HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 89-010 PA 88-009.2 CC to impose a traffice impact fee- heritage commons RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IMPOSE A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
ON PA 88-009.2 - HERITAGE COMMONS
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 89 - 009, the Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council approve a Tentative Map for a Subdivision known as
Heritage Commons (PA 88-009.2), Tentative Map 5883 (hereafter "the proposed
development"); and
WHEREAS, one condition of approval of the Tentative Map (Condition No.
68) is that the developer pay a traffic impact fee to be used for traffic
facility improvements; and
WHEREAS, a report setting forth the impacts of the proposed development
on traffic through the year 2010 has been prepared by TJKM, along with an
analysis of the need of the public facilities and improvements required by
future development, consisting of a memorandum dated December 5, 1988 to Lee
Thompson from Michelle DeRobertis of TJKM, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
1 and incorporated herein (referred to herein as "the report"); and
WHEREAS, said report set forth the relationship between the proposed
development, the needed facilities and the estimated costs of the facilities;
and
WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was held for purposes of considering
adoption of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the report was available for public inspection and review more
than ten (10) days prior to this public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends that the Council adopt a resolution including, among other
provisions, the following:
1. The purpose of the said traffic impact fee is to mitigate the traffic
impacts caused by the proposed development by construction of certain
public facilities.
2. The public facilities to be constructed with the traffic impact fee
(referred to herein as "the public facilities") are identified in Exhibit
1, attached hereto and made a part hereof (Memorandum of December 5,
1988, from Michelle DeRobertis of TJKM to Lee Thompson, re Traffic
Mitigation Fee for Heritage Commons).
3. The traffic impact fee is needed in order to finance the public
facilities and to pay for the proposed development's fair share of the
construction of the improvements and will be used for these purposes.
4. The Council finds the fee to be consistent with the General Plan and,
pursuant to Government Code 65913.2, has considered the effects of the
fee with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the
Housing Element of the General Plan.
5. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance
the public facilities identified in Exhibit 1.
6. After considering the report prepared by TJKM (Exhibit 1), and the
testimony received at this public hearing, the Council approves and
adopts said report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that
the proposed development will generate additional demands on municipal
services.
[PA88-009.2:Reso PC (Traffic)]
-1-
7. The report and the testimony establish:
a. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facilities designated in Exhibit 1 and the impacts of the
proposed development for which the corresponding fee is charged;
b. That there is a resonable relationship between the fee's use and
the proposed development for which the fee is charged;
c. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public
facility attributable to the proposed development on which the fee
is imposed; and
d. That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit 1 are reasonable cost
estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected
to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total
costs of constructing the public facilities identified in
Exhibit 1.
8. The TJKM report (Exhibit 1) is a detailed analysis of how public services
will be affected by the proposed development, the existing deficiencies,
and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and
those deficiencies. The calculations and assumptions in the report can
reasonably be applied to the proposed development.
9. The method of allocation of the traffic impact fee to the proposed
development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the proposed
development's burden on, and benefit from, the facilities to be funded by
the fee.
10. A traffic impact fee in the amounts set forth in Exhibit 1 and Condition
No. 68 to Tract Map 5883 is hereby imposed, to be paid prior to filing
the final map for Tract 5883. The Council finds that Exhibit 1 is the
"plan" required by Government Code 53077.5.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 1989.
AYES: Commissioners Burnham, Mack and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Barnes and Oku
Planning Chair erson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
[PA88-009.2:Reso PC (Traffic)] -2-
7c, z' / w"
t�j`/!�/7 P/r!/r rr/r/�{if..�-'1+JfN.7t`C!r.,sr/"r.'/.�F✓'��,y/}y��y,'�j,+r,1f3ji3'1f pr f �, •
° �ya�i;�..frr._'aF,/•-��[�''�'��
/„ + 'ifre `r" ' 3 I('
�J''3�P i'Y, 3� �:WI r / ��~i g�s'""
4'W5 r� 0s;: i#7-c�/%1 ry>v � cr*R1H
s iiis.
n^�rC rr r „s//� ✓rA �s 'f j r
ist ✓ / ; � / 1 r rw'"'r`-.t " r * �s Jti FI '/.rrr f .,...� ✓ti of r,
•
•
rry �vi�r /� / �< /.
•
s a r - / ;µ.F•r i n 4#
r(1l'av�t'�"�+�`�i'Y,a1 j�wG r'a �iv'ar N✓ r N�✓e r ry V Ys..*,"'J l/l rli,.!' 1, j'r3.- •
RECEIYED
1 DEC 91988
MEMORANDUM DUBLIN PLANNING
DATE: December 5, 1988
TO: Lee Thompson
FROM: Michelle DeRobertis
SUBJECT: Traffic Mitigation Fee for Heritage Commons
This memo is to present the results of our analysis to determine appropriate traffic
mitigation fees for the second phase of the Coastfed Properties/Heritage Commons
residential project on Amador Valley Boulevard in the City of Dublin. The project
consists of 206 one,two and three bedroom multi-family residential units.
The traffic generated by the project has been estimated to impact several locations
in the City of Dublin. The project traffic along with cumulative traffic will
require that certain traffic improvements be implemented in order to accommodate
the future traffic.
1. The first improvement required as a result of project and cumulative
traffic is the widening of Dougherty Road from two lanes to six lanes
between Amador Valley Boulevard and Sierra Lane. The funding for
half of the new four lane section has already been committed by
another source. However, the cost to improve the remaining half of the
new four-lane road, and the cost to widen from a four-lane road to a
six-lane road as well as undergrounding the utilities (which are
currently located in what will be a travel lane of the six-lane road)still
remains unfunded. Therefore, the project should contribute to the cost
of these unfunded improvements in proportion to its share of the new
future traffic volumes. The cost of the road widening improvements is
estimated by the City Engineer to be $1,556,000 and the cost of
undergrounding the utilities is estimated to be S569,500, totalling
$2,125,500.
The Coastfed Properties Traffic and Transportation Study by Abrams
Associates, November 2, 1938, determined that the project will
contribute 318 vehicles per day to this section of Dougherty Road. The
future daily volumes on this section of Dougherty Road are projected to
be 34,100 in the year 2010.The existing average daily traffic volume on
this road segment is 12,900. Thus the increase in daily traffic is
21,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The project's contribution of 318 vpd is
1.5 percent of the total new future daily traffic volume. Therefore,the
project should contribute 1.5 percent of the cost of improving
Dougherty Road to a six-lane section,or$31,882.
2 The second improvement required to accommodate project and future
traffic is the widening of Dougherty Road from two lanes to six lanes
between the City limit and Amador Valley Boulevard. The funding for
three permanent lanes and one temporary lane of the required six-lane
section has already been committed by another source. However, the
Sg-D09
4637 Chabot Drive. - -
I 7-/
•
Tb ExExHiplip
E ic.
/ r /rJ ti .dr..;. ar i o `J l/ r1 1"ll � j.!
f ,w ,t, lY ,4'i�✓y�N�r�zi ii; rr.rji s 0t..,. 4 /
�{• 4 /
, 'i
7f4 r a tJrrsl `�140t1, , r�1r e17/y� � ' .s%:ue r, < r DS :fI
j , JfS i' � ; i ! t i
4 //% • i • k ` s 1 1 f
;;t/vz SKY ?„ + t/ rv4/ :�.11yrN1M # p� ' r<! r f �� / !J r ,
r. � . !L�rryf� �,-/v / rgf =n1".6S^%f: ', 1je iV5si4u � . ; i
rc r !" 5-. il'i:, r+i�l. tr/ ci:• /? O'4';(4 �` y .rr s .% r
<J J ; !t µ s •� r 7r, /!'ax -1 r 1 y rf / , r
t/ S /
, .4 Y{r! .-S irr {Mv prr ! r • '
/ y i ,pgrfr . :,c.ti .,,,,ren a• •e r 7r .i ,. d t
r`�Y '�f ?• 7 $ v4v y, pt+� r 9,.l + t:rA a s .147)-- y .1
• : 71 ^ 1..-..ty n g.::17..nr, � 4.is-....&d. .. ✓ ..�t1-,k� -:...V 1il&f.
.s.-
Lee Thompson -2- — December 5, 1988
cost to widen from a four-lane road to a six-lane road still remains
unfunded. Therefore, the project should contribute to the cost of these
unfunded improvements in proportion to its share of the additional
future traffic volumes. The estimated cost of these improvements is
$2,332,000.
The Coastfed Traffic Study projected that 80 project trips would use
Dougherty Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The future
estimated daily traffic on this section of Dougherty Road in the year
2010 is 24,100. The existing traffic volume is 5300,so the net increase
in traffic is 18,800 vpd. The project traffic would be 0.4 percent of
this additional future traffic. Therefore, the project should contribute
0.4 percent of the cost of the improvements or$9,328.
3. The third improvement required as a result of project and cumulative
traffic volumes is the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection
of Amador Valley Boulevard and`Amador Plaza Road. The
methodology for determining the proportionate cost sharing of this
improvement was developed previously for the Rainbow Investments
mitigation fee in our memo dated October 25, 1988 and will be
reiterated here.
The future traffic volumes at the intersection of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road were determined for the Downtown
Dublin Improvement Plan Study of 1986. These volumes included the
traffic generated by all approved developments as well as all future
developments that could be accommodated in Downtown Dublin,
including BART. The future volumes at this intersection were
compared to the existing volumes to determine the total number of
incremental trips as of February, 1986,the time of the downtown study.
In 1986, there were 2,199 p.m. peak hour trips through the intersection
of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. The future
traffic projections at buildout at the intersection are 3,087 p.m. peak
hour trips. This is an increase of 888 p.m.peak hour trips.
The projected total cost of the signal at Amador Valley Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road, is $127,766 (see attachment). Therefore, the cost
of each peak hour trip through the intersection is $144, ($127,766
divided by 888 peak hour trips).
This mitigation fee of $144 per p.m. peak hour trip through the
intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road was
applied to the peak hours trips projected for the Coastfed development.
The Abrams Associates traffic study projected that 53 project trips
would travel through the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project
should contribute 53 X S144 = $7,632 toward the cost of this traffic
signal.
4. The fourth improvement required as a result of project and cumulative
traffic volumes is the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection
of Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue.
The future traffic volumes at the intersection of Village Parkway and
Lewis Avenue were determined for the Downtown Dublin Improvement
Plan Study of 1986. These volumes included the traffic generated by
! •.i/I•�i '/)r.t 'iH.yr 1 r'..I% .TrM:, (J�j +s"'r1 • /� i „ , „r yrl • ...
r✓" I/f� y/[� y;�ii;'•VII.,7; �;•iYalHr'il,...,5, /4 f q lr'' ;7','tx r.y ;As rC�/r ris�•'•.'1/r r lvi,7 , -r.••
l+ jfIOW,
ro' / 1 ��/J,`•i'-ll.%f4 A 1i,',%;'f/'7�'f:%`. -r.-',ll 9.%4, �:-•// 'try/ / S '{I� /�/ fr/44.I r y r�� -
ttfi'" cei �� ]Wed', ,, '3 Ny '✓/ is''!,•%Pi' !'i, 19"I ! ;:t ' �fy r j r,r /j o•' l�j�'.'/s ✓/� / •+,,i�// J' r r Y r H T J ! ✓r it .er ' j'P✓« y1V /r��.o, /. ✓p7`,,I; /'.:qy,�(a•r %✓.�; -� „I
r%7•/ / f� "�' ` 4`J y' fj /�.✓✓ �bt.)L�If +� A. 1•' /f /i J.J' /r .rr/ G� /• ,�i1�` 1'`�`1`ti r , p%�Y '�jry �fr�1.�r ;.�� j , �. �`rrtir.'�+r f r. i y 5;I+rh.. e ,:r ; '•:
f/ / ry, r'e �N /'Z,/jjJ.r,� 1!:rir X", /6 r r'r%/;'* f n;Ti it j.:,''•• i4..r ,44�*i, y� �iI n ,� .::',' / .
•1r • ,;, ij l 7f!"{ (� ,i �Y 1! 44�, J." //•i' i i7zec ; fir . e ••i! r { f r�Jr/ 'r y� i t:'/ .• : ' '.
�,A ,✓iY r g% .. ,',ST ,j"r'fii /, r ,,-J,.r,ylw-/ ::far,✓' ✓(,:,f/'I--'r ' ; ;;4. ,,/� I �,'7r' ✓. ry/.,r; r: ,
.4:{�i ,-,IfiGj'r-t, /'r, l k;-'•P t; z, l." A••-4' •br7��%r :f= ",,ii-,.,.., ►J. i�r/ i�; '1/y7J,;f/Afie4 /y r/'1�-.';', r, r � - /,
;+�,47, ii... •r,,ry,i/,7,,,' .•�"•y%t t ✓. 1,,t�,^,v r /' i .,%4 �;' :,.,,f ,.� ,/, I: p,r'e"'!.%•,.- ..( - / rN!/l rY Jr{�:,,rf'•7;•"•%' :
!, ,- fir I 7} I t. V y,.vr %.r'd' f..�h 4 r'i ,,,;j r f , ,; ' ,• , J r,.y .,. Y �, : %•• s•:4 ,,,.rrr' `;•t •;,,,,,l .t''t'�f ✓,,,e.'•Y.✓04,, ,tirs'..';{!r•.,.. i
. 4 : ! "rr•'r rr� v .J , . ; , • '{='=`«,�' -�� .f<.:,./�( l�t,��jy�f.;!+s'y;;�: r r / 1y4
';.•/ a'ri3t0'.., (,y .,J.q•.:,�,yr•.+'7*
7 ' ;; • '• r r '+f 'f'r s,fJ'•t !r J:� tri ?f s ,,/..; /."''�;t;
/ /., ' '✓i .rsl •y/•/:4; /J/ J/ f.iL'•/./ J '' f fit M / r,tu,Z•r '/1:. j.:/
•r!'Ji/ti: r,„ .. /"'�'f:. ! s,'-✓ r7,,,;4 r t '✓ f i^'+f i',i!•/�•••'i,trl i % �: :,t f.. ,j�'• r'�/ 'f r'y. �.^'. /�✓ i t !
p r„•r•,r ••,�,. 444 /r,rt r,4,..i ,f"Y'vr t/s , s.r• t if, `;' r;7• f %�L.c, sG'/ i��� ,t--• :r
� r f t r ! .r::l r +' "' :� ✓ •y31 •. f 71 ,s L'7f 1•'c t •f
W ry µ 1"�f A y .�,�Q /(/ � ��, I✓ t ' .•% ' '� ✓ r 'ar J�t �,v•N•Mj'l.: y' 1� rir Y •:.
.i:.rK'Y,- *.% e.te' �J•A`I:Yt 1. r•.eas R•,FSy Vsjr.✓r. . atrn f.. ��./`. .al: )✓', A.j. Y�.: .tt
..c,/t w• i.:. ., - af•+..f...d �ZF ��Ii✓.•'rtlfQ�� •.���`r�' rn�/
Lee Thompson -3- _ December 5, 1988
all approved developments as well as all future developments that could
be accommodated in Downtown Dublin, including BART. The future
volumes at this intersection were compared to the existing volumes to
determine the total number of incremental trips as of February, 1986,
the time of the downtown study. In 1986, there were 1826 p.m. peak
hour trips through the intersection of Village Parkway and Lewis
Avenue. The future projection at build-out through this intersection is
2,278 p.m. peak hour trips. This is an increase of 452 p.m. peak hour
trips.
The projected total cost of the signal at Village Parkway and Lewis
Avenue is approximately $97,700 (see attachment). Therefore, the cost
that each new peak hour trip through the intersection should contribute
is $97,700 / 452 = $216. The Abrams Associates report projected that
31 p.m. peak hour trips would travel through the intersection of Village
Parkway and Lewis Avenue. Therefore, the project should contribute
31 X $216 = $6,696 to the cost of this signal.
5. The fifth improvement is the restriping and associated widening of
Dublin Boulevard from four to six lanes between Village Parkway and
Donlon Way. The estimated cost of this improvement is $870,000.
Dublin Boulevard is projected to carry an average of 30,100 vpd in the
year 2010 between Village Parkway and Donlon Way. The existing
average daily traffic volume on this road segment is 21,575. Thus the
increase in daily traffic is 8,525 vpd over present volumes. The project
is estimated to contribute 159 vpd to Dublin Boulevard or 1.9 percent of
the additional future traffic. Therefore, the project should contribute
1.9 percent of the cost of the improvement or S870,000 X 0.019 =
$16,530.
6. The sixth roadway improvement is widening Dougherty Road to six
lanes between the S.P.R.R. tracks and Dublin Boulevard. The estimated
cost of this improvement is S870,000.
This section of Dougherty Road is projected to carry 32,100 vpd in the
year 2010. The existing average daily traffic volume on this road
segment is 18,800 vpd. Thus, the increase in daily traffic is 13,300 vpd
over present volumes. The project is estimated to contribute 270 vpd to
Dougherty Road or two percent of the additional future traffic.
Therefore, the project should contribute two percent of the cost of this
improvement or S870,000 X 0.02 = S17,400.
7. The seventh roadway improvement is the construction of the parallel
road to Dublin Boulevard between Regional Street and Amador Plaza
Road. The estimated cost of this improvement is S3,000,000.
The parallel road to Dublin Boulevard is projected to carry
approximately 5,000 vpd. Since this road does not currently exist, all
5,000 trips would be new trips. The project is estimated to contribute
8 vpd to the parallel road or 0.16 pcicent of the traffic. Therefore, the
project should contribute 0.16 percent of the cost of this road
improvement or $3,000,000 X 0.0016 = $4800.
.aaw�✓r/is..varasrrrrwna�.L+ar.rw�awmwuwrr w
147„;;;4/45.f,:e,.:41)3 $4 f, , 7 4,101-44 4 ;1"f'/Z.0 40,17V7'' 'Ath 4ScriPr.4 v•F # 1 i ?'5,.„yr 6,-,.•,-•,,:•;y.-;;• ,•It--- ..
g�[�� lj/r „�r,r,A, / i ��µ/�y � `vol
111,-./� . s 14-''11rf�-0 ,7,V.P!..1..7
, 'ry,! yJ,4 r;J y/,' y .'.•
, 5 i.f..,%t f.h lsa,/ te
o. i .4, 1 / i i✓4�+. 1jr, / f/ :/J�i ,/� "3�f• :. �1 `' ++ 'r Y ,L r,f,.�,�,,.�1 T/y'I Y.r��2,f� ♦ "�/ r �r u, , 1_4, }''ram•. 4 /7 r'/IT!' / -'!J Jti /r• ,,4,� r'J•Y�,111��fir.��t P,1�� fk`/�y.� �c.,J � � �y�4ra .,1�.�,,,�;,t'f�,,.�'i,;�`t�'.-�9/;� ,gip j�s! '� �!C,jr�jr/i9,,},7•']�'Y� r , ,,,
+' /''`i,r4f'` �l :•', ,�x �1lie •. 7 y �J/u mow. • .�, �`,.P0—-d.o' " �/4*// 'rY j y'i ✓ Q/Yi„;•i-••fe / 'ii, .t .r„f.L../• '' ,,
.' r II ��»,�,,•yf �•{ ,f4 fil.!/` 'A% T �'j4 �{• �.rF�fr,Y.ft+'l �jl�.��✓i���,� ,1'f�F, � %^y.,J7r% rl.'f�r~�`ifA-�%
rrw Y•''' I'-,w : ,{s�ji ;;., '.��.Tey1. �l ff f r.?,?;, ',/.q1'I,(fir' /' �� f ✓jif J.•j.% s r' /i, ,.f ( • • -
1"r 7 �i IPA; e?%' l/ter' 1C.' -r,.. '� G" { f �` 1
.. .{ ,�/ . Y!+ i• ai:� � •t.J.v N f,�,L .�'•/ y,./ 1'+' ✓<l"y.�/'f� ♦r:wi t } �.:+1 }'/� ✓+ y,' � -
J' A • / -}�'S•M� .� / q fX,( . ,:r i� �: •,.fP... .+.t�y � r/.f'I: _ s;y, �• . ;,
�i+ w'�T ,�i + ( /If i +.,f '-^I":i Y y+'y..,n f;'v �9 /7."',j.y. / f .+i<S?.�..... [ ✓ , '
., '!- r' . .+/ -..i. f+ ,r'+ ! y J,•S +,,'1 •r'ii'' . -,./f;JA .fly. �i-N,;i '�+ ,N/ ,'"f '
`!r•„ y� �..+ / , ./Slf f,4 fj..f! ;��Cy..+:•��a yJ .{�Jj i. ter..- .�iM j�� �i. � , r
•.r . + r r j '�+ r,41•" ��iY( ?,c•.- ,A, •v'. •,1'1{ifry C,/-sa /5,5� -y r�'r:44 /V:f% • '4~+/+►c -"i !'���+ `�.. '��✓ i'I
`—'t!% ;'I"/.:*- f I 4'7 0"1:�.+•'�'/ •.z.,"1 Ai'ItAil ,tr-Zr.+�1%.g Fwn- C�a ..i .. i..'r "yr.±./'kl ( Z....i.�fr&e.
a
Lee Thompson -4- - December 5, 1988
ro
P 8. The eighth road improvement is the relocation of the I-580 westbound
offramp at San Ramon Road. The estimated cost of this improvement is
S500,000.
E The I-580 westbound offramp is projected to carry 18,000 vpd, an
W. increase of 11,700 vpd over present volumes. No project traffic is
estimated to use this off-ramp. Therefore, the project should not
a contribute any funds to this road improvement.
`1.4:
• 9. The ninth road improvement is the road on the S.P.R.R. right-of-way
connecting Dougherty Road' to the westerly extension of Dublin
'. Boulevard. The estimated cost of this improvement is $3,100,000.
The road on the S.P.R.R right-of-way is projected to carry 12,400 vpd.
Since this road does not currently exist, all 12,400 trips would be new
trips. The project is estimated to contribute 48 vpd to this road or
0.4 percent of the traffic. Therefore,' the project should contribute
0.4 percent of the cost of this road improvement or S3,100,000 X 0.004 =
S12,400.
•
•
and/md
Attachments
157-001
•
is
•
•
• -• \ ••J •
j ,iSrx'!w ''r".A..` 'fie" rf;n''">,•w•+.".:1'"a ,..e.= .r>a�..ofinrtsr iuc s ....;.7..,.7..�—..:...7..,,....�.,...w....-�. ,... .�.
>i ( , r. I Mi. //1„ ,,I`. ht'iJti'. / rr O' r"/.S� ,I ...'. / r/' >r uJ' r ,,t r/r,�!'Ma 1,;');-
'r >
'7 �1i>1cr. f i 'F %I /://.J,0. iii• A.j.:J+/,� �•i'� fA �ii �� i,1,�i; 1 il'A'./ ''t! s //?`^,Ili 4 ii.1 13jipt;�,`,lT�.j'VIi14,.,ie /r r a�,, 7 ,,'.4151, /;,,' Gf J%,;r,r ,;%1
�M '//;1'"J,.,s .2� 'r,+, , ( r�,� /''r � i 4/r i U✓ / �'r,r y ��1j
i �o. /r�- �PP�'.°�y .P ( -y> �.. w
N,' ,i'/f+�%•/i � �r '_,/ ,0. `..i '�' > '7 J-y%!')f"///-�/'r/ %�:{•
fk p,7 p/d ' ��'�/ /I� 1�i ` •7f !�` f``I�, �. y ,. ,,f, . / ;; ry,! , 1, { rayHf� s;1.f>":>.,,, .57,iff �+,•.; �((t .V, r ;i d 4 .St' i �wd�fl'-i'''�sr, r- �l / ,. buy�ly�ji� �: G tJV',A,r"S.11). S
., w�f' � I JA ./' �.f,.{/ i, i% i ��l��yi. 1�..,7�> lAyr. A�' .,�.i/.! I> .lei ;[,�.,t� �>,�'1%%, •'.
Y , �1.1+t/' 'r+I: ;1 6' 7'l�•; 1 cl r/,'1a tet., / f1�,1 "-I4*/w', J Y fl{'. �' y/.J. .>.,•!' ,r Y/i/• ;riltl /:';.'. :!
f 2{+.. .y '' � /i ,."I. �/yr:Jf��r ��'�r /� '� / s/' / .".:r' J/'. �• /:,� � �''i.,,/. fJ,!i ,!
14 /lJ f, 0r/I f.✓;% .; r t110,1i+1,..,:rj: •'1i,� >/jrir /`f.; 11 g $vC f ,•s"rr'.. �. :
s''n ;�y,;l'r�i"i,'fl,'f� y,. 1%1/,���5 /;; �/!r„.tS,,�lf/lY,.' ,'',�',1 /1•';'!'���.-�f:fis:' ;/><• ff�i'„�� /tr,:� : � / �lf,+�J,',i;-'F; J',>' .;� ,,' •t
.1, /f>f 1 J•7 /;""'rJ, ,is 1 lir Jk Y G' e'' 3/17,;, /+ 1!4.f i 2• /.jY'I 1Zy r� �ri / t .;IrI • •,.r ti;.,
,,iyr ,.r / r,' ;',4 1,"7,. /•1.%/'\'•f'i.�r '5,4 J�'I"! �: / � F�„� '� /y',', �L, .f:/ �rK �., 'y i�',",, I/ . d - s; a� J•,`t' >!✓r r. /•' ",
,{ �r� J�✓ e,�,'/r/, r. ' > �it, J/r!✓/ 47,L„,/ > h.,fir f r ° �,��~.L: / /�1'',.
.,,f��.' J r- !�� "� i y �yy ( 1 /,/'IA:..,/•i) �!///�,/1'- y, /. a1.7. �.• Iti .' � I. - ".
`• ,:. ..% I 4, tr/:s'r,,M✓,r y, ii ,�,A 11, �✓1 «,'�,/r/' r •�� r > / •� / '�J• t ,y /.!-j l�
'�::••1✓.�fjr4'/ ♦ffl f fr•.%i'/l �r,1r' /�t4 •i ,1, »�Ly �,/t.ri//�/�I'r .l.�j )..'f.rr... N+:�'., r/ ./sA1 .. .. i ti /. ./ 1
ity ,y /+A/.1%:. 4 'y / i'`,.;;; .,'s ,w; 2 >'' 4., y 1 7� /Yr L' /
� /.Y.r .I%..., � .i 'y,' I" i•rC.h4��p1.+, } Z f rr � •�r, f i, /}�y �r � , /', 9. ..'' r'
!r r (/� ,� '1/ 7% f. 1 i';/, r ��I yJ7'� fi L ;• 7 •I y r r , ,�,
� i '� ., )r�:.1 S�l.�7 si . "/' ��/� �. .r/S,c /I��r'r- Yry.,a �( ,y `✓, �' � ',"f'. i1 - � a'
/; 'e, tC�+s- `, r� •. a.. .,4, ll.,wA:i VAn1},a�-11;;/+'4.44'1,..f,44 W,S ��y7'K!r•2µ1Ni %- * irass..}1' ..4: , , _ '
Y ,' ►,fit'}'/t�'r t r"w. i° "al 8.� 011 7�7!'3'' ' '.�(!.!f l �t' '.11'mote
fls • .tf Lfi�f'F•••f . .:ri,i ,.,..,:�•:i
•
SIGNAL COSTS
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. AT AMADOR PLAZA
i
1 Mobilization $ 600
j Signal 63,400
! Clear & Grub 500
Sidewalk Removal 840
1 Island Removal 4,360
Pavement Removal 8;000
i AC Sawcut "275
i PCC Sawcut 41
F. Full Pavement Section 19,436 .
• Construction Staking 1,250
Planing Keycut 3,019
AC Overlay 2,368
PCC Curb 4,875 ••
t Curb & Gutter 64 j
4
Sidewalk 424
Handicap Ramp 400
Driveway 900
Relocate Roadway Sign 400
Roadway Sign 425
Striping 2.500
114,077
Engineering/Insp. 12% 13.689
TOTAL: $ 127,766
•
•
•
,.. - ,,rn' li / �;, tr.- ,•,e';::•fyM•;''1 r• • 1,V I. s :•,Vl,ii ,�.,r 1•�r• ;< l$4t/ 44' 'n' .f.4,;r/,. , �r'
t,.:• . t �;,(� J r r,11.; r'rA,/,✓j/41'•, 61f 1-ro.!'.•!, a V w �'M� JI�;;;',4 /'�jr✓�J 1t -rti .k /� :. `.1.'4 <-1 ,r,
i f '// r � ,,Yi :,�,r�1"; ! J'• ��f �' / /' /'i/' �,o,. �. �':.(r, T�M /��'�/ r f
�'.��� FSJ ll1 ,/ �-:w• 'I/ `f ����,��/���, . l r1 f�2S"� Y r../ 1 ftf�%/ f ,f' ,/ ry ,4n.�j i,4 '.
✓iJ�t j Vie, Z ,'6•l�Y' S r µ {{y/�, /-. /�� /. Y.,i� 4� J, jam. . .h/�„.•,(J�r„q�0r r�lr?w fe,,� 'i ¢7,t, C i � �'r ;' '/1" ! 1 vL�4.7fN%� .4 ' / ...e// {� /7 r 44 I' L .
♦ ,i�` lid r �� ,, .• ,,//,, ,, t. /4;ei,, f ! D.i�i'" ',rl r-d! [ '��W,tJt// , .- rt� _Jr i ,. dr.
7 ;;..,.s-fi✓�� ,,(- , „ 1•f,, ;, J s'/ ,► ,,...a,/1� wA, , , �S'��.,. µ. /fl7"� .,'. ar 1' •". .l¢f'1 « +y I' t" F4 J (4 ,�'�r /l ' .r„'::. -' `%�. i $ f f' ;� 1 '/r !' a // . "r
'/•„' •✓• .rn ♦, i f ,lrl/.,n r . �, � /x" If f „�,nf a .�,w. ,j'
1/i. i.,.•r, r'e�<I�Yrfy l I ••�+ rr r 1 r i/l''rr"'/��r ✓d/^•vf,�2•r ''r,?�1.+////fit S,rI/rr l.. .;• / 1./I�'�"." *b"r u,1�,b'l'.v /•f..+
,ri ', .1;,;:? t H?l 1 ;i ;ih:,i �,�✓ vJ.!d, "r•'/'•.a..q•! J 1/.r. a• J vri,� t.. v .a'�i;rf' z,' Sq, /� e ;� i
fl ,I::%' / •� l . < �/f+A.,�. 5dy J �• .�� /.s.�J r y.. / J-'t ��;Ij./i�3t/f"ryy'Y�g1t7"Y� r�� ,� �3f.-'�,.,
/, f"' • r r -' ," r !. /, r;kr"' qw , r'41.'':-,%,', r• /. (. _�' rYJ s' lr'* /. i J
;� .0 �,r r Yrrr"'!j•✓%F/,, t • )"; !,.'�l'?✓/1'4SJ/wl'%!��.^ .!,/T(/ 'y: .�yr,t.!�ia:'f��,wJv�1:,��%I
i '�/ryYd'.;✓ �.Z%:f �!!r, t
j r I '' �rY!!J.' „ q !' ry/„ • /�/ ,,, �t. !✓/' ,.•t z/.., ti,' y;���:r� Jr J r'r�i•,,,/j .. /".,,,. �r ��
r may✓ r /1t' -'✓ � 7' j r.' Y , •t y', r i, /7 i!r. ! 1 -., r i•�✓ h,� %'v;J �.(l/''ljj/
• r'. t ,•t • ',.J- ., , / , r.-4`,!',',,l;;/ Ji:'
" ' ', ✓,Z , �i t ,rj•4 y';•'f,e F/f f'� ♦ Ci,.Y,N.4l t,j,/ .Li..;1-�' l
•.v.i., /',.. r J J li""' . r J. �JJ .J/ ./ ;�„-+i ✓/f• ! 'l� lr. t '�" 7
r f- rs• .; '/".' J f r y ,, a • f t I.'4i,;-; f r 1%jl/st.%47**/i',/J},-;1i^('
,y. .r 1..• / r 1 t' ,, Jt•I'' .Y r >.• % • fin. . . ✓?--, ,1t ; t - f, -: •,/ I .w/ -1 1
e r /' ::: l J f' •. ' /l 'I p,;,,i ,t ✓/S,/ -, t j . t./ l c,k't Y , •
f''/.f i'!,S 1 r ,;,,,,�;,i,,.+ / # ,/;4 ,,f _ /r t,.y74 !.) -r r.,i/t lyt`'V"✓;.7,1`�/'!1`""'.7'1 /+'•�•�$.,4,/Y',Y..i• y�f4,.^� _I•.Jtr ;-'.= t
^fl• f Ir ii. ti ''�J�r�-/�� w<, J �f C w,� ;� J 1'/ / r. !' Li< • dt,� )Y�' r"" ,1
r •.'i';,' 7•=; .a,1'<.r'!'.✓,, was, ;.L",.J,.U6'1,oy.'.trn�'Ci''. .':`....— ...7',..-...r. s.f...n 4f1L' I.4-i`.' '' '.. �0 '' r .�1'O(j!K,�J...� .. la^t� '� .�.�.`3''.a1
•
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
' Date: December 2, 1988 D E C
1988
•
To: Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM TJKM
From: Rich Lierly, Asst. City Engineer
Subject: Signal Costs - Village Parkway at Lewis Ave.
Following is a breakdown of costs for the above traffic signal:
•
Mobilization $ . . 900
Signal = 69,000
Clear and Grub 100
•
Sidewalk Removal 800
Pavement Removal 1,427
AC�+Sawcut 275
PCC Sawcut 90
Construction Staking 500
Curb & Gutter 64
Sidewalk 424
Handicap Ramp 400
Driveway 900
Striping 1,000
Traffic Control 1,300
Interconn. Conduit 2" 1,500
• Interconn. Conduit 1 1/2" 5,500
Interconn. Pull Box 625
Interconn. Cable 2,400
Subtotal: 87,205.00
Engr./Inspection 12% 10,464.60
Total: 97,669.60 •
• • Rounded Total: 97,700.00
•
Also, Trudi wanted you to know that Dougherty Road north of Amador
• Valley is already undergrounded. If you have any questions, please let me
know.
RCL/gr
•
I '
.1
.i '
•
�: