street ✔
27 Middleeld Road/Moe Boulevard ✔
39 Whisman Road/State Route 237 Ramps ✔
Source: Transpoation Analysis for East Whisman Precise Plan(Fehr & Peers, August 2019) 2 of 4
● According to the Metropolitan Transpoation Commission’s pavement condition index (PCI) database , the streets within the EWPP area listed below have segments that are currently1 rated as “Failed/Poor” and/or “At Risk”, which are considered existing deciencies. Under the Mitigation Fee Act and California judicial authority, existing deciencies cannot be covered under development impact fees. As such, the development impact fee cost allocations aributed to new development for improvements along these streets should exclude the costs of repaving the segments (existing deciencies) with an existing PCI less than 60 (categorized as “Failed/Poor” or “At Risk”).
○ Middleeld Road
○ Noh Whisman Road
○ National Avenue
○ Ellis Street
○ Clyde Cou
○ Logue Avenue
○ Clyde Avenue
○ Ravendale Drive
○ Maude Avenue
● The cost allocation methodology should apply cost adjustments for residential and retail uses given that both uses are anticipated to increase trip internalization (and reduce vehicle trips) generated by new development within the EWPP area. This is another reason why VMT should be incorporated into the cost allocation methodology as increased housing near jobs and more locally-serving retail near housing are expected to reduce average vehicle trip lengths for residential and retail uses (with a corresponding reduction in local VMT per capita). ● As described on Page 1 of the Transpo
ation Analysis for East Whisman Precise Plan(Fehr &
Peers, August 2019), the EWPP assumes that 2,200,000 GSF of existing oce/R&D/industrial space will be re-built and occupied as new oce space. Page 91 of the EWPP states that new and rebuilt oce space will be subject to peak hour vehicle trip caps. Given that existing oce/R&D buildings generate substantially higher peak hour vehicle trips than forecasted trip rates for future rebuilt oces subject to the EWPP cap, how are existing trip credits accounted for in the cost allocation methodology?
(c) Transpoation Project Impact Fee Assessment Comments ● Existing building square footage to be demolished and rebuilt should not be assessed a fee if the building has been occupied within
ve years prior to the date in which the fee is assessed, consistent with Mountain View’s Municipal Code provisions on Citywide Transpoation Impact Fees, which apply to “new development [that] generates additional residents, employees, and structures,” and for which Mountain View credits “existing land uses being replaced or demolished.” (Mountain View Municipal Code, Sec. 43.3.b, 43.4.b.5.) Fu hermore, the fee must
also account for the dierence in vehicle trips generated by existing buildings vs. future re-built buildings subject to the EWPP trip cap.
● The EWPP Development Fee Program should provide the exibility to assess transpoation impact fees for new developments based on the two methodologies listed below. The lowest transpo
ation impact fee assessed between Method 1 and Method 2 should be the fee required for a new development application. Specically, new developments that propose implementation of eective TDM programs that reduce vehicle trip generation below trip rates assumed in the Nexus Study should pay discounted transpoation impact fees. 1 Website: https://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition 3 of 4
○ Method 1 (Trip-Based Method): assess fee based on the net-new peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development according to a trip generation study of the project. Method 1 incentivizes new developments to implement eective TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips, which suppos the City’s sustainability goals and the East Whisman Precise Plan’s goal of minimizing vehicle trips. ○ Method 2 (Unit-Based Method): assess fee based on net-new dwelling units (or per square-foot) for residential uses and per net-new square-foot for non-residential uses.

II. Recycled Water Project Comments
● The Project team looks forward to reviewing the Recycled Water Master Plan and will evaluate impact fees for proposed projects at that time.

III. Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Project Comments
● Easement Between Ellis Street and B Street - the EWPP Utility Impact Study (UIS) identi es line
1377 as “Additional Recommended Capital Improvement Project (CIP)” on Figure B-16a but is not a recommended CIP on other
gures in the Appendix (e.g. Figure B-15a). Can you please clarify the dierence in this paicular classication in the repo versus “Recommended CIP”? Additionally, this section of sewer main was identied as “decient” in the existing condition which would suggest that this CIP would be funded through both Existing and New Development Impact Fees.
● Ellis Street No
h or East Middleeld Road - Per the EWPP UIS, two pipe segments are identied as being upsized as pa of a previous CIP. The linear footage associated with this CIP should be 396 LF, not 1,083 LF as currently indicated in the Fee Study.

We look forward to reviewing the EWPP Nexus Study when it is released in April.

Sincerely,
Michael Tymo
Director, District Development
Google LLC
Cc: Renee Gunn, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Mountain View Lindsay Hagan, Deputy Zoning Administrator, City of Mountain View 4 of 4