The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 - 1132 Western Dublin TIF Update Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 6, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Update to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (formerly known as “Downtown Traffic Impact Fee”) and Update to the City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider an update to the City’s Downtown Traffic Impa ct Fee, including related amendments to ensure consistency with the City’s Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines. Additionally, the update will include a new name, the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, reflecting the fact that the fee is applicable to all of the areas of Dublin west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. This item was continued twice from two different City Council meetings due to response letters submitted. Staff responded to the comment letters and is now bringing the item back before the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee for Future Developments within the Western Dublin Area, Renaming it the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and Updating the City of Dublin Consolidated Impac t Fee Administrative Guidelines. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF) will be used to finance publ ic facilities and improvements needed to mitigate traffic-related impacts caused by new development in the Western Dublin area. The total estimated cost of the needed improvements is $12,966,000 and the WDTIF has been sized to collect $10,583,500 based on projected new land uses in the Western Dublin area. Grants and other funding sources will be sought to meet the full funding needs of projects. DESCRIPTION: On October 19, 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted (by Resolution 210 -04) a Page 2 of 7 Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program to fund a number of important transportation investments planned in the area of the City located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. The geographic area covered by this program is shown in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. The program has been successfully implemented and the funds generated have been used to construct several improvements to transportation infrastructure in the affected area, such as the intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, Golden Gate Drive, as well as the extension of St. Patrick Way. Over the past 11 years, there have been a number of changes that affect the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee area, including updates to the City’s General Plan, adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), and construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. To better reflect these changes, the City determined that the fee program should be updated and renamed to align with the program’s full scope and intent. The program is proposed to be known as the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF). The boundary of the WDTIF area has not been changed and remains as it was defined in the City Council action on October 19, 2004. The update process, as documented in the WDTIF Update, Final Report, dated August 2016, (Exhibit F of Attachment 1), included updating the list of capital improvement projects to be included in the WDTIF program, updating the growth projections in the geographic area covered by the WDTIF, and updating the fee calculations. The Final Report also describes the approach to establishing the fee nexus, or the relationship between the impacts of new development and the fees that could justifiably be charged to construct transportation improvements that mitigate the impacts of new development. Proposed WDTIF Projects: The projects on the updated WDTIF list are primarily intended to improve the operations of the roadway system for users of all travel modes, and have bee n identified in order to implement the City’s General Plan, the DDSP, and the BPMP. The projects involve elements such as adding or modifying turn lanes, adding bicycle lanes, widening sidewalks, and improving pedestrian safety by adding crosswalks or chan ging traffic signal phasing. Attachment 2 contains the WDTIF project list and Attachment 3 identifies project locations. Proposed Project Cost Estimates For the purposes of the WDTIF, it is essential to have an estimate of the cost to implement each of the capital improvement projects on the WDTIF project list. Cost estimates were drawn from the most recent plans for each project, or in some cases were developed specifically for this WDTIF study. The estimated cost of each project is shown on Attachment 2. New Development and Land Use: An important step in quantifying the nexus relationship is to determine the amount of new development that is anticipated in the planning horizon of the study. Staff Page 3 of 7 developed the numbers of households and jobs in the WDTIF area based on the General Plan, under both current and future conditions (year 2040). New development in the area is anticipated, particularly in the core downtown area, which is generally bounded by I-580, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and I-680. The number of jobs in the WDTIF area could increase by about 1,900 over current conditions, and the number of housing units could increase by almost 2,400, with the majority of potential new residential units located near the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. These projections were incorporated into the City of Dublin travel model to identify their impacts on the transportation system. Trip Generation: Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was analyzed. The MXD+ tool, developed by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was applied to estimate the trip generation. This tool was selected because traditional methodologies, such as application of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, are primarily based on data collected at single-use, freestanding sites located in suburban areas with very little accessibility by transit, bicycling or walking. These defining characteristics limit ITE data’s applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects in more pedestrian -friendly and transit- accessible places, such as Dublin’s Downtown area. Detailed studies conducted by the EPA showed that the amount of traffic generated by each site is affected by a wide variety of factors including the mix of jobs and residents at the site, the overall size and density of the development, the availability of convenient internal connections for walking or driving between nearby uses, the availability of transit service to the site, and the surrounding trip destinations within the immediate area. None of these factors is explicitly accounted for in the traditional application of the ITE Trip Generation manual method. It should be noted that the neighborhoods outside of the DDSP area tend to be lower - density areas of predominantly residential land uses, and are somewhat removed from high-capacity transit options. For those reasons, application of the MXD+ technique would not be appropriate in those areas. However, the large majority of the projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area, so for the purposes of the WDTIF calculations the MXD+ technique can appropriately be applied. Table 1 shows the results of comparing the MXD+ results with the ITE rates. Table 1: Trip Generation Results in WDTIF Area from Application of MXD+ Time Period Existing 2040 ITE Trips MXD+ Trips Comparison ITE Trips MXD+ Trips Comparison Daily 64,812 54,858 -15% 88,633 71,603 -19% AM Peak Hour 2,114 1,849 -13% 3,817 3,144 -18% PM Peak Hour 6,344 5,059 -20% 8,801 6,777 -23% For the update of the WDTIF, PM peak hour trips are the focus. This is a change from the current application of the fee program, which uses daily trips as the basis for the fee Page 4 of 7 calculations. Most transportation facilities are designed to accommodate usage during peak periods, and the PM peak is the time period during which all of the land uses in the WDTIF area will be active, so it is the time period that will best capture the full range of travel effects caused by the anticipated future development. As shown in Table 2, the ITE trip generation procedure result s in higher new PM peak hour trips as compared to the MXD+. The total number of new PM peak hour trips estimated through the MXD+ application is used to calculate the WDTIF fee per new peak hour trip. Table 2: Comparison of WDTIF Area PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimate Source Existing Future Potential Growth (Future-Exiting) ITE Trip Generation 6,323 8,801 2,478 ITE with MXD+ Adjustments 5,059 6,777 1,718 WDTIF Projects Responsibility: As described earlier, the land use projections for the year 2040 were incorporated in the City of Dublin travel model, which was applied to generate estimates of travel patterns and volumes in the future. A common modeling technique called a “select zone analysis” was applied to identify the amount of future traffic volume on each roadway link that is generated by land uses in the WDTI F area. On each link that represents the location of a WDTIF project, the future traffic volume attributable to the WDTIF area was compared to the overall future traffic volume, thereby calculating the share of the usage of that link that can be attributed to the land uses in the WDTIF area. These usage percentages are shown in Table 3. The percentages were applied to the cost of each WDTIF infrastructure project, and the resulting amount represents the portion of project cost that will be included in the W DTIF program. As shown in the Table 3, the WDTIF program would capture about 82% of the total project costs, while other funding sources (such as from grants, County Measure BB funds, or other sources) would be needed to cover the remainder. This means th at about 82% of the usage of these facilities comes from residents and employees in the WDTIF area, while the remainder comes from travelers who use these facilities but do not live or work in the WDTIF area. Page 5 of 7 Table 3: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR WDTIF Project No. Project Name Estimated Cost Downtown % WDTIF Amount 1 Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Intersection Improvements $1,067,400 75% $800,400 2 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Intersection Improvements $1,141,000 71% $806,200 3 Dublin Boulevard Complete Streets Project $1,117,500 70% $782,900 4 Amador Plaza Road Complete Streets Project $3,770,200 83% $3,141,000 5 Village Parkway Complete Streets Project $770,500 52% $404,100 6 Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road Intersection Improvements $788,800 61% $481,400 7 Dublin Blvd/Village Parkway Intersection Improvements $336,000 71% $238,800 8 St Patrick Way Extension $3,724,600 100% $3,724,600 9 Traffic Signal Upgrades $250,000 82% $199,600 Totals $12,966,000 82% $10,583,500 Fee Calculation: A fee calculation was generated based on the figures described above. Starting from the amount of project costs eligible to be included in the WDTIF program (approximately $10.6 million), Staff subtracted the current fund balance (as of June 30, 2016 ) in the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program (approximately $1.7 million), and the result is divided by the number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be generated by new development in the WDTIF area (1,718 trips). Table 4 shows the results of the calculation. Table 4: WDTIF Calculation Calculation Value Total Eligible Project Cost in WDTIF Program $10,583,500 Less Current DTIF Fund Balance ($1,730,000) Number of new PM Peak Hour Trips 1,718 Maximum Fee Per New PM Peak Hour Trip $5,154 Fee Schedule: Using the maximum fee per new PM peak hour trip calculated above as a basis, the number of PM peak hour trips associated with a representative sample of land use categories was estimated and the associated fee amount calculated. Attachment 4 Page 6 of 7 shows the results of those calculations, along with an informational comparison of the proposed fees to the fee rates currently in effect. Furthermore Exhibit H to Attachment 1 provides examples of fee calculation method for various land use categories . The following table summarizes these proposed and existing fees by a few sample land uses: Category Unit* Current Fee per Unit Proposed Fee per Unit Single-Family Residential DU $2,668 $3,969 Medium Density Residential DU $1,869 $2,461 High Density Residential DU $1,600 $2,064 Hotel Room $2,660 $2,381 General Office KSF $5,320 $5,913 Restaurant Sit-down, high- turnover KSF $27,664 $25,410 Community shopping center KSF $12,236 $9,571 Supermarket KSF $26,068 $24,445 *DU = Dwelling Unit *KSF = Thousand Square-Feet Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Adoption of the updated WDTIF results in the need to update the existing Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines (Exhibit G to Attachment 1). The updated Guidelines incorporate various impact fee resolutions already adopted by the City Council, minor changes to the text to clarify impact fee calculation process, and a new format for ease of use. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with Government Code Sections 66016 and 66017, notice of this public hearing was mailed to those requesting such notice 14 days before this public hearing. In addition, the attachments to this Staff Report and the background documents were made available for public review 10 days prior to this public hearing. As part of the update process, Staff conducted three community engagement meetings to allow interested parties to provide input and ask questions about the fee program and proposed update. The meetings were held on September 8, October 6, and November 3, 2015. Representatives from different organizations attended these community outreach forums. Staff received some clarifying questions from the attendees. On January 19, 2016, staff received letters from Geor ge B. Speir of Miller Starr Regalia and Stephen C. Abrams (Attachment 5) providing comments on the proposed fee update. Attachment 6 provides responses to these comments. Then on February 16, 2016, staff received another letter from George B. Speir of Mill er Starr Regalia (Attachment 7) providing similar comments as were received in previous letters. In response to this letter, staff updated the WDTIF Update, Final Report, by adding few Page 7 of 7 clarifications. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee For Future Developments Within the Western Dublin Area, Renaming it the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and Updating Admin Guidelines 1.1 Exhibit A - WDTIF Area Map 1.2 Exhibit B - Downtown Dublin TIF Report - 11/02 1.3 Exhibi C - Downtown TIF Memorandum - 09/04 1.4 Exhibit D - Downtown TIF Cost Estimates - 07/04 1.5 Exhibit E - Resolution 210-04 1.6 Exhibit F - WDTIF Update, Final Report, August 2016 1.7 Exhibit G - Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, September 2016 1.7.1 Appendix B1 - Resolutions 195-99, 127-09, 95-11, 62-13, 122-13, 123-13, 117-14, 08-15, 111-15 1.7.2 Appendix B2 - Resolutions 11-12, 210-04, 211-04 1.7.3 Appendix B3 - Resolutions - 001-95, 041-96, 023-99, 225-99, 111-04, 221-04, 20- 07, 41-09, 10-12 1.7.4 Appendix B4 - Resolutions - 032-96, 146-98, 060-99, 214-02, 41-07, 45-09, 134- 15 2. WDTIF Project List and Cost Estimates 3. WDTIF Project Locations 4. Comparison of Proposed Fee with Existing Fee by Land Use Category 5. Comment Letters - January 19, 2016 6. Response to Comment Letters 7. Comment Letter February 16, 2016 RESOLUTION NO. ___- 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * UPDATING THE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE WESTERN DUBLIN AREA, RENAMING IT THE WESTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, AND UPDATING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES SECTION I WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Chapter 7.82 of the Dublin Municipal Code which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging impact fees; and WHEREAS, the areas within the City of Dublin located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, as shown on Exhibit A hereto, are referred to in this resolution as the “Western Dublin Area”; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, for certain areas within the Western Dublin Area (the “Specific Plan”); and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level of environmental review for the Specific Plan and adopted an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on February 1, 2011, by Resolution No. 08-11; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, for the City of Dublin (the “Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan”); and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level environmental review for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and adopted a Negative Declaration (“ND”) on October 7, 2014, by Resolution No. 169-14; and WHEREAS, the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) provide specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for land and transportation within the Western Dublin Area, and show future uses in the Western Dublin Area; and WHEREAS, the EIR and ND considered and describe certain transportation improvements necessary for implementation of the Specific Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the EIR describes the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the areas of the Western Dublin Area included within the Specific Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan through the year 2035, and contains an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements to mitigate future development within such areas of the Western Dublin Area; and WHEREAS, the EIR assumes that certain transportation improvements would be made and that development within the Western Dublin Area would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and WHEREAS, in November of 2002, a study was prepared for the City of Dublin by TJKM Transportation Consultants to analyze funding roadway improvements necessitated by development in the Western Dublin Area, titled “Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee” (hereafter “Study”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, in September of 2004, the City Traffic Engineer provided an update memorandum to the Study (hereafter “Memorandum”), attached hereto as Exhibit C, wherein he reviewed the Study for continuing accuracy and assessed the metrics underlying its calculations regarding the impact fee per daily automobile trip to be imposed on developers; and WHEREAS, a report was prepared by the City of Dublin in a document dated July 2004 titled “Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Improvements, Cost Estimates and Diagrams” (hereafter “Report”) which detailed each traffic improvement project that Dublin would undertake using the impact fee and is attached hereto as Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, in order to mitigate the effects of future development on Dublin’s automobile infrastructure in the Western Dublin area, the City of Dublin established a Downtown Traffic Impact Fee in 2004 pursuant to Resolution 210-04, which is attached hereto as Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the City’s original analysis of transportation in Downtown Dublin, contained in the Study, Memorandum, and Report, focused exclusively on automobile traffic, and did not adequately consider the impact of development on bicycle and pedestrian transportation as reflected in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the City’s obligation to the community and the environment to ensure sufficient transportation infrastructure for all modes of transportation, Dublin determined that the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee should be updated to reflect the growing prominence of bicycle and pedestrian traffic, as well as construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other improvements; and WHEREAS, in August 2016, a report was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultant entitled “Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Report” (hereafter “Revised Report”) which assessed updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to reflect recent changes to the Plans and utilized a new metric for analyzing trip generation, and is attached hereto as Exhibit F; and WHEREAS, the Study, Memorandum, Report, Revised Report, and the Plans set forth the relationship between future development in the Downtown Area, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and WHEREAS, the Study, Memorandum, Report, Revised Report, and the Plans were available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee is referenced in numerous documents, including the Master Fee Schedule, Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines, and Plans; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to better implement the goals contained in the Plans, including updating the fee amount and the projects to be constructed with the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update the guidelines applicable to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to better implement the goals contained in the Plans, including clarifying the exceptions applicable to various fees and the procedures surrounding fee credits; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to re-title the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee as the “Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee” (the “Fee”) to more accurately reflect the geographic area and the multi-modal focus of the Fee, as well as correspondingly update all references to the Fee in the Plans and other related documents; and SECTION II - FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Fee is to finance public improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the transportation-related impacts caused by future development in the Western Dublin Area. The public improvements and facilities are listed in Table 1 of the Revised Report and are hereafter defined and referred to as “Improvements.” The Improvements are needed to accommodate new development projected within the Western Dublin Area and development within the Western Dublin Area will pay its fair and proportional share of such Improvements with the implementation of this Fee. B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Improvements. C. After considering the Memorandum, the Study, the Report, the Revised Report, the EIR and ND, the Plans, the record as defined in Resolution No. 210-04, and all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on September 6, 2016 (hereafter the “Record”), the City Council approves and adopts the Memorandum, the Study, the Report, and the Revised Report and incorporates each herein, and further finds that future development in the Western Dublin Area will generate the need for the Improvements and the Improvements are consistent with the Plans. D. That the City’s transportation system is currently adequate for the existing level of development in the Downtown Area. E. That the Fee will be used to acquire funds for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas; that the City currently provides transportation infrastructure to the Western Dublin Area; that the Fee will be used to maintain acceptable multimodal circulation and access with additional traffic from new development; and that no existing deficiencies have been found to exist by the Revised Report (see Revised Report, Table 4). As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the Western Dublin Area is not a “project” within the meani ng of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). F. The record establishes: 1. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding Fee is charged in that new development in the Western Dublin Area, both residential and non-residential, will generate increased vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic which contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 2. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use (to pay for the cost of the Improvements) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Western Dublin Area, both residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 3. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements or portion thereof attributable to development in the Western Dublin Area in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips projected to be generated by specific types of land uses in excess of the number of existing trips, the total cost to construct the Improvements, and the percentage by which development within the Western Dublin Area contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Revised Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development continues to bear a fair and reasonable relationship to each development’s burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of vehicle trips each particular development will generate. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin DOES RESOLVE as follows: SECTION III 1. Land Uses Defined Definition of various land uses for the purpose of calculating the Fee shall be as per the current General Plan or the Specific Plan, as applicable. 2. Traffic Impact Fee Retitled The Downtown Traffic Impact Fee shall henceforth be known as the “Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee.” All references to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in the Plans and other official City documents are deemed to be references to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, unless the context otherwise requires, and all future documents will refer to the Fee by its new title. 3. Amount of Fee The amount of the Fee shall be recalibrated as set forth in the updated Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit G and hereby adopted, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Schedule with example land uses attached hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference. 4. Use of Fee Revenues A. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall continue to be placed in the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Fund, which will henceforth be known as the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Fund (“Fund”). The Fee revenues (and interest) will continue to be used for the following purposes: 1. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Improvements and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Improvements, the cost of which is greater than their applicable Transportation Impact Fee; and 3. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development, program updates, and ongoing administration of the Fee program. B. Fees in the Fund account shall be expended only for the Improvements and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 5. Minimum Cash Payment The minimum cash payment for the Fee shall be 11% of the total Fee due. Developers may utilize credits for the remainder of the Fee, if authorized by the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines. 6. No Existing Deficiencies The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within the Western Dublin Area and that the need for the Improvements in the Revised Report is generated entirely by new development within the Western Dublin Area, and therefore, the Revised Report has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements for which development within the Downtown Area is responsible. 7. Periodic Review A. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall continue to prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of the Fund. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall continue to review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall continue to make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the Western Dublin Area. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the Plans, as well as increase due to inflation and increased construction costs. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years. 9. Automatic Increase in Fees The purpose of this Section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee for inflation, beginning July 1, 2017 and each July thereafter. The amount of the adjustment will be based on the changes in the appraised value of land (which represents 27.50% of the fee) and increases in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (which represents 72.50% of the fee), as reported annually in the Engineering News Record (ENR). 10. Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediately. The alterations to the Fee provided in Section III of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution. 11. Severability Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ City Clerk 0 C) 0 M c D co 0 c tZ v ►' 44 V N e--F F-i n = M O te r+ D �+ m o' w D 0 T D m \ \fpainc.local \Dfs -ent- data \Walnut Creek N Drive\ PROJECTS \_WC14 \WC14 - 3135.00_ Downtown _Dublin_TIF \GIS \MXD \fig01 _StudyArea.mxd San Ramon Rd A mNd 96ep!A Dougherty Rd m x r� Ct Downtown Dublin Traff ic Impact Fee For the City of Dublin November 7, 2002 Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 4234 Hacienda Drive, Suite 101 Pleasanton CA 94588.2721 Tel: 925.4610611 Fax: 925.4613690 j,%IU dOnW VbiN1157-001 BA170702 cOMOntsV110702 * wmmena -d" INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction The purpose of the City of Dublin's Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study is to establish a funding program that will enable the City to construct roadway improvements in a timely mamier to support growth in the downtown area. The Downtown TIF would include all of the area within the incorporated portion of Dublin, west of a line beginning at the northerly City limit and Dougherty Road, south along Dougherty Road to the northern line of the old Southern Pacific Railroad right -of- way line, then southeast of Dougherty Road along the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way to Interstate 580. Most of the area east of this boundary is included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The improvements included in the downtown TIF include both the construction of new roadway facilities and the upgrade and improvement of existing facilities. The City of Dublin Downtown TIF funding program will augment funds that are planned or programmed from other sources that will be used to upgrade the City's transportation infrastructure to serve future travel demands. The Downtown TIF applies only to the potential development and associated transportation infrastructure in the designated study area. Other traffic impact fees for regional facilities are also applicable. The features of this TIF study are as follows: • Existing conditions, in the form of existing levels of service at key study intersections, are examined, All potential future development or future redevelopment projects in the study area are identified. • The impacts and mitigation measures associated with these developments are determined. • The cost of constructing the future improvements that are needed to support the future growth is determined. • The per trip cost of the TIP is established by dividing the number of future trips into the total costs of the improvements that are not funded by other sources. The study area for the City of Dublin Downtown TIF is shown in Figure I, Summary Existing Conditions The existing traffic conditions at the major study area intersections were evaluated to see if they operate within the City's minimum standards, The City of Dublin has established Level of Service D as its goal for acceptable traffic conditions. It was found that all of the existing study intersections operate at LOS D or better which is consistent with the City's performance goal. Many of the intersections operate at LOS A or 13, in many cases because of improvements made within the City in the recent past. City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Improvement Fee Page 1. TJKM Transportation Consultants November 7, 2002 U U) LL N C G9 LL LL �^a Y W+ r W CL V � C � o � EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Network The roadway network in the study area consists of the following important streets: Dublin Boulevard is a major east -west arterial, It is a six -lane road fronted largely by retail and commercial uses between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway, and four lanes between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road. Dublin Boulevard is a six -lane road between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road. Dublin Boulevard is currently being widened to six lanes between Village Parkway and Siena Court, Amador Valley Boulevard is a major east -west arterial street that runs between Cronin Circle and Dougherty Road. It is four lanes within the project vicinity and is fronted by commercial/retail uses, Std Patrick Wav is a new two -lane roadway that connects Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive, A new signal was recently installed at the intersection of Amador Plaza Road/St Patrick Way/I.680 southbound hook ramps. The intersection of Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way is four -way stop. controlled. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street with on- street parking prohibited. San Ramon Road is a major north -south arterial roadway that extends north from I -580. San Ramon Road becomes Foothill Boulevard south of I.580, This roadway has a median and is between four and six lanes. San Ramon Road provides access from I -580 to residential neighborhoods and retail areas of Dublin, No on- street parking is allowed. Regional Street is a north -south roadway that extends front Amador Valley Boulevard to south of Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, Regional Street is a wide, two -lane roadway and north of Dublin Boulevard, this roadway has two lanes with a two -way left-turn lane. This roadway provides access to commercial/retail uses. Golden Gate Drive currently extends south from Dublin Boulevard. It is a two -lane roadway that provides access to.commercial/retail and light industrial uses. It would serve as the primary access to the West Dublin BART Station area, There are sidewalks and on- street parking on both sides of the street. Amador Plaza Road is a north -south street that extends from Amador Valley Boulevard to south of Dublin Boulevard. Amador Plaza Road has two travel lanes and a two way left-turn lane between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, South of Dublin Boulevard, this roadway has four travel lanes and provides access to commercial/retail development. The southem terminus of Amador Plaza Road provides a connection to the new I -680 southbound on and off ramps. On- street parking along Amador Plaza Road is prohibited, except at the southern end of the road in the court. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street. Village Parkway is a north -south roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. North of Amador valley Boulevard, it is a four -lane, divided roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street, On this segment, on- street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. South of Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway provides access to retail and office uses and on- street parking is generally permitted. North of Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway provides access to residential neighborhoods, City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Improvement Pee Page 5 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 7,20N POTENTIAL PROJECTS Description of Potential Projects Table 2 lists 11 potential projects in the downtown area, These potential projects have been identified by the Dublin staff as likely future development projects based on the City's General Plan and the downtown Speck Plans. New daily trips from these projects are subject to the future TIF and are listed in Table 2. Table 2A lists 21 approved development projects that have paid or committed to pay traffic mitigation contributions, and thus are not subject to the future TTF. Tables 3 and 3A provide a greater level of detail for all approved and potential projects in the downtown area, including existing land uses and their trip generating characteristics. Trip generation rates were obtained from Trip Generation, 6e Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, TABLE 2: DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROnCTSt TM RELATED TRIP GENERATION No. Project+ Size TO Rate" Net Trips TIF Trips KSF/DU Dail P.M. Daily P.M. Dail 1, Ralph's/Longs Center Redevelopment 30 83,63 8,63 171 18 171 2. Nevi retail In vacant parcel near Dublin Men 16 32.19 2.81 483 42 483 3. Ramon Rd. Plumbery - add 90 KSF 90 11.01 1.49 991 134 991 4. Clark Avenue Redevelopment 148 11.01 1,49 1,630 221 11630 6. Scariett Ct area! 40 KSF retail, 20 KSF office 20 6. Coale (automotivelretaii) 6191 5 98 1,238 120 1 238 1. Vllege Parkway offlcelretali 20 21.6 215 432 43 432 8, Downtown Core wio Home Depot, Safeway* 178/100 12.0413,0 1.2610.32 2,443 256 2,443 9. West BART Specific Plan without Corriei 454.11491 25.214.6 2.3010.42 13,637 11258 13,637 10. Valley Christian Center Expansion (Parcel 1)+ 187 3.25 0.32 218 608 4,889 59 633 608 4,689 11. Amendment to West BART edfic Plana 1 290 16.86 n..A^ nnnn n774.l + Refer to PlitMe 1 for project location. ++ Source: 7rrp Generation. 66 Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 25 % pass -by trips are assumed forretail. + Trips are based on project traffic impact study. a Approved in October 2001 by Dublin City Council; Amendment included the Enea and Crown Chevrolet Properties, Table 2 is superseded by Table 82 of the Study Update Memo City of Dublin Downtown Traffic improvement Fee TJKM Transportation Consultants rayu r November 7, 2002 O v U ._ F- N 0 a Q _ 1 m 'o 4 G 0 m :c W a° M a m r 0 r V a f C D CL E N J d 'S CL e E d m 0 4 M at �y 2 0 e � F. i.14 0 ro b 3 Uri A s 0 t Q N W d Vi L 4 3 a� N �P$j"�"1 `�`edd Nnr N Nrd� � Inmq(ri � g t S .e ` tt p 6 ooemmm eem �R m <�I` c`e cmoveomo� o"b o+� o00 �o I( ao ommmee m;oo m ;.� mmm a Is 4 m5— mmmmebe�o b"o" o'� "' and Popp a gga s m89 m q 8 i I3 wnaemrmmg��r mmnm �Ri a �y 2 0 e � F. i.14 0 ro b 3 Uri A s 0 t Q N W d Vi L 4 3 a� N contribute to the overall growth in background traffic within the TIF area and would be subject to the TIE. Proposed Improvement Projects A total of six roadway improvement projects have been identified to make up the Downtown Dublin TIF program. These projects are required because of safety and capacity issues arising from the development of the proposed land use projects identified in Table 2 of this study. A description of the six projects is listed below. The location of the projects is shown in Figure 2 and the description and costs are listed in Table 5, Table 6 lists each of the six projects and the details of existing funding sources, Description of Projects 1. St Patrick Wav Extension: St, Patrick Way would be extended westward from its current terminus at Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. This project provides circulation in the BART Specific Plan area and serves planned new uses in the area. It enables traffic to travel directly to and from the new 1 -680 hook ramps, It will be a two -lane collector with a center two -way turn lane. The City established a precise plan line for the widening several years ago. New right of way will be required 2. Golden Gate Drive Widening: Due to planned projects in the BART Specific Plan Area, Golden Gate Drive will require widening from its current two lanes to four lanes plus a second northbound left turn lane at Dublin Boulevard. This roadway will be the primary access point for uses in the BART complex. The project will require the acquisition of some right of way along the street. In addition, this project will install traffic signals at Golden Gate Drive and St. Patrick Way. These signals are needed because of growth in the BART Specific Plan area. 3. N_e Ri ht turn lane Eastbound Dublin Boulevard at Golden Gate Drive: This project is necessitated by future traffic growth serving uses in the BART Specific Plan Area, The project will require the acquisition of some right of way on Dublin Boulevard, 4. Dublin Blvd. / Amador Plaza Road Intersection I=Kovemen ts: A new right turn lane for the eastbound lanes of Dublin Boulevard is necessitated by future traffic growth serving uses in the BART Specific Plan Area. The project will require the acquisition of some right of way on Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will also include restriping the northbound Arnador Plaza Road approach at Dublin Boulevard to accommodate an exclusive right -turn lane, For the westbound lanes, growth in traffic volumes in the - downtown area will require both a double left turn lane and three through lanes on westbound Dublin Boulevard at this intersection. This will require widening the street on the north side. It will not require the removal or modification of any buildings but will require the acquisition of some right of way on Dublin Boulevard, For the southbound lanes, future traffic growth will require widening this approach to accommodate two left- turn lanes, one through lane, and one right -turn lane. This improvement will require the acquisition of right of way on the west side of Amador Plaza Road. 51 Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection L_ rovements: Growth in traffic in the study area requires that the eastbound direction of Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road be increased from two to three through lanes and from one to two right -turn lanes, This will help to mitigate growth- related level of service problems at the Dublin Dougherty City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Improvement Fee r"y° ' ' TJKM Transportation Consultants November 7, 2002 y0 U m 4 m m W. W ❑ W O 0.w U u O- W `� m ❑ W MOM p m m m 0. m � 4 n ic, �i, •f an{ cy' r rn � �t m LQ ;s io oo cc oo c o G o P O O r o O v^ O •' q 0 O i 7 G � N y GY ,y 5 ti v + o WW ¢ ❑Umd d a u 4 m v U44Q¢Q m y o CL U x J C U2 a wM wo, m oo oo oo o o "9 A o O Wm U U U U 6 m O m 4 4 m m W❑ O LL p LL❑ U ti � W Q W O .Y O N C t v w 4O1 O w f 'O o c e ' H 4 ❑ U m 4 ttJ i7 u.4 m U d 4 Q w U y ��y O 4 4 6 4 ❑❑ d¢ _ C x � i a c mw � O A` 0 ka O 6 6 Q 4 ml 4 Q 6 4 Q ❑ U ¢ 4 ¢ 6 m v z LVI CL 3 4 tV Ci e N p Ci cri 'C O N , N N h C C O C P d ? 0 4 O P C C? O q o O O n DI W v J 5 m � \ 6 ■ / � / * # / k % d \ / � \ � r m $ n � 2 « / 4 ! § ) ) \ I I() k3§ es LL 3 E ®7 ( \ ;^ c \ 6 ■ / � / * # / k % d \ / � \ � r m $ n � 2 « / 4 ! § ) ) \ ®7 ( ;^ \ � \|) _ #a� \ \ § } [ 2 ` ( \ k § |\ § - E ƒ )$ ) 2 � » i ! { k K \B \ §� \) ® ! ! \ 6 ■ / � / * # / k % d \ / � \ � r m $ n � 2 « / 4 ! § ) ) \ TWpIC IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The Downtown Traffic Impact Fee was determincd by dividing the total unfunded cost of roadway improvement projects by the trips associated with growth in the study area The increase in trips in the study area includes expected new traffic from existing development sites that are modified or othenvise occupied at higher densities, as well as new development on vacant or under- utilized parcels. The calculation of the Downtown Dublin TIF involves taldng the cost of improvements required by growth in the study area and dividing it by the number of new trips associated with that growth. In this case the calculation is as follows: Total Unfunded Costs Associated with Downtown Traffic Growth $8,0215460 Total Number of Daily Trips Added by Downtown Growth $290 2 Cost per Daily Trip The Downtown Traffic Impact Fee should be applied to various development proposals by multiplying the unit TIF cost by the number of daily trips generated. The TIF will apply to new developments as well as the re -use of existing buildings. In the case of re -use, the net change in daily trip generation will be multiplied by the unit cost. The eb,eve chart is su-pOr9ed4W by Table 34 of the S UdY UPWatg Nlernb Cfty of Dublin Downtown Traffic Improvement Fee rayn ' November 7, 2002 TJKM Transportation Consultants . NC Ii NI N) 0 r y h a N Yl =i :i oI r iI i � e N s s w 01 Y _U I n.o to I i P to C � s y i iii vi —i N 2 r 1 Pit« � N 1 N V O O a V J 1 ^ IIV1��aF!1 €-� t II=pifU.l W ZEN pPPP F O s m a Q li Gw I OOO 19OO I O1(O1(��O 1 OO pO Os' pU1 VVttO V\ I IH �nO 1 NCO `w 1 � ^MMII r I r I wtiJl }M�w I}y I} jIjs mV0I °WIt1iONV I.pnMz; i 0 I NP N 1 1 I 1 I I P�001 MI/i �1' u1V i�OivPNI minl I I ffi" 1 1 I I i iFI tiv41 vYI wI V4 1 f- 1 i W -i3 m I I i �IIO I I I F > N I u i I I I 11NN OON I oo PO Utl N O h U OPJ i 1 14 N. -IOrr f0 �iO4o�00ri FM.M M I OOO 19OO I O1(O1(��O 1 OO pO Os' pU1 VVttO V\ I IH �nO 1 NCO `w 1 � ^MMII r I r I wtiJl }M�w I}y I} jIjs mV0I °WIt1iONV I.pnMz; i 0 I NP N 1 1 I 1 I I P�001 MI/i �1' u1V i�OivPNI minl I I ffi" 1 1 I I i iFI tiv41 vYI wI V4 1 f- 1 i W -i3 m �IIO p i I Ii OPJ i p�.p ^� II N f0 w � i FM.M M Ii ¢ PeoIMOw�ii Ii Vy I h J I OOO 19OO I O1(O1(��O 1 OO pO Os' pU1 VVttO V\ I IH �nO 1 NCO `w 1 � ^MMII r I r I wtiJl }M�w I}y I} jIjs mV0I °WIt1iONV I.pnMz; i 0 I NP N 1 1 I 1 I I P�001 MI/i �1' u1V i�OivPNI minl I I ffi" 1 1 I I i iFI tiv41 vYI wI V4 1 f- 1 i W -i3 O i I I I it 1 I I i N i O I O I O 1 O U I I i 1 VNM •- I ONN 1, >¢IOroloNIOao 1lre�r a I p O d I 0 0 0 i 00 O 100 0 0 I I I i 1 ct�� i a�g�rl10 � nyo�op i noo i o�n ppopp 61�MriOPMIr�- �1�bMM 6 I I rV II UI 1 I I 1 i IN i I I i I 1 I N vn p S I 1 I � 1 ay x C I F� J W I tZO yOy�uF. i clK LL i 7d c=C �i i � i W i Fi 1'i-J I KFJI 0.'YF^J I0.'F JF I m 1 m i m i N 1 1 3 x 0 tl W f. w CZ'J ll! ICm 18F e¢l O qW YMI N Uy4 WJ ItJW IO� iWZ P V W IPR w 'sF° } M ya O ppa W� o }b}aa I�W ill ILLa } m OLi Ip � N ii w � i Vy I h J �{lC� d l t2 v � WN r N I I I x i AN W OA�NK qEi J� ,._ C$ a In - -T s n O h W 6 I Sh a I r O v I ~ 1 I Y V J W i y 1� P a o lu K I 1 I I 7qq si LL is z +vl F{,-� w O i I I I it 1 I I i N i O I O I O 1 O U I I i 1 VNM •- I ONN 1, >¢IOroloNIOao 1lre�r a I p O d I 0 0 0 i 00 O 100 0 0 I I I i 1 ct�� i a�g�rl10 � nyo�op i noo i o�n ppopp 61�MriOPMIr�- �1�bMM 6 I I rV II UI 1 I I 1 i IN i I I i I 1 I N vn p S I 1 I � 1 ay x C I F� J W I tZO yOy�uF. i clK LL i 7d c=C �i i � i W i Fi 1'i-J I KFJI 0.'YF^J I0.'F JF I m 1 m i m i N 1 1 3 x 0 tl W f. w CZ'J ll! ICm 18F e¢l O qW YMI N Uy4 WJ ItJW IO� iWZ P V W IPR w 'sF° } M ya O ppa W� o }b}aa I�W ill ILLa } N G N !t Glf O N1y[L N F 1 Y 11 lV l L N O d } iI O C N x > O L Ifl N K m II�xI ° LL Did nu w II_m, za F 01 III' m i n •- 4 111 ; tWi Y 1�> M yI 'I ^Jp O, p, > [ L f N LI O pl e w IL y - 1 ^- K LLII I > ••- ' Ca 1 r15V J =S O F m e ; s In� ^ P i^ d u a ; V r W ° W w � N r r tooddiddot y N p IEI{ ; o II U ro I; P HHwo ~ tl WW r r F W II1 Iw F — 'J i 1a— i ll. S 11O' 2 4 N idol II U 11 '2d' u 1 U 1 IJY h a Y I m 51 �I H r R qLq tlt S�M NN OI dodo . rod r vid- I� �iI T ; I V I O 1 I 'o a- 1 00000 � oN6M I O ON ' I dodo r ibOOVloO o00i0�n oPl°!onoo'i NJ i ne^-rW i N��bPV ; N�b I ^m'm�P i I 1 r mm t!• I ^mrm� v�v aJa�F�vai'r a p- 1 1 2 i N TM ;� x4 O � O W_ YO �y IIM� 4gg0 ONW P aa� F food W N f i 1 m ; N s N ; P I i , y N" q O.N ;M bOb OY O Ob p 0 o trO d; 0 0 0 O O III C5 ; 000 O Comm ' O COO I(�O O OHO G .cUJ yl vS ll�l VR[yylb N 4UFIIPI 1 GM YI M 6G ,_�r0 •WV �r0 I 1 1 � ; N'N ; YIMM i. ilf Cj� i Yf Olfl i .H; FJ I`rw +1 Wlrvva;r xlat aIZP a � m a Ypa-, U J u Iei law �Ow z>> O� ICy IWF I," I4Z oo V6� 2 J F ii I O 1 6 iI Ky I a It ,I Qf � r I C IN> dodo W O L H 4 N O vl L i Add Y �K o,do 5 1 x W u a;� Idol m r Todd u i N ' S I I m 7 I p y' L I liodd N �. H > •[ Oq P I A 'i mx UUp g , rn r. -.Vi. !' NN W e- L E i Jr a G p p w x ; F _L! O r ik W O r O ?° ; y—NU I� v V W Z Iddo ° la tl orod a c M ' � N ^ i� > Z p I W I ; W 4 K ; h r 1 ur. z +m ,did z v; U; ' � S r a � T ; I V I O 1 I 'o a- 1 00000 � oN6M I O ON ' I dodo r ibOOVloO o00i0�n oPl°!onoo'i NJ i ne^-rW i N��bPV ; N�b I ^m'm�P i I 1 r mm t!• I ^mrm� v�v aJa�F�vai'r a p- 1 1 2 i N TM ;� x4 O � O W_ YO �y IIM� 4gg0 ONW P aa� F food W N f i 1 m ; N s N ; P I i , y N" q O.N ;M bOb OY O Ob p 0 o trO d; 0 0 0 O O III C5 ; 000 O Comm ' O COO I(�O O OHO G .cUJ yl vS ll�l VR[yylb N 4UFIIPI 1 GM YI M 6G ,_�r0 •WV �r0 I 1 1 � ; N'N ; YIMM i. ilf Cj� i Yf Olfl i .H; FJ I`rw +1 Wlrvva;r xlat aIZP a � m a Ypa-, U J u Iei law �Ow z>> O� ICy IWF I," I4Z oo V6� 2 J F ii I O 1 6 iI Ky I a It ,I Qf Y1 mlY ul of Aw L Y N N G O� M1 p H 9 m L a IL dil z0 1 1 1 1 v aJa m o I u m I p 1 w Y 1 $ ifJ• W� 0111 i ~Q� I ' w GCC II n U F N• -hh,,h' Nei `0' Ur � Nat�fyV� ' E N � y a Y j Iw 1q it S W ~ 1 H J O NOp K NON O. 1 4 II mai ' T 1 n N 0� N I 4 N it I 1�t 1 T o O ` a3 1 m W u a a m f J N r Y a mal ro I p0, i sM rF v N rl., li I H O 1g11 I r r i V la N S L Ali P e I O L i 0 1 hp h I N M IM W 0 1 t it W IC✓ R 1 H W 1 w l C z+ y i I W I..ui Yi i J %- a :9 6• N N N N dil z0 1 1 1 1 v aJa ' o I u m I p 1 w I N 0111 i W I ' w GCC II n U P`'1 • � I i 1 � MM R1 .} i po yI0� pp �O1 PWI�.e- 1��OrINM'ONQ01m 1M I N.�-� i r�NfMMVV i Q^i Ci u i6 OOOr K 000 O i 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O d �ldopoipoa'0004l000l '� I NtOn GO.NO' NON 1 Vf MO ON I NM41t1 p i �MMd i C�-Mr ; sMMV i �Mr I U ' � i I 1 1 z el`i i�in &%F roe 1 Fe °m III iya 1 rNN M�tr ; NN�O � .}r Ig'1 I 1 1 ' i 1 vim/• i v.'Y I� � V•'•^• ; v�r, 201-J 2'aJLL 1 SQI..J 1 Rmi- 'lD2W +IHYW •O-•S VW +'01M]" S ar aFJ1aMJ is J 1 V 1m 1m 1W j R A 1 1 1 1 aJa ' I 1 °o a i i d I ' n mr F N• -hh,,h' Nei `0' Ur � Nat�fyV� ' E N GGCC � y �01 it S W ~ 1 H J U NOp I NON O. 1 rMM�t II mai �d t� • � I i 1 � MM R1 .} i po yI0� pp �O1 PWI�.e- 1��OrINM'ONQ01m 1M I N.�-� i r�NfMMVV i Q^i Ci u i6 OOOr K 000 O i 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O d �ldopoipoa'0004l000l '� I NtOn GO.NO' NON 1 Vf MO ON I NM41t1 p i �MMd i C�-Mr ; sMMV i �Mr I U ' � i I 1 1 z el`i i�in &%F roe 1 Fe °m III iya 1 rNN M�tr ; NN�O � .}r Ig'1 I 1 1 ' i 1 vim/• i v.'Y I� � V•'•^• ; v�r, 201-J 2'aJLL 1 SQI..J 1 Rmi- 'lD2W +IHYW •O-•S VW +'01M]" S ar aFJ1aMJ is J 1 V 1m 1m 1W j R 1 1 1 1 1 aJa ' a i O 1 O I ' 1 6 F N• -hh,,h' Nei `0' Ur � Nat�fyV� ' E N GGCC � y �01 it S W ~ 1 H J U NOp I NON O. 1 rMM�t II mai �d t� 1 n N r I it I 4 1 T o O ` a3 1 m a E 1 a —_YN p0, i sM N rl., li I H O 1g11 I r r i V la N Ali I O L i 0 1 hp h I N M IM W 0 1 t W IC✓ R 1 H W 1 w l C z+ y i I W I..ui Yi i J %- a :9 1 1 1 1 1 aJa ' a i O 1 O I ' O I N• -hh,,h' Nei `0' Ur � Nat�fyV� ' PPh GGCC � OQ�O %000 Y , ~ 1 O o O 0 i O O O U NOp I NON O. 1 rMM�t 1 U i O¢¢W� K5 Iq I ao C�W 4 O W� a� �W I6 FS 1 =t-u a� �apm IWF d M Y ' u II, 1 N 1 I 1 14f I i r O tl 1 O I� h M PO I Vrp �oe�.r- i NO reel I 0000looa,J VOi0MM p0p11�Ap t IOi1ppMN flfli �MM�+, "MT- I �FS 1 �b'�Nt 1 0�. o�•.ro 1 �ea� i �ro� 1 I I i 1 �� i I��m i PP•0 i h00 1 rmi`� y J 1 w 1 d M r I MN 1 rN r QSS 1 1 O 1 1 i 1 1 1 v�l• 1 �n/� I V/�/� 2' • F J I H W� (Jiw+ I va1L 1 yaW 4 KK IyiI O1aF'JF1afJ'KF'J 1-1aFJ 0 S i m m u 12 iN iW i3 Ow wu 4g� t� W d iii I Q�� >u� KW I�YM C r a 1Jy 0 4 W y� I�W Iz� aa� OJ III Q ? I Wqq� 16� Y r III 1 y7y of U" O' r� Y pi. G N L £F Y h LI gWgI MI N I m CI WI�yy CI U LI q' L y4 pa Y Q �i o) NI 01 \li �I � II r YKY i I I Y'P� ' I J r UUI r ; M 1 i N Y Yam W I M CiI r ' r 3.� i u r r i M pp MM w� m Im NO a s y0 N rN�iIlIk O 1 rompl0000ioeolcoo� LI I J t r o a LL I r i I r i py 1 Om MMM vM N; O NM M1 O I V I � q, I m n yl i i = I j r 1 �yW J I m O O O frn� I 1 a O r i 1 IN �NEi CI K ¢ x N^ —Imi1� WM�AN x'.0}0 r WP�_T•' s m(�aF xh. eri i hN��1 M r O I c r� 2 r F.t -- -r •• p' 4 i Muh. 6 W ( K J F p O N w W N N F Im r N i A I p m 1 1 1 1 a Iss o y r O r IWaIzI w O h r V d WC II W C I W I JpC C I W C 4 t K x h 31 1 F 1 u U X i N jl Y. I U i cw.l \li �I ;�I NP10 ^a1�;�R�;lnirvMl 00 O l O m O O r 0 0 0 i 0 0 p II I 1 1 h i OOV r O O O O (p O O I O p V� (p� r pyy��O 1 NNOV1 OON r N111pp 6ISPM r•OPpPrO •prd ^M 0.� 1 Mb.T r ��T Mgt 1 MM.� ; •f U 1 1 WWI ..mpp IIr�11 I vt(�� I t I t[�1 �p rl dPm I eM-h M[O I Ndr I NV� 1 1 1 2 r N pO.ryMaa(} I d P P I II t9J Iu�i PiA 1�hM I`mDgrIMVN e- r 1 Yv 1 1 r ll4tt1111 mR'rFy i c=naua 1 WK1hl 1 UA'LL r-rSW I S.W I xW r SW r 6'hJ aF-�Jh I p.FJ r aFJ i 2 i N � II r YKY i I I Y'P� ' I J r UUI r ; M 1 i N Y Yam u 1 r ' r III i u r r i M ;�I NP10 ^a1�;�R�;lnirvMl 00 O l O m O O r 0 0 0 i 0 0 p II I 1 1 h i OOV r O O O O (p O O I O p V� (p� r pyy��O 1 NNOV1 OON r N111pp 6ISPM r•OPpPrO •prd ^M 0.� 1 Mb.T r ��T Mgt 1 MM.� ; •f U 1 1 WWI ..mpp IIr�11 I vt(�� I t I t[�1 �p rl dPm I eM-h M[O I Ndr I NV� 1 1 1 2 r N pO.ryMaa(} I d P P I II t9J Iu�i PiA 1�hM I`mDgrIMVN e- r 1 Yv 1 1 r ll4tt1111 mR'rFy i c=naua 1 WK1hl 1 UA'LL r-rSW I S.W I xW r SW r 6'hJ aF-�Jh I p.FJ r aFJ i 2 i N mpI o I If pW M¢¢ U KW F N �60 U WW Ibj I{aW fNfGG 4 W it a � II r YKY i I C7 Y'P� Z C rwm UUI r �I M 1 i N Y Yam u 1 r ' r III i i i M pp MM m i a s w rN�iIlIk l 1 rompl0000ioeolcoo� II I J UU:0y0N�0 r NppN 1 bV101 pOp MO�.1IOh i I r i py 1 Om MMM vM N; O NM M1 O I V I � q, I m O O Ma j I 1 1 �yW J I .p Pdv � NON i N r P.NO frn� 1 a O r i 1 IN �NEi CI C1- i 00 ¢ 91 x'.0}0 i hN��1 r O I r� 2 tf; . OM W ( V IL N p O N w i N N F Im r N i A I p m 1 M a IWaIzI w II W JpC mpI o I If pW M¢¢ U KW F N �60 U WW Ibj I{aW fNfGG 4 W it a i Vn.+I an•'+ a.�� r O a LL r U' a W� I itl a W r a F J I a h J h I a F J x1 I i Z i N i s urcLL x W a F J 3 9 J U g_ Q W h S F- r^ mru I� LL 1 q' ab yyy'I j 4h ut �O n�nI O r O "I F}UU-m' 16(0, U Jttl W PJ O J K a W uorz II F �• m N N a�Z } 74 F F � w� WTI IFY NO Q.� it 1 r 1 UUI r �I M 1 i N Y u 1 r ' r III i i i M pp MM m O-� jFQ I NO•^ rN�iIlIk l rompl0000ioeolcoo� I I I UU:0y0N�0 r NppN 1 bV101 pOp MO�.1IOh i I r i py 1 Om MMM vM N; O NM M1 O I V I q, I I r I 1 1 i I 1 1 �yW J I .p Pdv � NON i N r P.NO frn� 1 a O r i 1 i Vn.+I an•'+ a.�� r O a LL r U' a W� I itl a W r a F J I a h J h I a F J x1 I i Z i N i s urcLL x W a F J 3 9 J U g_ Q W h S F- r^ mru I� LL 1 q' ab yyy'I j 4h ut �O n�nI O r O "I F}UU-m' 16(0, U Jttl W PJ O J K a W uorz II F �• m N N a�Z } 74 F F � w� WTI IFY NO Q.� P i � I �I O , N G Y 1 c 1 1 I LI r o r 2 u O III" OI rl �1 of I R N O m 7 1 1 J I1 U i z I U O O 1 KI a v N IX L O I(1 N �P m \F @PLO I . M atNNNMiO ^�N� > a N OM t P N 1 i x 1 r s LLN 1 O o 0 0 � j YY; i O F r i ¢ i 61 U i 10!`1(0�y0� VONIN,ON I y0�V0V11,011(0� 1(o�{(Pl�N n~ IV 1 P tii 1 AL OI Y i� L] I1 U i z I U O O KI a v N IX N �P m \F @PLO I . M atNNNMiO ^�N� > a N OM t P N 1 i i LLN 1 O o 0 0 � YY; i O F r i ¢ i U i 10!`1(0�y0� VONIN,ON I y0�V0V11,011(0� 1(o�{(Pl�N 1 tii 1 N r r I IM j ji j Y YpafV h h N N t fi sd V ION tt z ry owd a V� LI IX Ct I P d 4 w m r i r M r y i � � W W v v l — T> P 1 i 1 O<�1x O OII i F >� O O O �1-. a r 1 1il l W01 M ^ M Cl i U- '601 r w liwci a r ❑ x W T O Y} m w O G I "U4 AL OI Y i� L] # I I �� m�0 1 M1. IrN� 1 M1 f61Mh i �O.N O'. o >1 i I I I J i i I -!5� 1 '� I tintn i O1�ery�td n In P ryM1 I O b i i II r' VV' vv 1 r.,iv 1 vV I £i IXhJ;IXW- lrimrJr�KFJh mm i i i N i IN 5 W I1 U i z I U IX N �P m \F @PLO I . M atNNNMiO ^�N� > a N OM t P N 1 i O p0 i 00 O O I P O O O� O o 0 0 1 YY; i I F r i i 1 i U i 10!`1(0�y0� VONIN,ON I y0�V0V11,011(0� 1(o�{(Pl�N 1 tii 1 N r r I IM j # I I �� m�0 1 M1. IrN� 1 M1 f61Mh i �O.N O'. o >1 i I I I J i i I -!5� 1 '� I tintn i O1�ery�td n In P ryM1 I O b i i II r' VV' vv 1 r.,iv 1 vV I £i IXhJ;IXW- lrimrJr�KFJh mm i i i N i IN 5 W II "UIUI J r K I i ryl �1 Iv m 0 .041 C I Oy a' > �O J U W III � wz 52 I�N IJW iNN �p i O�� i vNib nN i vQ1�0� I �vW� j Oar' - i q00 I OOOC] I OpOP � 0000 1 1 r i p O 0 I 0 0 00 I VIM 0°yI0y�0 1 0 0 0 0 U WIII Yt I Vf1M1 Y1N I dU'OG Elwin i ' i h� � 0�6�T0 I AV1MN t0�nn00'0� i N�dM J 1 MN 1 ms�N I f�W�~"I(1 1.N � I I , 1 ' i N N I r i I�ODF I 14N IO i I I I v.�0 I Obnn I �r�n iwi�xW�p.s W +i60zw }i.O.zW} i IX r J I K r J r � IX h J r 1 W.r J r 1 1 m 1 Y 1 N 1 yF UN 9 U IIW� a I�i Ism z> } 15E Ih i f;W lam �gQ} 1Wr lirM It M �P of °d ail F}- N q0 J 'W OJ WO icy J 1Fh �O^ �y OU 11 B r 91 LL0> 1�= W 011 C i z zm IX p'LJ i1l1 � �P m m i 1 i I h i N N r r I IM j ji j Y YpafV h h N N t tt LI Ct M d d 4 41 p M LSiJ � � � W W v v l — —NC P 1 O<�1x O OII i F >� O O O {Or i r 1 1il l U- '601 1 �wofEi W yr W rJ i 1 LL [ [d U U' 2 2 }N 1M� I I i ryl �1 Iv m 0 .041 C I Oy a' > �O J U W III � wz 52 I�N IJW iNN �p i O�� i vNib nN i vQ1�0� I �vW� j Oar' - i q00 I OOOC] I OpOP � 0000 1 1 r i p O 0 I 0 0 00 I VIM 0°yI0y�0 1 0 0 0 0 U WIII Yt I Vf1M1 Y1N I dU'OG Elwin i ' i h� � 0�6�T0 I AV1MN t0�nn00'0� i N�dM J 1 MN 1 ms�N I f�W�~"I(1 1.N � I I , 1 ' i N N I r i I�ODF I 14N IO i I I I v.�0 I Obnn I �r�n iwi�xW�p.s W +i60zw }i.O.zW} i IX r J I K r J r � IX h J r 1 W.r J r 1 1 m 1 Y 1 N 1 yF UN 9 U IIW� a I�i Ism z> } 15E Ih i f;W lam �gQ} 1Wr lirM It M �P of °d ail F}- N q0 J 'W OJ WO icy J 1Fh �O^ �y OU 11 B r 91 LL0> 1�= W 011 C m 0 .041 C I Oy a' > �O J U W III � wz 52 I�N IJW iNN �p i O�� i vNib nN i vQ1�0� I �vW� j Oar' - i q00 I OOOC] I OpOP � 0000 1 1 r i p O 0 I 0 0 00 I VIM 0°yI0y�0 1 0 0 0 0 U WIII Yt I Vf1M1 Y1N I dU'OG Elwin i ' i h� � 0�6�T0 I AV1MN t0�nn00'0� i N�dM J 1 MN 1 ms�N I f�W�~"I(1 1.N � I I , 1 ' i N N I r i I�ODF I 14N IO i I I I v.�0 I Obnn I �r�n iwi�xW�p.s W +i60zw }i.O.zW} i IX r J I K r J r � IX h J r 1 W.r J r 1 1 m 1 Y 1 N 1 yF UN 9 U IIW� a I�i Ism z> } 15E Ih i f;W lam �gQ} 1Wr lirM It M �P of °d ail F}- N q0 J 'W OJ WO icy J 1Fh �O^ �y OU 11 B r 91 LL0> 1�= W 011 C Y N 0 0 0 A N L H F ', m z N J `It 'hlO w O .9Y LO N m �6 io N i9 I UCC NI YI CI yl N O 0 Y h H 3 w N O 2 _I �I O T O �I m L I� i� �Cn i0 Ig 1 J r m i a ; O U I i 1 it w> 1 y �nWil a 1 �QQ Ir zm O O 4 r p D i r W 3.6 >n hN;bhO�Idnq p I GL�O iiN-- O r ltl�V i L 1 NO it 1 V i � J tl za U I er�1 ill M r I y 1 1 r I m 1 ( 1 r �...> N C O W O r N N N W ^O F 0.i A IU� bl µµ gp NF- i Or0 1 ^ LL O r w F I I F tii OI��LL IPN rV N w z Vr v J F- ' IX w W i O r r W M y Ip C �I C ryry� F W K ay° F W K jzCy F i vF• fSJ s +In O; U O �I m L I� i� �Cn i0 Ig 1 J r m i a ; O U I i 1 ; ; d� M1 O r NOW 1 Uw i I(I IllrOp r V pp K 1 0000 1 OPOrO I ~ 1 000101nn 0. I U i i O O O O 1 OOP 4 � In lhNVl I I!\In lh {/� pOd tlOOO �MMM e�' (ryry(..JJV .I.`Op ap�ppp ; tN(.� VO`O � i�M�NNO 1.0V ; IImn/�l`tiN NJJ ; M�NV � NNe� -J i Nm�N ; NPYQir 1 � i �iJ I MAN INN Nr 1 N�n � NUIPn l ; I ;inn �¢nn inn ;�nn t i;zMwl t- �a�W.+F;aFJr;aI --JF 1� iz it w> 1 y �nWil zIX II }I Ir zm O O 4 r r >n hN;bhO�Idnq GL�O r ltl�V i sNrMyry 1 NO 1 i O O O O 1 OOP 4 � In lhNVl I I!\In lh {/� pOd tlOOO �MMM e�' (ryry(..JJV .I.`Op ap�ppp ; tN(.� VO`O � i�M�NNO 1.0V ; IImn/�l`tiN NJJ ; M�NV � NNe� -J i Nm�N ; NPYQir 1 � i �iJ I MAN INN Nr 1 N�n � NUIPn l ; I ;inn �¢nn inn ;�nn t i;zMwl t- �a�W.+F;aFJr;aI --JF ow ga> IIY� FF6-•O I�ppW �>Naa �FW II uu; °L;eeo0i0ooO�0o0ol POdoi c.t r NV1 VIIn of Y1Ny� 1 hNMN Vf G rim .�M i r I � yy MONO yy�II IN��..pp app�pp ((Nmyy �ppJ 1 �e MN i J W � ONN o ; (9 J F gW yp 8 S�♦- w�W +;dSW+ Q'FJF � IXI"JF ; aF JI- ; aF-JF Z 1 N I i O Y C u e b IYLL IIFr I�w a� IG irz jaw Mmj O GP� OC WYyyW �N iaaap CJ WW §O IOU II>N DZ OQ >Uq O C W a Y41 gO SF� F � s a I�pp; IWF �p�Hww 4 t- R iz w> y zIX II zm � 4 r GL�O N NO 1 u UJqq( U I er�1 ill r I j r m 1 ( 1 r �...> N C K O r N N N W ^O F 0.i µµ gp NF- i Or0 1 ^ LL O r w F I I F tii OI��LL i a w N C F W K ow ga> IIY� FF6-•O I�ppW �>Naa �FW II uu; °L;eeo0i0ooO�0o0ol POdoi c.t r NV1 VIIn of Y1Ny� 1 hNMN Vf G rim .�M i r I � yy MONO yy�II IN��..pp app�pp ((Nmyy �ppJ 1 �e MN i J W � ONN o ; (9 J F gW yp 8 S�♦- w�W +;dSW+ Q'FJF � IXI"JF ; aF JI- ; aF-JF Z 1 N I i O Y C u e b IYLL IIFr I�w a� IG irz jaw Mmj O GP� OC WYyyW �N iaaap CJ WW §O IOU II>N DZ OQ >Uq O C W a Y41 gO SF� F � s a I�pp; IWF �p�Hww 4 t- R Y A r 0 u 0 N8 q 1_ H F Ri l ua N d SI n1 O! Co rRRV u m m 0. Im 10 HS ;a to n I m A m r W F IXY W N m p`Im N2 n I U ; IA ;w O Is la O ] I m ,Z 2 U %%XqI d' 6 zm �� N C m O H Y W � J O 1 1 N ; Y 1 1 ' 1 I b O b M I Q ; yti� I r- a i 16 I- rO I ' b ^1 P i UUI N I I� . IN4 � O i EE P I cc I O O tl; 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 m ;FN ^•r0 OI��t F' � r sr I O r Pw 3�..r J y W 1 A N N m Fsq+ 11zF++I Wyy. G I W i m N C Pxx z r 1 I 1{ yV11 +O X N O Wye Qe I I�f\ ; I U ; IA ;w O Is la O ] I m ,Z 2 U %%XqI d' 6 zm �� N C m O H Y W � J O 1 1 N ; Y 1 1 ' 1 I M I Q U U� yti� I i PIo I- rO I ' b ^1 P i UUI N I I� . IN4 i O i N P I I O O tl; 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 r , ry�pO i WMM Opx it i O M O 11 1 Otlb II aU I Yl V1 1 1(1NO 1 YI eOMfOO r I(t MOMO M MIN IO P I ; J I G i MM I I� ��IMmpiNOnpWiOPNiNPb I�01 i� viPM M b ; 1 I ;inn; �n�.�ann inn N' h J' Vv r V Vv I vV £ 1 S7F i SJF- I FSJ� I YJM WIIACW;MIX1l WK IMK� !'LL2 IX�J i N. 4-J 1 K1-J I (rC ICJ i iz iy ;W 13 19 i N Y 1 1 ' 1 I I- b ^1 P UUI N I I� . IN4 i O i N P I 3�..r J y W N N m z r 1 I N O Wye Qe I I�f\ ; II 5 W i W i x t N f IFi yOY� o II Z U 1 U 1 J F 0: Z o iu Ili 1- N a 0 14.J U Wyy �o m 4 y� YO d b� w�a Ow t �d IX iI; �Wa InvIwr 7 � I4� x O MM moo O O O OOO I I r ONO1 1 O O O I tl 0 0 1 0 0 0 F i O O O I O O O I OOP I O O O I U r NOIn -I IANO r NOO PO ai�M�1� Mr�MMi�MM t x will vFi3 i dOY ; N N Irk i PbO i ONr �CI i NIMIIiNI y! r I i£ I V WN I O^^P..�3pp{ i .ppO Pop�ppp I tppr� 0.11 I t^�N I VNN N10� rn i r�nnr�nnl�nnl�nn F Vv; vJii �VI vv IW ' OiW ; i0-IIXW ; �sW I OxW �; 1'FJ;KF -Jr A'YJl mt-J O t� III QYa 'n FN 60 u�O F J Wz U w J K Q LLl i^ F IOW FquN J O *W4 W C wm 0 O I�r I^!W F �t ' 1 I b ^1 P UUI N I . IN4 i O i N P I O MM moo O O O OOO I I r ONO1 1 O O O I tl 0 0 1 0 0 0 F i O O O I O O O I OOP I O O O I U r NOIn -I IANO r NOO PO ai�M�1� Mr�MMi�MM t x will vFi3 i dOY ; N N Irk i PbO i ONr �CI i NIMIIiNI y! r I i£ I V WN I O^^P..�3pp{ i .ppO Pop�ppp I tppr� 0.11 I t^�N I VNN N10� rn i r�nnr�nnl�nnl�nn F Vv; vJii �VI vv IW ' OiW ; i0-IIXW ; �sW I OxW �; 1'FJ;KF -Jr A'YJl mt-J O t� III QYa 'n FN 60 u�O F J Wz U w J K Q LLl i^ F IOW FquN J O *W4 W C wm 0 O I�r I^!W F �t NI all PI H 8 K �a ~ 2 C6P KII IILLJa I} D 7 1 •9W Q 1- If � N ¢ ¢ ry II r li i 4 1 r'p (1 U U 1 I MN !�• ,~ O 1 II W O y a II W D i I M I M O II 11 6 6' N It yr ; I O ' O I S O 2 7 b Ii I ��pp I ryry , O C LL Y„ I�SI p � N 1 Sic b`M W M 1 11 d 1 1 N i I I d II 6 Y PO O 1 O O' 88 I O O 2 118 1 6 I U 1 O O I O O ryry••�� i Cali N N i r I P� ` b M I �I� 6 O^VV1I i°N�MM I. OM n aI\ ' LL O O � IV E, Nd '�^O Q ' ^Np G i �IvMiOV01 K> YII InbIzM — >O O '2O OIIJ;�NU;'M.,�f yN < AJ X16 -•.°- M o M � , �;� i °4a uw 1 L Y N .-• O I W CE 1 J i 1 > >> W� no N I� AN I -IIK >I "I 011 O O O N O �I II I vex 1 vex v V i N gIIZ 11 yyyygy�� YY 1 2 M I N f I O I' W el It is � V I P. I F W i 0.•N 1 Kn I d' J II � r. ,1 0� .Z. U� t1 1 J F• 0.' 3 '1 i 2 1 N 1 3 II My u N �0 la Oil Iz how 4' O LLO II82 r W I C I I 14W iI . ' I u 'L 1S- .a7 wo 11 rza W IINO�F•' iW 3 = 1 O o 'Yt I •-• U I U I J F• K � 1 II I a H G iN K" N L 1 N� WMI Pj, N@ � •O M� M � K W � C ^per 0. I ry O W 1 I • N H 8 K �a ~ 2 C6P KII IILLJa I} D 7 1 •9W Q 1- If � N ¢ ¢ ry II r li i 4 1 r'p (1 U U 1 I MN !�• ,~ O 1 II W O y a II W D i I M I M O II 11 6 6' N It yr ; I O ' O I S O 2 7 b Ii I ��pp I ryry , O C LL Y„ I�SI p � N 1 Sic b`M W M 1 11 d 1 1 N i I I d II 6 Y PO O 1 O O' 88 I O O 2 118 1 6 I U 1 O O I O O ryry••�� i Cali N N i r I P� ` b M I �I� 6 O^VV1I i°N�MM I. OM n aI\ ' LL O O � IV E, Nd '�^O Q ' ^Np G i �IvMiOV01 K> YII InbIzM — >O O '2O OIIJ;�NU;'M.,�f yN < AJ X16 -•.°- M o M � , �;� i °4a uw 1 L Y N .-• O I W CE 1 J i 1 > >> W� no N I� AN I -IIK >I "I 011 O O O N O �I II I vex 1 vex v V i N gIIZ 11 yyyygy�� YY 1 2 M I N f I O I' W el It is � V I P. I F W i 0.•N 1 Kn I d' J II � r. ,1 0� .Z. U� t1 1 J F• 0.' 3 '1 i 2 1 N 1 3 II My u N �0 la Oil Iz how 4' O LLO II82 r W I C I I 14W iI . ' I u 1S- 11 W IINO�F•' In D = 1 O o O I •-• U I U I J F• K � 1 II AO I Uri~oi�iWinPli �r;1l12 ILLO N� WMI Pj, N@ � •O M� M � II c' � C ^per I w i �ool0000l 1 I 6aQiW.OiiW�;MM M NFy- iHP O W i Pa ioW � ytttttttty��ffff � I�m P � S jp O I pT p i N v W i1 N l F N r I 1 NN . �'UW O P O N ?= Ii pp P � .pp U 2 0 i O W W I^ 1 O I n pW al 1 1 1 2 I v 1 V 1 fL H 8 K �a ~ 2 C6P KII IILLJa I} D 7 1 •9W Q 1- If � N ¢ ¢ ry II r li i 4 1 r'p (1 U U 1 I MN !�• ,~ O 1 II W O y a II W D i I M I M O II 11 6 6' N It yr ; I O ' O I S O 2 7 b Ii I ��pp I ryry , O C LL Y„ I�SI p � N 1 Sic b`M W M 1 11 d 1 1 N i I I d II 6 Y PO O 1 O O' 88 I O O 2 118 1 6 I U 1 O O I O O ryry••�� i Cali N N i r I P� ` b M I �I� 6 O^VV1I i°N�MM I. OM n aI\ ' LL O O � IV E, Nd '�^O Q ' ^Np G i �IvMiOV01 K> YII InbIzM — >O O '2O OIIJ;�NU;'M.,�f yN < AJ X16 -•.°- M o M � , �;� i °4a uw 1 L Y N .-• O I W CE 1 J i 1 > >> W� no N I� AN I -IIK >I "I 011 O O O N O �I II I vex 1 vex v V i N gIIZ 11 yyyygy�� YY 1 2 M I N f I O I' W el It is � V I P. I F W i 0.•N 1 Kn I d' J II � r. ,1 0� .Z. U� t1 1 J F• 0.' 3 '1 i 2 1 N 1 3 II My u N �0 la Oil Iz how 4' O LLO II82 r W I C I I 14W iI . ' I u 1S- 11 W IINO�F•' In D = I •-• U I U I J F• K � H 8 K �a ~ 2 C6P KII IILLJa I} D 7 1 •9W Q 1- If � N ¢ ¢ ry II r li i 4 1 r'p (1 U U 1 I MN !�• ,~ O 1 II W O y a II W D i I M I M O II 11 6 6' N It yr ; I O ' O I S O 2 7 b Ii I ��pp I ryry , O C LL Y„ I�SI p � N 1 Sic b`M W M 1 11 d 1 1 N i I I d II 6 Y PO O 1 O O' 88 I O O 2 118 1 6 I U 1 O O I O O ryry••�� i Cali N N i r I P� ` b M I �I� 6 O^VV1I i°N�MM I. OM n aI\ ' LL O O � IV E, Nd '�^O Q ' ^Np G i �IvMiOV01 K> YII InbIzM — >O O '2O OIIJ;�NU;'M.,�f yN < AJ X16 -•.°- M o M � , �;� i °4a uw 1 L Y N .-• O I W CE 1 J i 1 > >> W� no N I� AN I -IIK >I "I 011 O O O N O �I II I vex 1 vex v V i N gIIZ 11 yyyygy�� YY 1 2 M I N f I O I' W el It is � V I P. I F W i 0.•N 1 Kn I d' J II � r. ,1 0� .Z. U� t1 1 J F• 0.' 3 '1 i 2 1 N 1 3 II My u N �0 la Oil Iz how 4' O LLO II82 r W I C I I 14W iI . ' I u In D P P iI U i I 1 II I Uri~oi�iWinPli �r;1l12 N� WMI p 1 N@ � •O M� M � II c' I I w i �ool0000l 1 I 6aQiW.OiiW�;MM i Pa ioW � ytttttttty��ffff � I�m P � S jp O I pT p i N v W i1 N l F N r I 1 IaQ . �'UW ?= Ii pp P � .pp U 2 0 i O W W O I pW al 1 1 1 2 I v 1 V 1 fL p i i WI�S'P.41�WII�w II H 8 K �a ~ 2 C6P KII IILLJa I} D 7 1 •9W Q 1- If � N ¢ ¢ ry II r li i 4 1 r'p (1 U U 1 I MN !�• ,~ O 1 II W O y a II W D i I M I M O II 11 6 6' N It yr ; I O ' O I S O 2 7 b Ii I ��pp I ryry , O C LL Y„ I�SI p � N 1 Sic b`M W M 1 11 d 1 1 N i I I d II 6 Y PO O 1 O O' 88 I O O 2 118 1 6 I U 1 O O I O O ryry••�� i Cali N N i r I P� ` b M I �I� 6 O^VV1I i°N�MM I. OM n aI\ ' LL O O � IV E, Nd '�^O Q ' ^Np G i �IvMiOV01 K> YII InbIzM — >O O '2O OIIJ;�NU;'M.,�f yN < AJ X16 -•.°- M o M � , �;� i °4a uw 1 L Y N .-• O I W CE 1 J i 1 > >> W� no N I� AN I -IIK >I "I 011 O O O N O �I II I vex 1 vex v V i N gIIZ 11 yyyygy�� YY 1 2 M I N f I O I' W el It is � V I P. I F W i 0.•N 1 Kn I d' J II � r. ,1 0� .Z. U� t1 1 J F• 0.' 3 '1 i 2 1 N 1 3 II My u N �0 la Oil Iz how 4' O LLO II82 r W I C I I 14W iI . O P yc' N. N �b u a K N W N G YyC O W L a a F 11 O �p Ui M w' S f ' O I I y I Y I � 1 IYWK 1 14 11 '40111 iO Hj F i I ' J 0 111 zF3q W � N ipV� UU 1 O i 1 O �; �A r O Wd 1 M p o N V1N �w+ 'L';N U s i P i W w UYI C F J y3 4. i •= N $ •� W � i LLP ^O. I P fi J �j - >N W NG �OF m i x,- O 4LL W tW� I� NF i Sf� - - >N NG y y J IPJ �a W W �'zbI 1- J H a 3 G.il 11 O �p Ui M w' S f o I O M Od �t i MNNN ; Orv'vir i �GON `i N M O N j 4 i N 7 Q U � VOiON i PgO IPflO I VPI IOn Moll i 1011MOM , n .�lp,ry ' 1 ONtl1N 1 OHO" 95 ! NNS IN i Nit i w w � ; C pp� y (G�N IN P �µSwl�ry. aiF a;KOdWai¢O all�� YIMFW +irPrSW +I�SW +i,P -,a�i PZ I £;aFJF;aI- JW'aFJF;d'WJF11 1 m I m I I 1 2 I N ' O I I y I Y I 1 IYWK 1 i 11 '40111 iO W� F i I ' J 0 111 zF3q W � N ipV� UU 1 O i 1 O �; u i 1 o I O M Od �t i MNNN ; Orv'vir i �GON `i N M O N j 4 i N 7 Q U � VOiON i PgO IPflO I VPI IOn Moll i 1011MOM , n .�lp,ry ' 1 ONtl1N 1 OHO" 95 ! NNS IN i Nit i w w � ; C pp� y (G�N IN P �µSwl�ry. aiF a;KOdWai¢O all�� YIMFW +irPrSW +I�SW +i,P -,a�i PZ I £;aFJF;aI- JW'aFJF;d'WJF11 1 m I m I I 1 2 I N q U N I II i 4 O I 3y' y Y Y U r IYWK 11 LLpp} i 11 '40111 iO W� F W 6 COI r 0 111 zF3q W � Y ,N O i O O p N V1N 'L';N w UYI C F J 4LL tW� I� NF i Sf� - - >N NG VA IPJ �a W q U N I II i J r U � F i ; U ; O � O� 6 1 O 1 dP O N O I N O N y Y U r IYWK 11 LLpp} i '40111 WF F W 6 COI r 0 111 40 W � i J r U � F i ; U ; O � O� 6 1 O 1 dP O N O I N O N y Y U P df�O i'vON� i POMO P.-171 ��11 , ePPO op .o ONO N r OP P O G O O� O I p pp O i O 0 6 0� 0 OO o I " I bmOpO gM^ i NOVOtO i fOith lOifN i u01O �O {:88 , Mpp.ON �1�M0 ; NOdN ; opOO ' � I .zn i Oo0 rn t NO�t I OPd iP01"V 1`n ;o vPv IS'I I ; S �j O 1 al-'JW 1 aFJW d'F JF 1 aFJF it iz Iw �4 O Q F O 1 S Oyayt Y F uyyn ly6 a OJ ILL} I �.w 4 ayq y Y U P IYWK 11 LLpp} i '40111 WF aw 6 COI r 0 111 40 W � Nip 'Fa O i O O df�O i'vON� i POMO P.-171 ��11 , ePPO op .o ONO N r OP P O G O O� O I p pp O i O 0 6 0� 0 OO o I " I bmOpO gM^ i NOVOtO i fOith lOifN i u01O �O {:88 , Mpp.ON �1�M0 ; NOdN ; opOO ' � I .zn i Oo0 rn t NO�t I OPd iP01"V 1`n ;o vPv IS'I I ; S �j O 1 al-'JW 1 aFJW d'F JF 1 aFJF it iz Iw �4 O Q F O 1 S Oyayt Y F uyyn ly6 a OJ ILL} I �.w 4 ayq y Y U P IYWK 11 LLpp} '40111 WF aw 6 » 0 111 40 �a �uy 'Fa IYWK 11 LLpp} '40111 WF 6 it Rut Onsignalized Intersections Release 3.1a 7590-WAY STOP CONTRGL(TRSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: TM Intersection: Starward/Amador Valley a'i 15 Count Date: Time Period: am peak Intersection orientation: East-West Major Et. Vehicle Volume Data: ' Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ......... 18 8444- -... -- ._.4444 .............. ......49.0..._._.4.- ......_.._. 18 722 d 4. 786 23 5 0 2 59 0 50 Volume: 1 62 0 -.53 NPR: 19 760 4 4 827 24 5 0 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PRE; 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0195 0.9 p}N: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0;00 0:00 M. Pedestrian Volume Data: movements ................ ............ ................... .... .. ... 4484.. ... " " "_ Plow: Lane widths Walk spend: 4 Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vehicles: 4 Flared apProach Y.Ovements: # of vehicles! Northbound # of vehicles: Southbcund Lane usage for movements 1,253 apProaoh: Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R L T R ...... ..._.......... ._ "__ Y- ._...N- ..- ..N.. -.. N Y N N Y Y , Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,556 approachi 2 Lane 3 Lane 1 L T T T A L R L ._... 4444 ... .......... R ........... ............. Y N N N Y N N Y Channelized: 9 00 Grade: Lane usage for movements 7,859 appXcenhttne 2 Lane 1 Lane 1 L _ T R L T R LT A .................... ...... 8848..- - 4444 444.................. ... ...... . ...... ........... 4444__. Y Y Y N N N N N Channelized: 0.00 Grade: Lana usage for movements 10,11512 app Uaaes2 mane 3 Lane 1 L T R L T R L T...... A ..........:... ........ ... Y Y N N N ... .. ...... 4448.- " - " - -- ... ...... ... ...................... Y N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Daley to Major street Vehicles: Eastbound - .._._._. 8444 ... ... .................. .. Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 0 Shared In volum nt e, nj or rt vehicles: 0 1700 sat E1dR rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 2 lhusber of major street through lanes: 2 Length ne study period, hrs: 1.00 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 __ ------------ _ major street through lanes: 2 Length ne study period, hrs: 1.00 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 __ ------------ _ .......................... ............................... Hart 3- Single Stags_ .. .. . . . ........ ................ ............... ..... ........................ Conflicting FSdws 1222 1266 potential Capgoity 138 120 Pedestrian Impedance FAChOr 1.00 1.00 kaj, L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.97 bfaj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Pactori, .0.98 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt O.89 0126 :.. Oovement Capacity ....... ..125 ...... ................. Result for 2 stage Proceeai .. ...... 0.98 .' ............................. ... .. 0.90 a 0.56 0.45 1 313 323 0 317 t ...... ........................ ................ .... Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane CalCulationa Movement .................... 7 8 9 ......... ..-------- ... ......... 10 11 .... ............................... 12 v (vPh) Movement Capacity shared Lane Capacity I 5 323 374 0 2 308 622 62 313 ................ 0 317 I 33• 583 . .......... ......... Worksheet 30 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 3 4 7 ....8......9."•.10 :.11 12 .................. v (vph) C m(vph) v/C 954 queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 19 796 0.02 9.6 A 4 858 0.00 9.2 A I 7 374 0.02 1418 8 II 14.8 115 0329 17 7 C 17.7 C . . 'Boca Ca•++(w� 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 _ t c,baae 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 220 t c,hv 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 P by 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 012 0.1 t cog 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 3,1t 972 07 ' Conflicting Flo• ✓s t c,T': 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 stage 0.,00 0100 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 0.00 2 stage Movement Capacity 396 - t c 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 . 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 1 stage 6.5 5.5 6.9 6.5 5.5 619 2 stage 4.1 4.1 FOIIOW Up Time Calculations: 12 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 a... I...... I..._... •••...-- •• - - -• ............ .. ... .._........_. ............................... t f,baee 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C f,HV 1.0 1.0 1.0 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P by 0.00 0.00 2.2 3.5 410 3.3 3.5 410 3.3 2.2 t................ £ .2222........... ........2222 Norkaheet 6 Impedance and capacity'egustiona 9 Step It RT from Minor St. ........22_22 ....... ............ 222..........- _ 491 548 Conflicting Plate 529 485 Potential Capacity 1 1,00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor .00 485 Movement Capacity 529 0.99 0'87 Probability Of Queue free St. ..... ... .. - - -- .--a . ... ............................... 2 ..... .................. ... .......... Step 2: LT from Major St. ......982 4 ............ „ -1 .......................... __ _ ____ 1097 Conflicting Flows 546 Potential Capacity - 711 711 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 644 Movement Capacity 711 0 0.83 Probability of Queue Eras Ht. .95 7a • Computation of the effect of Two•atage gap acceptance Worksheet 8 11 Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1• First Stage _._.......-- •--- •••••• _2222 .... ................ .. .... .... ....... ........:............... ....... 1198 1120 Conflicting Flouts 261 284 Potential Capacity 1'00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.95 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrat••- - 0219 271 Movement Capacity "- 1.00 Probability Of Queue free St. 1.00 .._.--- .. - - -• Part 2- Second Stage 2.222 ........ ................... ...... 1162 1207 Conflicting Flow$ 272 258 Potential Capacity 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0.83 Cap. Adj, factor flue to Impeding nvmnt 0.95 Movement Capacity .....259..........._...1_. 2222. 22__22 . ........... .. ......... Part 3• Single Stage .. ............................... .... -.. _222_2 .................2360.......... 2360 2327 Conflicting 38 Capacity Potential Capacity 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0.79 Cap. Adj. factor due to ImpediOB Cap. mvnWt 0 79 30 29 Movement Capacity .. ...---••--••••••••• --- Result for 2 stage proce98: . ,•- ,,2.222 . ............. ••- ••• - -• 2222 2222 . ......... ............... ....... ...... 4...... a . . . . a . . 0.98 0.98 a 1155 1.60 135 167 C t C 0•gg 1.00 Probability Of Queue free St. .. ................. 2222.. workebast 7b • Computation of the effect Of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 4; LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1• First stage .•• „- ..- 222.2 ........ ....... .... ...................•2.- ........ ... 1190 _ 1223 Conflicting Plows 200 Potential Capacity 1.00 1.00 Arian impedance Factor 0.95 Ca Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mums: 0.83 2.. Moverent Capacity y a. ... _.. .. :2222 .. 2222 ... ........ -• Part 2• Second Stage ...... . .... -...... .a........ a ...... -....... 2222----••---" 972 07 ' Conflicting Flo• ✓s 397 Potential Capacity 478 1.00 ' Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0322 Cap. Adj, factor flue to Impeding mvmnt 0.83 Movement Capacity 396 - V m U cry. G gh X F 9 P1 I ; EW h3 7 I O � i W Sm CN i O I vt N P N' 1lox1 YU W a h J 1 Y —> r !! I§Ilc I N r N I91IIWr -�11Y W rl ---`O� Y v1�IJ r W 114 Y rua� ig £ I • F Nom; r 0 .•— •••I••IFi 6 guy iuv .- i �I w x W HIL ID lsIWO i a M 1 •T I F W Ii�lF�i4 IFi. =d' �24N w x It n.Y-•U 1 i J F IX 3 N� C � IJ Y H 0 O jl I i �iF1U I �000 61 nNONI Q00=1 U � V011(INN i Ilt l[1N V1 11°(1 M0M0 M0M i 1(1 M0M �°M I 1 I Wh- ��OO ..pp 1 ' ffVV MM Vi� I W ° ~W i vMr.OY i MQ�d i st`rW G ; • i i liJ � r 1 nC I-1V�v 1vVV ' vv �� ILI a� a; h f1 ; h 6• h a jw+ i nzluy +. �sW+ i.a-laLw+ It £ 1 �apFJF O: F`n.lY ! ai^JF 1 aFJh Y ato I N I W 3 4 ;J n I I ! I: ; M 1 I I I ; H f� as UUi.O o�II� iN zm °o G C >1 .a �c °� a�s3g� °duw F} I O I O I Q oo.m = 9 IIoL,N I o I . N !o°uo ! �0I 1 LL 41 I 161aJ K �1nn IOZ11Nw M \I- ;NOON I NO ys! 000o I POOP I ova N 1 ttLL,00Qeice000cCo II jl I i �iF1U I �000 61 nNONI Q00=1 U � V011(INN i Ilt l[1N V1 11°(1 M0M0 M0M i 1(1 M0M �°M I 1 I Wh- ��OO ..pp 1 ' ffVV MM Vi� I W ° ~W i vMr.OY i MQ�d i st`rW G ; • i i liJ � r 1 nC I-1V�v 1vVV ' vv �� ILI a� a; h f1 ; h 6• h a jw+ i nzluy +. �sW+ i.a-laLw+ It £ 1 �apFJF O: F`n.lY ! ai^JF 1 aFJh Y ato I N I W 3 4 ;J n Y I: ; M 1 0 of H f� as UUi.O o�II� iN zm °o G C >1 .a �c °� a�s3g� °duw 1123 P I x w � oo.m = 9 IIoL,N 0 �o I . N !o°uo �0I LL 41 161aJ K IOZ11Nw II4F x II ^ N w ILLO ��•Y r J a 1 1 4 r e� Yyy I'O r N r S 1! I 1 I S y1 1011^ W i M i W z +N Iw8ii3i J Y a r w �t I p00 O 0 0 0 0; Oo O d; 0 0 0 P U 1 111 V1NN Itl 1Ii I ONO ; U1 Q 1 ; ' i1hdV' -I Nit e F l 00 r O I n O Npp W I1enI '�J;r e�;V N'OINN r' ^I�ONP NO I ; MOO, ; O N I N N 1 V y Ny11 P U'I I I P , i I I I i ;^ Ia.+... Ia.... 1 F I v vV i �VV V V I v Vv u'7 F al Y a.F a' Y a p ; (Yi -JF-; aF-JY' ahJf- ; pd�'YJY S I io i3 1 Y X41 e oW� a> r fSfii Y 6O Ib� IUU wx O O } N C: Y 6¢ U 8 lzig Y w z�0 aaa W O p�^ A G Y ' n �I M 1 0 of o f� UUi.O °o C >1 uLLH °� a�s3g� °duw ygyg5 I h J IA I r w �t I p00 O 0 0 0 0; Oo O d; 0 0 0 P U 1 111 V1NN Itl 1Ii I ONO ; U1 Q 1 ; ' i1hdV' -I Nit e F l 00 r O I n O Npp W I1enI '�J;r e�;V N'OINN r' ^I�ONP NO I ; MOO, ; O N I N N 1 V y Ny11 P U'I I I P , i I I I i ;^ Ia.+... Ia.... 1 F I v vV i �VV V V I v Vv u'7 F al Y a.F a' Y a p ; (Yi -JF-; aF-JY' ahJf- ; pd�'YJY S I io i3 1 Y X41 e oW� a> r fSfii Y 6O Ib� IUU wx O O } N C: Y 6¢ U 8 lzig Y w z�0 aaa W O p�^ A G Y ' n �I M 1 0 of o r w �t I p00 O 0 0 0 0; Oo O d; 0 0 0 P U 1 111 V1NN Itl 1Ii I ONO ; U1 Q 1 ; ' i1hdV' -I Nit e F l 00 r O I n O Npp W I1enI '�J;r e�;V N'OINN r' ^I�ONP NO I ; MOO, ; O N I N N 1 V y Ny11 P U'I I I P , i I I I i ;^ Ia.+... Ia.... 1 F I v vV i �VV V V I v Vv u'7 F al Y a.F a' Y a p ; (Yi -JF-; aF-JY' ahJf- ; pd�'YJY S I io i3 1 Y X41 e oW� a> r fSfii Y 6O Ib� IUU wx O O } N C: Y 6¢ U 8 lzig Y w z�0 aaa W O p�^ A G Y F �I II f� FQQ uLLH °� a�s3g� °duw ygyg5 I h J IA !o°uo �ewy 161aJ IOZ11Nw II4F x II r w �t I p00 O 0 0 0 0; Oo O d; 0 0 0 P U 1 111 V1NN Itl 1Ii I ONO ; U1 Q 1 ; ' i1hdV' -I Nit e F l 00 r O I n O Npp W I1enI '�J;r e�;V N'OINN r' ^I�ONP NO I ; MOO, ; O N I N N 1 V y Ny11 P U'I I I P , i I I I i ;^ Ia.+... Ia.... 1 F I v vV i �VV V V I v Vv u'7 F al Y a.F a' Y a p ; (Yi -JF-; aF-JY' ahJf- ; pd�'YJY S I io i3 1 Y X41 e oW� a> r fSfii Y 6O Ib� IUU wx O O } N C: Y 6¢ U 8 lzig Y w z�0 aaa W O p�^ A G Y CN Y �G U O m G W F F 19 N A 3 W N O O Ir O ' OII a� S wv M 5 iL ;w zz N C i X1 O L l N d N O O m i S Y F J ai it P J i 000 VINNNN Y ¢1m00� i N I ; 12 I rp I ' � 1 r N d H m I Plon Y A � i 1 ' i m I 1 NM 1� M ONRO i no" OOPP Y m r E 1I U 1 w I NNNN a O N O 1 N N 3 �Si � W r F C W Y � i�NUh. rd Y sm_�i Qp o r i Z ; p IL v Y N i 1 I NF rON N i 000'0 ; IN ~POND ; v ; OII a� S wv M 5 iL ;w zz N C i X1 O L l N d N O O m i S Y F J ai it P i 000 VINNNN I ¢1m00� i N I ; z I rp I ' � 1 r N d H m I Plon 1 A � i 1 ' i m I 1 NM 1� M ONRO i no" OOPP Y m r E 1I U 1 NNNV1 I NNNN a , N�On Nepn 1 no 3 u i � W r F i o i�NUh. rd Y sm_�i Qp o r i Z ; p Y y v Y J i 1 I w i rON N i 000'0 ; IN ~POND ; ; i p Al n. ; V N � I Y N W A lomKitiwYWti.O*..SWt 0 < _> i OLHJF ; d'F Jh ; N.FJh 1 m ry r II� r N ay i oOiO O N Wye i gi 'viol v' III F O M W C t o S i N x i ru I � a 7 Il ci cui 1Y-. II r U 1 U 1 J W OC 3 OII a� S wv M 5 iL ;w zz N C i X1 O L l N d N O O m i S Y F J ai it P {f1NNN i MpOp NO I vdvffO V°t pOp II PQVE i N I VNiMN I NV 0-1 1 10 1 1 1 ' 1 1 N. ttl�w * =wt I{ I KFJh ; d'FJF ; d'I J ; CFJF .m I Iz i 000 VINNNN I ¢1m00� I r 6 I 1 I rp I 9 1 r N H m I Plon 1 A � i 1 ' i i I 1 NM 1� O,-. I \F 1 ONRO i no" OOPP Y m r E 1I U 1 NNNV1 I NNNN a , N�On Nepn 1 no {f1NNN i MpOp NO I vdvffO V°t pOp II PQVE i N I VNiMN I NV 0-1 1 10 1 1 1 ' 1 1 N. ttl�w * =wt I{ I KFJh ; d'FJF ; d'I J ; CFJF .m I Iz i 000 VINNNN I ¢1m00� I r 6 I 1 {f1NNN i MpOp NO I vdvffO V°t pOp II PQVE i N I VNiMN I NV 0-1 1 10 1 1 1 ' 1 1 N. ttl�w * =wt I{ I KFJh ; d'FJF ; d'I J ; CFJF .m I Iz MU 1O O Y! �S l�a I a WOW u J U W 0� O �] 'm I��oz i I ; , I rp I 9 1 r N H m I Plon y A i °o$oo i I W Y W r E 1I U 1 NNNV1 I NNNN a , N�On Nepn no 3 u i � W r F i o i�NUh. rd c i sm_�i Qp o r i Z , a p Y y v Y J i 1 I w i rON N i 000'0 ; IN ~POND ; ; i p Al n. I r N � I F N A lomKitiwYWti.O*..SWt < _> i OLHJF ; d'F Jh ; N.FJh m ; mIXFJF i3 II� I z ay i oOiO O N Wye III F O M W C t o S i N x i i � a 7 Il ci cui 1Y-. MU 1O O Y! �S l�a I a WOW u J U W 0� O �] 'm I��oz Q F 6 N O V U W a K C °t 4 1Y� jj � 11 tryi LLppO tl IW-� 5 N Wr i vQ �, a f p�Il 91t5 F VI KP IIO� �WO ION IC� a J O + � H ag g% e= tlW I }.S. i I ; , I I Plon MINIM i °o$oo U 1 NNNV1 I NNNN I NOMd , N�On Nepn 3 � 1 I i I nP ryry I Qp i I I I ; i 1 I w i rON N i 000'0 ; IN ~POND ; ; i p I � I lomKitiwYWti.O*..SWt i OLHJF ; d'F Jh ; N.FJh m ; mIXFJF i3 II� I z �m N Q F 6 N O V U W a K C °t 4 1Y� jj � 11 tryi LLppO tl IW-� 5 N Wr i vQ �, a f p�Il 91t5 F VI KP IIO� �WO ION IC� a J O + � H ag g% e= tlW I }.S. 0 O II �- yI 0 N' 0 U 0 yY L a 7 r Lt 3 ti N O = i a Kin o i u y o f p L I N N tl W j I I mm iu°�yN�i N tlP I1�6i oolco�oo 1 1ry�p lo- ' 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Ph 1 UisOi00 1 W O O O A n In Iii r 1 x M M O y Q J I Pt N vM W M I ' i C v V S i PO P d P 1 I O O IN A I t Il�di p i , P M IItlI{' zjjl Y ss� II U ON Luu W D II W C W&f; II E00 1 u J Y 6' .i ❑ Z 1 N 1 W I�¢W IK� tae I1 w I O J IIIWY YOtr] pryu }� uoi F�- P I� i w t- II =i w II I WWI O GGpn^ 1ru 0 I O I II In j I6 WO it G LiN I 'I' Bull{ Y U O In i I � i U m I2 x W U p i IOrt W i M.f INII i N� i mm f I a I V 2 p �I �v I OOd 1 NN O O N I q-In i MM i I O O O y II o Ie uIH\ il-o �tl PA Nil P i i 1O2 L�I�u1I III iJ ie mow} iOhiMNiyPPi ?j�w Bri zM — >� J O«dm x i I ^NI OW L' �I mI I w� M O M N W I� i i i I IIQe 9�ry zy�SS p� 10.0 Ir' Y OI J 3 CW1 I ` I � uyJ1 ly, I45iZ6;!i � x I °C 0 0 0 W pup•[[JI NO i �� i.�^ I ArJGG^� I N m I I O P [ d 1 0 1 P F zz III1` I lull ill�� S i •Y2 I�y01{ II.per fNI pC �cC+ i r a 2 W i a' F I (¢pp F I pCt J I G F� C YMI.J I I+ I LL 0.' C7 2 i N L j Z I w x I 8 it s u i cy 1 J r a ?I r o r n N � 1 Y i V o I u I 011 'y11� Lu� ME G e A L 110 ^] II Y IN 31IC u �II I I N G mI r VII 0 .q Yo cG N L F F F.l X M s� air I w a r + d m I� I� C O .Y 1 G O It f U�ibM6MN10�t0M101$MM°�ryryi1pQNJV MAO �� >6 i �MiV i CNP ; 060 1 VOe�+ ai000l0op�o0o�GPOO I U � NMON 1 Yf YIO 1 U1 Y1111 I InNPO aia.0- M�1b�Ml��bib�MMI I � �� 1 �pn n i ONO 1 O r 0 I v 070 I 00 i MON l `I�n i Vf �t I ��MY l 1 1 0�1 1 m la ,x NC 1 m uiJ 2a w L� d W T1 O O N N �Llb Nn _ � v ; 2 4 P V ; C ®5 F y6 i N 1 P C . I i �V IX m I J a C i0'rI wo o g m p W a W z l a O b O II" r�r N wa p 1� a✓ 1 41 µ tt � 21#N 4£ Y VM10N i' "�� I •MtNJ A I+O b W F v Yv I vV i v.F/ v i v� £ y W U. S W F a F J 1 W iz iN' i3 � W 1 YUI Kil r �I t1 W �0 W 10 I�O I�v N J a IRE U01 F 1 G 1 1 p M jl NI O 1 III V Nrytlry~ ; r i N 7 o 11 1 Z 1 ' a� ; F 1 q,f 1 0o mmMMpp�� }¢IONv; ON r i I NK y= Ip lilt c 'u. Tai 0 0 0 0 ; � I U 0 0 0 V101�(O� 1 00 p 1 YINP � 0 0 0 YfMN I O O O p O Y140 U 1 IX F J q! Y NN 'i m � b Y T�1 a VON1OM�;�O7b3 J i I o. ay; I a n 01 1 ; 1 A A 5 ' ; �Tmd;NON1�+M001mWb M (0 bnn W N� w 111 w 1 N Y NMa I ' 1 1 i I iyWy i 1 i0F' i SF5 OY' YM� -I 0 O 11 ¢W¢ a 1 1r aFJ 1 a�-J Y 1 IXYJY I� � I 'y NW W m 1 IX V W J Y u! Ir I P q o P r 3 Vl u �II I I N G mI r VII 0 .q Yo cG N L F F F.l X M s� air I w a r + d m I� I� C O .Y 1 G O It f U�ibM6MN10�t0M101$MM°�ryryi1pQNJV MAO �� >6 i �MiV i CNP ; 060 1 VOe�+ ai000l0op�o0o�GPOO I U � NMON 1 Yf YIO 1 U1 Y1111 I InNPO aia.0- M�1b�Ml��bib�MMI I � �� 1 �pn n i ONO 1 O r 0 I v 070 I 00 i MON l `I�n i Vf �t I ��MY l 1 1 0�1 1 m la ,x NC 1 m uiJ 2a w L� d W T1 O O N N �Llb Nn _ � v ; 2 4 P V ; C ®5 F y6 i N 1 P C . I i �V IX m I J a C i0'rI wo o g m p W a W z l a O b O II" r�r N wa p 1� a✓ 1 41 µ tt � 21#N 4£ Y VM10N i' "�� I •MtNJ A I+O b W F v Yv I vV i v.F/ v i v� £ y W U. S W F a F J 1 W iz iN' i3 � W 1 YUI Kil r �I t1 W �0 W 10 I�O I�v N J a IRE U01 F 1 G 1 1 p M jl NI O 1 III V Nrytlry~ ; O I o 1 01 o 1 1 ' � ; 1 1 0o mmMMpp�� }¢IONv; ON r u �II I I N G mI r VII 0 .q Yo cG N L F F F.l X M s� air I w a r + d m I� I� C O .Y 1 G O It f U�ibM6MN10�t0M101$MM°�ryryi1pQNJV MAO �� >6 i �MiV i CNP ; 060 1 VOe�+ ai000l0op�o0o�GPOO I U � NMON 1 Yf YIO 1 U1 Y1111 I InNPO aia.0- M�1b�Ml��bib�MMI I � �� 1 �pn n i ONO 1 O r 0 I v 070 I 00 i MON l `I�n i Vf �t I ��MY l 1 1 0�1 1 m la ,x NC 1 m uiJ 2a w L� d W T1 O O N N �Llb Nn _ � v ; 2 4 P V ; C ®5 F y6 i N 1 P C . I i �V IX m I J a C i0'rI wo o g m p W a W z l a O b O II" r�r N wa p 1� a✓ 1 41 µ tt � 21#N 4£ Y VM10N i' "�� I •MtNJ A I+O b W F v Yv I vV i v.F/ v i v� £ y W U. S W F a F J 1 W iz iN' i3 � W 1 YUI Kil r �I t1 W �0 W 10 I�O I�v N J a IRE Op C U x Q0. W W 4 a- x F W mF�F^. "M a .c Ilo� I a. iya �7 4w it # M`i O i O�! aai rw UN 60 imp u4 lay OW i J 11 1- F 4 F Q6¢ U� Z� W ° +gg F 4 1 rl a a u Y4Y # II 1 1 M jl NI O 1 III V ; O I o 1 01 o 1 1 ' � ; 1 1 0o mmMMpp�� }¢IONv; ON r O 1 lilt c 'u. 0 1 0 0 0 0 ; � I 1 0 0 0 V101�(O� 1 00 p 1 YINP � 0 0 0 YfMN I O O O p O Y140 U 1 Y T�1 mv1 VON1OM�;�O7b3 i I o. ay; I 1 1 ; ' 2�I �Tmd;NON1�+M001mWb 1 bnn v. r-.M I In .ry i NMa I ' 1 1 i I iyWy i 1 i0F' i SF5 OY' L01- 1'�OYJ W 4 j 1 r z W I r S W i 5 aFJ 1 a�-J aFJ 1 IXYJY I� � I I 1 7 IX IN W Op C U x Q0. W W 4 a- x F W mF�F^. "M a .c Ilo� I a. iya �7 4w it # M`i O i O�! aai rw UN 60 imp u4 lay OW i J 11 1- F 4 F Q6¢ U� Z� W ° +gg F 4 1 rl a a u Y4Y # V r O u O •Y L H F 19 d 2 w N O O b 0 F U A I9 M yN C O m N 8 C t F- I_ F 4 O N 1w \III b �II off. 11 II ; I � II i ¢J¢ I i 1 N I U u i 7 T II ti a c v I I N, P il�4l ruo UUi P I Iii i II�!1 w N W O yhj >II11' 3� N O W 9 P 1nI FCu I i a amg 11 U W N4 a F �I _ N 1O ,N mp. t(o�I Cp Oppp� i i AV�iPa � vI YYI p. I N YI u� \FIOOEIr !`dPV 00^i I�Ol�Fm. IM xoo�;ONOM�ONONII �omp]�aN V ` � 1 I O O e I p 0 C O 0 i 0 0 P OP O O o 0 1 P O O I it 1 U I � I W U 11 1 0 J ( • -1 r I 1 � IIIIIII' Uy I pp Vt41 NMOM V61101l!�� I Ip(f O1�0 O I L,) 6 1 yIN V\lPM1 �p I `br�v�b I �MrM i ^ ItlII ii 6 I M ^b`O r fU r fi t Jr I Y 'A « 1 UKUQ 1 N 'F � y LL I W II OZ .I W + I> ^ Z O N y^ ^y I O O ? 1 11 r ICY I I�LF.tNUI� or � ( • —I Ir 2 1 ' I I F I I 4 I W O i F J i t,�wi�°s• w 1 7 I bm ��d I O I —•-I. Fd- a X N trI LL J z 110 la ; OIa O i I I ` I � 1-• l a I�i I N gull N 1 A a 1 S'J F-a 15"J FaI YF�� W'Y S I Y� UizW #�.N.sw S7FaJa' +k +l(OZw #;.U.iW #IIOu�I U pO F1" I Kp I'•JF I aF.JF II1 O I aFJh I Kh..Ih U U 8 � W O I W I � W N I I E I F W 21: \III b �II off. Utl i NONE i O�I�N.tN i M�� i M(�Pn' 1 r i 00 O O I O O O O O O' d O O O I P pp oo P I L.1 I NVI VYN I Ulll1NV11/�1[l I N�O�II Vt Opp I If�G: II�P J 1 I i ' � I 1 i I 1 ; I Z� I N ^N I NMM i Ir •OP i t0 (�1^ y? I I I 1 I n I 1 ((i nn I inn J # I t p vV vv . 27Fa I S.i l-N.Ja 1 Y >l+a 12iMa + I � i CrJF � aE-Jf F'r I ah'JF• � ChJF Ix Cd a9 S-� II,II o J I Y.� 9 W= I ° >W KNK I K W F F 4 2i 1�4 K U �g W y�y W q aW o� Ll asa f IFFrF � W IL O le �G1�• 11 II ; I � II i ¢J¢ I i 1 N I U u i 7 T II ti a c v I I N, P il�4l ruo UUi P I Iii i II�!1 � yhj N O H O, P 1nI FCu I I I 11 U a F �I I x mp. t(o�I Cp Oppp� i i AV�iPa � vI YYI p. I N YI u� \FIOOEIr !`dPV 00^i I�Ol�Fm. IM xoo�;ONOM�ONONII �omp]�aN V ` p G i Y O O r I O O e I p 0 C O 0 i 0 0 P OP O O o 0 1 P O O I it 1 U I I I II U 11 } m ( • -1 r I 1 � IIIIIII' Uy I pp I UlNNV11P(�I(1 i NMOM V61101l!�� I Ip(f O1�0 O I L,) 6 1 yIN V\lPM1 �p I `br�v�b I �MrM i <In �l1 ItlII ii 6 UI ^b`O fi t Jr I Y 'A « 1 UKUQ 1 'F y LL W II OZ .I W + 2V14Yi' Z O N y^ ^y J O W 1 11 r ICY I I�LF.tNUI� or � ( • —I Ir 2 1 ' I I F I I 4 I W i i J i t,�wi�°s• w GG xrN bm ��d I mw In �I s Ip-IIIRW z a }I ; OIa O i I I I � 1-• l a I�i I IIX gull µIQ-. a 1 S'J F-a 15"J FaI YF�� W'Y S I Y� UizW #�.N.sw S7FaJa' +k +l(OZw #;.U.iW #IIOu�I j.. 5�- F1" I Kp I'•JF I aF.JF O I aFJh I Kh..Ih I4Z 8 � � W Iz Utl i NONE i O�I�N.tN i M�� i M(�Pn' 1 r i 00 O O I O O O O O O' d O O O I P pp oo P I L.1 I NVI VYN I Ulll1NV11/�1[l I N�O�II Vt Opp I If�G: II�P J 1 I i ' � I 1 i I 1 ; I Z� I N ^N I NMM i Ir •OP i t0 (�1^ y? I I I 1 I n I 1 ((i nn I inn J # I t p vV vv . 27Fa I S.i l-N.Ja 1 Y >l+a 12iMa + I � i CrJF � aE-Jf F'r I ah'JF• � ChJF Ix Cd a9 S-� II,II o J I Y.� 9 W= I ° >W KNK I K W F F 4 2i 1�4 K U �g W y�y W q aW o� Ll asa f IFFrF � W IL O le �G1�• II ; i ¢J¢ I i 1 N I U u i 7 T a ti a c v I I L ruo r I a i4' i � yhj N (. � H 1nI �•J 11 U a F J ql x p. I N YI N II MOM } m ( • -1 r I 1 f/i t O I a O I ' AY WS UI fi t Jr I Y 'A « G 'F LL OZ .I NW 2V14Yi' Z O N y^ ^y J O 1 N 1 ( • —I 2 1 ' I I F I I 4 I W u vial w I II�51�, w xrN xu °Ivy � F a s Utl i NONE i O�I�N.tN i M�� i M(�Pn' 1 r i 00 O O I O O O O O O' d O O O I P pp oo P I L.1 I NVI VYN I Ulll1NV11/�1[l I N�O�II Vt Opp I If�G: II�P J 1 I i ' � I 1 i I 1 ; I Z� I N ^N I NMM i Ir •OP i t0 (�1^ y? I I I 1 I n I 1 ((i nn I inn J # I t p vV vv . 27Fa I S.i l-N.Ja 1 Y >l+a 12iMa + I � i CrJF � aE-Jf F'r I ah'JF• � ChJF Ix Cd a9 S-� II,II o J I Y.� 9 W= I ° >W KNK I K W F F 4 2i 1�4 K U �g W y�y W q aW o� Ll asa f IFFrF � W IL O le �G1�• II ; i ¢J¢ I i 1 N I U u i 7 T a ti a c v I I Utl i NONE i O�I�N.tN i M�� i M(�Pn' 1 r i 00 O O I O O O O O O' d O O O I P pp oo P I L.1 I NVI VYN I Ulll1NV11/�1[l I N�O�II Vt Opp I If�G: II�P J 1 I i ' � I 1 i I 1 ; I Z� I N ^N I NMM i Ir •OP i t0 (�1^ y? I I I 1 I n I 1 ((i nn I inn J # I t p vV vv . 27Fa I S.i l-N.Ja 1 Y >l+a 12iMa + I � i CrJF � aE-Jf F'r I ah'JF• � ChJF Ix Cd a9 S-� II,II o J I Y.� 9 W= I ° >W KNK I K W F F 4 2i 1�4 K U �g W y�y W q aW o� Ll asa f IFFrF � W IL O le �G1�• II ; I I i p I O Utl i NONE i O�I�N.tN i M�� i M(�Pn' 1 r i 00 O O I O O O O O O' d O O O I P pp oo P I L.1 I NVI VYN I Ulll1NV11/�1[l I N�O�II Vt Opp I If�G: II�P J 1 I i ' � I 1 i I 1 ; I Z� I N ^N I NMM i Ir •OP i t0 (�1^ y? I I I 1 I n I 1 ((i nn I inn J # I t p vV vv . 27Fa I S.i l-N.Ja 1 Y >l+a 12iMa + I � i CrJF � aE-Jf F'r I ah'JF• � ChJF Ix Cd a9 S-� II,II o J I Y.� 9 W= I ° >W KNK I K W F F 4 2i 1�4 K U �g W y�y W q aW o� Ll asa f IFFrF � W IL O le �G1�• CI Y �I UI o' W W L r Y LI Z N (ten N I OI a� Q I of O U n I 11 WW I yy }yI�II WK6 I I U IIOMj IWi. I J I sgjy I .' I I V N U\ SC £ K 4m O II � 1 I W W W C I N 1 I�OMII�u ICW PO PII, I z r6 �O pVp..Pn Zd Q WTI 0o O P I O O O O D O O; I IL s U P I L S Y S IY � Z V Y I im W W J III I ^d b fG61 N w 1. L p WI r I G E J A o A P Fx Y I JTt� � UUI 2WQ N IWa IF O W 1OV V v NV J I� Ic3(M Nj s II^ 1 Via- N It y f } I P W a 1 O I Q I I A N M I� ' W P I W I d I Ia Y,£ 1 IiN 1 4 i, iiW I U i J h K 3 i t �IAQi£r F W K C I n 1 IW] i J h Y 3 0 U n I 11 WW I yy }yI�II WK6 I I U IIOMj IWi. I J I sgjy I .' I I V N U\ SC £ K 4m O II � 1 I W W W I I i M N' of O VNi tyN�e" i bMM NM I ytpplI I�bO�t > 4 I 0 0 0 r I N iN N I P a I p O O Q I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 O l 0 0 0 v I I°n °oo° I NoI°n i HMOM O.v°.00� 11°n M °nM l°n �;•-MM��M�'�MMVibM�I I I I � I I ' r prbr i II,P �J ; NNII, i MV" I NM�OY V < 1 I I I h0 ly�I NNN 1NajvriNN(O It_vW W>i I i I P I ' i Iy�y, I Vv � lyyVV � vV 1 vv 1 I = I m m I S N I W I e C p 11 WW I yy }yI�II WK6 I U IIOMj IWi. I J yy40�I 16J sgjy Y W1L CP W� SC £ K 4m O II � 1 I W W W II 1 I�OMII�u ICW PO PII, I z �I II Y pVp..Pn 0o O P I O O O O D O O; 0 0 0 II 1 I L S IY mdI ^d b N w 1. r I E J Y NZ J t,. N IWa IF O W 1OV V v NV J O II^ 1 N N y 1 O I Q I N M I� ' W P I W I I Ia Y,£ 1 F W 1 4 x iiW I U i J h K 3 i t e C p 11 WW I yy }yI�II WK6 I U IIOMj IWi. yy40�I 16J sgjy �1 W1L V} I�Jix� £ K 4m O � 1 I W W W II 1 I�OMII�u ICW PO PII, I z �I II Y U i °pOOf.°nO i IOnON I NMOOtO(� I YO10 Y°�' ' ' 1 r 1 1 i WWI I 1 i (y[ Y1 1y i OO� I�+�ihFW IPPVimM~nOI O IiJJI IVM�� 1 i cnn I mn..l �nn inn i Wrvtd Cv; td 1 Gv 5 W 2 W S 1 0.'F Jk- � OC F�J ; KTJF I [mLFJ l m 1 y i 5 Z W 0 OW Wa V K O'n d4O. a� ° L0� }w N J K11 G J I } ' I I Vp � 1 1 NP�N i 1 PO PII, I Nb 1 U� pVp..Pn 0o O P I O O O O D O O; 0 0 0 II 1 I U i °pOOf.°nO i IOnON I NMOOtO(� I YO10 Y°�' ' ' 1 r 1 1 i WWI I 1 i (y[ Y1 1y i OO� I�+�ihFW IPPVimM~nOI O IiJJI IVM�� 1 i cnn I mn..l �nn inn i Wrvtd Cv; td 1 Gv 5 W 2 W S 1 0.'F Jk- � OC F�J ; KTJF I [mLFJ l m 1 y i 5 Z W 0 OW Wa V K O'n d4O. a� ° L0� }w N J K11 G J I } O [.1 .Q L O N 0 O d OV 1 J CL c p i2C2 t I J I N I r 1 Y C 1y � �m r W iW 1 6 IX1Y1I Y m C i i I ° 1 � a� v i r d O b O N N U M1 uNi o; uo � w I. z l fA s W a o f O 1 i o f q ate+ O I 1 Y 1 zq �' o i i IVII .NT 1 - O 61 Y� P W W p 1 r 1 I 1 CL c p i2C2 t I J I N I r 1 Y C 1y � �m as iW 1 IX1Y1I C i i I ° 1 � ; v i r d O b O N N U M1 uNi o; 4 I. z l fA s W a o f O 1 i o f q w r 1 a 1 zq �' o i i IVII .NT 1 - O W p 1 r °� o 1= 0 O i •Fi. yS 1 M " a O r c W i M r W O; W 1 iU m y l N O Y I F W C J F a 3 w r 11 d II I' of 0I O a' IW' IF I" LL 1 II�{ YI O lu IJ I 1 � 1 I p i2C2 t I J I PI' L W� C 1y � �m as iW IX1Y1I = 1 i i I O 1 I v i eenn I i O b O N N U M1 uNi o; z l fA s W a o f O 1 i o f q w r 1 1 �' o i i IVII .NT 1 - O Md� ob VWV i IV NL rO JO I gig ON ; 00O ; NVr"I/1 ; ONOM x 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 I 1 I r I � � i p p O l O d 0 1 0 0 0 0; 00 O O U ; N1If(11N 1 YtN� I �r� ism Y1 �0pN Q6 1 b`O `G I BOO VV 'O I brO� I ' i W W I i N� i Wes' i °OW i NQ`C� i �P1�0 VNNIN I d >1 i i i' IMM ryry m I M N r 1^ N i W N N 14g'I 1 { i Y r ; I WisOFiiOLLii7haisOLLa �imswlw�wimsw +I��i w+ £ ; aFJ � aFJ ; ahJF 1 pa]h .Jr m ; S if iz im iW I 1 � 1 I p t I J I � 1 � = 1 i i I O 1 I v i eenn I i O b O N N U M1 uNi o; a o f O 1 i o f q w r 1 1 Md� ob VWV i IV NL rO JO I gig ON ; 00O ; NVr"I/1 ; ONOM x 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 I 1 I r I � � i p p O l O d 0 1 0 0 0 0; 00 O O U ; N1If(11N 1 YtN� I �r� ism Y1 �0pN Q6 1 b`O `G I BOO VV 'O I brO� I ' i W W I i N� i Wes' i °OW i NQ`C� i �P1�0 VNNIN I d >1 i i i' IMM ryry m I M N r 1^ N i W N N 14g'I 1 { i Y r ; I WisOFiiOLLii7haisOLLa �imswlw�wimsw +I��i w+ £ ; aFJ � aFJ ; ahJF 1 pa]h .Jr m ; S if iz im iW N I 1 � 1 I p t I J I � = 1 i U�i�rOVl O a i O b O N N Y W p 1 r Y 1 Ia yS 1 M " W O; W 1 CC N I 1 � 1 I p t I J I � i U�i�rOVl \hrONNi a i O b O II Y N I 1 � 1 I p O 1 O wI , araw 1'> l u W I40 4 J [1 W Diu WY �o N J 1' III02 oFN IMP NN ' MMIAN 0I 0 0 0 1 O M O V I p F0 6 0 0 i p 0 0 Oa i o 0 0 0 { 1 f IW. �SS i MMN i 00.p i ��ppoGN I VInNP � O ; 1 � r• N f i 1 1 'zW££rNM p�p1 o.p irpON ; NN b J i VV N i WNW ; N' P 1� OOV I O �. ; vvv I VLVV I svYJ I.vVv €; 11 F-J; aYJ; ommf JF; 4'FJF �a o 6 O w £Q W G> W 0. aZZ i0t a O all 1aF OWI �wl �I N ao 6Q J I1owJ {5» ( >N �6F a a 0 J u U W w U aw z r � W Cym O J w W M .z. O I rI � 1 T� 0I m' EI 1 w r }I NI, m' IO �n � J 1 2 L� n N O id >CU�W V O � S I U Y I mi mi ,s m C Y d O ..r DI w r OI W m .W. + m m m m Ig IO II ,� N1 1 1 xm a1yl 1 ma t3 ti� M y O 2 m W o tub l Y a F J S � i W Ir/1 0JO w wU�U� LI J F DI w r OI W m .W. + m m m m Ig IO II ,� N1 1 1 1 O t3 M 2 m wc� o tub l Y � i W Ir/1 0JO w wU�U� LI J F K 3 O 1 Cm A u K�K UY i C r J m� S ml mFl�U1 a O O £ 1 O O O w V V N J Z 1 1 DI w r OI W m .W. + m m m m Ig IO II ,� 1 O t3 M 2 m wc� o tub l Y p i W Ir/1 0JO w wU�U� LI J F K 3 DI w r OI W m .W. + m m m m Ig IO II ,� i qJ � U U � rye i O Ur1 >a' ai r N K 8yy� pJ G 4 W Zm O � r ` w 1 a S 1 2 m r o tub l Y p i W Ir/1 0JO w LI O 1 x A u K�K UY i C r J m� S ml mFl�U1 a O i qJ � U U � rye i O Ur1 >a' ai r N K 8yy� pJ G 4 W Zm O � r ` w 1 a S I p' PII .-p N. "'ooN 1 tlMN i ONrN I I on1 1 N O b d O r M i r N N ; Nh41 Iwv IVVV 'v�JIV(V J/ ispr�liOraiiOl -�s °rte �cazw +Im�wt'wiw��rw+ i msrJr�ar.�r�emmcrJl�rJr I � L�1 ow H U �a �w N a0 aL J UW O O W I�g Irr �Or i o { 010 1 0 ; ' 1 p i pOOA.M hh �. 1�V+' Oe do �hO A �m m✓o' �F�- i o�1�0' 1/N��PpeN i WOO 1 bbA tJ � ONOO' Vl WN' 1 ' i WWII 1 1 J � 1 WW f IUOiN ;I�P� WN O 11'F+Jr � d'rJF 1 arJ ; fYr Jim � W a g Y 4 W¢¢ S W O ayii I0. F W� W� hUlO 0" K >' �g IKO biu N 1 F 2 r J 4 pw +SS N �s QFF W `s Wr ?r 1 r o a l A u Mr mFl�U1 a O O £ V V N J Z 1 W H1 r c, � A i d Q ��miPi II A,�1 I p' PII .-p N. "'ooN 1 tlMN i ONrN I I on1 1 N O b d O r M i r N N ; Nh41 Iwv IVVV 'v�JIV(V J/ ispr�liOraiiOl -�s °rte �cazw +Im�wt'wiw��rw+ i msrJr�ar.�r�emmcrJl�rJr I � L�1 ow H U �a �w N a0 aL J UW O O W I�g Irr �Or i o { 010 1 0 ; ' 1 p i pOOA.M hh �. 1�V+' Oe do �hO A �m m✓o' �F�- i o�1�0' 1/N��PpeN i WOO 1 bbA tJ � ONOO' Vl WN' 1 ' i WWII 1 1 J � 1 WW f IUOiN ;I�P� WN O 11'F+Jr � d'rJF 1 arJ ; fYr Jim � W a g Y 4 W¢¢ S W O ayii I0. F W� W� hUlO 0" K >' �g IKO biu N 1 F 2 r J 4 pw +SS N �s QFF W `s Wr ?r \I Aill «i WI v U' O M Y L a. C L F a O o�l of W F t U Im I DD 0 III IIU I II i t7 WWj� F� I) ! W C C Y I I of O d M 1°mo�I O I O W I N ai000loeo;000iooao L Y 0 1 Y O F r 1 1 S 1 w s W I U I i dO0 � O�O 1 NN I(1 IM1 CCpG v°I Y°1 lOn ! Nv°i 0O° dbY Wi 2 dQ i n 1 .a� 1 w I l Y Q ' 1 o _a l N N d iF1�/♦vJIVFJ1 v1..J1VhJ p I KI+J 1 aFJ I Y II S• i I6 1 F yaFJ ; i W i P W L iSN !I O la w O 0 0 1 16 f I I O 1 1 F V � T z z I e ! N 'z�y18 F W r U i lJ 1 J 1- a 3 o�l of W F t U Im I DD 0 III IIU ya i O.-Y i Oro I Opt .- ; �NYN I 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O o d 0 i ' i I U MNV1 I I(1 V1CC 1 NVI I Vllf10 r,. ; evr YvMV la! Y I 1 j 1 W'OAV'. i3�lO ^jy i`fN� iOb� N ^vaty, ! ! �w1 ' 1 m I Np v r 1NIn/��cpO P 110-x0 i Mf`-N � NN� i iJo� i NNIl1 � 1 VV I r YJF I Sa1LL� 1 2.'Jh I S'J' Ya I jWy 'tiSWi.U- .SW1wTW!'�Twt S1 1° if°u i3 It 1 N iw xm zr �I !a o Im ya y ! Y M N y W I yyl LLln ^O In^�rY L Z a '110 IS� —> <rrS !a p Z 1 p °4ii=i W M v 1 r.0 1 v W III P AI d L. ow YU 40 I O Y Igo iyy Iri 1 ' I II II I of O d M 1°mo�I O I ai000loeo;000iooao i r 1 ya i O.-Y i Oro I Opt .- ; �NYN I 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O o d 0 i ' i I U MNV1 I I(1 V1CC 1 NVI I Vllf10 r,. ; evr YvMV la! Y I 1 j 1 W'OAV'. i3�lO ^jy i`fN� iOb� N ^vaty, ! ! �w1 ' 1 m I Np v r 1NIn/��cpO P 110-x0 i Mf`-N � NN� i iJo� i NNIl1 � 1 VV I r YJF I Sa1LL� 1 2.'Jh I S'J' Ya I jWy 'tiSWi.U- .SW1wTW!'�Twt S1 1° if°u i3 It 1 N iw xm zr �I !a o Im ya y ! Y M N y W I yyl LLln ^O In^�rY L Z a '110 IS� —> <rrS !a p Z 1 p °4ii=i W M v 1 r.0 1 v W III P AI d L. ow YU 40 I O Y Igo iyy Iri 1 ' I II II I 1 ' � M 1°mo�I ai000loeo;000iooao i r 1 I U I i dO0 � O�O 1 NN I(1 IM1 CCpG v°I Y°1 lOn ! Nv°i 0O° dbY opy1nf dQ i 1 1 I Q ' 1 1 I ! i iF1�/♦vJIVFJ1 v1..J1VhJ p I KI+J 1 aFJ I II S• i m � y yaFJ ; i W i pa�FJF 3 4 O U U3 a t W a� ipa IY6 u F F DIY �m 0 � WY 'INryI ti�p2 IM1 < Y � Y � Q 1 e I Ow yY�U 6'> H o IIW� OV y �1 w !�r N t y W 6 y 6 gg Wf� i5F lu� aao liar OD �r 1� # w till NI c Al V� d N 0 uj 7i U 0 wp fC1. 9 gN X F .p d Lryry y3, O J 0 1 w } C •N $ Xm N �! Y- 11 N O N O x O 1� I Z O 2 LL O Oh � hlnP � Min-' W JOE �hON !rI 5 d 1 6 M1 C G ' A ^ r 'L ISb`•�� 1 O 0 1 w } N �! K1- O i O Oh � hlnP � Min-' dl ❑n�� hON !rI A �� —�W 'L ISb`•�� O i a 1 t 1 r i ', ��oo.t�ooPOlOOPioe.rP U; �GyjNO I N O O O O N N 1 i N NON 6 bPM I IO O..pp OP•0 I.OPMP �t 6. 1 �r1�d � •p MAO I Mdr 1 rV'V Oay•P — >.i w 1 1 1 i i t ww•t 1.- oPO �.Pr.Nr� aP goQP �QJ I a ru P j O O N I I 1 r H W IIS� � Y N�� Y'•try� -1 i �Ph N r�tMN N'P (JJihNW� r i�1 J } O i OPN i Oh � hlnP � Min-' dl ❑n�� hON !rI A 1 1 1 r i ', ��oo.t�ooPOlOOPioe.rP U; �GyjNO I N O O O O N N 1 i N NON 6 bPM I IO O..pp OP•0 I.OPMP �t 6. 1 �r1�d � •p MAO I Mdr 1 rV'V Oay•P — >.i w MG 6�x O i i t ww•t 1.- oPO �.Pr.Nr� aP goQP �QJ I a ru P j O O N I I 1 r '- N IIS� � OPP � N�� Y'•try� -1 i �Ph N r�tMN N'P (JJihNW� r i�1 611 CWO a t is Z+ N lui �1 .. u . u • w '+ 1 F' Y J Y V V 1 vV V 1 v I ahJ I aFJF- � aYJ' a�J1- I� J } dl A 1 O C Oay•P — >.i w MG 6�x O FMW iN Y a ru P j O O N I '- N 1 p 1 d h N 1F. 1 III r 611 CWO a t is Z+ N lui �1 .. u . u • w '+ �. a = NLLI I 1}-N 40 I u W IO� 16 W } �Sz I n �Ui IMi Pi N � � II i 1 1 i � r i 1 p r Ili u•V I �-.�pr M 1 M ��iNf Y��v- MrMiONP• K�ooe�PPOOiorio�oaco U i CVP10 ! 10lf000q ' OPT i dPMP i nyq 1 PM 1 •0.00 1 i M •+v � � b M �O i M V � i •�.� V �? i F W i WINS! MP M N I N N� I b•O h N WN I4wz; 116G111 VNh NO�t IhPOINia Ni O INYWM 4 i h yN6 O 1 .LL. z�z IOW zx F- ayy 4 lo> I�z 1 O '• w !- U I � i uy J Wpp (N.� ; I pp 1 Wy W jl �1OiN�Md iM(((N..vV.�� RJ ~INNM �]OW 1ann1C: •"•� yWWIann ZYZ•Vi -JIYVV 1 1•J'yV1-�.VV JyN�• W 1 201- r SOi'a I Y0yy''1- 1 rIW-- I�,-, fJ. alF •GiaLL +I�SW1rSW +Iia� OS aHJ 1 aFJh 1 p6p'FJ I aM.J Y-f' li Iz 4 F O U + aaW IoW 1111 + LL O W M W can u k T �I Y; NI V I At dll L11 3 Y ' �1 aI u N Y N 0 0 m Yp q2 q F 12 A L �Q m s CI 1 r I I, xr II 8 J1 Wm4PI r II � r oMOa r Z 11 a2 I MPO �O I r Y r °II J°.om�Nl II IAt MI;SII u0 W I ONO r r 5II (mot I MMom%r m 1 pLi I rr. qi. =oop s 1 r M O r ppMM MiMn POmM O U ; CIO r —D II x¢�+ on MIA III a I r .- N NIIE IoMOQ I a�o ieNMN OLE i WPR�nP W ; --tQJXI Z I N O 6; p =II4 >; p S i O"O P r 0 P P P P Y V N LL N '° Y II . r 0 4 K) o o OO O p pp I (JN yew Z a-y J Ft1 i ; W r 0~ i 0000 Its ;tt j i O�;NI�SF -;aPPP O ZZ I O P O O I rNpyi I/i� i > to I F- u i 3 I N N O II V I° 62 Z r J II 0 IWDI Pr(e IIUIWUa�FH; <iIOI N J 1- I W C 4 I H W I W i c L z +m l°dIQ°6��In Im m {MoImI w z 1 I -IN I II a8) C3a of d I O I 0 LL I M +I v ml m t Y ym a w w0 �IN J ER >I U y N M YI 6 JI D F t°S O n W +y£ 6 ru 1Ijllj Q I'm IZoo, Lol I ? I LL 8iJ in 0 Nl vI � I it g 0 ; `I giaLL4LLI r S K �I1 m i mI >' r 3 �_ I� ; O b M 4 a W r ONO 0 I � I V i 2 II L)i m 'M"OO U i K Y H M1NN °� N r ;1; C O M 1 0+ W 1 L I I I� _+ ono ortmi r ni nmomI n 1 M b ID yD151 N m 6 r J �<�z�ZiO. r —PPI 1 Di-i GPPP s�+~iCM1__)` r�IRtI00p00 V 2 r Im I P � Opilm -Il ��-li P°.PTP ar of f_`I 1 —> l IyI ^ nilgw�o°c.I 2y O N Y r ar.41 r=Y.s; d w Ia' zS;a 0J;Y1W v°i x axz I O W Q r u_ r w I < I> I D> I y 11 W Y;¢ 1 LL �J m 0 Z +m tI1 1 S 6' F� Rwrri ii Oyy-r two W i .Z[r pJo II 9I 4;2mW3 mggmm Irr J 1- ow 3 }4Jm.it it F t°S O n W +y£ 6 ru 1Ijllj Q I'm IZoo, Lol I ? I LL 8iJ in 0 Nl vI � I it g 0 O b u L u i a Y II + Q mC if m if L II L O Y U II LI YIIM oIl bI 1 1 i FBI NI eP- i O ; �IIO II F- U i 1 I C � �I- 1 OPOO ; APWPO 1 0�0�� i O{O P K i O O D O I O O O CJ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I U ; NN ryryNN I pOltyV ryry NN��VV [NU 6 4 i nnnA i nn M�MM I �NNt� I hFl�A � �1 W 1-U II > Ox _ I WWI I7 -sI ^M.v -M;M NrVirN�N; °MrIN w tGi�wxLL p NWMPPr } 1CY1 1 ; 1 tlFN �f a I ayoII �z�•£ ' 1 CJ 11 00. J 1 lS Or I o �.hp olr �II }W IOa'wMr ; INV i I d£zllxm all i " '�2'J'F•aISJFaJa1S.�]I�aiS'J•WJ MF ISy'•M 1 „ O r aFJh aFJ1 -•rF i.a FJF ; aFJh II 1 pW I E r y1 1 n Iaf- II i z N I W � T O � 1 O 1 I r O 1 I xu 3a I O W L M �N N N Jp'JL pLIM "yi a ti J N d ry p 1 1 Y 1 I3 r Ili r 1nN M r n I a m e- N � Y i� x U. G I.'• i 1 F y 6 �}.W i'r jr r y i rU• L 1 J F M F ~ I m I ° � N a r O Y i 1Wu 1 IIT p• v ry � ;�M K yr y p I Cj 1 ; a IvwiHi IwOlw� I r UO r UU � J F a 3 w N U m W I 1 11 K I£ I W W Y W¢ 1 w C W Z i N II I' D I W 'L a 3 11 .x-rU U J r oIl bI 1 1 i FBI NI eP- i O ; �IIO II F- U i 1 I C � �I- 1 OPOO ; APWPO 1 0�0�� i O{O P K i O O D O I O O O CJ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I U ; NN ryryNN I pOltyV ryry NN��VV [NU 6 4 i nnnA i nn M�MM I �NNt� I hFl�A � �1 W 1-U II > Ox _ I WWI I7 -sI ^M.v -M;M NrVirN�N; °MrIN w tGi�wxLL p NWMPPr } 1CY1 1 ; 1 tlFN �f a I ayoII �z�•£ ' 1 CJ 11 00. J 1 lS Or I o �.hp olr �II }W IOa'wMr ; INV i I d£zllxm all i " '�2'J'F•aISJFaJa1S.�]I�aiS'J•WJ MF ISy'•M 1 „ O r aFJh aFJ1 -•rF i.a FJF ; aFJh II 1 pW I E r y1 1 n Iaf- II i z N I W i i � T O � 1 O 1 I r O 1 I xu 3a I I N M xl N Jp'JL "yi a ti J N d N1 1 1 Y 1 V x U. G I.'• i 1 F y¢cj c Y J F ° � a y p I 1 IvwiHi IwOlw� I r UO r UU � J F a 3 i i � M O � 1 O 1 y r O i i Q i 4 00 O l Ore -r N N i 0 0 0 0 1 0 O KK 1 0 0 0 0 1° 00 O O O r O O O O r O OOb r ; � oryry �ONy �O�11O i X0�11 �O1A eAA � ffOVV OryryO ryo 1 �Oy �oV°ryO.I yr r�rrMrMM; � O4 'x �F3' i Y'�•°m i �i:�� 1 ro-o-ry r r�•-� II J � NN•O 1 OO I i r0�t I Nr0 o >I 1 ! 1 II 2g 1 wvVa r 1yV�aJa 1 F a ; 1-'y v"l i {?U1� =W +ix$Wi+tixoiW +�ti'.aGW+ '1 €; a ti J F� a Y J F•F F 1 a F' J F I a F J Y �ml O 1 O �5I rNI 4d SOW ' 2 u�0 I >� J a a W Ion 4 H N is ZW QQ } W z .• O F- ¢ LL o? O 1WF I � ° n {ar x O 1 O r 1 1 I Q i 4 00 O l Ore -r N N i 0 0 0 0 1 0 O KK 1 0 0 0 0 1° 00 O O O r O O O O r O OOb r ; � oryry �ONy �O�11O i X0�11 �O1A eAA � ffOVV OryryO ryo 1 �Oy �oV°ryO.I yr r�rrMrMM; � O4 'x �F3' i Y'�•°m i �i:�� 1 ro-o-ry r r�•-� II J � NN•O 1 OO I i r0�t I Nr0 o >I 1 ! 1 II 2g 1 wvVa r 1yV�aJa 1 F a ; 1-'y v"l i {?U1� =W +ix$Wi+tixoiW +�ti'.aGW+ '1 €; a ti J F� a Y J F•F F 1 a F' J F I a F J Y �ml O 1 O �5I rNI 4d SOW ' 2 u�0 I >� J a a W Ion 4 H N is ZW QQ } W z .• O F- ¢ LL o? O 1WF I � ° n {ar x Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 . ............. Conflicting Flows 397 potential Capacity .00 08 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1, 608 Movement Capacity - 0 99 Probability of Queue .... St. . . 12 ._.. 436- . .................... 574 1.00 574 0.91 --------------••----•••-•----- Step 21 LT from Major St. Conflicting Flows Potential capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability Of Queue free St. 795 836 1 .00 83fi - 0. .. 1 872 782 1'00 782 0'96 d.0 2.0 2.0 a.0 t crbase 2.0 a.0 2.e 2.0 829 870 Conflicting Flows t c,hv 0.60 0,00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 Y by Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0,2 0.1 t no g. 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 C t 3,1e 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0;0 t c,T, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 stage 0,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0100 2 stage t c 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 1 stage d 1 4 1 6.5 5.5 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.9 2 stage . Follow Up Time Calculations, 8 9 10 11__.__1? Movement 1 4 7 ............................... __.. _..,__ -• -- •• - -__•- _ 2.2 2.2 3,5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 t f,base 1 0 1.0 110 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 t f,HV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 P by 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 313 ..... tf ......... ....... ................... Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 . ............. Conflicting Flows 397 potential Capacity .00 08 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1, 608 Movement Capacity - 0 99 Probability of Queue .... St. . . 12 ._.. 436- . .................... 574 1.00 574 0.91 --------------••----•••-•----- Step 21 LT from Major St. Conflicting Flows Potential capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability Of Queue free St. 795 836 1 .00 83fi - 0. .. 1 872 782 1'00 782 0'96 Woxkshe6h. 7a - Computation of the effect o£ Two -stage gap acceptance Part 2- Second Stage _ ' ................................. ............................... ............................ 837 882 Conflicting Plows 367 Potential capacity 367 387 1.00 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap, Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.98 Movement Capacity ...... ............... -••-- 365 ..............37. Part 3- Single Stage .... .. ................... ....... ... ........................... Conflicting PlCW0 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj, factor duo t0 impeding IavmnE movement . Capacity ... 1712 91 1.00 0 97 89 8 11 Step 3v TH frw Minor St, a y 1 '299 Part I- First stage C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 ............. .------ . ••••••---• .... .. ...... ........ ......... ............. ........ 829 870 Conflicting Flows 824 317 Conflicting Flows 388 372 Potential Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0 98 0 99 Cap. Adj- factor due to Impeding mvmnt 327 369 379 Movement Capacity i 00 1.00 Probability of Queue free St. ................ Part 2- Second Stage _ ' ................................. ............................... ............................ 837 882 Conflicting Plows 367 Potential capacity 367 387 1.00 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap, Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.98 Movement Capacity ...... ............... -••-- 365 ..............37. Part 3- Single Stage .... .. ................... ....... ... ........................... Conflicting PlCW0 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj, factor duo t0 impeding IavmnE movement . Capacity ... 1712 91 1.00 0 97 89 I... I ........................ 1703 93 1.00 0.97 90 - •- .-- ••••-- -•••-••••-•'-' Result for 2 stage pr0c0601 . ..... .. .... ....... ..... . . ...................... _ - ,_•.. 0.90 __.. - - • .............. ..... ........... 0.98 a y 1 '299 0.99 307 C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ..................... Workeheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two -stage gap acceptance Part 2- Second Stage _ ............. .............••---••-••-- ...___......436 432 conflicting Plows 576 577 Potential capacity 1.00 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0 90 0.97 - Cap. Adj- factor due to Impeding Mynnt 520 560 Movement Capacity 7 10 Step di LT from Minor St. part 1. First Stage ............................... . ....... ............. ........ 829 ......... Conflicting Flows 335 317 Potential Capacity 1.00 pedestrian impedance Factor 1.00 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 315 Movement Capacity 327 ........ ...... Part 2- Second Stage _ ............. .............••---••-••-- ...___......436 432 conflicting Plows 576 577 Potential capacity 1.00 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0 90 0.97 - Cap. Adj- factor due to Impeding Mynnt 520 560 Movement Capacity RCS: Unaiqnalized intersection$ Release 3.1a __'. -_, _TWO-WAY STOP CORTROLI'1HOC} ANALYSIS AnalYOt:.. TJKM Intotoadeioni Starward /AmadO Valley - Base + TIF Count Data: # ,S Time Peried: Do peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major 8t. Vehicle Volume Data: for movements 7,8 0 approachs Lane 1 2 L T 111_1... ..- y y N N Lane L R T N N N 3 R Channalized: Orade: N 0100 , Lane Usage LT .. .......................... for movements Lane 1 R Y Y 10,11&12 app Laance:2 L T A. 111_1 ................... N N N 3 d 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Movements, _ 1 2 ... .......... ..1007.._. ...-- 11......... _1..1 ..................... 51 47 0 60 107 971 25 33 1007 00 16 1 49 0 63 volume: 113 1022 26 15 1060 64 17 1 56 0.95 0.95 NPR. 0195 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 FRP: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PHVJ 0.00 Pedestrian Volume Data= Movements: .............................. Flow: Lace width: Walk Speed: % Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vahiclea: 4 Flared approach Movements, # ehiclessohhouna o of vehicles: eh : Northbound Lane usage for movements 1120 approach ane 2 Lane 3 Lane 1 T R ri ............... 1. L T .... R._ ...-- L....-- 1- ......R.......... ........ ................ Y N N N Y N N Y Channelized. 0.00 Grade: Lane Usage for a VMMtS 415&6 approachi Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2 L T g L T A L T A .......... ........... 11 ..............11 1111- _......... . _ 1111 ...Y ......N... _. N N Y N N Y Y Channelized: 0.00 rade: Lane usage ........................ Y for movements 7,8 0 approachs Lane 1 2 L T 111_1... ..- y y N N Lane L R T N N N 3 R Channalized: Orade: N 0100 , Lane Usage LT .. .......................... for movements Lane 1 R Y Y 10,11&12 app Laance:2 L T A. 111_1 ................... N N N L N Lane T .... .1111.._. N 3 A ............ ...........' N Chaneelized. 0.00 Grade: Data for computing Effect of DAIRY to Major Street vehicles: ..................... .... ..................... ........................... Baetbound Wee tbOUnd 0 0 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 ve shared In volume, Major vehicles: 1700. 1700 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1100 1700 sat flaw Tate, major t vehicles: 2 2 NVmber of major street through lanes: Length of study period, hre: 1.00 Worksheet 4 Critical cap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Caloulatione: movement 1 4 7 8 9 l0 _1........ ? ?1111... - _1111... -... -1111. ............. ................ ............. .. 111.........1 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations 10 11 112 Part 3- Single Stage .... ................ ............... ...........:.............. ...................... 9 1560 1908 Conflicting V1ov8 46 42 Potential Capacity 1 88 7.00 pedestrian Isipadance Factor 0.78 0.77 L, Min Impede actors' L, Min T Idj, 0.82 Maj. j, 0.0 IMPS Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Pactor. 9.73 Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0•�� 31 Cap • MPVemant Capacity ...... ... .......... ................. .. ......................... 49 . ............................... v(vph) Result for 2 Stage Process: 143 121 ..................;.......-...- ..................0............ 1501 469 ... .. ..... ..................... 0.98 0.99 a 0.50 0.79 y 143 173 310 ................. .................. ... Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations 10 11 112 7 a 9 Movement -••••---' .............. 17 1 56 49 63 v(vph) 143 121 503 173 1501 469 Movement Capacity 268 Shared Lane CaPacitY 310 ................. .................. ... ... Worksheet 30 delay,queue length. and LOS 7 g.... 10 11 12 Movement ._....8. ... _...... ..4...._. 113 35 74 )I113 v(vph) 618 671 310 268 C m(vph) 0.18 0.05 0.24 0.42 vlc 95% queue length 28.1 Control Delay 12.1 10.7 20.2 D H S C LOS 20.2 2811 Approach Delay C APProach LOS ..... .................... ..... a °I ° II F II n Vyy GI vc °cI OI m Y 1 R-1 3 w N O O n a NI YI YI a u G O a c 4 a l 3 Y (n MM i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M J Y 122 h �oMh L oo� � �iprioo ; e o x W 1 W ! c Y to C Irl q q WIN I I r y p ^ Nc y 9 i y. LLr O N 1/10 y _ r I r g _ I W 2 ar g �w z a z Ift v rift i F a w tu U U � � O O • •- W i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M J z 122 h �oMh L oo� � �iprioo ; e o C ! c X W Irl q q WIN I I r y p ^ Nc y 9 i y. LLr ^ O` y a _ r I r g _ ar g �w z z 0 F a w tu U U � � O O • •- W w t U i O r � � M r F •+ N i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M J Y 122 h �oMh L oo� � �iprioo ; e C ! c X W Irl q q WIN I I r y p a- 1 -' a Nc E i o �;In y a a _ r I r g _ ar g �w z z 0 F i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M 122 h �oMh >l oo� �iprioo Irl q q WIN I I r y a- 1 -' a E i i y a a _ r I r g _ i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M 122 h �oMh >l oo� �iprioo i i 1 ° 1 1 Iwoi Gii � r � I w LI 1 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M Irl q q WIN I I r y a- 1 -' a E i i y a a _ r r g _ g �w z z F a w tu U U � � O O • •- W w t 18 �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M �r�OP i hNO��1�f1 00fl0�^0 � SMOM g000�oo°o h a,? R1 l g000i i VOt VOILA V°1 � 1°ifN tlt°il i Ilp tOnNN � SIR IO/11°n 1 q i �O��O r •0 �0 �•O r �P•Oa i rOa�OP I I r� i 4 M i N MV i ^N P O I N N a tl , N a y l 1 i ° W'h V1'�h OGi1+aFar15- =�C aFJF I mW.h Jh; KYJH 11'FJh r Z i P TO O U i O i P C e M > : 80 o O tO� �i0000 OFF r. as �N �c luw 101 Iwz IN W 'O z f^ I 'I N i i P OIN-'O 1 tlNON ° 000a�000ril000a I i F OPtlO r 0000 i N N 00�� 11^111110(IN 1� I` r I Bill ' 1 c rvry ��11 I �� i In °Mill i b °o� � OOw�N 1 �NaaN 1 r S O Np I 1 , n h 1 v V V 1 vJ 1 v vv , v v ail i 1- a s h `Ia l`• alh a upOS �I t Y I N I IY 1 3 Q yr 6 qY S a a W ~ LL S to Cq I� I10 -a �I F I g 11 Q LL III + PW n° z� U w F q ~JZZ G7W O � 16W 1 W1- 1 1 11 i M 0 O I O Y MI MI E M1 it \h I N O NN r O O W 0 1 0 N >61 Ooo01 00.- � o.tP I oMPM ai00ooio0ooi000iOCOo M 1 O b O O U l m 1 Ilr 1 0 0 0 O 9 O O O I O O 00 V1 N NI(1MN 9 aP YIMM 1 NNIIrM a 1 a aP U I 1 I rytI�� I /yam WNQ. �� I bNb � Ir`M i NVacJ tar i w�IP(1 CYi IY N ' p i i 1 1 � h r FvFv v I - l V Y J I V vV 't � %Oha 1 l S�ha 1 2'J ♦- 1 20F a ffl 1 aFJ1- I aFJh � A'1"'J r p~'.�h JF Z r N J M r 1 InhV�In I 1 I IL r � 1 I K i O U 1 1 ' I J W� I I 3 h V� NMI IM 0L1V Np S N � K • r ~ M i qi z I 6i N iv � I N1 1 1 z I 7 10 yQJ wM i FN�1 r O I —MLL NM U 1 W P o o Iz L i 0F� O M O III h M � N I IFi. C 1S'J x+ N U J H } .fir t w o a r c �leJe W a zi H i .Z i N w U \h I N O NN r O O W 0 1 0 N >61 Ooo01 00.- � o.tP I oMPM ai00ooio0ooi000iOCOo M 1 O b O O U l m 1 Ilr 1 0 0 0 O 9 O O O I O O 00 V1 N NI(1MN 9 aP YIMM 1 NNIIrM a 1 a aP U I 1 I rytI�� I /yam WNQ. �� I bNb � Ir`M i NVacJ tar i w�IP(1 CYi IY N ' p i i 1 1 � h r FvFv v I - l V Y J I V vV 't � %Oha 1 l S�ha 1 2'J ♦- 1 20F a ffl 1 aFJ1- I aFJh � A'1"'J r p~'.�h JF Z r N M r 1 InhV�In I 1 I r � 1 I K i O U 1 1 ' I I 1 h NMI S � K • r i FN�1 r O I —MLL U 1 W P o o O L i 0F� O M O III h M � N I IFi. C 1S'J x+ N U J H } .fir t w o a \h I N O NN r O O W 0 1 0 N >61 Ooo01 00.- � o.tP I oMPM ai00ooio0ooi000iOCOo M 1 O b O O U l m 1 Ilr 1 0 0 0 O 9 O O O I O O 00 V1 N NI(1MN 9 aP YIMM 1 NNIIrM a 1 a aP U I 1 I rytI�� I /yam WNQ. �� I bNb � Ir`M i NVacJ tar i w�IP(1 CYi IY N ' p i i 1 1 � h r FvFv v I - l V Y J I V vV 't � %Oha 1 l S�ha 1 2'J ♦- 1 20F a ffl 1 aFJ1- I aFJh � A'1"'J r p~'.�h JF Z r N M r 1 InhV�In I 1 I r � 1 I K i O U 1 1 ' I I NMI \h I N O NN r O O W 0 1 0 N >61 Ooo01 00.- � o.tP I oMPM ai00ooio0ooi000iOCOo M 1 O b O O U l m 1 Ilr 1 0 0 0 O 9 O O O I O O 00 V1 N NI(1MN 9 aP YIMM 1 NNIIrM a 1 a aP U I 1 I rytI�� I /yam WNQ. �� I bNb � Ir`M i NVacJ tar i w�IP(1 CYi IY N ' p i i 1 1 � h r FvFv v I - l V Y J I V vV 't � %Oha 1 l S�ha 1 2'J ♦- 1 20F a ffl 1 aFJ1- I aFJh � A'1"'J r p~'.�h JF Z r N pimomM U� r \ F 1 0 0 0 O } 4 1 ==00 6' i 0000 M r 1 InhV�In I 1 r � K i O U 1 pimomM U� r \ F 1 0 0 0 O } 4 1 ==00 6' i 0000 I I OW F U �KI >.WI FNI 4DI ofJu wp QU >w Ny F W Ih� fr i N I al POON I IN(10 i ov I b b O O r 0 0 0 i P 0 0 0 I I � OOOO I O1/O1/��O OO OIO� I( N� i MOMM � NO NM M1M I I I IMJ, I # Nor-' aMM^ i 1 I i �i.n 1 inn I ecnn I inn F 1 yV 1 VV t vVJ' y. `!J ahJF � ahJh' ahJ I OC_iJ}- Im 5 I N NQI b OW 4a> ae b� �O OU } N J W O„ F t� YQ y$U 6 LL i day �22 O yW �a aQm J LLO W h �r O� Q� 1# 4 h U ti �W 9 r3 �Iyy �� 4 Oa �LLp% W W IQ� M r ureoeo � InhV�In I I OW F U �KI >.WI FNI 4DI ofJu wp QU >w Ny F W Ih� fr i N I al POON I IN(10 i ov I b b O O r 0 0 0 i P 0 0 0 I I � OOOO I O1/O1/��O OO OIO� I( N� i MOMM � NO NM M1M I I I IMJ, I # Nor-' aMM^ i 1 I i �i.n 1 inn I ecnn I inn F 1 yV 1 VV t vVJ' y. `!J ahJF � ahJh' ahJ I OC_iJ}- Im 5 I N NQI b OW 4a> ae b� �O OU } N J W O„ F t� YQ y$U 6 LL i day �22 O yW �a aQm J LLO W h �r O� Q� 1# 4 h U ti �W 9 r3 �Iyy �� 4 Oa �LLp% W W IQ� C 9I M „I O U 0 iy m, yal Ca Y T d N u 0 N O OI �I O m 0 y LL Od10a U w I ONh O \F r II I OOo �IIS r 1 J 1WYE9 £ > � MIX V r• O 24 m IQm N W I-il.� } 3� S 6 {C], w -J O o N O W IX� 4 Oa x b ;IL a L; 1 C A C 1-• J z O On IX F J W; 2 x n 6 ; NN O ^ r z x w u w u 1 O y" LL Od10a U w I ONh O \F r II I OOo �IIS r 1 J £ > ad;S; MIX V r• O 24 m IQm N W J } IX S 6 {C], w -J O N N O 4 x b � a 1 C A C 1-• J z On x n r z x w u w u 1 O y" x r•' y J r ;c ^ ; —bIlF 6 I U' e� r W Z a v v V J m LL Od10a U w I ONh O \F r II I OOo �IIS r 1 J £ > ad;S; MIX V r• O 24 m IQm N W J } IX S 6 {C], w -J O N N O 4 x b � a 1 W1 aI C U 4 A-1 y 0 oIn \11 O {I OI m m Y E 111 FI i m m O L O 0 •v z a ! Od10a U w I ONh O \F r O O M r OOo I r �1 J £ > ro MIX V r• O 24 m IQm N W J } IX S ; J r U , ; O 1 Od10a U w I ONh O \F r O O M ?4 • OOo N �1 J £ > ro MIX V r• O 24 m IQm N W ;^ 3 6 {C], w -J O N N O 4 x b � a 1 W C 1-• J z On x n ; J r U , ; O 1 Od10a U w I ONh O \F r O O M ?4 • OOo �;a000 �1 r ro r i r• O albbbd ;^ S& no f npp J 4 I:W {U'J Ip I r 1 O m l I r Y �1 r ro r r• O AA 1 QE�J On x r z x w u w u 1 O y" x r•' y J ;c I r 1 O p ; �1 r p.� r r z x u w u J I r 1 O M•O M Ny/Mlyfl�l�ryAry�O 5000 I\ m I OJYd 1 O O O g r O V O d I P M^ M 1 ; 1 1 r ; 1 aoop;0000;pood� MMN I V11li r[1 V1 � Ifl 1(110N 'i Mb,p .p r dPOP dP�Oa y i x 1 Ml�l .p OV�d 160 ^eM-; NOIMiI .O NVtl IN °r i,Mq Ot�ll I 1 � N t � YO N 1) NOM WI} J; JIF CiF C $ 1 m O F 1 Y O} 1 S 'J N x O F •Wi I wxW+ I rm-•Y W+ I a =W # I O=W+ ;N Vm�,p OW F}• VI OU4.O bd; F J wo W N IIY� m F O IJ d uy 1 t s y��22 O W i F wN a �14 ILLO iwx I�v 5 E ; r I II p; O d Q0 r ;NON v d� I M \I- oa .- r aSoa r �ai�ava 1 on�� I II a 4IX �oaoa�oboo;pNa ,onl N , ; p00 O l 0 0 0 0 1 0 d O n l p o 0 0 1 1 w;000OI00�O;0oOp;ooOOn U 1 IM1 V1111 I(1N Ill Yi l/1N � MN H ts OW2I NO, ,40 p'� j I OU I N� i O i MPp OV ; ~NMb 95: a Ii S r U } Q IiS;dON IWO.O ;MG`C ;nNM O 1-M J =.J I MM F SJy II u W 1 ^ 1 O p ; �1 r p.� O M•O M Ny/Mlyfl�l�ryAry�O 5000 I\ m I OJYd 1 O O O g r O V O d I P M^ M 1 ; 1 1 r ; 1 aoop;0000;pood� MMN I V11li r[1 V1 � Ifl 1(110N 'i Mb,p .p r dPOP dP�Oa y i x 1 Ml�l .p OV�d 160 ^eM-; NOIMiI .O NVtl IN °r i,Mq Ot�ll I 1 � N t � YO N 1) NOM WI} J; JIF CiF C $ 1 m O F 1 Y O} 1 S 'J N x O F •Wi I wxW+ I rm-•Y W+ I a =W # I O=W+ ;N Vm�,p OW F}• VI OU4.O bd; F J wo W N IIY� m F O IJ d uy 1 t s y��22 O W i F wN a �14 ILLO iwx I�v 5 E ; r I II p; O d Q0 r ;NON v d� I M \I- oa .- r aSoa r �ai�ava 1 on�� I II a 4IX �oaoa�oboo;pNa ,onl N , ; p00 O l 0 0 0 0 1 0 d O n l p o 0 0 1 1 w;000OI00�O;0oOp;ooOOn U 1 IM1 V1111 I(1N Ill Yi l/1N � MN H ts OW2I NO, ,40 p'� j I OU I N� i O i MPp OV ; ~NMb 95: a Ii S r U } Q IiS;dON IWO.O ;MG`C ;nNM O 1-M J =.J I MM F SJy II u W 1 ^ 1 O 110 IN Z OW ta N4Y �4 1 MI "S i11 ~OI I UQq o 4Ip1 MUI WI I� �F WOO 11 IIOLiN y.. NO � 1 ; 1 III I 6 x x W K IX IV 1 !I 4 II II i M O O P � r O 0 i O b i 0 0 u N II II y, r 1 1 z Ii Y I i I i I U yII OO1 OP1toM11,I II ? PIN '� QIIW P W rt °II u' { { 1 1 L UI ~IIp i A A Y II 1 tlYO .. j C I owit £ Qiidji 1� — >M LL� M4 Y 11 lei� I I N IPtMi'I�WII�W y� 0.11 0I I Yt� O Nh W 14 { i I i II.6O .2� W h O OII D iC to Q 2gi i POIPP� �Q �FrLL -' M; lit J I {xp w I I I _ p O m I U° p1 i O i MC 1 F3 g Y11 6 W II ax+Il�Iwaiwi M II WIsPKluzi„w P " = {"W `; ~�I Ci Z+w yII IF ,hi LL OKK C2A 4h O II y N O U r 3 N 0 s O �I 41 A U4 + N n W 1 L irl i] 11= 1 ' O O O w { 1 A �ar I w xw Ii 2 iyPja,ryMO�PidP i {. U� Ohio I' la fa "� r 1 wPiw. H N 7 u IrNim { w uw.� z +o IIu i r o4 zit P i � b P O v 1 III• r QOM i WIN; 1. � 1 C > 1 I 6 1 p I I N.M- i dv bP i wQ � { O O O 001 to 10 r pw ihp AP N y P'i dtO LI i F CJ I I Iz ;N Iw �� C V qv w Z ° V J w i] 11= 1 ' O O O w { 1 A m 2 iyPja,ryMO�PidP i {. U� Ohio I' p fa CG I• r 1 wPiw. 9! ~ IrNim { z +o IIu i r o4 zit I {ru° v 1 w r QOM i WIN; mv� a 1 �g r N �O w o� O o C r 0 J W� !�W j Ng� IIFZ I4� I�x� i ' r { iyPja,ryMO�PidP i {. U� CG I• r 1 1 1 IrNim { r r Ox { Will� h w i �JOrNS1��1��I QOM i WIN; 1. 1 C > 1 1 6 1 I I N.M- i dv bP i wQ � I 10 r I i F CJ I I Iz ;N Iw mv� a 1 �g r N �O w o� O o C r 0 J W� !�W j Ng� IIFZ I4� I�x� i City of Dublin Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study Update Memorandum Prepared by Public Works Department September 2004 In 2002, the City of Dublin commissioned the consulting firm of TAM Transportation Consultants to prepare a Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee study ( "TIF Study') for the purpose of establishing a funding program that will enable the City to construct roadway improvements- in a timely manner to support traffic growth due to new development in downtown Dublin. The traffic study was completed in November 2002. The traffic study analyzed AM and PM peak hour levels of service at key intersections in the Downtown Area under existing and buildout traffic conditions. This analysis was conducted in a manner consistent with a previous comprehensive traffic study for the Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West Dublin BART Specific Plans, which was completed in September 2000 by the consulting firm of Omni -Means Engineers and Planners. The TIF Study evaluated traffic impacts associated with potential future development based on the City of Dublin General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plans. The study also identified roadway improvement projects that are needed to mitigate traffic impacts from such new development in downtown Dublin. These improvements are consistent with the improvements identified in the Downtown Specific Plans traffic study and other recent traffic studies for proposed development projects in the Downtown Area. A Downtown TIF rate was also calculated, as part of the TIF Study, by dividing the estimated number of trips associated with potential development in the study area into the unfunded cost of the proposed improvements. .. The purpose of this update memorandum is to report the findings of the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer who reviewed the TIF Study along with other recent traffic studies in the Downtown Area. Adequacy of the TIF Study No changed circumstances that could potentially result in new significant impacts or additional mitigation improvements have occurred in the study area since the TIF Study was completed in November 2002. In general, the intersection level of service analysis and roadway improvements listed in this study remain consistent with the findings of other recent traffic studies in the Downtown Area, and no additional downtown improvements, other than those described in the TIF Study, have been identified to date by the City. Table 4 of the TIF Study listed the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, and Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road as operating worse than LOS D during the AM/PM peak hours under buildout conditions, despite all of the planned improvements possible at these intersections. LOS was re- analyzed at these locations as part of a recent traffic study for the proposed Scarlett Court Specific Plan, draft report prepared by Omni -Means, July 12, 2004, using new traffic counts and an updated land use/traffic model. This traffic study was based upon the same land use assumptions that were used for the TIP Study Update presented below. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the Omni -Means study and, in his professional judgment, it is appropriate to use this study as the basis for updating the LOS analysis at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, and Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road. The updated LOS calculations from the Omni -Means study are reported in Table B -1 of this memorandum and suggest that the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road would operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout with the planned intersection improvements. The. TIF Study projected the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours under buildout conditions, with a volume - to- capacity (V /C) ratio of 1.05 and 1.18, respectively (see Table 4 of the TIF Study). However, the updated buildout LOS analysis (Omni -Means, July 12, 2004) shows this intersection operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F with a 1.02 VIC ratio) only during the PM peak hour, assuming the Scarlett Court Specific Plan area is redeveloped to accommodate auto - related uses. During the AM peak hour, the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service according to the updated analysis, as shown in Table B -1 of this memorandum. Additional improvements to reduce the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, impacts to an acceptable LOS (D or better) would require adding a fourth northbound left turn lane and other improvements. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation, in addition, these additional improvements to reduce this impact are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. Adjacent properties to the intersection are either built out or approved by the City Council for development, and efforts are now being made to acquire additional right -of -way to implement the planned improvements in the near future as a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project. The City will monitor the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future AA horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be done to assist the City in l complying with General Plan Policies requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. In addition, current and future phases of the I -580 Smart Corridor Project (i.e., state -of -the -art systems deployment for traffic monitoring, incident management, and regional traffic coordination among the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans) would Iikely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Levels of service at all other intersections covered by the TIF Study would remain acceptable under buildout conditions according to recent traffic studies. Therefore, since the City has identified no additional impacts in the Downtown Area beyond those described in the TIF Study, traffic impacts and mitigation measures discussed in the TIF Study are still adequate, and no additional analysis is required. Most of the approved development projects listed on Tables 2A and 3A of the TIF Study have been constructed and occupied since the TIF Study was completed in November 2002. Field observations suggest that actual peak hour trip generation from these projects appears to be consistent with the forecasts listed on Tables 2A and 3A. Therefore, no need exists to update these tables since no additional peak hour traffic impacts have been identified in the Downtown Area beyond those described in the TIF Study. While the level of service analysis conducted in the TIF Study remains adequate, the TIF calculations presented in the TIF Study should be updated to reflect current City projections regarding potential development projects in downtown Dublin and up -to -date cost estimates to implement the recommended improvements. A discussion of the TIF Study update follows. TO Study Update Table B -2 of this memorandum replaces Table 2 (Description of Potential Development Projects: TIF Related Trip Generation) and Table 3 (Potential Development Projects — Land Use Assumptions & Trip Calculations) of the TIF Study and reflects the anticipated net increase in downtown trips based on current land use projections for buildout conditions in downtown Dublin. As shown in Table B -2, the total number of daily trips that will be subject to the Downtown TIF is estimated to be 38,885 trips. These trips were calculated based on trip generation rates listed for various land use categories in Exhibit D to the Downtown TIF Resolution. This memorandum lists specific development sites within the Downtown Area for which developments have been proposed (e.g., approved but unbuilt or pending developments), or for which future development is likely to occur, based on the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan land uses. (Table B -2.) The six sites or areas are those that the City staff believes are likely to develop within the next 10 years. In addition, development could occur at other, unspecified locations within the Downtown Area under the General Plan 3 and, hence, trips from this "unspecified locations" development are included on Table B- \ 2. Development on "unspecified.locations" could occur in the form of new constriction, additional construction or building expansion, or changes in existing land uses /tenants requiring discretionary action for approval. The City staff estimate that unspecified locations development could generate as much as 15% of the total estimated trips for the specific development sites, based on commercial expansion potentials that exist in certain parts of the Downtown Area. The expected 'increase in traffic for each specific development site and for unspecified locations development (until buildout) was then calculated. These developments and the expected incremental traffic increase (above traffic generated by existing uses in the Downtown Area) are listed in Table B -2. Two of the specific developments listed on Table B -2 (7197 Village Parkway and Valley Christian Center Expansion) have been approved and conditioned to pay the applicable Downtown traffic impact fee at the time of issuance of the building permit(s), if it is in effect, The TIF Study used trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6m Edition, for the AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. ITE Trip Generation is widely used in the United States as a valuable resource to estimate typical trip generation from various land uses during the AM and PM peak commute hours. The TIF Study also used ITE Trip Generation to estimate daily trips that would be subject to the TIF (see Tables 2 and 3 of the TIF Study) mainly for the purpose of maintaining consistency with ITE standards when estimating daily trip generation. In contrast, Table B -2 of this memorandum, which supersedes Tables 2 and 3 of the TIF Study, utilizes, for the most part, daily trip rates from San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) Traffic. Generators to estimate net daily trips from potential development in the Downtown Area. ITE trip rates are used in Table B -2 on a limited basis only to supplement SANDAG trip rates as appropriate. In general, even though SANDAG may yield higher daily trip generation estimates than ITE, it is appropriate in the judgment of the City Traffic Engineer to use SANDAG trip rates as the basis for estimating net daily trips that would be subject to the TIF. This is because SANDAG trip generation data are strictly based on surveys conducted at traffic generators within the San Diego County area and, therefore, are representative of daily trip.-making characteristics found in urban and suburban areas in California, including the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, it is important to maintain consistency with the Eastern Dublin TIF program, which also utilizes, for the most part, SANDAG Traffic Generators to estimate TIF related daily trips, in addition to supplementary ITE trip rates, which are used on a limited basis only. It should be noted that in the Fee schedule for the Eastern Dublin TIF; non -fast food restaurants, bar /tavern, and bank/savings & loan uses were designated to pay the Fee at the appropriate shopping center trip rate and not the individual trip rate for each use, This is because, to date, the development of such uses in Eastern Dublin has been included as part of a larger shopping center or retail/strip commercial development, and 1 future development of such uses in this area are expected to continue to occur in the same LI manner. In other words, these uses are not expected to be developed as stand -alone sites \ in Eastern Dublin based on planned commercial development in this area. In contrast, in the case of the Downtown TIF, it is proposed that the above uses pay at the individual trip rate if the site is a stand -alone use, or at the appropriate shopping center trip rate if the land use is part of a larger shopping center, as shown on Exhibit D to the Downtown TIF Resolution. This is because, in some cases, these uses already exist in the Downtown Area as stand -alone sites, and such uses may continue to develop on existing stand -alone sites in this area. As a result of updating the list of potential developments taken from the TIF Study (Tables 2 and 3) and using SANDAG trip generation rates for the study update analysis, the net daily trips that will be subject to the TIF have increased from the TIF Study's estimate of 27,712 daily trips to 38,885 daily trips, as shown on Table B -2 of this memorandum. Similarly, Table B -3 of this memorandum replaces Table 5 (Description and Cost of Downtown TIF Improvements) and Table 6 (Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Existing Funding Sources) of the TIF Study and reflects up -to -date cost estimates for the proposed roadway improvements. As shown in Table. B -3, the estimated total cost of improvements is $8,711,298, including $3,419,020 that will be funded using available funding sources, based on information obtained from the Finance Division. This will leave $5,292,278 (i.e., $8,711,298 — $3,419,020) in improvement costs, to be funded by the Downtown TIF. It is noted that the total cost estimate of improvements has dropped from $10,139,480 in the TIF Study (Table 5) to $8,711,298 in the Memorandum (Table B -3) even though the estimated costs for individual projects have risen in most cases since 2002. The main reason for this drop in the total cost estimate is that the entire segment of St. Patrick Way Extension (1,200') between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street was assumed to be a TIF improvement in the TIF Study, while the limits of this improvement were reduced in the Memorandum to only include the- easterly 400' portion of the extension near Golden Gate Drive. The remaining westerly 800' segment of the St Patrick Way Extension will be constructed as part of project mitigation improvements specified in a development agreement for an approved mixed -use development in the area. A cost estimate summary report for the proposed improvements is included herein as Attachment B -1. Detailed cost estimates for the improvements are also provided in Exhibit C to the Downtown TIF Resolution. The cost estimates were prepared by City Staff in July 2004. 1 . TIF Calculation The downtown TIF amount per trip was determined by dividing the total unfunded cost of roadway improvement projects by the trips associated with growth in the study area (see Table B -4 of this memorandum). As shown in Table B -4, it is proposed that the TIF W amount be equivalent to $136 per daily trip. The Downtown TIF for a prospective development is calculated by multiplying the expected daily trip generation by $136, using the appropriate trip generation rate(s) from Exhibit D to the Downtown TIF Resolution. In general, it is common practice to use projected AM and PM peak hour trips from potential development to size roadway improvements, such as the number of lanes for particular movements and stacking capacity for turn lanes at intersections, as needed to support additional traffic demand from the new development. Ai3NWM peak commute periods (i.e., 7:00 -9:00 a.m. and 4:00 -6:00 p.m.) typically represent the highest traffic volume periods and are most appropriate for purposes of conducting LOS analysis and determining future roadway improvements. On the other hand, it is appropriate to use projected daily trips from potential development to charge the Fee, because daily trips would accurately reflect additional traffic from land uses, which might peak during the day at times other than the typical AM/PM peak commute periods. Daily trips would insure that the Fee is distributed equitably among all development projects based on trip generation on a typical weekday. G.ODMIovm TIF12004 DOWntOWn 77F1Fina(Lstudy update memofna7.DOC 0 Table B -1 Beak Hour Intersection Level of Service Update — Buildout Conditions r .� �Y }Y 'tW i n �Y1LBrSEYi�1 ©Tt "3 r, . i � • -, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road D (0.84) F (1.02) Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road A (0.49) C (0.72) Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road B (0.69) D (0.84) Source: Omni -Means Engineers & Planners, Transportation and Circulation Impacts for the Proposed Scarlett Court Specific Plan, City of Dublin, Draft Report, July 12, 2004. l GADowntown TVU004 Dotmtown TIFIFinaMhle B -1 LOS 10/4/2004 u V .O CL C Q 0 N 1 m Q Y 0 0 D. w O Q U N d *� O V d C O Q LL P: c E 0 NOW9 w d n n m N Q h E c 3 m � o 5 c OrO.� t �o 5 a � ro oc� m� p m N O V N O � p N L G � N i N a p�o y � 6 . a _ c y N N =Z n_ 3 LL N 9 y � v a 0 ° N O 1`+ N b c °c k a `a s 0 g FEE 'ISM . YAI .....� 4i T N(� N N t0 O M O> i co N ^S91 '4�r O U a C a � 4C , M O 4l OJ •� pp D � � � N N P � O Sqf��'.... d Q H ip, P3 G 'y0 x3r�1 N U t L _ z d a ' o O c m m Z o° K E v m c E i' XMI NLL iT -� WIN > G N t f s�nra Eo Q O J J �� w 3 U U U .o c aNi U �,- U5 N r C e co P' ID c 0 • _ E m �. Q Q _ Q Q r G N N C W � w U O � m w. O > 0 E, E E a m o m Q o �� as � c U @ � 3 a .4 •c c E 0 NOW9 w d n n m N Q h E c 3 m � o 5 c OrO.� t �o 5 a � ro oc� m� p m N O V N O � p N L G � N i N a p�o y � 6 . a _ c y N N =Z n_ 3 LL N 9 y � v a 0 ° N O 1`+ N b c °c k a `a s 0 g Table B "3 Description and Cost of Downtown TIF Improvements ......� ..:,......,5:'..3efk:;::: is gj:: T:.:<.,: n:," xp.,.,::..:<. 2, 1i::.: rEiiiz: Eiei?` S: L,:: y;::»' ..::.:..: :..:.y „:;• ?:xi:,:.ii:4:W < "::.. �.,.; i'i,)i<: :,.: .... e<. l , Y,'' �iM1��If�� Developer Contributions as of 6/30/04 (including Interest) ($ 1,749,708) 1 -580/1 -680 Interchange Reimbursement (including Interest) ($1,396,312) BART ($273,000) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE ($3,419,020) $1,587;921 1 St. Patrick Way Rxtension 2 Golden Gate Drive Widening $2,773,285 3 Dublin BI/Golden Gate Dr Intersection Improvements $5203546 4 Dublin BYAmador Plaza Rd Intersection Improvements $11182,241 5 Dublin BI/Dougherty Rd Intersection Improvements $115932885 6 San Ramon Rd /DubinBl Intersection Improvements $12003,420 TIF Report Update $50,000 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $8,711;298 L�.-!L �C J,. '+" c Y �YatiIY�F ,L'1•�s iSAIFl�2ViT�V�iS `1> Y,'' �iM1��If�� Developer Contributions as of 6/30/04 (including Interest) ($ 1,749,708) 1 -580/1 -680 Interchange Reimbursement (including Interest) ($1,396,312) BART ($273,000) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE ($3,419,020) 10/4/2004 WDowmtown TIFl1004 Downtown TlFAFinallTa Ne &3 TIFimpr nwnt costs Table B -4 Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Calculation ded Cost of Improvements Associated with Downtown Traffic Growth $5,292,278 ;,'fim mber of Daily Trips Ad ded by Downtown Growth 38,885 ;-�,, � �� 2 to .., �-osP,erp�aly�'r zft �K � � -�p�� G:OOWw 10)vn 77Fj10O4 Dovmtomvn TIFWMaMa61e B- 977Fcalculation )0/4/2004 Attachment 134 Roadway Improvement Cost Estimate Summary Downtown TIF - Cost Estimate Summary a : 916 'ip "77, c:�4 s v n' s<a- - §Fit�tF 151 T Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 807,000 er CIP Downtown 71F funds easterly 400', Develo er constructs wester) 800' Subtotal $ 807,000 Ri ht -of -Wa $ 522,130 er CIP Cl a uires easterly 400', AMB dedicates wester) 800' Subtotal $ 522,130 Cl Administration, Des n, ConsWcflon Management, ROW Acquisition, 2er.CIP $ 258,791 Conlin an Im rovement, Right-Of-W6 per CIP S S 1,687,921 Total 3 oelva_ t. Rth rrr: tefi5 i I rs' e r ^va 'J}r1 r£ i h Adsin.?. 7 'tqH sR '� ;_• i a � r-, 1A'id"�ftaEzlsll wd� 3lie, 011 VVI_a_- %TE3iCYei S% &,'i1Z8U``,�5`='i'�" s" � "_''.' "=,.. "• }Y r€z - cy ...QAJg ".b. ,.r..M -Rta Totals fo7 TIF Share Civil im rovements $ 1,543,060 Subtotal S 1,543,060 R' ht -of -Wa $ 513,249 Dublin Boulevard to Cul -de -sac (Both Sides of Strset $ 76,987 Condemnation Contingency 15 °/n 590,236 Subtotal S Cit Administration, Desi n, Construction Manage ment, ROW Acclutsition, 20.0% $ 426,659 $ 213,330 Conlin anc Im rove ment, RI ht -of -Wa , 10.0% Total - 23773,285 D till Ht7levat I Rbitle t'G tQ t "' »d t>S�aec >;o eillant§� : z . s 2 ,' , , Viii � am w t: A E it 44 V=Mq - MAE Totals for TIF Share Intersection Im rovements $ 0263 800r Rl ht Turn Lane, 200' Storage, 90' I a er X263 Subtotal $ R' ht -ofWe West Le South Side $ l T,820 Condemnatlon Contingency 15% 136,620 Subtotal $ City Administration, Design, Construction Mana ement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $ - 80,084 $1 40,042 Contingency (improvement, RI ht -of -Wa ,10.0% Total $ - 520,546 (ifDGlVnlaNn TIM004 Davnfo FIF"eAGWI Estimate Sommsry Page 1 of 3, 10/412004 G.'IDOWMMn 7IM004 D2vntvrm TWOna4Cost Esdmare Summery Page 2 Of 3, 10/4/2004 Totals for TIF Share Intersection Improvements Dublin Boulevard - Eastbound Right Turn Lane @ Amador Plaza Road Amador Plaza Road - Southbound Right Turn Lane @ Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard • Westbound Widening West of Amador Plaza Road Dublin Boulevard - Westbound Approach Restri in Subtotal $ 701,830 Right-of-Way West La Both Sides), North Le West Side $ 180,610 Condemnation Contingency 15% S 27,077 Subtotal $ 207,587 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20% $ 181,883 Contingency (improvement, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 90,942 Total $ 11182,241 '� ..,:, '�`v,�+_t�•i,�if��- ;- .��s -�1 IltiB _._b,�f$rR fI6- .?iiOa�L3 �i5�ff)f1.00.' f Abe - , ..u��,'.i.�i i_,; x Atr� Curi_Ones ah, Tom Fhb a hlLattea fo�'AIIiFbUr3A , roacrye 3tdff �fet'tefseEilDn SSA 0 Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Dough" Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (Segment 3 per Eastern Dublin TIF $ 343,850 Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1 -580 Off -Ram (Segment 4 per Eastern Dublin TIF - $ 2,528,300 Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dough" Road (Segment 6 per Eastern Dublin TIF S 1,990,700 Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific PJW (Segment 7 per Eastern Dublin TIF $ 948,620 Subtotal $ 5,8111470 Right-of-Way Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (Segment 3 per Eastern Dublin TIF $ 138,690 Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1 -580 Off -Ram (Segment 4 per Eastern Dublin TIF $ - 2,957,420 Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Segment 6 per Eastern Dublin TIF $ 935,639 Dublin Boulevard, Doughatty Road to Southern Pacific R/W (Segment 7 per Eastern Dublin TIF S Subtotal $ 4,0311749 City. Administration, Des! n, Cons tlon Management, ROW Acquisition 11.87% $ 111681390 Subtotal $ 11,011,609 Zone 7 Fees $ . 89,011 Subtotal S 11,100,621 Dougherty Valley Fees Applied to Intersection Costs $ 111381839 Total Cost to Downtown TIF and Eastern Dublin TIF $ 9,961,782 %of Intersection Costs Assigned to Downtown TIF Based On Traffic Volumes 16% Total Cost to Downtown TIF S 1,693,885 G.'IDOWMMn 7IM004 D2vntvrm TWOna4Cost Esdmare Summery Page 2 Of 3, 10/4/2004 r wi � frl-ha oh E ll 3 l r8 .U[eY# tl ri a sb ! bverteii kratii ? ,,4 Boulel�ardti'di1 =UAV,` - , Q r 1" h a , r vv. N'? l`UTUtfF n:>MO;. Totals for TIF Share Intersection Northbound San Ramon Road -Add 3rd Left Turn Lane Dublin Boulevard Eastbound Dublin Boulevard - Modi to One Left Turn Lane@ San Ramon Road _ Subtotal $ 733,400 Ri ht -of -Wa None Needed Im rovements are Within Existing City and Caltrans RlvV $ Subtotal CI Administration, Desi n, Construction Manage ant, ROW A cquisition, 20% Conlin enc Im rovemant, Fu ht -of -Wa 10 % Ceitrans Encroachment PermiU Inspection $ $ $ 146,680 73,340 50,000 Tote( $ 1,003,420 ar. - Y23 .,T Totals for TIF Share Report Update _ Total $ 50,000 :igr�S', ;r „iY GjDownlaxn 71Fl2004 Downfam 71FfInellCosf Esl(mare Summary - Page 3 of 3, 10/4/2004 _ul 3 3 O l Lo m E O Q ri 0 V v ti d C v 0 D: d r 0 O a d 0 m a 7 p w Q Q fd F N V C 7 LL 0 m 0 0 p N a O � MIA I Ln m � T W co m cq 00 L6 CO 0. § O r r N r ro 7 O a a > dW9 lil � (V (D r Oi o co m 0 E o °? LO «) m w s9 (,4). (fJ E9 a ° a o. N o N U o n U c m a Q W _ O CO h N F- co o li y?e co (D r" (D ' O q inoomM > 6) N to h N O T h rn I CO d"(D 7,N foO ti co mw V N (0 m o D7 m CL [] Q O m r(n(nmcn of LO o u) Co. c N N T T (7 U O N N N N m U o > > o .r:3 e O (D a L t m o V 3 0. c C) d p° �p a 0 IL m Q) o N :a 0 > w bo ooro im o K *�- o O_ ( o MI .o m m c od m L aoi LO o a1 p o o 0 0 0 E m of m M 7 O O U XFF '0 co 00o �ix0�T> 'L ro 'C Q O -z<i'e N N N N iL 0 0 o m yY..ieva...i 0 0 ❑ V/ w - t, " TNMV NN 0 M 0 p N a O � Q Ln m � T W co m cq 00 L6 CO O r r N r m 7 O � � C o m 0 E o °? c m w o � a ° a o. N o N U o n U c m a Q W _ U Q N F- y O li c m o ' O q > N Cl) y O I n, k m o m CL [] Q O _ N N LL L L U O N N N N m U o > > o .r:3 e O (D a L t m o 3 0. c C) d p° a 0 0 N fi 0 O_ ( Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road Intersection Apportionment of Costs Between Downtown TIF and Eastern Dublin TIF G:VDovmtown TIM004 Downtown TIFTinarOublin- Dougherty Intersection Fee Apportionment 10/4/2004 Trip Generation Downtown TIF 57,528 Eastern Dublin TIF 296,836 Total Trips 354,3(6]4 �y -1 4("`A 3} f§ NV tr A � '1 t1�f:0 Eastem Dublin TIF Share' 84% G:VDovmtown TIM004 Downtown TIFTinarOublin- Dougherty Intersection Fee Apportionment 10/4/2004 July 2004 Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Improvements, Cost Estimates and Diagrams 1, St, Patrick Way Extension -- Easterly 400' Segment 2. Golden Gate Drive Widening — Dublin Blvd, to West BART Station 3, Dublin Blvd, /Golden Gate Drive Intersection Improvements 4, Dublin Blvd. /Amador Plaza Road Intersection Improvements 5, Dublin Blvd,/Dougherty Road Intersection Improvements 6. San Ramon Road/Dublin Blvd, Intersection Improvements G:(Downtown TJF WDowntoim TLFLFinall£sfiibitC M U y Jd U d r ^^o 1� Q ii 1.t W V1 0 td v 0 Im 0 O ' Nt K ti 1 N c b s Q O fi O V R 's0�2 q. iTgYtCb `�. os z o O O O O 2i rn r rl w �o o arr - 4 vi I I.. IF FJi y +'' as '•Y3.� } -. _a 69 69 69 Ni 69 Fm All Ill, "1 d - "Fi "'xe•'.c' <4: ' = _ Fell Fl A ZI. � � �i N _ ..1.�•it,: �._ Gc4ni > o ld ro l ro N pp ill P ZI Go 0 O ' Nt K ti 1 N c b s Q O fi O V R PROJECT NUMBER I PROJECT DESCRIPTION I ACTIVITY 9687D Saint Patrick Way - STREETS Reaional Street to Golden Gate Drive DESCRIPTION - LOCATION 'This project will construct .a 2 -lane roadway between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street, south of and parallel to Dublin Boulevard. COMMENTS The need for a connector road for three long commercial cul-de -sacs was first identified in the City's original /owntown Study. This need is becoming mote apparent as this portion of the Central Business District develops further and the proposed BART parking lot is constructed along Golden Gate Drive. The section of Saint Patrick Way between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate-Drive was constructed by the Alameda' County Transportation Authority (ACTA) as part of the 1 -580/1 -680 Interchange Improvements. It is anticipated that the City's project, between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street, will be funded through private contributions in the form of a downtown traffic development impact fee, BART mitigation funds, and developer -built mitigation improvements. For the purpose of this Capital Project, only the portion of Saint Patrick Way that is anticipated to be built by the City is included in the cost estimate. ESTIMATED COSTS FINANCING/YEAR$ SCHEDULE Fund Prior Years 2004 -2005 2005.2006 2008 -2007 2007 -2008 2008 -2009 Totals Design /Inspection -s 167,724 300 $ 61766 $ 572,135 $ 11009,o00 $ 1.567921 Other Contract Services 911000 Land / Right of Way 622,130 .. ' Improvements 607,000 Machinery/ Equipment Miscellaneous - .67 TOTAL - $ 195875921 $ 6,786 S 672,135 $ 1,009 000 $ 7,5871921 PROJECT STAFF 0.12 0,30 NA ""QGEMENT FrE CONTRACT 0.15 (dept' eap0 Oleo UBp109 BS) 3AJH0 31V0 N3010D N v P M ? aN N& a � , d v U N 6 O J a x I r O 7 { 666 W Cc CL LJ W W p�- z 0 F- z 0 Q 0 r n z; UV aW a�w 0 W J Q L) r- U S �n GL '� Q V O H 1VdS—Md8d \SNVId-33dS \0V3 \:A I I[Bill DS 0 r n z; UV aW a�w 0 W J Q L) r- U S �n GL '� Q V O H 1VdS—Md8d \SNVId-33dS \0V3 \:A City of Dublin Public Works Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate Golden Gate Drive Widening Widen to Four Lanes, Dublin Boulevard to West Dublin BART Station SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY 21 Land SF 22 Condemnation Contingency SUBTOTAL Design, CM, RW, Admin. Contingency Ct'J[7_ \►`i17iL1 �711I_ \il 1,543,060 15,553 33 513,249 15% 76,987 590,236 20% 426,659 10% 2133330 $2,773,285 GADownlown 7IF12004 Dmonlown 77FUR=Msdmnie_Golden Gnie )Videning 101412004 Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Demolition SF 32,480 3 973440 2 Grading 1,372 25 34,300 3 Pavement Section SF 14,820 6 88,920 4 Curb & Gutter LF 2,320 17 39,440 5 Sidewalk SF 18,560 6 111,360 6 Sawcuting LF 1,160 10 1100 7 Storm Drain Pipe LF 13500 100 150,000 8 SD Inlets EA 11 2,500 27,500 9 SD Manholes EA 1 3,500 3,500 10 Landscaping Lump Sum 50,000 11 Striping Lump Sum 2500 12 Lighting EA 8 3,500 285000 13 Sewer LF 0 45 0 14 Fire Hydrants EA 6 3,500 21,000 15 Water LF 1,200 50 60,000 16 Joint Trench LF 1,200 200 2403000 17 Traffic Signals EA 1 2503000 250,000 18 Traffic Signal Mods. EA 1 250,000 250,000 19 Interconnect LF 2,000 25 50,000 20 Signing Lump Sum 5,0.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY 21 Land SF 22 Condemnation Contingency SUBTOTAL Design, CM, RW, Admin. Contingency Ct'J[7_ \►`i17iL1 �711I_ \il 1,543,060 15,553 33 513,249 15% 76,987 590,236 20% 426,659 10% 2133330 $2,773,285 GADownlown 7IF12004 Dmonlown 77FUR=Msdmnie_Golden Gnie )Videning 101412004 AVM No llVd '1S i i il! l ifs i _I am Nnena Noa3w lotayd Is VI d 4 3 h CJ N U J I® (i] O �jH n Q 'w ¢z c� a wZ5 0 0 r� Q CD U CL r 4MM V r vzo- road \�ooz -mi \iii \Nneno \odo\ � City of Dublin Public Works Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate Intersection Improvements - Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive Install Eastbound Dublin Boulevard Right Turn Lane Item Description Unit Quantity Price Total 1 Demolition SF 4,000 3 12,000 2 Grading Lump Sum 2,222 25 55,550 3 Pavement Section SF 4,800 6 • 28,800 4 Curb & Cutter LF 450 17 7,650 5 Sidewalk SF 3,600 6 21,600 6 Sawcuting LF 450 10 41500 7 Stomi Drain Pipe LF 12 100 15200 8 SD inlets EA 1 21500 27500 9 SD Manholes EA 1 3,500 3,500 10 Landscaping Lump Sum 101000. 11 Striping Lump Sum 7,500 12 Lighting EA 2 3,500 7,000 13 Sewer LF 0 45 0 14 Fire Hydrants EA 0 33500 0 15 Water LF 0 35 0 16 . Joint Trench LF 0 100 0 17 Traffic Signal Mods, EA I 100,000 10000 18 Signing Lump Sum 0 21000 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY 19 Land SF 20 Condemnation Contingency SUBTOTAL Design, CM,Admin• Contingency TOTALIMPROVEMENTS WMT I _ • 263,800 33600 33 1183800 15% 17820 136,620 20% 80,084 10% 40,042 383,926 $520,546 GAIDowntown 7I1,)2004 Downtown TIFIRnallEa [ imate_Dablin- Golden Gate IN 10/4/2004 W Z GZ W �Wg i C) AQ� N ® OM (�5 Z r \0 CL (pW a (A A I z O O Q a U o T � � 3 U LL a � o, N O U') City of Dublin Public Works Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate Intersection Improvements - Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road Install Eastbound Dublin Boulevard Right -Turn Lane, Southbound Amador Plaza Road Right -Turn Lane, Westbound Dublin Boulevard Widening West of Amador Plaza Road, and Westbound Dublin Boulevard Approach Restriping Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Demolition SF 71570 3 22,710 2 Grading Cl' 840 25 21,000 3 Pavement Section SF 5,470 5 27,350 4 Curb & Gutter LF 1,050 17 17,850 5 Sidewalk SF 61820 6 40,920 6 Sawcuting LF 15050 10 10,500 7 Storm Drain Pipe LF 760 100 76,000 8 SD Inlets EA 6 25500 15,000 9 SD Manholes EA 0 31500 0 10 Landscaping Lump Sum 203000 11 Striping Lump Sum 255000 12 Lighting EA 5 3,500 17,500 13 Sewer LF 0 45 0 14 Fire Hydrants EA 3 3,500 10,500 �. 15 Water LF 0 35 0 16 Joint Trench LF 13050 100 105,000 17 Traffic Signal Mods. EA 1.00 250,000 .250)000 18 Interconnect LF 1,500 25 37,500 19 Signing Lump Sum 5,000 SUBTOTAL 7013830 RIGHT OF WAX 20 Land SF 5,470 33 180,510 21 Condemnation Contingency 15% 27,077 SUBTOTAL 207,587 Design, CM, Admin. 20% 18103 Contingency 10% 90,942 GRAND TOTAL $13182,241 GADowntown TLF0004 Downtown MRPinaM;timateD btin- Amador Int 1014/2004 0 0 a a LL O 5 U' K WAQO? pk o R�Ap Q w Q M z a %i NN N a N Q a a v m z 0 a w Z; w I Uo f/J O o CL LO CID 0 N 4 N¢ J 0. w J 0 a w z U Z O U • �H 6W ay 8 (� P w w N x. O N gU� aw r yqF awl 5 q LL H c n E N N w O O N 7 b r 0 N a" _ O 000 0- O O O> rn 0 m r O) N o to 0 0 N h 0) N M V' m O r N M 0 0 oll �: co co 1 _ c0 d_ co -It CO I : M t0 0 c0 co I� ti nn. M N O N r co h- 0 r W r O7 O co N O0) r MIDM M 0 W 0 M r a> Cn W, a) LL'1 0 0 N r 0 0 O r O _ N r tp N 7 r r r r W .•e�_'t` r r W Y � N �� !P iGf }"" V) FF} S4 EfJ Efl Efl ffi Hi EH fA Hi FfJ Vi fA E�i S9 S 3 7 LL LL U) La! - .p�m Cbt j LL LL LL A .Qx r C: iy Q 1— LL Q ryT c ae E o Ew° y C Q1 CO 3 c .�-� £1 W W y r W W y W ry a) W C r 4 c a L aci O ce) co CL �qE �inrn 5 O Em O O o o O a 3;-- .. a�UU CL �£m a U N R W N a m > N a N t0 m m' a con. ma LL C 7 i E N LL L L 0 Lp m 0 C -nil co C flt C OO 0 C W 7 G C mCn N O a O _ �UR) �lnt0 ca ca O ca m d o5 d c o 0 c O ro m .o U ct f,;n, 2DMQ 0 0toQ -�- N ro N Q C O tOj R N N N N co LV ll� U Y o o>> 00 >> o 3 > O O S 'C to r7i uz N mm N to > 0 N .+ N a w a O mi 0 C O p 0 m a 7 F: `5I a25 0 LL' U N 0 h o ' RRRRRRRRR LL H c n E N N w O O N 7 b r 0 N a" iii \.` •�; �� ;s r / b , LLJ ip �4 r'\ \ fs QM zaz_ a��o - o� o Qz , �oQo�g V u N N A� a� w F= w a tl City of Dublin Public Works Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate Intersection Improvements - San Ramon Road/ Dublin Boulevard Install 3rd Northbound San Ramon Road Left Turn Lane GRAND TOTAL 15003,420 G.'Wowntown TIFTON Downtown T /F1FinsAgstimate San Ramon - Dublin !nt 10/4/2004 Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization Lump Sum 25,000 2 Traffic Control Lump Sum 403000 3 Clearing and Grubbing Lump Sum I0,000. 4a Grading Lump Sum 20,000 4b Retaining Wall SF 21000 40 80,000 Sa Remove Median Curb LF 2,050 2 4,100 Sin Remove Curb/ Gutter LF 600 2 11200 Sc Remove Pavement SF 5,100 2 10,200 5d Re. Median Surface SF 2,700 2 5,400 Se Re. Landscaping SF 21400 2 45800 6a Modify Structure Lump Sum - 6b Inlets Each 2 2,500 52000 6c Storm Drain Laterals LF 25 100 2,500 7 Median Curb LF 2,090 20 41,800 8 Club and Gutter LF 600 20 125000 9 Pavement SF 8,000 6 48,000 10 Median Subdrains LF 23000 20 403000 11 Streetlights Each 6 53000 30,000 12 Striping Lump Sum 30,000 13 Traffic Signal Mods. Each 1 250,000 250,000 14 Interconnect LF 1,000 25 25,000 15 Signing Lump Sum 5,000 16a Irrigation Lump Sum 25,000 16b Landscaping SF 4,600 4 18,400 SUBTOTAL 733,400 RIGHT OF WAY 0 SUBTOTAL 0 Design, CM, Admin. 20% 146,680 Contingency 10% 73,340 Caltrans Encroachment Permit 50,000 GRAND TOTAL 15003,420 G.'Wowntown TIFTON Downtown T /F1FinsAgstimate San Ramon - Dublin !nt 10/4/2004 RESOLUTION NO. 210 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN x x x x x x x x x RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Chapter 7.82 of the Dublin Municipal Code which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee, and WHEREAS, the areas within the City of Dublin located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, as shown on Exhibit hereto, are referred to in this resolution as the "Downtown Area "; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted three specific plans (the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the Village Parkway Specific Plan) for certain areas within the Downtown Area (the "Specific Plans"); and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Specific Plans provide specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for land within the Downtown Area, and show future uses in the Downtown Area; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration ("ND ") was prepared for the Specific Plans and certified by the City Council on December 19, 2000, by Resolution No. 226 -00 and has been considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the ND describes certain road improvements necessary for implementation of the Specific Plans; and WHEREAS, the ND assumes that certain traffic improvements would be made and that development within the Downtown Area would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and WHEREAS, the ND describes the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the areas of the Downtown Area included within the Specific Plans through the year 2010, and contains an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by future development within such areas of the Downtown Area; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the adoption of the fee program as it relates to development within the entire Downtown Area is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City's transportation system is currently adequate for the existing level of development in the Downtown Area, based on the General Plan level of service standard; that the fee will be used to maintain acceptable service levels with additional traffic from new development; and that no existing deficiencies have been found to exist in the study area. As such, the fee as it relates to development within the Downtown Area is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8)(D)); and WHEREAS, a study was prepared for the City of Dublin by TJKM Transportation Consultants in a document dated November 7, 2002, entitled "Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" (hereafter "Study "), which is attached hereto as Attachment B -2 to Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an update memorandum to the Study (hereafter "Memorandum "), attached hereto as Exhibit B, calculated a Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Downtown TIP" or "Fee ") per daily trip to be imposed on developers, based on the expected traffic growth within the Downtown Area due to future development and the estimated cost of roadway improvements to accommodate this traffic growth; and WHEREAS, a report was prepared by the City of Dublin in a document dated July 2004 entitled "Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Improvements, Cost Estimates and Diagrams" (hereafter "Report") which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and WHEREAS, the Memorandum, Study and Report set forth the relationship between future development in the Downtown Area, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and WHEREAS, the Memorandum, Study and Report were available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Fee is to finance public improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the traffic- related impacts caused by future development in the Downtown Area. The public improvements and facilities are fisted in Table B -3 of the Memorandum and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements ". The Improvements are needed to accommodate new development projected within the Downtown Area and development within the Downtown Area will pay its fair and proportional share of such Improvements with the implementation of this Fee. The Improvements are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within the region, including potential developments within the Downtown Area, as listed on Table B -2 of the Memorandum. However, if there are later changes in the projections and development in the region, one or more of the Improvements may not be necessary and alternative improvements may be required. Such alternative Improvements are included in the definition of Improvements to the extent development in the Downtown Area contributes to the need for such Improvements, and the proceeds of the Fee may be used to fund such alternate Improvements. B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Improvements. C. After considering the Memorandum, the Study, the Report, the Agenda Statement (including Background Documents), the ND, General Plan, Specific Plans, all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on October 19, 2004 (hereafter the "record "), the City Council approves and adopts the Memorandum, the Study and the Report and incorporates each herein, and further finds that future development in the Downtown Area will generate the need for the Improvements and the Improvements are consistent with the Specific Plans, and the City's General Plan. D. Adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the Downtown Area is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City's transportation system is currently adequate for the existing level of development in the Downtown Area, based on the General Plan level of service standard; that the Fee will be used to maintain acceptable service levels with additional traffic from new development; and that no existing deficiencies have been found to exist by the Study (see Study, Table 1). As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the Downtown Area is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8)(D)); and E. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding Fee is charged in that new development in the Downtown Area, both residential and non - residential, will generate traffic which contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the cost of the Improvements) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Downtown Area, both residential and non - residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 1 That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements or portion thereof attributable to development in the Downtown Area in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips projected to be generated by specific types of land uses in excess of the number of existing trips, the total cost to construct the Improvements, and the percentage by which development within the Downtown Area contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Memorandum and Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of vehicle trips each particular development will generate. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin DOES RESOLVE as follows: Definitions a. "Downtown Area' shall mean all property in the City of Dublin located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, as shown on Exhibit A hereto. b. "Improvements" shall include those transportation improvements as described in Table B -3 of the Memorandum. "Improvements" shall also include comparable alternative improvements and facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative improvements; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within the Downtown Area and the need for the alternative improvements, (2) that the alternative improvements are comparable to the improvements in the Memorandum and Report, and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay the Downtown Area development's fair and proportional share of the alternative improvements. C. "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and adopted by the City of Dublin, constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the General Plan or applicable Specific Plan for up to 6 units per acre. d. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and adopted by the City of Dublin, constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the General Plan or applicable Specific Plan for 6.1 units per acre to 14 units per acre. C. "Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and adopted by the City of Dublin, constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the General Plan or applicable Specific Plan for 14.1 units per acre to 25 units per acre. f "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and adopted by the City of Dublin, constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the General Plan or applicable Specific Plan for over 25 units per acre. g. "Second Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and adopted by the City of Dublin, constructed or to be constructed as specified in Chapter 8.80 (Second Units Regulations) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed a. A Downtown Traffic Impact Fee ( "Fee ") shall be charged and paid for construction of each Low Density Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, Medium/Mgh Density Dwelling Unit, High Density Dwelling Unit, and Second Dwelling Unit within the Downtown Area when the Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued, except that, from and after the date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Improvements, the Fee shall be paid by the date that the building permit is issued for any such unit. b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for additions to existing residential buildings or structures that result in an increase in the number of dwelling units. C. A Fee shall be charged and paid for construction of new non - residential buildings or structures within the Downtown Area by the date that the building permit is issued for such building or structure, except where the building or structure will require a later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is required prior to occupancy. d. A Fee shall be charged and paid for additions to existing non - residential buildings or structures that result in an increase of 500 square feet of operational space or more to the building or structure. The Fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit for such additions. e. A Fee shall be charged and paid for changes to existing land uses, businesses and/or tenants that require discretionary approval by the City (i.e., Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map, Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment or adoption, General Plan Amendment), if the new use is expected to create a net increase of 100 trips or more during the AM or PM peak hour. AM and PM peak hour trips for existing and proposed land uses will be based upon the appropriate trip generation rate as determined by the City of Dublin Public Works Director. 3. Amount of Fee The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit D (Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Schedule) attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Director of Public Works shall determine the estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate for any use not specifically listed on Exhibit D. 4. Minimum Trips Required for Fee and Credit for Existing Trips Notwithstanding Section `2.e.', no Fee will be imposed unless the development will generate 100 or more AM or PM peak hour trips. The Public Works Director will determine peak hour trips based upon trip generation rates obtained from PTE Trip Generation, SANDAL 7Yaffic Generators, or other sources, as deemed appropriate. In calculating whether the development will generate 100 or more AM or PM peak hour trips, credit will be given for daily trips generated by an existing land use, or by the most recent land use if the site has been vacant for a period of three years or less prior to the date when a project application is filed with the City. 5. Exemptions From Fee a. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from payment of Fees: (1) Any alteration or addition to a residential building or structure, except when a second dwelling unit is added to a single - family unit, or an additional unit is added to an existing multi- family building. (2) Any alteration or addition to a non - residential building or structure, except when the project results in an increase of 500 square feet of operational space or more to the building or structure. (3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential building or structure that has been destroyed or demolished, provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within three (3) years after the building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the number of units. (4) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non - residential building or structure that has been destroyed or demolished, provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within three (3) years after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's trips based on the "Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate" listed on Exhibit D to this Resolution as applied to the original building. (5) Any residential or non - residential building or structure constructed on property on which a building or structure was demolished for which the Fee or a traffic mitigation contribution has been paid within the prior twenty year period, provided the exemption shall be in the amount of the previously -paid Fee or traffic mitigation contribution only, and the applicant shall pay any additional amount based on the then - current Fee. The new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights, in the event that the replacement project would result in a lower Fee. b. Partial Exemption. A partial exemption will be granted based on prior Fees or a traffic mitigation contribution paid in the situation of a change in the type of use as described below: If within 20 years of paying the Fees or a traffic mitigation contribution for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced by a new type of development, an exemption from payment of the Fee will be given for up to the amount which was paid by the prior development project. The new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights, in the event that the replacement project results in a lower Fee. 6. Use of Fee Revenues a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate Downtown TIF Fund ("Fund"), A Fund account shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account. Any traffic mitigation contributions made previously or committed to be paid by approved development projects within Downtown Dublin will be combined into the Fund account, along with any interest earnings. The Fee revenues (and interest) will be used for the following purposes: (1) To pay for design, engineering, right -of -way acquisition and construction of the Improvements and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; (2) To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Improvements, the cost of which is greater than their applicable TIF; and (3) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development, program updates, and ongoing admiinistration of the Fee program. b. Fees in the Fund account shall be expended only for the Improvements and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 7. Standards The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan and Specific Plans. 8. No Existing Deficiencies The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within the Downtown Area and that the need for the Improvements in the Memorandum, Study and Report is generated entirely by new development within the Downtown Area, and therefore, the Memorandum has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements for which development within the Downtown Area is responsible. 9. Periodic Review a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in each account. b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 10. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the Downtown Area, The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the Specific Plans and General Plan, as well as increase due to inflation and increased construction costs. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years. 11. Automatic Increase in Fees The purpose of this Section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee for inflation, beginning July I, 2005 and each July thereafter. The Fee shall be adjusted based on the change in construction costs and land acquisition costs, using the percentage increase/decrease in the two indicators described in subsections (a) and (b) below. Those adjustments shall be applied to the Fee rate based on the relative allocation among the cost estimate for construction of improvements and acquisition of land included in the Report. Based on the information contained in Table C -1 (Cost Allocation Summary for TIF Improvement Projects) of the Report, 72.5% of the cost estimate is attributable to construction, and 27.5% to land acquisition. Accordingly, the construction cost indicator shall be weighted 72.5% and the land cost indicator 27.5 %. a. Construction Cost. Annually each July, the City Manager shall adjust the cost of construction of the Improvements, as shown on Table C -1 of the Report, by increasing/decreasing such construction cost by the annual percentage increase/decrease reached by comparing the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (20 -city average) for the prior March or April over the same Construction 7 Cost Index for the same month for the prior year. The City Manager may round the adjusted Improvements construction cost to whole dollars. b. Land Acquisition Cost, Annually each July 1, the City Manager shall adjust the cost of acquiring real property interests for the Improvements, as shown on Table C -1 of the Report, by calculating the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of the most recent appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting development impact fees) and the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology). The City Manager may round the adjusted Improvements land acquisition cost to whole dollars. C. Total Annual Fee A ' stment. Annually each July 1, the City Manager shall adjust the Fee by applying the total annual Fee adjustment for that year to the prior year's Fee. The total annual Fee adjustment shall be reached by apportioning the adjustment in construction cost and land acquisition cost calculated according to this Section according to the percentage each cost comprises of the whole Fee. 12. Administrative Guidelines The City Council may, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for credit, reimbursement, or other administrative aspects of the Fee. The amount of any credit or reimbursement shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right -of -way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any credit or reimbursement, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by payment of the Fee. 13, Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution. 14. Severability Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2004. AYES: Counedmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None / ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk G:CGh4TGs\ 2004- *4\0d\IO- 19- 044eso- dowTdo n tirDOC(Item 6.4) Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update: Final Report Prepared for: City of Dublin August 2016 WC14-3135 Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................................................................................................. 3 Project Identification .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. GROWTH PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................................11 Land Use Growth............................................................................................................................................................... 11 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 4. NEXUS ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................14 Existing Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 WDTIF Project Cost Responsibility ............................................................................................................................. 15 Fee Calculation................................................................................................................................................................... 17 5. SUMMARY OF REQUIRED PROGRAM ELEMENTS .........................................................................19 Appendices Appendix A: Detailed Information on WDTIF Projects Appendix B: Growth Projections Appendix C: Level of Service Criteria Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 List of Figures Figure 1 WDTIF Program Geographic Area ........................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 WDTIF Project Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1: WDTIF Projects ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Trip Generation Results in Downtown Dublin from Application of MXD+ ............................................... 12 Table 3: Comparison of Downtown PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates........................................................ 13 Table 4: Existing Conditions at Key Intersections ................................................................................................................. 15 Table 5: Future development Responsibility for WDTIF Projects ................................................................................... 16 Table 6: WDTIF Calculation ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 7: Fee Amounts by Land Use Category ........................................................................................................................ 18 Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 1 1. INTRODUCTION On October 19, 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted (by Resolution #210-04) a Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program, intended to generate funds to allow the City of Dublin to implement a number of important transportation investments planned in the area of the City located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. The geographic area covered by this program is shown in Figure 1. The program has been successfully implemented and the funds generated have been used to construct several improvements to transportation infrastructure in the affected area. Over the past eleven years, there have been a number of changes that affect the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee area, including updates to the City’s General Plan, adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, adoption of a citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, among other items. To better reflect these changes, the City determined that the fee program should be updated to incorporate the recent changes and should also be renamed to better reflect the program’s scope and intent. The program will now be known as the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF). The update process as documented in this report has included updating the list of capital improvement projects to be included in the WDTIF program, updating the growth projections in the geographic area covered by the WDTIF, and updating the fee calculations. (Note that the boundary of the WDTIF area has not been changed and remains as it was defined in the City Council action on October 19, 2004.) This report describes each of these steps and the approach to establishing the “nexus” or relationship between the impacts of new development in the WDTIF area and the fees that could justifiably be charged to construct transportation improvements to serve that new development. D u b l i n B l v d Village Pkwy Dougherty Rd San Ramon Rd A m a d o r V a l l e y B l v d \\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC14\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\GIS\MXD\fig01_StudyArea.mxd We s t e r n D u b l i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Impact Fee Study AreaFigure 1 3 WD T I F A r e a 8 Ci t y o f D u b l i n B o u n d a r y §¨¦58 0 §¨¦68 0 Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 3 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROJECT IDENTIFICATION City staff provided an updated list of capital improvement projects in the area covered by the WDTIF program; as described in detail immediately below, these projects are designed to implement the relevant plans in this area and to support the future development of the area in alignment with the City’s stated policy goals. The projects on this updated WDTIF list are primarily intended to improve the operations of the roadway system for users of all travel modes; the projects typically involve elements such as adding or changing turn lanes, adding bicycle lanes, widening sidewalks, and/or improving pedestrian safety by adding crosswalks or changing traffic signal phasing. Table 1 displays the WDTIF project list, and the project locations are shown in Figure 2. These WDTIF projects have been identified in order to implement the City’s General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). In the introduction to the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan (section 5.1), the City describes its vision for a transportation system that “promotes transportation options and independent mobility, increases community safety, encourages healthy, active living, reduces environmental impacts, minimizes impacts to climate change from vehicle emissions, and supports greater social interaction and community identity.” Further, the City emphasizes that it is “moving towards a truly comprehensive circulation network that supports multiple modes of transportation including private vehicles, transit, cycling, and walking.” With respect to the Downtown area, General Plan section 5.2.2, policy A.6 indicates that the highest priority in the Downtown Dublin area is to maintain the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and to minimize impacts to transit travel speeds. In addition, section 5.2.5 contains policies specific to the Downtown area; those policies direct the City to use the WDTIF to fund projects that are consistent with the DDSP and the BPMP. One roadway improvement in the WDTIF area is identified in the General Plan; this improvement is the St. Patrick Way extension, which is included as project 8 in the WDTIF list. In the DDSP, Sections 5.1 and 5.2 address the need for improvements to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation in order to support the vision of the Specific Plan. The DDSP identifies the extension of St. Patrick Way as being necessary to allow better access through the transit-oriented district and to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The DDSP also identifies a need for expanding the bicycle network throughout the downtown area and creating improved connections to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. In part because of these recommendations in the DDSP, the City chose to prepare an updated BPMP with a particular focus on improving bicycle and pedestrian connections through the Downtown area and to/from the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Many of the WDTIF projects come directly from the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 4 adopted BPMP. For example, several of the improvements along Village Parkway, Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard, and the St Patrick Way extension were identified in the BPMP as part of the Downtown Connectivity Project (see pages 128-129 of the BPMP). The St Patrick Way extension was identified as being a critical element of the Downtown Connectivity Project, necessary to provide an east-west connection to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and to accommodate a wider range of users than could be comfortably served by Dublin Boulevard. All of the elements of the Downtown Connectivity Project work in tandem to ensure the integrity and functionality of the downtown transportation network. One of the most significant policy changes in the DDSP was the elimination of vehicle Level of Service (LOS) as a transportation system performance standard within the Specific Plan area. Vehicle LOS is a qualitative description, on a scale from A to F, which measures the amount of vehicle delay experienced at an intersection or along a roadway segment. It is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual and is commonly used nationally. Historically, the City of Dublin has typically applied a standard of LOS D for all intersections. The DDSP explicitly removed the LOS standard for any intersection in the Downtown Dublin area; the objective of this change was “to balance vehicular and non-vehicular circulation requirements, and thereby create a more pedestrian-friendly downtown” (DDSP, Section 5.1). As part of the DDSP analysis, it became clear that maintaining the historical LOS standard would mean that the downtown would largely remain an auto-centric area, and would not allow for the land use and circulation changes that the community wanted in order to achieve a more balanced multimodal environment. In making this change, the City of Dublin anticipated a shift in policy direction that has since occurred at the state level. In 2013, new state legislation (Senate Bill 743) was passed that directed the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new guidelines for transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The legislation said that the new guidelines should remove vehicle LOS as a performance metric to determine environmental impacts under CEQA. This action was taken because it was determined that using LOS as a performance standard did not support broader statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging infill development, and supporting the development of multi-modal transportation networks. One of the elements involved in supporting multi-modal transportation networks is to make it safer to use such networks. As the City reduces its emphasis on minimizing vehicular delay, it strives to improve access and circulation for all modes of transportation. It also acknowledges that vehicle speeds through the downtown area may get slower, which in turn may provide benefits to commercial uses as motorists are more inclined to pay attention to commercial outlets while driving through the Downtown area at a slower speed. In addition, better access and circulation for all modes of transportation, combined with slower vehicle speeds, is expected to have safety benefits for all system users. Research has consistently demonstrated that higher vehicle speeds are associated with greater frequency and severity of collisions, Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 5 and that reducing speeds through better integration of all modes of transportation access is a key element of improving safety outcomes. For example, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) publishes the Urban Street Design Guide, which states that “vehicle speed plays a critical role in the cause and severity of crashes,” and illustrates that relationship with the following charts: Source: NACTO Urban Street Design Guide Overview Additionally, OPR’s revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA provides detailed discussion and references from several studies concluding that speed is one of the most important factors in determining the cause and severity of collisions. (See the Guidelines at https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf). Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 6 Beyond the relationship between traffic speed and safety outcomes, the OPR Guidelines also provide insight into the relationship between land use patterns, the overall level of vehicle travel (as measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT), and traffic safety. According to the OPR Guidelines, the fundamental relationship between VMT and safety is summarized by Yeo et al. (2014): “Multiple traffic safety studies showed that higher VMT was positively associated with the occurrence of traffic crashes or fatalities (e.g., Ewing et al. 2002, 2003; NHTSA 2011). The causal relationship between the mileage of total vehicle trips and crash occurrences can be explained by probability. With higher VMT, it is more likely that more crashes will occur (Jang et al. 2012).” It further explains that sprawl-style development has been shown to lead to elevated crash risk. The cause lies both in higher VMT levels and in design variables which influence speed and driver behavior (Yeo 2014). Ewing et al. (2003) points out that “suburban and outlying intersections have been significantly overrepresented in pedestrian crashes compared with more urban areas, after control for exposure and other location factors.” In summary, with the policy changes adopted by the City and state, as well as the land use program and design guidelines presented in the DDSP, the City is clearly expressing the community’s values and vision for the downtown area, articulating a future in which the minimization of vehicular delay is not the primary objective, but rather where the needs of all transportation system users are balanced, where the safety of all system users is improved, and where the land uses and physical design characteristics envisioned in the Specific Plan can be supported by a well-connected and pedestrian-friendly transportation network. The WDTIF projects are designed to implement that vision. COST ESTIMATES For the purposes of the WDTIF, it is essential to have an estimate of the cost to implement each of the capital improvement projects on the WDTIF project list. Cost estimates were drawn from the most recent plans for each project, or in some cases were developed specifically for this WDTIF study. For example, several of the WDTIF projects were identified in the BPMP, so cost estimates for projects 3 through 7 were drawn directly from that plan. For projects 1 and 2, cost estimates were developed by City staff and reviewed by Fehr & Peers. For project 8, a cost estimate for an adjacent segment of St. Patrick Way had already been developed by the engineer designing that roadway; Fehr & Peers used that as a basis for developing a cost estimate for the middle segment of St. Patrick Way, which is project 8 in this WDTIF list. The estimated cost of each project is shown on Table 1. Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 7 More detailed information about the capital improvement projects is provided in Appendix A, including a conceptual layout of each project and documentation of the cost estimates described above. (Note that Projects 1 and 2 were carried forward from the previous Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program with few changes, Projects 3 through 7 reflect the “Tier 1” projects from the BPMP, and Project 8 was called for in the General Plan and DDSP.) ! G o l d e n G a t e D r §¨¦580 V ill a g e P k w y §¨¦68 0 ! ! ! D u b l i n B l v d Village Pkwy Dougherty Rd San Ramon Rd A m a d o r V a l l e y B l v d D a v o n a D r Silvergate Dr A m a d o r P l a z a R d R e g i o n a l S t Clark Ave A l c o s t a B l v d S t . P a t r i c k W a y ! ! !7 !6 !2 !1 \\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC14\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\GIS\MXD\fig02_ImpactFeeProjectLocations.mxd We s t e r n D u b l i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Im p a c t F e e P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n s Figure 2 5 4 3 Vi l l a g e P k w y 5 !!! Co m p l e t e S t r e e t s I m p r o v e m e n t s In t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s 6 WD T I F A r e a 2 Am a d o r P l a z a R d Du b l i n B l v d !4!3 ! ! Du b l i n B l v d & G o l d e n G a t e D r Du b l i n B l v d & S a n R a m o n R d 7 Du b l i n B l v d & V i l l a g e P k w y Dub l i n B l v d & A m a d o r P l a z a R d 1 Ro a d w a y E x t e n s i o n St. P a t r i c k W a y 5 8 8 We s t e r n D u b l i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e U p d a t e , F i n al Report August 2016 9 TA B L E 1 : W D T I F P R O J E C T S Pr o j e c t # Pr o j e c t N a m e De s c r i p t i o n Es t i m a t e d C o s t Pr o j e c t T y p e Source 1 Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d / A m a d o r Pl a z a R o a d I n t e r s e c t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s Ad d s o u t h b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e ; r e d u c e c u r b r a d i i a nd i n s t a l l cu r b r a m p s o n a l l c o r n e r s , i m p r o v e c r o s s w a l k s . $1 , 0 6 7 , 4 0 0 Co n g e s t i o n Re l i e f / G H G Re d u c t i o n , a n d Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Current DTIF and Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2 Du b l i n Bo u l e v a r d / G o l d e n G a t e Dr i v e I n t e r s e c t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s Ad d o n e n o r t h b o u n d r i g h t t u r n a n d o n e l e f t t u r n l a n e; i n s t a l l di r e c t i o n a l c u r b r a m p s ; i n s t a l l p e d e s t r i a n c o u n t d o w n s i g n a l s an d a u d i b l e w a r n i n g s i g n s ; m o d i f y s i g n a l p h a s i n g t o i n c l u d e pr o t e c t e d l e f t - t u r n s . $1 , 1 4 1 , 0 0 0 Co n g e s t i o n Re l i e f / G H G Re d u c t i o n , a n d Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Current DTIF and Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 3 Du b l i n B o u l e v a r d Co m p l e t e S t r e e t s Pr o j e c t Be t w e e n S a n R a m o n R o a d a n d V i l l a g e P a r k w a y ( e x c e p t fo r so u t h s i d e b e t w e e n A m a d o r P l a z a R d a n d V i l l a g e P k w y ): Ob s t r u c t i o n r e m o v a l f r o m s i d e w a l k ( e . g . s i g n s , u t i l it y / h y d r a n t re l o c a t i o n ) , d r i v e w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d r e c o n s t r u c t i on t o cr e a t e c l e a r , l e v e l , a n d c o n t i n u o u s p e d e s t r i a n p a t h o f t r a v e l ; cu r b e x t e n s i o n a t d r i v e w a y 2 0 0 ' e a s t o f R e g i o n a l ( s ou t h s i d e ) . Be t w e e n A m a d o r P l a z a R d a n d V i l l a g e P k w y ( s o u t h s i d e) : Wi d e n e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k t o c r e a t e C l a s s I p a t h w i t h ba r r i e r , li g h t i n g u n d e r I - 6 8 0 , o b s t r u c t i o n r e m o v a l , m e d i a n b ar r i e r , si g n a l p o l e r e l o c a t i o n a t A P R a n d V P , d r i v e w a y r e c o ns t r u c t i o n , di r e c t i o n a l b i c y c l e c u r b r a m p s $1 , 1 1 7 , 5 0 0 Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 4 Am a d o r P l a z a R o a d Co m p l e t e S t r e e t s Pr o j e c t Be t w e e n A m a d o r V a l l e y B o u l e v a r d an d S t P a t r i c k W a y : Ad d on e m i d - b l o c k p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g , a d d m e d i a n s , r e p la c e si d e w a l k s , u p g r a d e l a n d s c a p i n g , a n d m a k e i n t e r s e c t i on im p r o v e m e n t s a t A m a d o r P l a z a / A m a d o r V a l l e y a n d a t A ma d o r Pl a z a / S t P a t r i c k W a y $3 , 7 7 0 , 2 0 0 Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan We s t e r n D u b l i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e U p d a t e , F i n al R e p o r t Au g u s t 2 0 1 6 10 TA B L E 1 : W D T I F P R O J E C T S Pr o j e c t # Pr o j e c t N a m e De s c r i p t i o n Es t i m a t e d C o s t Pr o j e c t T y p e Source 5 Vi l l a g e P a r k w a y Co m p l e t e S t r e e t s Pr o j e c t Be t w e e n A m a d o r V a l l e y B l v d a n d A l a m o C a n a l T r a i l c o nn e c t o r : Ad d C l a s s I I A b i c y c l e l a n e s . Vi l l a g e P a r k w a y / C l a r k A v e n u e a t Al a m o C a n a l T r a i l t o D u b l i n P u b l i c S a f e t y C o m p l e x : A d d C l a s s I mu l t i - u s e t r a i l i n c l u d i n g b i k e / p e d b r i d g e . Cl a r k A v e n u e be t w e e n D u b l i n B l v d a n d A l a m o C a n a l T r a i l : A d d C l a s s I I A bi c y c l e l a n e s . $7 7 0 , 5 0 0 Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 6 Du b l i n B l v d / S a n R a m o n Ro a d I n t e r s e c t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s Re d u c e c u r b r a d i i a n d i n s t a l l c u r b r a m p s o n al l c o r n e r s ; m o d i f y si g n a l p h a s i n g t o r e m o v e p e r m i s s i v e n o r t h b o u n d r i g h t- t u r n ; in s t a l l p e d e s t r i a n c o u n t d o w n s i g n a l s a n d a u d i b l e w a rn i n g si g n s ; p o t e n t i a l n e w c r o s s w a l k o n s o u t h l e g . $7 8 8 , 8 0 0 Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 7 Du b l i n B l v d / V i l l a g e Pa r k w a y I n t e r s e c t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s Re d u c e r i g h t -tu r n l a n e w i d t h a n d t u r n i n g r a d i i o n s o u t h b o u n d ap p r o a c h ; r e m o v e p o r k c h o p i s l a n d o n n o r t h b o u n d a p p ro a c h ; re d u c e c u r b r a d i i a n d s t r a i g h t e n c r o s s w a l k s ; p o t e n t ia l n e w cr o s s w a l k o n s o u t h l e g ; p o t e n t i a l s l i p l a n e r e m o v a l a n d c u r b ex t e n s i o n s . $3 3 6 , 0 0 0 Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 8 St P a t r i c k W a y Ex t e n s i o n Co n s t r u c t t h e m i d d l e s e g m e n t o f S a i n t P a t r i c k W a y , fr o m i t s cu r r e n t t e r m i n u s w e s t o f G o l d e n G a t e D r i v e t o c o n n e ct w i t h th e n e w s e g m e n t o f S a i n t P a t r i c k W a y t h a t w i l l b e b ui l t ( b y ot h e r s ) e x t e n d i n g e a s t w a r d f r o m R e g i o n a l S t r e e t . $3 , 7 2 4 , 6 0 0 Co n g e s t i o n Re l i e f / G H G Re d u c t i o n , a n d Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s General Plan, Downtown Dublin SP, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 9 T r a f f i c S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Up g r a d e s i g n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e q u i p m e n t t o i m p r o v e tr a f f i c fl o w e f f i c i e n c y . $2 5 0 , 0 0 0 Co n g e s t i o n Re l i e f / G H G Re d u c t i o n , a n d Ac t i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n So l u t i o n s City needs assessment TO T A L $1 2 , 9 6 6 , 0 00 Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 11 3. GROWTH PROJECTIONS LAND USE GROWTH An important step in quantifying the nexus relationship is to determine the amount of new development that is anticipated in the planning horizon of the study. In this case, staff from the City’s Planning Division provided the numbers of households and jobs in the WDTIF area, both under current conditions and those anticipated to occur by the year 2040. These projections were incorporated into the City of Dublin travel model in the appropriate Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) to reflect the correct location of the development. Please see Appendix B for a map showing the TAZs that represent the WDTIF area, as well as a table showing the amount of existing and expected future development in each TAZ. As shown in the appendix materials, a substantial amount of new development is anticipated, particularly in the core downtown area generally bounded by I-580, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and I-680; the number of jobs in this area could increase by about 1,900 (a 13% increase) over current conditions, and the number of housing units could increase by almost 2,400 (a 24% increase), with the majority of potential new residential units primarily located on parcels near the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. TRIP GENERATION Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was analyzed. In the DDSP area, Fehr and Peers’ MXD+ tool was applied to estimate the trip generation. This tool was selected because traditional methodologies, such as application of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, are primarily based on data collected at single-use, freestanding sites located in suburban areas with very little accessibility by transit, bicycling or walking. These defining characteristics limit the data’s applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects in more pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible places. As Dublin’s downtown area continues its transition from a relatively conventional suburban setting to a medium-density, mixed-use downtown with frequent and nearby local and regional transit service centered on the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, it becomes clearer that the application of traditional data and methodologies, such as ITE, would not accurately estimate the vehicle trip generation from this area. The development of the MXD+ technique began in response to the limitations in the ITE methodology. With the goal of providing a straightforward and empirically validated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a national study of the trip generation characteristics of mixed-use sites. Travel survey data was gathered Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 12 from 239 mixed-use developments (called MXDs) in six major metropolitan regions, and correlated with the characteristics of the sites and their surroundings. The findings indicated that the amount of traffic generated by each site is affected by a wide variety of factors including the mix of jobs and residents at the site, the overall size and density of the development, the availability of convenient internal connections for walking or driving between nearby uses, the availability of transit service to the site, and the surrounding trip destinations within the immediate area. None of these factors is explicitly accounted for in the traditional application of the ITE Trip Generation manual method. As part of the study, these characteristics were related statistically to trip behavior observed at the development sites using statistical techniques. These statistical relationships produced equations, known as the EPA MXD model, that predict how the trip generation from a particular mixed-use site would be reduced as compared to the traditional ITE methods. Applying these vehicle trip reduction percentages to the “raw trips” predicted by the ITE methods produces an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of a site. Fehr & Peers created a spreadsheet tool called MXD+ to efficiently apply the EPA MXD model. Table 2 contains the results of this analysis for the DDSP area. (Note that the neighborhoods outside of the DDSP area tend to be lower-density areas of predominantly residential land uses, and are somewhat removed from high-capacity transit options. For those reasons, application of the MXD+ technique would not be appropriate in those areas. However, as shown in Appendix B, more than 90% of the projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area, so for the purposes of the WDTIF calculations the MXD+ technique can appropriately be applied.) TABLE 2: TRIP GENERATION RESULTS IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN FROM APPLICATION OF MXD+ Time Periods Existing 2040 ITE Trips MXD+ Trips Comparison ITE Trips MXD+ Trips Comparison Daily 64,812 54,858 -15% 88,633 71,603 -19% AM Peak Hour 2,114 1,849 -13% 3,817 3,144 -18% PM Peak Hour 6,344 5,059 -20% 8,801 6,777 -23% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. To provide context for these results, they have been compared to trip generation estimates from other sources. The expected land use growth shown in Table 2 above was incorporated into the City of Dublin travel model, in the appropriate TAZs to reflect the expected location of the new development. The Dublin model was then applied under both existing conditions and the anticipated year 2040 conditions, and the model’s estimate of trip generation in the downtown area was extracted. Table 3 shows the comparison of Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 13 PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the downtown area from the basic ITE Trip Generation manual procedure, from the application of the Dublin model, and from the MXD+ application described above. Note that PM peak hour trips are the focus of this WDTIF study. This is a change from the current application of the fee program, which uses daily trips as the basis for the fee calculations. Most transportation facilities are designed to accommodate usage during peak periods, and the PM peak is the time period during which all of the land uses in the WDTIF area will be active, so it is the time period that will best capture the full range of travel effects caused by the anticipated future development. For the purposes of the WDTIF program, which focuses on the impacts of new development, the most important piece of information is the estimated growth in trips between existing and future conditions. As shown in Table 3, the Dublin model and the ITE trip generation procedure result in very similar estimates of new trips (2,398 from the model compared to 2,478 from the ITE procedure). The MXD+ application results in a smaller number (1,718) of new trips; this is to be expected, since the MXD model is designed to account for the characteristics of mixed-use sites that are not readily reflected in either the ITE manual or in typical travel demand models, and those characteristics often cause lower levels of vehicle use as compared to conventional suburban single-use sites. The total number of new PM peak hour trips estimated through the MXD+ application will be used to calculate the WDTIF fee per new peak hour trip. TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF DOWNTOWN PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Source Existing Future Potential Growth (Future-Existing) ITE Trip Generation Manual 6,323 8,801 2,478 Dublin Travel Model 4,958 7,356 2,398 ITE with MXD+ Adjustments 5,059 6,777 1,718 Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 14 4. NEXUS ANALYSIS EXISTING DEFICIENCIES An important part of a nexus analysis is to establish whether the transportation facilities that will be addressed by the projects in the fee program are currently deficient. If there are existing deficiencies at any of those locations, then an adjustment should be made in the fee calculations to ensure that new development is not being charged to correct an existing problem. The most recent study that comprehensively addressed the downtown area was the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (DDSP EIR), which was adopted in 2011 and amended in 2014. As mentioned previously in the section on Capital Improvement Projects, while the City of Dublin has typically used vehicle Level of Service as a performance measure, with a standard of LOS D or better at all intersections, the DDSP eliminated the use of vehicle Level of Service in the Downtown Dublin area. As part of the traffic impact evaluation in the DDSP EIR, vehicle LOS was analyzed in order to evaluate the impacts of the changes proposed in the DDSP. For the sake of completeness, we reviewed the existing conditions LOS analysis presented in the DDSP EIR for those locations that are affected by WDTIF projects. Note that this step is solely for the purpose of understanding existing conditions, and is not for evaluating impacts of future development. Seven of the intersections studied in the DDSP EIR are either part of or located very close to one or more of the WDTIF capital improvement projects. Table 4 shows those seven intersections and summarizes the current operations at those intersections, as reported in the DDSP EIR. (For reference, the Level of Service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual is included in Appendix C.) As shown, all of the intersections are reported as operating at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours; this level of operation met the City’s standards prior to the adoption of the DDSP, thus indicating that these locations were not deficient at the time the City changed its policy. Some of the projects in the WDTIF program contain elements designed to improve facilities and accommodations for bicyclists and/or pedestrians. Several of these projects were identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in October 2014. The BPMP included an analysis of the data related to bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions (see pages 45-48 of the BPMP). One of the key findings from that analysis was that Dublin ranks better than the statewide average for cities of similar size in terms of the number of pedestrian-auto and bicycle-auto collisions. This result indicates that Dublin does not have an unusually high incidence of pedestrian or bicycle collisions, Thus, the evaluation of existing conditions in the BPMP does not indicate the presence of existing deficiencies in terms of bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety outcomes. Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 15 TABLE 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS AT KEY INTERSECTIONS Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2 LOS 1. Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Signal AM PM 39 36 D D 2. Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Signal AM PM 21 43 C D 3. Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Signal AM PM 10 27 B C 4. Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Signal AM PM 35 41 D D 5. Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Signal AM PM 37 34 D C 6. Amador Valley Boulevard & Village Parkway Signal AM PM 50 43 D D 7. Amador Valley Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Signal AM PM 12 18 B B Notes: 1. Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2010 HCM method. Source: DDSP EIR, Table 3.9-3, Page 3-149. WDTIF PROJECT COST RESPONSIBILITY As described earlier, the land use projections for the year 2040 were incorporated in the Dublin Model and the model was applied to generate estimates of travel patterns and volumes in the future. A common modeling technique called a select zone analysis was applied within the model to identify the amount of future traffic volume on each roadway link that is generated by land uses in the WDTIF area. On each model link that represents the location of a WDTIF project, the future traffic volume attributable to the WDTIF area was compared to the overall future traffic volume, thereby calculating the share of the usage of that link that can be attributed to the land uses in the WDTIF area. These usage percentages are shown in Table 5. These percentages were applied to the cost of each WDTIF infrastructure project, and the resulting amount represents the portion of the cost of each project that will be included in the WDTIF program. Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 16 As shown in the table, the WDTIF program would capture about 82% of the total project costs, while other funding sources (such as from grants, County Measure BB funds, or other sources) would be needed to cover the remainder. This means that about 82% of the usage of these facilities comes from residents and employees in the WDTIF area, while the remainder comes from travelers who use these facilities but do not live or work in the WDTIF area. (Please note that the WDTIF % Responsibility for project number 9, the traffic signal upgrades, was set to be equal to the average percentage of the other eight projects; this was done since project 9 does not refer to a specific location, so the select zone modeling technique cannot be used to calculate a % Responsibility for that project.) TABLE 5: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR WDTIF PROJECTS Project No. Project Name Estimated Cost WDTIF % Responsibility Amount Included in WDTIF 1 Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Intersection Improvements $1,067,400 75% $800,400 2 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Intersection Improvements $1,141,000 71% $806,200 3 Dublin Boulevard Complete Streets Project $1,117,500 70% $782,900 4 Amador Plaza Road Complete Streets Project $3,770,200 83% $3,141,000 5 Village Parkway Complete Streets Project $770,500 52% $404,100 6 Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road Intersection Improvements $788,800 61% $481,400 7 Dublin Blvd/Village Parkway Intersection Improvements $336,000 71% $238,800 8 St. Patrick Way Extension $3,724,600 100% $3,724,600 9 Traffic Signal Upgrades $250,000 82% $199,600 TOTAL $12,966,000 82% $10,583,500 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 17 FEE CALCULATION A fee calculation was completed based on the figures described above. Starting from the amount of project costs eligible to be included in the WDTIF program (approximately $10.6 million), we subtract the current (as of June 30, 2016) fund balance in the current Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program (approximately $1.7 million), and the result is divided by the number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be generated by new development in the WDTIF area (1,718 trips). Table 6 shows the results of the calculation. TABLE 6: WDTIF CALCULATION Calculation Value Total Eligible Project Cost in WDTIF Program $10,583,500 Less Current DTIF Fund Balance ($1,730,000) Number of New PM Peak Hour Trips 1,718 Maximum Fee per New PM Peak Hour Trip $5,154 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. It is important to note that the fee calculation shown in Table 6 is intended to represent the maximum fee that could be charged to support the list of projects shown above. The fees would be charged to new development of all types located in the geographic area covered by the WDTIF. In order to allocate the fees equitably among different development types, the fee amounts charged to each land use category should reflect the relative effects of each category on the transportation system. This is consistent with the approach used in the current fee program, which specifies different fee rates for different land use types. Using the maximum fee per new PM peak hour trip calculated in Table 6 above as a basis, the number of PM peak hour trips associated with a representative sample of land use categories has been estimated and the associated fee amount calculated. Table 7 shows the preliminary results of those calculations, along with an informational comparison of the updated fees to the fee rates currently charged through the existing WDTIF program. Further details about the application of the WDTIF to specific types of land uses will be contained in the Resolution to adopt this fee program update. We s t e r n D u b l i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e U p d a t e , F i n al R e p o r t Au g u s t 2 0 1 6 18 TA B L E 7 : F E E A M O U N T S B Y L A N D U S E C A T E G O R Y Up d a t e d WDT I F C a l c u l a t i o n s Current Fees Ca t e g o r y Un i t 1 PM P ea k Ho u r T r i p Ge n MX D + Ad j u s t m e n t Pa s s - b y Ad j u s t m e n t Ad j u s t e d PM P e a k Ho u r T r i p s Fe e p e r U n i t Daily Trip Rate2 Fee per Unit Si n g l e -Fa m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l DU 1. 0 0 -23 % 0 0. 7 7 $3 , 9 6 9 10 $2,668 Me d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l DU 0. 6 2 -23 % 0 0. 4 8 $2 , 4 6 1 7 $1,869 Hi g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l DU 0. 5 2 -23 % 0 0. 4 0 $2 , 0 6 4 6 $1,600 Ge n e r a l O f f i c e KS F 1. 4 9 -23 % 0 1. 1 5 $5 , 9 1 3 20 $5,320 Sh o p p i n g C e n t e r KS F 3. 7 1 -23 % -35 % 1. 8 6 $9 , 5 7 1 46 $12,236 Ho t e l Ro o m 0. 6 0 -23 % 0 0. 4 6 $2 , 3 8 1 10 $2,660 Re s t a u r a n t ( s i t -do w n , h i g h t u r n o v e r ) KS F 9. 8 5 -23 % -35 % 4. 9 3 $2 5 , 4 1 0 104 $27,664 Mo v i e T h e a t e r ( m u l t i -pl e x ) Sc r e e n 13 . 6 4 -23 % -35 % 6. 8 3 $3 5 , 1 8 6 220 $58,520 1. D U = D w e l l i n g U n i t ; K S F = T h o u s a n d S q u a r e F e e t . 2. D a i l y t r i p r a t e s f o r t h e c u r r e n t D T I F a r e t a k e n fr o m t h e D o w n t o w n T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e S c h e d u l e , E f f e ct i v e D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , E x h i b i t D o f R e s o l u t i o n 2 1 0-04 to establish the Do w n t o w n T I F . T h e c u r r e n t f e e s a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e f ee s c h e d u l e a d o p t e d b y t h e C i t y e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1 , 2 01 6 . Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 19 5. SUMMARY OF REQUIRED PROGRAM ELEMENTS This report has provided a detailed discussion of the elements of the updated Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee program and explained the analytical techniques used to develop this nexus study. The report addresses all of the fee program elements required by AB 1600, as summarized below. 1. Identifying the purpose of the fee The General Plan identifies the intent of the impact fee program to fund capital improvement projects that are consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The purpose of the WDTIF program is to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development within the designated WDTIF area, consistent with the land use and transportation policies of the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, by providing funds to build a comprehensive transportation system that will support multiple modes of transportation. 2. Identifying how the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee The fee will be used to help fund capital improvement projects that will accommodate future transportation needs in Western Dublin. Table 1 identifies the projects to be funded through the fee. 3. Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed As described in this report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics. The calculations presented in Table 7 account for these different characteristics by applying different per- unit fee factors to each type of development. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the local transportation system generated by different development types. 4. Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed The need for the facilities listed in Table 1 has been established through recent planning studies sponsored by the City over the last several years, as described in Section 2 of this report. Table 4 shows that there are no existing deficiencies on the facilities included in this WDTIF program, indicating that the need for improvements is not caused by existing development. 5. Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable to new development Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update, Final Report August 2016 20 Section 4 of this report describes the calculations applied to determine the cost of the public facility that is attributable to new development; this process accounts for the effects of existing deficiencies (of which there are none in this program) and the effects of traffic generated from outside the WDTIF area. Thus, a reasonable effort has been made to quantitatively establish the relationship between the fees charged in the WDTIF program and the costs of public improvements attributable to new development within the WDTIF area. APPENDIX A: DETAILED INFORMATION ON WDTIF PROJECTS 1. Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Intersection Improvements REDUCE CURB RADIUSAND INSTALL DIRECTIONALADA CURB RAMPS CONSTRUCT NEW 11'RIGHT-TURN LANE RE - S T R I P E E X I S T I N G S H A R E D TH R U / R I G H T - T U R N L A N E A S TH R U L A N E REDUCE CURB RADIUSAND INSTALL DIRECTIONALADA CURB RAMPS RE D U C E C U R B R A D I U S AN D I N S T A L L D I R E C T I O N A L AD A C U R B R A M P S RE D U C E C U R B R A D I U S AN D I N S T A L L D I R E C T I O N A L AD A C U R B R A M P S REPLACE CROSSWALKSTRIPING (TYP.) IN S T A L L N E W L I M I T L I N E PR O J E C T R E Q U I R E S 2 , 7 3 5 S . F . RI G H T - O F - W A Y A C Q U I S I T I O N Du b l i n B l v d a t A m a d o r P l a z a R d Co n c e p t I m p r o v e m e n t s Du b l i n , C a l i f o r n i a W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\Non_SanJose_Projects\WC Projects\_WC14_Projects\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\CAD\dublin_concept\3135_Fig01-Fig03.dwg N. T . S . Project #1: Dublin Blvd/Amador Plaza Rd Intersection Improvements Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1DemolitionSF37856.00$ 22,710.00$ 2GradingCY42035.00$ 14,700.00$ 3Pavement SectionSF2735$8.0021,880.00$ 4Curb & GutterLF52539.25$ 20,606.25$ 5SidewalkSF34107.38$ 25,148.75$ 6SawcuttingLF5254.00$ 2,100.00$ 7Storm Drain PipeLF380221.94$ 84,336.25$ 8SD InletsEA32,966.67$ 8,900.00$ 9SD ManholesEA05,700.00$ ‐$ 10LandscapingLump sum10,000.00$ 11StripingLump sum12,500.00$ 12LightingEA23,279.67$ 6,559.33$ 13SewerLF045.00$ ‐$ 14Fire HydrantsEA18,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 15WaterLF042.50$ ‐$ 16Joint TrenchLF525100.00$ 52,500.00$ 17Traffic Signal Mods.EA1283,411.00$ 283,411.00$ 18Conversion of copper connection to fiber optic connection LF75030.00$ 22,500.00$ 19SigningLump sum2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ Subtotal 598,351.58$ Right of Way 20Land 273540109,400.00$ 21Condemnation Contingency 15%16,410.00$ Subtotal 125,810.00$ Design, CM, Admin 20%144,832.32$ Contingency 10%72,416.16$ Estimated cost for adding curb ramps at each corner (from BPMP)126,000.00$ GRAND TOTAL 1,067,410.06$ 2. Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Intersection Improvements INSTALL DIRECTIONALADA CURB RAMPSREDUCE CURB RADIUSAND INSTALL DIRECTIONALADA CURB RAMPS IN S T A L L D I R E C T I O N A L AD A C U R B R A M P S EX I S T I N G S I G N A L C A B I N E T A N D P U L L BO X T O B E P R O T E C T E D I N P L A C E RE D U C E C U R B R A D I U S AN D I N S T A L L D I R E C T I O N A L AD A C U R B R A M P S CO N S T R U C T N E W 1 1 ' RI G H T - T U R N L A N E RE - S T R I P E E X I S T I N G R I G H T - T U R N L A N E AS T H R U L A N E W I T H S H A R R O W S RE M O V E E X I S T I N G B I K E L A N E PA V E M E N T M A R K I N G S RE-STRIPE EXISTING THRULANE AS LEFT-TURN LANE,REMOVE SHARROWS REPLACE CROSSWALKSTRIPING (TYP.) RE M O V E A N D R E P L A C E E X I S T I N G BI K E L A N E P A V E M E N T M A R K I N G S PR O J E C T R E Q U I R E S 4 , 2 0 0 S . F . RI G H T - O F - W A Y A C Q U I S I T I O N Du b l i n B l v d a t G o l d e n G a t e D r Co n c e p t I m p r o v e m e n t s Du b l i n , C a l i f o r n i a W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\Non_SanJose_Projects\WC Projects\_WC14_Projects\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\CAD\dublin_concept\3135_Fig01-Fig03.dwg N. T . S . Project #2: Dublin Blvd/Golden Gate Drive Improvements and Widening Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1DemolitionSF42006.00$ 25,200.00$ 2GradingCY7,000.00$ 3Pavement SectionSF4200$8.0033,600.00$ 4Curb & GutterLF32039.25$ 12,560.00$ 5SidewalkSF50607.38$ 37,317.50$ 6SawcuttingLF3504.00$ 1,400.00$ 7Storm Drain PipeLF290221.94$ 64,361.88$ 8SD InletsEA02,966.67$ ‐$ 9SD ManholesEA05,700.00$ ‐$ 10LandscapingLump sum10,000.00$ 11StripingLump sum5,000.00$ 12LightingEA0 ‐$ 30,000.00$ 13SewerLF0 ‐$ 14Fire HydrantsEA1 ‐$ ‐$ 15WaterLF29042.50$ 12,325.00$ 16Joint TrenchLF290100.00$ 29,000.00$ 17Traffic Signal (at intersection of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate DEA1$290,000290,000.00$ 18Traffic Signal Mods.EA1$100,000100,000.00$ 19Conversion of copper connection to fiber optic connectionLF580 ‐$ 20SigningLump sum1,000.00$ Subtotal 658,764.38$ Right of Way 20Land 420040168,000.00$ 21Condemnation Contingency15%25,200.00$ Subtotal 193,200.00$ Design, CM, Admin 20%170,392.88$ Contingency 10%68,396.44$ Estimated cost for adding curb ramps at each corner (from BPMP)50,300.00$ GRAND TOTAL $1,141,053.69 3. Dublin Boulevard Complete Streets Project DU B L I N B O U L E V A R D C O M P L E T E S T R E E T S WE S T E R N DU B L I N T I F DU B L I N B O U L E V A R D C O M P L E T E S T R E E T S WE S T E R N DU B L I N T I F Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Dublin Blvd Complete Streets Location:Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Alamo Canal Trail Date:2/8/2012 I.DSigning Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Install New Sign on New PostEach700.00$ 6$4,200.00 000004 Relocate Freeway Guide Sign and PostsEach700.00$ 0$0.00 000007 Remove & Salvage Existing Sign & PostEach150.00$ 3$450.00 I.DPaving/Curb Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000002Roadway Paving (3" AC/ 8" Class II AB)SF$8.00 3000 $24,000.00 000009Concrete CurbLF$30.00 300$9,000.00 000010Concrete Curb & GutterLF$40.00 1200$48,000.00 000011 Concrete Driveway SF $15.00 1440 $21,600.00 000012Concrete SidewalkSF$15.00 4,800$72,000.00 000015 Curb RampEA$6,000.004$24,000.00 000018 Barrier Type 60F (in Median)LF$250.00200$50,000.00 000019 Path BarrierLF$50.001200$60,000.00 I.D.Utilities Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000019Relocate Fire HydrantEA$3,000.00 2 $6,000.00 000034 Drainage Inlet Relocation with New Pipe EA$15,000.00 2 $30,000.00 I.D.Demo/Removal Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000042 Remove treesEA$1,000.00 8 $8,000.00 000044 Signal Pole RelocationEA$30,000.00 3$90,000.00 I.D.Aesthetic/Architectural Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000044 Box TreeEA$1,000.00 0 $0.00 000001 Pedestrian-Scaled LED LightingEA4,600.00$ 3$13,800.00 000001 Electrical conduit installationLF65.00$ 300$19,500.00 SUBTOTAL $480,550.00 10% Traffic Control $48,055.00 10% Mobilization $48,055.00 TOTAL $576,660.00 20% Contingency 115,332.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $691,992.00 15% Design $103,799.00 10% Environmental $69,199.00 10% Construction Management $69,199.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $934,200 Signing and Striping CIVIL Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Dublin Boulevard Complete Streets (Obstruction Removal) Location:Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Amador Plaza Road Date:2/8/2012 I.DSigning and Striping Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Install New Sign on New PostEach700.00$ 0$0.00 000002 Install New Sign Panel on Existing PostEach500.00$ $0.00 000003 Install New Sign on Signal Mast ArmEach900.00$ $0.00 000004 Relocate Freeway Guide Sign and PostsEach700.00$ 5$3,500.00 000005 Relocate Existing Sign Panel OnlyEach250.00$ $0.00 000006 Relocate Existing Sign on Signal Mast ArmEach400.00$ $0.00 000007 Remove & Salvage Existing Sign & PostEach150.00$ $0.00 000008 Remove & Salvage Existing Sign Panel OnlyEach100.00$ $0.00 000009 Remove & Salvage Existing Sign on Signal Mast ArmEach250.00$ $0.00 000015 12" Limit Line/CrosswalkL.F.6.60$ 2401,584.00$ I.DPaving/Curb Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000006 Asphalt Concrete PadSF$8.00120$960.00 000010Concrete Curb & GutterLF$40.00 60$2,400.00 000011 Concrete Driveway SF $15.00 2880 $43,200.00 000012Concrete SidewalkSF$15.00 390$5,850.00 000015 Curb RampEA$3,000.001$3,000.00 I.D.Utilities Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000017Adjust Water Valve to GradeEA$500.00 $0.00 000018Relocate Water ValveEA$3,000.00 $0.00 000019Relocate Fire HydrantEA$3,000.00 4 $12,000.00 000020Relocate Irrigation EquipmentEA$10,000.00 0 $0.00 000021Relocate Manhole along PipeEA$7,500.00 $0.00 Remove Newspaper RackEA$500.00 1 $500.00 New Meter Pedestal and FoundationEA$4,300.00 1 $4,300.00 000022Relocate Manhole with new pipeEA $0.00 000023Adjust Uitility Vault to Grade EA $0.00 000024Relocate Underground Transformer EA $0.00 000025Relocate Transformer on Concrete Pad EA $0.00 000026Relocate Utility Vault EA $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 000027Relocate Utility Pull Box EA $2,000.00 0 $0.00 000028Relocate Utility Pole with Electrical EA $0.00 000029Relocate Utility Pole without Electrical EA $0.00 000030Adjust Gas Valve to Grade EA $2,000.00 0 $0.00 000031Relocate Gas Valve EA $5,000.00 $0.00 000032Utility Boxes Adjust to GradeEA$2,000.00 0$0.00 000033 Drainage Inlet Relocation Along Pipe EA$7,500.00 $0.00 000034 Drainage Inlet Relocation with New Pipe EA$15,000.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL $87,294.00 10% Traffic Control $8,729.00 10% Mobilization $8,729.00 TOTAL $104,752.00 25% Contingency 26,188.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $130,940.00 20% Design & Environmental $26,188.00 20% Construction Management $26,188.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $183,300 Signing and Striping CIVIL 4. Amador Plaza Road Complete Streets Project GENERAL NOTES: 1.INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING (BOTH SIDES), REPLACE EXISTING STREET TREES, AND ADD SLURRY SEAL BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & ST. PATRICK WAY 2.REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK WITH DECORATIVE PERVIOUS SIDEWALK (BOTH SIDES) BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & DUBLIN BOULEVARD 3.INSTALL BIKE RACKS AND BENCHES ALONG CORRIDOR ...__..� ... TRIPE CROSSWALK & PULL-BACK MEDIAN INSTALL RAISED, LANDS<tAPED MEDIAN II BIKE LANE (lYP.) •• •• . . .. . L_ CONVERT DRIVEWAY TO RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUT ONLY r CONVERT DRIVEfAY TO RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY w CD w w U) w z ...J I � II (.!) � .......... �:..:!..--------1----+---�.:..:....:....:........,,;.:......,=---__;_-:,:-:..�-=----�.;_;_.;..;i,.:.....,...... __ __;,._;_=----=,,...:....--r--��---r--..;;,_-=------..,..;;;.::"="""--....:.;,_;.;.---,----��--.------�__;_---r--lal----r-.....:....-=:,----------=.::..._----r----e---=-- w CD <( w w U) GHT-IN/ FEHR1'PEERS 111:t DI, 21Dtl LEGEND CONCRETE • • • • . .. LANDSCAPE MEDIAN WITH IRRIGATION W:\Wdnut Cr-* N �14\WC14,,-,11�� ... --PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT --PLANNED & FUNDEDIMPROVEMENT � 40 � 1"= 40' 0 40 80 GRAPHIC SCALE AMADOR PLAZA ROAD COMPLETE STREETS WESTERN DUBLIN TIF I (!) 0::: w w Vl w z .....J I � GENERAL NOTES: 1.INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING (BOTH SIDES), REPLACE EXISTING STREET TREES, AND ADD SLURRY SEAL BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & ST. PATRICK WAY REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK WITH DECORATIVE PERVIOUS SIDEWALK (BOTH SIDES) BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & DUBLIN BOULEVARD INSTALL BIKE RACKS AND BENCHES ALONG CORRIDOR INSTALL, MID-BLOCK CROSSWl,LK, CONSIDER RAISEID CROSS�K/ INSTALL RAISED, LANDSCAPED D LEGEND CONVERT DRIVEWAY TO RIGHT-IN/ �-· RIGHT-OUT ONLY L SEE SEPARAT FIGURE FOR AMADOR Pl.Ab.A ROAD/DUBLIN I BOULEVARD iPROVEMENTS AMADOR PLAZA RD 40 MEDIAN CONVERT DRIVEWAY rTO RIGHT-IN/ / \ 1 R1Gf-IT-OUT ONLY 0 3' STRIPED MEDIAN FEHR1'PEERS CONCRETE I . . • . . . . . . .LANDSCAPE MEDIAN WITH IRRIGATION PROPOSED--IMPROVEMENT --PLANNED & FUNDED IMPROVEMENT 1" = 40' 40 80 � GRAPHIC SCALE � t w .....J 3: 0 w . (D ..... w w Vl w z .....J I � � Git DI. 201D W:\Wlllnllt er. N �14\WC14-31�� ... AMADOR PLAZA ROAD COMPLETE STREETS WESTERN DUBLIN TIF AM A D O R P L A Z A R O A D C O M P L E T E S T R E E T S WE S T E R N D U B L I N T I F Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Amador Plaza Road Complete Street Improvements Location:Amador Plaza Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and St Patrick Way Date:3/2/2013 I.DSigningUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Install New Sign on New Post Each700.00$ 35$24,500.00 I.DStripingUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000010 Detail 9 - 4" Dashed Lane Line L.F.1.00$ 11001,100.00$ 000011 Bicycle Lane (Thermoplastic)L.F.1.50$ 51007,650.00$ 000012 Detail 38 - 8" Channelization LineL.F.4.80$ 7203,456.00$ 000013 12" Limit Line/Crosswalk L.F.6.60$ 14659,669.00$ 000013 Detail 22 - Double Yellow Center LineL.F.1.75$ 8501,487.50$ 000015 Pavement Legends (Thermo)S.F.8.50$ 2702,295.00$ 000016 Paint Curb L.F.2.50$ 33008,250.00$ 000018 Preformed Green Thermoplastic PanelsS.F.15.00$ 4206,300.00$ I.DPaving/CurbUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Slurry Seal SF $0.33 102500 33,825.00$ 000002Asphalt Patch at New CurbSF$4.00 6812 27,248.00$ 000010Concrete CurbLF$30.00 253476,020.00$ 000011Concrete Curb & GutterLF$40.00 87234,880.00$ 000013Concrete SidewalkSF$15.00 395259,280.00$ 000016 Curb RampEA$3,500.001863,000.00$ 000018 Decorative CrosswalkSF$20.007420148,400.00$ I.D.Demo/RemovalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000038 Remove Concrete Sidewalk/Curb Ramp SF $2.00 31935 63,870.00$ 000042 Remove damaged treesEA$1,000.00 20 20,000.00$ 000043 Clear and GrubSF$1.00 10001,000.00$ I.D.Aesthetic/ArchitecturalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000044 Box TreeEA$700.00 116 81,200.00$ 000045Bench EA $1,000.00 4 4,000.00$ 000046Bike Rack EA $1,000.00 4 4,000.00$ 000050Decorative Sidewalks with Pervious PavingSF$28.0031935894,180.00$ 000054 Planting areaSF$8.00 11267 90,136.00$ 000055Project Funding SignEA$2,000.0012,000.00$ 000057 4'x8' Tree GratesEA$3,000.00 116348,000.00$ Irrigation SystemLS$120,000.001120,000.00$ Downtown Gateway MonumentEA$50,000.003150,000.00$ I.DSignal ModificationsUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001Signal Modifications EA$75,000.00 3 225,000.00$ 000001Pedestrian-Scaled LED Lighting EA$4,600.00 116 533,600.00$ Electrical conduit installation LF$65.00 4960 322,400.00$ SUBTOTAL$3,366,747.00 Traffic Control$90,000.00 5% Mobilization$168,337.00 TOTAL$3,625,084.00 20% Contingency725,017.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION$4,350,101.00 10% Construction Management$435,010.00 15% Design & Environmental$652,515.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE$5,437,626.00 Allowance for project defined separately: intersection improvements at Amador Plaza Rd/Dublin Blvd -$1,067,400.00 Allowance for initial project phase already funded: bike lanes and two mid-block crossings -$600,000.00 TOTAL REMAINING COST$3,770,226.00 Signing and Striping CIVIL ELECTRICAL 5. Village Parkway Complete Streets Project VI L L A G E P A R K W A Y C O N C E P T D E S I G N FI G U R E 6 - 7 VI L L A G E P A R K W A Y C O N C E P T D E S I G N FI G U R E 6 - 8 Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Village Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Location:Village Parkway/Clark Avenue south of Dublin Boulevard Date:2/8/2012 I.DSigningUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Install New Sign on New Post Each700.00$ 10$7,000.00 I.DStripingUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000010 Detail 9 - 4" Dashed Lane Line L.F.0.95$ 300285.00$ 000011 Bicycle Lane Line L.F.1.50$ 36005,400.00$ 000011 Buffered Bicycle Lane L.F.6.00$ 0-$ 000012 Detail 38 - 8" Channelization LineL.F.4.80$ 200960.00$ 000013 12" Limit Line/Crosswalk L.F.6.60$ 1901,254.00$ 000013 Detail 22 - Double Yellow Center LineL.F.1.75$ 11702,047.50$ 000015 Pavement Legends (Thermo)S.F.8.50$ 4083,468.00$ 000016 Paint Curb L.F.2.50$ 240600.00$ 000018 Preformed Green Thermoplastic PanelsS.F.15.00$ 1121,680.00$ I.DPaving/CurbUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Slurry Seal LS $100,000.00 0.25 25,000.00$ 000002Asphalt Patch at New CurbSF$4.00 4015 16,060.00$ 000004Asphalt PathSF$6.00 4420 26,520.00$ 000005ShoulderSF$2.00 2000 4,000.00$ 000010Concrete CurbLF$30.00 72021,600.00$ 000011Concrete Curb & GutterLF$40.00 48019,200.00$ 000012 Concrete Driveway SF $15.00 320 4,800.00$ 000013Concrete SidewalkSF$15.00 332549,875.00$ 000016 Curb RampEA$3,500.0013,500.00$ I.D.Demo/RemovalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000035 Remove AC PavementSF$2.00 40158,030.00$ 000038 Remove Concrete Sidewalk/Curb Ramp SF $2.00 -$ 000042 Remove treesEA$1,000.00 4 4,000.00$ 000043 Clear and GrubSF$1.00 64206,420.00$ I.D.Aesthetic/ArchitecturalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000054 Planting areaSF$8.00 2975 23,800.00$ I.D.StructuralUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000060BridgeSF$200.001300260,000.00$ I.DSignal ModificationsUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001Signal Modifications EA$150,000.00 1 $0.00 SUBTOTAL$495,500.00 5% Traffic Control$24,775.00 10% Mobilization$49,550.00 5% Construction Management$24,775.00 TOTAL$594,600.00 20% Contingency118,920.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION$713,520.00 15% Design & Environmental$107,028.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE$820,548.00 Allowance for project already underway to construct portion of bike facility between AVB and Dublin-$50,000.00 TOTAL REMAINING COST$770,548.00 Signing and Striping CIVIL ELECTRICAL 6. Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road Intersection Improvements DU B L I N B O U L E V A R D C O M P L E T E S T R E E T S WE S T E R N DU B L I N T I F Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Dublin Bikeway Feasibility Analysis Alternative 1 - Class 1 Path Location:San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Date:2/8/2012 I.DSigningUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Install New Sign on New PostEach700.00$ 2$1,400.00 000004 Relocate Existing Sign and PostEach400.00$ 2$800.00 I.DStripingUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000010 Detail 9 - 4" Dashed Lane LineL.F.0.95$ 180171.00$ 000015 12" Limit Line/Crosswalk L.F.6.60$ 11547,616.40$ 000026 24' Arrow (Paint) @ 42 Sq Ft eachS.F.5.00$ 168840.00$ 000033 Remove Thermoplastic Striping and MarkingsS.F.5.00$ 493.52,467.50$ I.DAcquisition CostsUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000001 Right of Way Acquisition SF35.00$ 2,163 $75,705.00 I.DPaving/CurbUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000006 Asphalt Concrete PadSF$8.003000$24,000.00 000009Concrete CurbLF$30.00 300$9,000.00 000010Concrete Curb & GutterLF$40.00 630$25,200.00 000012Concrete SidewalkSF$10.00 4032$40,320.00 000015 Curb RampEA$6,000.006$36,000.00 I.D.Demo/RemovalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000035 Remove AC PavementSF$2.00 3500$7,000.00 000037 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 300 $1,500.00 000038 Remove Concrete Sidewalk/Curb Ramp SF $2.00 3292 $6,584.00 000042 Remove treesEA$1,000.00 2 $2,000.00 I.D.Aesthetic/ArchitecturalUnit of MeasureUnit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000055 Signal Modification*L.S.$135,000.00 1 $135,000.00 SUBTOTAL $375,604.00 10% Traffic Control $37,560.00 10% Mobilization $37,560.00 TOTAL $450,724.00 25% Contingency 112,681.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $563,405.00 20% Design & Environmental $112,681.00 20% Construction Management $112,681.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $788,800 Signing and Striping Right of Way Acquisition CIVIL ELECTRICAL *Signal modificaitons include protecting NBR turn and EBR turn; new signal posts; auto and bicycle detection 7. Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway Intersection Improvements DU B L I N B O U L E V A R D C O M P L E T E S T R E E T S WE S T E R N DU B L I N T I F Fehr & Peers - Unit Cost Estimate Tool Project:Dublin Bikeway Feasibility Analysis Alternative 1 - Class 1 Path Location:Village Parkway/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Date:2/8/2012 I.D.Aesthetic/Architectural Unit of Measure Unit CostEnter QuantityTOTAL 000054Video Detection (for Bicyclists and Autos)L.S.$25,000.001$25,000.00 000055 Signal Modification*L.S.$135,000.00 1$135,000.00 SUBTOTAL $160,000.00 10% Traffic Control $16,000.00 10% Mobilization $16,000.00 TOTAL $192,000.00 25% Contingency 48,000.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $240,000.00 20% Design & Environmental $48,000.00 20% Construction Management $48,000.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $336,000 ELECTRICAL *Signal modifications include bike signal and extinguisable no right-turn signs at existing signalized intersections. All additional striping and sidewalk improvement costs are assumed incured through Village Parkway Improvements 8. St. Patrick Way Extension IN S T A L L A D A C U R B R A M P IN S T A L L A D A C U R B R A M P INSTALL ADACURB RAMP INSTALL ADA CURB RAMP 6 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 6 ' PROPOS E D R I G H T - O F - W A Y PR O P O S E D R I G H T - O F - W A Y PR O P O S E D R I G H T - O F - W A Y PRO P O S E D RIGH T - O F - W A Y RE M O V E E X I S T I N G A R R O W PA V E M E N T M A R K I N G EX I S T I N G A D A C U R B R A M P T O B E PR O T E C T E D I N P L A C E , R E M O V E EX I S T I N G P E D E S T R I A N B A R R I E R PR O J E C T R E Q U I R E S 5 5 , 0 5 0 S . F . RI G H T - O F - W A Y A C Q U I S I T I O N Sa i n t P a t r i c k W a y Co n c e p t I m p r o v e m e n t s Du b l i n , C a l i f o r n i a W:\San Jose N Drive\Projects\Non_SanJose_Projects\WC Projects\_WC14_Projects\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\CAD\dublin_concept\3135_Fig01-Fig03.dwg N. T . S . Project:Saint Patrick Way Location:Dublin, CA Date:10/22/2015 Project #:WC14-3135.00 By:SD Item Num Unit of Measure Unit Cost Quantity TOTAL 000001Rough grading of right-of-way SF$2.5030,600 $76,500 000002Roadway paving (3" AC/ 8" Class II AB)SF $8.0020,000$160,000 000003 LF $62.001100 $68,200 000004 SF $15.006725 $100,875 000005 EA$4,100.002 $8,200 000006 LS$22,000.001 $22,000 000007 LS $6,000.001 $6,000 000008Two-way left-turn lane pavement marking LF $2.40 425 $1,020 000009Bike lane pavement marking LF $1.251000 $1,250 00001012" crosswalk pavement marking LF $6.60 140 $924 000011Arrows and legend pavement markings SF $8.50 102 $867 000012Install new sign on new post EA $700.00 4 $2,800 000013 LF $30.00450 $13,500 000014 LF $8.00 450 $3,600 000015 LF $2.001350 $2,700 000016#5 pull box w/ standard cover EA $750.00 5 $3,750 000017Type 15 standard w/ 12' LA EA $2,000.005 $10,000 000018Foundation for Type 15 standard EA $3,000.005 $15,000 000019 LS $150,000.001 $150,000 000020 LF $100.00450 $45,000 000021 EA $3,500.003 $10,500 000022Remove existing pavement marking SF $5.00 15 $75 000023 EA $1,000.005 $5,000 000024 LS $8,000.001 $8,000 000025Demolition, existing pavement and curb LS $75,000.001 $75,000 000026Remove and salvage existing pole and foundation EA $3,000.002 $6,000 000027 EA $1,875.0028 $52,500 000028Landscaping and irrigation SF $12.003800 $45,600 000029 EA $1,500.0028 $42,000 $936,861 $37,474 $146,150 $280,121 $27,900 $112,049 $1,540,556 000030 SF $40.0055,050 $2,202,000 $2,202,000 $3,742,556 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATE TOTAL COST ESTIMATE Storm drain inlets Remove trees Sawcut pavement 25% SOFT COSTS $1/SF ZONE 7 DRAINAGE FEE 10% CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & TESTING CIVIL ESTIMATE Street trees Tree grates Demolition & Removals Landscaping SUBTOTAL Conceptual Cost Estimate Bid Item Signing & Striping Lighting & Electrical Concrete sidewalk ADA curb ramp Erosion control 4% BONDS & INSURANCE, MOBILIZATION & DE-MOBILIZATION 15% CONTINGENCY Temporary traffic control Concrete curb & gutter 2" PVC conduit in trench Adjust existing utilities 18" RCP storm drain pipe Utilities 12" trench & backfill #8 copper conductor APPENDIX B: GROWTH PROJECTIONS D U B L I N B L V D S A N R A M O N R D DOUGHERTY RDVILLAGE PKWY AMADOR VALLEY BLVD 95 0 985 94 7 978 94 5 1001 9661002 95 2 94 6 1519 15 0 1 94 9 960 15 2 3 1514 95 7 971 15 1 0 15 0 6 1520 94 8 15 0 8 95 4 975 965 95 5 979 980 15 0 9 967 94 1 15 1 3 970 983 15 1 2 15 2 2 969 968973 94 4 15 2 4 95 1 95 9 956 94 3 95315151521976981 977 95 8 15 0 2 1516972 96 2 96 1 96 4 94 2 1518 96 3 15 0 3 974 15 1 1 15 0 7 15 0 4 15 0 5 1517 984 N NOT TO SCALE WDTIF TAZ System Le g e n d WD T I F B o u n d a r y Ci t y o f D u b l i n B o u n d a r y Ci t y o f D u b l i n T A Z S y s t e m §¨¦68 0 §¨¦58 0 TABLE B-1: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR WDTIF AREA TAZ Households Employment Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) 941 152 152 0 0 0 0 942 175 175 0 0 0 0 943 0 0 0 466 489 23 944 1 55 54 371 371 0 945 246 246 0 70 98 28 946 186 186 0 0 0 0 947 290 290 0 5 5 0 948 94 94 0 228 228 0 949 186 186 0 0 0 0 950 324 412 88 20 20 0 951 210 210 0 0 0 0 952 246 246 0 40 40 0 953 0 100 100 591 591 0 954 173 173 0 71 71 0 955 184 184 0 3 3 0 956 0 0 0 524 584 60 957 54 314 260 1,458 1,624 166 958 0 70 70 439 514 75 959 0 300 300 540 940 400 960 309 1,150 841 2,000 2,917 917 961 0 0 0 420 458 38 962 0 450 450 279 50 -229 963 136 136 0 157 157 0 964 0 70 70 230 230 0 965 0 0 0 734 734 0 TABLE B-1: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR WDTIF AREA TAZ Households Employment Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) 966 0 0 0 2,763 2,763 0 967 0 0 0 299 299 0 968 0 0 0 327 458 131 969 0 0 0 507 507 0 970 175 175 0 98 98 0 971 11 11 0 150 150 0 972 0 100 100 221 221 0 973 166 166 0 0 0 0 974 0 0 0 175 175 0 975 168 168 0 327 327 0 976 226 226 0 156 156 0 977 0 0 0 337 337 0 978 727 727 0 0 0 0 979 483 483 0 0 0 0 980 506 506 0 8 8 0 981 240 240 0 0 0 0 1501 124 124 0 0 0 0 1502 131 131 0 383 681 298 1503 88 88 0 0 0 0 1504 44 44 0 129 129 0 1505 101 101 0 0 0 0 1506 152 152 0 136 136 0 1507 101 101 0 0 0 0 1508 165 165 0 0 0 0 1509 212 212 0 0 0 0 TABLE B-1: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR WDTIF AREA TAZ Households Employment Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) Existing 2040 Potential Growth (2040 – Existing) 1510 186 186 0 0 0 0 1511 90 90 0 0 0 0 1512 184 184 0 3 3 0 1513 173 173 0 71 71 0 1514 235 235 0 81 81 0 1515 268 268 0 0 0 0 1516 0 0 0 299 299 0 1517 174 229 55 0 0 0 1518 233 233 0 0 0 0 1519 725 725 0 0 0 0 1520 166 166 0 37 37 0 1521 171 171 0 0 0 0 1522 246 246 0 40 40 0 1523 210 210 0 47 47 0 1524 217 217 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10,064 12,452 2,388 15,240 17,147 1,907 Note: Rows shown in orange text are the zones inside the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Totals for the DDSP zones are: TOTAL 630 2,821 2,191 7,242 8,967 1,725 APPENDIX C: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA TABLE C-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. < 10.0 B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. > 20.0 to 35.0 D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0 E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0 F This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0 Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. City of Dublin C onsolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines September 2016 Photo Credit: "West Dublin Pleasanton 7-11-09" by Coastergeekperson04 at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ b Document Description Amendment Control Project Name Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update Related Documents City of Dublin General Plan (Amended November - 2014), Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Amended - October 2014), City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Updated October – 2014) Document Name Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines File Path G:\TIF\Western Dublin\2015 Western Dublin (Downtown) TIF update\CC Public Hearing Date Document Approved September 6, 2016 Amendment Number Date Description of Change Author Table of Contents I. Introduction/Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered ..................................................... 1 III. Fee Administration........................................................................................................................... 2 A. Responsible Departments ...................................................................................................... 2 B. Effective Fees ........................................................................................................................ 2 C. Basis for Calculating Fees for Projects not Covered in Fee Resolutions .............................. 2 IV. Payment Records ............................................................................................................................. 4 V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines ............................................................................. 4 A. Refunds ................................................................................................................................. 4 B. Annual Review of Fee Collection ......................................................................................... 4 C. Funds and Accounting .......................................................................................................... 5 D. Exemptions ........................................................................................................................... 5 E. Administrative Fees .............................................................................................................. 6 VI. Developer Fee Credits...................................................................................................................... 7 A. General .................................................................................................................................. 7 B. Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Required ................................................................. 7 C. Calculating the Fee Credits ................................................................................................... 8 D. Use of Fee Credits ................................................................................................................. 9 E. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds ....................... 10 F. Transferring of Credits ........................................................................................................ 10 G. Options At or Prior to Expiration of Credit Life ................................................................. 10 H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding EDTIF Section II Residential BART Garage Fees) .... 11 I. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights....................................................... 11 J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers ................................. 12 K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits for Transportation Impact Fees .................................. 12 L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage .......................... 13 Appendix A: Illustrative Examples Appendix B: Previous Fee Resolutions City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 1 CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES I. Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Western Dublin Transportation (formerly known as the Downtown Traffic) Impact Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 210- 04 and as subsequently amended), the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 1-95 and as subsequently amended), the Public Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 32-96 and as subsequently amended), the Fire Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 37-97 and as subsequently amended), the Noise Mitigation Fee (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 33-96 and as subsequently amended), and the Non-residential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 70-05 and as subsequently amended) which fees are, unless otherwise provided, hereinafter referred to as the "Fee" or "Fees." Except as otherwise provided herein, terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner as such terms are defined in the Resolution. The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and the most recent Impact Fee Studies. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application of these guidelines. II. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing, and the City Manager’s determination will be final and not appealable. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 2 III. Fee Administration A. Responsible Departments The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips assigned to the project. B. Effective Fees The Fee will be collected at the filing of final map and/or at the issuance of building permit for the development project, unless otherwise provided in the applicable Fee Resolution, or developer enters into a fee deferral agreement with the City. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees for Projects not Covered in Fee Resolutions The Fees for projects will be calculated as provided for in the Fee Resolutions. However, in certain circumstances, the applicable resolutions may not appropriately reflect or apply to a particular project. Examples of this situation could include, but not be limited to mixed use projects or projects that involve land uses that are not included in the Resolution. In those situations, the guidelines presented in this section will be applied. For non-residential development projects in which the land use is not included in the definitions contained in the applicable Fee Resolution, the Community Development Director will determine which of the defined categories is appropriate, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definition of such terms. For mixed-use development projects in all fee programs other than the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, the Community Development Director will determine the projected percentage of each of the uses at the time the Final Map, other appropriate entitlement, or building permit is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for each different use. If the project contains both residential and non-residential portions, the Fee will be based upon the residential per dwelling unit fee schedule for the residential portion and the non-residential per square foot schedule for the non-residential portion. (Note that the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee directly addresses the effects of mixed-use development.) City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 3 If the use(s) are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial fee calculation purposes will be determined by the Community Development Director. Any Fee discrepancy as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and reconciled at the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements. Such reconciliation may result in an additional Fee or a partial refund of previously paid Fee(s). This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the issuance of building permit. Quasi-public uses (churches, non-profit organizations, etc.) shall be subject to the Fees. For these uses, the Community Development Director will determine which of the categories most appropriately reflects the land use and allocate the project to this category. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and/or non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. Where the Fee in question is calculated based on trips generated, the Fee Schedule of the applicable Approving Resolution for the Fee will define appropriate trip rates to be used for the calculation of the Fees. If an applicant disagrees with the Fee calculated based on trips generated by the proposed project per respective Fee program, including but not limited to quasi-public uses, applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director, requesting that the City undertake a specific traffic study for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. If the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the proposed development project is not appropriately reflected in the Fee Schedule to the Resolution or that the intensity of the proposed land use is not consistent with the adopted land use categories in the Fee Schedule to the Resolution, the Public Works Director will have the option of requiring a traffic analysis or utilizing an existing relevant study for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 4 IV. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payor, as well as the applicable Assessor’s Parcel Number, and will note the payor as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Administrative Services Department will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Refunds Refunds of Fees associated with withdrawn applications or projects on which construction has not commenced, will be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.28.450. If, pursuant to said procedures for paid building permits, a refund is no longer available, and if, within 10 years of the original payment of the Fees, new building permits are issued for a project on the subject property, the developer of the new project shall be required to pay only the difference between the amount of the Fees that were originally paid, and the amount of the Fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for the new project. This calculation of the difference in Fee amounts shall be done on a Fee by Fee basis. Thus, if any one Fee is reduced or eliminated between the time of the original payment and the issuance of building permits for the new project, the original payment amount for that reduced or eliminated Fee shall not be included in the calculation of the amount owed for the other Fees. B. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items:  A brief description of the Fee;  An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Fee will be expended upon; and City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 5  For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. C. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department:  The City will maintain a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees.  The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash balances.  The City will identify, in accordance with State Law, the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end.  The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Fees.  The City will provide a description and accounting of any inter-fund transfers made by the Fee Fund.  The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end.  The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. D. Exemptions 1. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from the collection of Fees: a) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit (e.g., second dwelling unit) is added to a single-family unit, or another unit is added to an existing multi-family building. b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing single-family residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the replacement or reconstruction includes the addition of a residential unit (e.g., second dwelling unit). c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing multi-family residential structure without changing the use type as a residential structure that is not part of a mixed used development and that has been destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the replacement or reconstruction increases the number of residential units City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 6 on the property. d) Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee only. Some of the retail uses within the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and the Fairway Ranch High-Density Residential Development may be considered ancillary to the adjoining residential uses and therefore may not generate outside vehicle trips. The Public Works Director shall provide the final determination of land uses that could be considered ancillary. If a land use is found to be not completely ancillary, an appropriate fee per trip will be charged in accordance with the provisions of these guidelines. e) The City Council, in its sole discretion, may waive the applicability of the Fee to certain development constructed or to be constructed by a public entity on land having an appropriate General Plan land use designation upon findings of the City Council that such a waiver is in the interest of the public health, safety, and/or welfare, for reasons specified in the findings. f) Any alteration or addition to a non-residential building or structure resulting in a net increase of no more than 500 square feet. 2. Partial Exemption – Applicable only to Western Dublin and Eastern Dublin TIF A partial exemption may be granted based on prior Fees paid as follows: If after paying the Fees for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced by a new type of development, an exemption may be given for up to the amount which was paid by the prior development project. In the event that the replacement project would result in a lower Fee, the new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights. Any change in use outside of the establishment of the Fee program shall be obligated to pay the entire Fee except to the extent that another exemption applies. Any Traffic Impact Fees will be calculated using the procedures outlined in these Guidelines. E. Administrative Fees Developers will pay the City administrative fees, provided the fees are established in the City's Master Fee Schedule, to cover the costs associated with:  The establishment of the credit/reimbursement agreement  Credit transfers  Annual credit/Right to Reimbursement maintenance and monitoring. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 7 VI. Developer Fee Credits This section applies only to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee and the definitions contained in the Resolutions establishing and amending said Fees shall apply. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the "Fee" or "Fees" in this section shall mean only the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, and Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee. A. General This section establishes the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursement to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fees are imposed. When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit when appropriate to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may, subject to the restrictions described herein, use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the credit will convert to a reimbursement right unless the developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.G of these Guidelines. B. Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the Fee facilities or dedication of land. 1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 8 3. Any credits, which are unused within ten years following their creation, pursuant to Section VI.G.a of these Guidelines, shall convert to a right to reimbursement, unless the developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.G .b of these Guidelines. 4. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall either be increased for inflation or accrue interest. The park land right to reimbursement amount shall be based on land value at the time of dedication. 5. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided that the administrative fee is paid, as specified in these guidelines. 6. The developer will sign the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read, understood, and accepted. 7. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, credits earned by constructing improvements can only be used to offset fees for that same category. The Fee for other categories will be paid by the developer as specified in these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories. For example, with respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, unused credits from Section I (Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements) cannot be used to offset the Section II component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. 8. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, no fee credits shall be established for the "Section II Residential BART Garage" component of the Fee. Payments from those monies shall be made in accordance with subsection VI.L below. 9. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee, the City Manager may approve the conversion of credits from one park land category to another park land category based on the land values conversion ratio, or may approve the conversation of credits from one park improvement category to another park improvement category. Park land credits cannot convert to park improvement credits nor can park improvement credits convert to park land credits. Any such conversion shall require an amendment to the credit/reimbursement agreement that documents the existing credits or a new credit/reimbursement agreement, if the credits have not been documented. Requests for conversion under this section must be made in writing and the decision to approve or deny a request is made at the sole discretion of the City Manager. The City Manager shall approve the conversion only if he or she finds that the conversion would not materially change the Public Facilities Fee program's ability to deliver the acreage in each category specified in the program. This provision does not apply to any other category in the Public Facilities Fee program. C. Calculating the Fee Credits 1. General City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 9 The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for Fee improvements/facilities constructed or land dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in the applicable Fee Resolutions and/or any subsequent replacement resolutions. There must be a minimum value of $50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. 2. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed improvements/facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the Fee facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that, in some cases, the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match the Fee facilities shown in the exhibits to the Fee Resolution. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro- rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. See Appendix A for illustrative examples 1 through 6, which pertain to this section. D. Use of Fee Credits 1. Credits expire when used or 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, whichever occurs first. 2. Developer can request that a credit exists in perpetuity. To exercise this option, Developer must make a written request to the City Manager or designee, and the credit will not be eligible to convert to a right to reimbursement. The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and applied as credits to the Fees as authorized by the developer. The City's Administrative Services Department will keep record of credit utilization and balance. 3. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the Fee facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 10 these guidelines. E. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1. Dedicated the land or constructed improvements/facilities representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and a labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City Manager or designee. See Appendix A for illustrative example 7, which pertains to this section. F. Transferring of Credits 1. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category of the Fee in question. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. 2. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. 3. In certain circumstances, and as required in the interest of equity, the City Manager may, at his or her sole discretion, authorize the transfer of credits to a person who does not own an interest in property subject to the Fee. G. Options At or Prior to Expiration of Credit Life At or prior to expiration of the credit, the developer has the following options: a) The expired unused fee credit shall automatically convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under these guidelines, unless Developer submits a written request for extension no more than six months prior and no less than three (3) months prior to the credit expiration date or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. The period for right to reimbursement extends ten (10) years from the date of expiration. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 11 b) As an alternative, Developer can request that credits exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to reimbursement. To exercise this option, Developer must make a request, in writing, no more than six months prior and no less than three (3) months prior to credit expiration, or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. Developer must secure a written approval from the City Manager or designee for the request. Credits cannot be re-converted to a right to reimbursement. H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Section II Residential BART Garage Fees) Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of Fee credits, which occurs 10 years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, or after credit extension. Right to reimbursement life is 10 years. Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: 1. Reimbursement will only be from funds that were collected in payment of the same Fee as the one for which a developer is seeking reimbursement. 2. The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement on an annual basis based on Fee programs, such as the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and the Public Facilities Fee programs. I. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights 1. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Department will also determine, for each of the Fees, the amount of Fee funds that are unspent and unplanned. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. 2. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the city designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, 50% will be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 12 reimbursement set-aside will be allocated to all remaining reimbursement rights on a pro- rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining un-reimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be carried over to another fiscal year. See Appendix A for illustrative example 8, which pertains to this section. J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers 1. With respect to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, the improvements requested to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map on the development project. Absent a Map, a letter must be submitted for approval prior to the approval of the improvement agreement. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the Public Works Director to make a determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. 2. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF), developers may, with City approval, be permitted to design and construct facilities included in the FF program. The design and construction materials/methods must be in accordance with standard City specifications, and City inspectors shall be responsible for construction inspection throughout the duration of the construction period. The PFF Facilities to be constructed or dedicated by the developer must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map or improvement program on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, including the layout of timeline/milestones of the construction, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the Public Works Director to make an informed determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating PFF Facilities in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond and a labor and materials bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the PFF Facilities. K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits for Transportation Impact Fees 1. Trip credit shall be determined by the City based upon the adopted trip generation rates as specified in the Fee program. See Appendix A for illustrative examples 9 through 12, which pertain to this section. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 13 2. Trip credits shall follow the land use and not the user. For example, assume User X relocates from Space A to Space B, both of which are located within the Western Dublin TIF area. User X shall not receive trip credit for vacating Space A. User X shall be charged the appropriate TIF amount for moving into Space B, subject to receiving trip credit as specified below. Similarly, the appropriate TIF amount shall be charged to the next user of Space A, subject to the appropriate trip credit. 3. Trip credit associated with unoccupied space shall be issued if, and only if, the space has been vacant for three (3) calendar years or less prior to the date when a use permit is issued to the new user. 4. TIF calculations/trip credit for uses, other than Urgent Care Medical Office, located within a general office building that houses multiple tenants (such as professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, bank or savings and loan institutions, medical offices, restaurant or cafeteria, retail facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in the Fee Program. For Urgent Care Medical Office use within a general office building, the trip generation rate for Clinic, as specified in the Fee program, shall be used to calculate the TIF and the trip credit. 5. Trip credit for uses located within a shopping center containing retail stores, as well as non-merchandising facilities (such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, recreational facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for the appropriate type of Shopping Center as specified in the Fee program. L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage 1. Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) for $6 million of BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage). With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, payment of Section II Residential BART Garage Fees, payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), which is responsible for the parking garage construction and dedication of the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public use. Except for interest earned on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to distribution, the maximum amount to be paid to ACSPA shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six million dollars). Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subject to the following specific guidelines: a) The maximum to be disbursed from fees collected shall be six million dollars City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 14 ($6,000,000), which amount shall not be increased for any reason including inflation. In addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSPA. b) Disbursement will be only from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Section II Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any other source including the City's General Fund. c) The amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the fee. There is no guarantee that ACSPA will receive a total of $6,000,000. d) The City will determine and report on an annual basis to ACSPA, the amount of funds collected from the Section II Residential BART Garage fee and the amount available for disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any. e) The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSPA is described below. 2. Process for Payment to ACSPA -Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds a) Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds i. Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available for public use, the ACSPA shall provide to the City a written certification of the completion of the BART Garage. ii. Within 45 days of receipt of the certification described above, City shall calculate the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of the first day of the month preceding the date of the notice. City shall also calculate and account for accrued interest based on the quarterly balance of Section II BART Garage Fees and the earning rate applied to pooled funds managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSPA the funds as calculated along with a report showing the maximum remaining fees that may be paid to ACSPA. iii. Thereafter, funds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described below. b) Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Available for Payment i. Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Section II Residential BART Garage fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for the fiscal year that just ended. This shall include accrued interest. ii. The City shall distribute to ACSPA, Section II Residential BART Garage fees available, to the extent that the total distribution including previous payments, excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximum amount described above. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 15 iii. The Administrative Services Department shall annually report to the ACSPA the current balance remaining in Section II Residential BART Garage fees that may be paid. City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 16 Appendix A: Illustrative Examples City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 17 Illustrative Example 1 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the Western Transportation Impact Fee program. The land dedication to be applied for a Fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Fee. The Resolution used a standard cost measurement on the current value per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the TIF. The Fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by the proper square foot cost measurement after automatic annual adjustments based on the change in land acquisition costs. Illustrative Example 2 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): A Developer constructing multi-family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (TIF improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Fee at the time totals $2,497 per dwelling unit. The credit of $200,000 will cover approximately 80.10 dwelling units. When the building permit is issued for the 81st dwelling unit, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee. Illustrative Example 3 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A developer constructing single family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Section I improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee at the time totals $9,062 per home, which is comprised of the Section I portion of $7,207 and the Section II portion of $1,855. The credit of $200,000 can only be used against the developer's Section I Fee of $7,207 per home, which will cover approximately 27.75 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 28th home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Section I Fee. The Section II portion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes included in the development, as the Section I credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the Fee. Illustrative Example 4 (Public Facilities Fee): Assume that a developer improves 10 acres of land for a planned 20 acre community park to offset the Fees due for the Community Parks Improvement fee component. The last adopted fee study used a standard cost estimate of $420,000 per acre for calculating the cost of improved community parkland. The fee credit due to the developer will be calculated using this cost estimate (10 acres, $420,000 per acre = $4,200,000). City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 18 Illustrative Example 5 (Public Facilities Fee): A developer constructing single family homes in Dublin contributes neighborhood park improvements valued at $200,000. The Neighborhood Parks Improvements portion of the Fee for a single family home is $2,280 of the total Fee of $32,643. The developer must pay a Fee of $30,363 for each single-family home (total Fee of $32,643 less credit of $2,280) until the $200,000 credit is used up. This credit will cover the Neighborhood Parks, Improvements component of the Fee for the first 87 single-family homes constructed ($200,000/$2,280 = 87.72). When the developer applies for the building permit for the 88th home, he or she will begin paying this component of the Fee with the balance of the Public Facilities Fee due for the project. Illustrative Example 6 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): A developer is constructing certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The improvements are a project in Fee Program. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. Illustrative Example 7 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for Eastern Dublin TIF improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed for the Eastern Dublin TIF are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (the oldest agreement): $50,000 Developer B: $20,000 Developer C: $30,000 For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set-aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has $28,000 of outstanding City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 19 reimbursements (beginning balance of $50,000 less the $22,000 payment). The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently hold reimbursement rights as follows: Holder of Reimbursement Current Value of Reimbursement Owed Percent of Total Reimbursements Outstanding Amt. of $22,000 Reimbursement Distributed Reimbursement Balance Remaining Developer A $28,000 35.90% $7,898.00 $20,102.00 Developer B $20,000 25.64% $5,640.80 $14,359.20 Developer C $30,000 38.46% $8,461.20 $21,538.80 TOTAL $78,000 $22,000.00 $56,000.00 Illustrative Example 8 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X moves his/her fast food restaurant business into an individual (standalone) building located within the Western Dublin TIF area. Previous use of the building consisted of a sit-down restaurant, which was vacated approximately two years prior to User X obtaining his/her use permit. Would User X be entitled to trip credit? Answer: Yes, because the previous use was vacated only two years before he/she would be entitled to trip credit for the previous sit-down restaurant use which generates fewer trips than a fast food restaurant. User X would pay TIF based on the net trips estimated for his/her project. Illustrative Example 9 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X (insurance company office) and User Y (dental office) occupy office space in two separate general office buildings (building A and building B, respectively). Both buildings are located within the Western Dublin TIF area. The two users have decided to switch office spaces (e.g., User X would relocate to the space in building B and User Y would relocate to the space in building A). Would either user be required to pay TIF? Answer: No, because as each user moves into the other space, he/she would receive full trip credit for the previous use, based on the uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in the Fee program. Note: Although User Y operates a dental office, which generates more trips than an insurance company office (User X), the same trip generation rate (i.e., City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 20 Standard Commercial Office) is used in both cases to calculate the TIF, as both uses are proposed to take place within a general office building. Illustrative Example 10 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X proposes to change the use of his/her individual (standalone) space within the Western Dublin TIF area from Health Club to Bowling Center/Video Arcade. How would the TIF be determined? Answer: The TIF would be determined based on the net change in trips estimated for the proposed project. For example, User X would be charged TIF based on the proposed Bowling Center/Video Arcade use, but would receive trip credit for the discontinued Health Club use. Illustrative Example 11 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X proposes to establish an Urgent Care Medical Office within a general office building by replacing existing retail/restaurant uses located on the first floor of the building. How would the trip credit be determined? Answer: The trip credit would be determined based on the trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office. Note: The TIF would be based upon the increase in trips due to the proposed project (e.g., the difference between Clinic trips and Standard Commercial Office trips). City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 21 Appendix B: Previous Fee Resolutions City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 22 Appendix B1 – Previous Resolutions Administrative Guidelines City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 23 Appendix B2 – Previous Resolutions Western Dublin (Downtown) TIF City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 24 Appendix B3 – Previous Resolutions Eastern Dublin TIF City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – September 2016 Page 25 Appendix B4 – Previous Resolutions Public Facilities Fee RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE GUIDELINES WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted the Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines ("the Guidelines"), which superseded the Guidelines previously adopted for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Public Facilities Fee (Resolution No. 122-13); and WHEREAS, the Guidelines limit the "life" of impact fee credits to 10 years, with the credit holder being eligible for an additional 5 year extension upon request, and after the credits expire they convert to a "right to reimbursement"; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted the amendment to the Guidelines by allowing a credit holder to extend expiring credits with 5 year extension for an additional year Resolution No. 117-14); and WHEREAS, to allow developers to maximize the utilization of impact fee credits, the City desires to extend the "life" of impact fee credits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby amend Resolution No. 117-14, as follows: 1. Allowing Fee Credits to exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to reimbursement at the end of credit period. 2. One-time allowance for current Right to Reimbursement agreements to be re-converted to Fee Credits. 3. City Manager's authorization to approve the conversion of credits from one parkland and improvement category to another parkland and improvement based on land and improvement values conversion ratio. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Amended Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this l6nd day of June, 2015, by the following vote. AYES: Councilmembers Bidd'e, Gupta, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Haubert NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Hart ABSTAIN: None C- A M.yor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso No. 111-15, Adopted 6-16-15, Item 4.12 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES I.Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 210-04 and as subsequently amended), the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 1-95 and as subsequently amended), the Public Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 32-96 and as subsequently amended), the Fire Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 37-97 and as subsequently amended), Noise Mitigation Fee (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 33-96 and as subsequently amended), and Nonresidential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 70-05 and as subsequently amended) which fees are, unless otherwise provided, hereinafter referred to as the "Fee" or Fees." Except as otherwise provided herein, terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner as such terms are defined in the Resolution. The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Specific Plans, and the most recent Impact Fee Studies. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application of these guidelines. II. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing. III. Fee Administration A. Responsible Departments The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for deteimining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips per Fee program assigned to the project. B. Effective Fees The Fee will be collected at the filing of final map and/or due at the issuance of building permit for the development project, unless otherwise provided in the applicable Fee Resolution, or developer enters into a fee deferral agreement with the City. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for projects will be calculated as provided for in the Fee Resolutions. However, in certain circumstances, the applicable resolutions may not appropriately reflect or apply to a particular project. For example, mixed use projects and projects that involve land uses that are not included in the Resolution. For non-residential development projects in which the land use is not included in the definitions contained in the applicable Fee resolution, the Community Development Director will determine which of the defined categories is appropriate, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definition of such terms. For mixed-use development projects, the Community Development Director will determine the projected percentage of each of the uses at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for each different use. if the uses are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial fee calculation purposes will be determined by the Community Development Director. Any Fee discrepancy as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and reconciled at the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements, developer may subject to additional Fee or refund. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the issuance of building permit. For mixed-use projects that contain both residential and non-residential portions, the Fee will be based upon the residential per dwelling unit fee schedule for the residential portion and the non-residential per 2 square foot schedule for the non-residential portion. The non-residential portion will be allocated among the uses as described above in these guidelines. Quasi-public uses (churches, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be subject to the Fees. For these uses, the Community Development Director will determine which of the categories most appropriately reflects the land use and allocate the project to this category. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. If an applicant disagrees with the Fee calculated based on trips generated by the proposed project per respective Fee program, including but not limited to quasi-public uses, applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director, requesting that the City undertake a specific traffic study for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. The study will be paid for by the applicant. IV. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payor, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payor as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Administrative Services Department will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Refunds Refunds of Fees associated with withdrawn applications or projects on which construction has not commenced, will be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Dublin Municipal Code 7. 28.450. Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record. 3 Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, bonds or other instruments taken to secure payment. If, pursuant to said procedures for paid building permits, a refund is no longer available, and if, within 10 years of the original payment of the Fees, new building permits are issued for a project on the subject property, the developer of the new project shall be required to pay only the difference between the amount of the Fees that were originally paid, and the amount of the Fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for the new project. This calculation of the difference in Fee amounts shall be done on a Fee by Fee basis. Thus, if any one Fee is reduced or eliminated between the time of the original payment and the issuance of building permits for the new project, the original payment amount for that reduced or eliminated Fee shall not be included in the calculation of the amount owed for the other Fees. B. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Fee; An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Fee will be expended upon; and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. C. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department: The City will maintain a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees. The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash balances. The City will identify, in accordance with State Law, the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end. 4 The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Fees. The City will provide a description and accounting of any inter-fund transfers made by the Fee Fund. The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end. The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. D. Administrative Fees Developers will pay the City administrative fees, provided the fees are established in the City's Master Fee Schedule, to cover the costs associated with: The establishment of the credit/reimbursement agreement Credit transfers Annual credit/RTR maintenance and monitoring. VI. Developer Fee Credits Section VI applies only to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee and the definitions contained in the Resolutions establishing and amending said Fees shall apply. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the "Fee" or "Fees" in this section shall mean only the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, and Fire Facilities Fee, and Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee. A. General. Section VI establishes the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursement to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fees are imposed. When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit when appropriate to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may, subject to the restrictions 5 described herein, use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the credit will convert to a reimbursement right unless the developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.G of these Guidelines. B. Fee Credit / Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the Fee facilities or dedication of land. 1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. Any credits, which are unused ten years following their creation with a balance, pursuant to Section VI.G.a of these Guidelines, shall convert to a right to reimbursement, unless the developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.G.b of these Guidelines. 4. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall either be increased for inflation or accrue interest, park land right to reimbursement amount shall be based on land value at the time of dedication. 5. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided that the administrative fee is paid, as specified in these guidelines. 6. The developer will sign the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read, understood, and accepted. 6 7. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee credits earned by constructing improvements can only be used to offset fees for that same category. The Fee for other categories will be paid by the developer as specified in these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories. For example, with respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, unused credits from Section I (Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements) cannot be used to offset the Section II component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. 8. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, no fee credits shall be established for the Section II Residential BART Garage" component of the Fee. Payments from those monies shall be made in accordance with subsection VI.L below. 9. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee, the City Manager may approve the conversion of credits from one park land category to another park land category based on the land values conversion ratio, or may approve the conversation of credits from one park improvement category to another park improvement category. Park land credits cannot convert to park improvement credits nor can park improvement credits convert to park land credits. Any such conversion shall require an amendment to the credit/reimbursement agreement that documents the existing credits or a new credit/reimbursement agreement, if the credits have not been documented. Requests for conversion under this section must be made in writing and the decision to approve or deny a request is made at the sole discretion of the City Manager. The City Manager shall approve the conversion only if he or she finds that the conversion would not materially change the Public Facilities Fee program's ability to deliver the acreage in each category specified in program. This provision does not apply to any other category in the Public Facilities Fee program. C. Calculating the Fee Credits 1. General 7 The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for Fee improvements/facilities constructed or land dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in the applicable Fee Resolutions and/or any subsequent replacement resolutions. There must be a minimum value of 50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. 2. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed improvements/facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the Fee facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that, in some cases, the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match the Fee facilities shown in the exhibits to the Fee Resolution. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. Illustrative Example 1 (Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program. The land dedication to be applied for a Fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Fee. The Fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by 8 the proper square foot cost measurement after automatic annual adjustments based on the change in land acquisition costs Illustrative Example 2 (Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A Developer constructing multi-family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (TIF improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Fee at the time totals $2,497 per dwelling unit. The credit of $200,000 will cover approximately 80.10 dwelling units. When the building permit is issued for the 81st dwelling unit, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee. Illustrative Example 3 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Traffic Impact Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program. The land dedication to be applied for a fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Traffic Impact Fee. The fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by per square foot cost measurement per Fee program. Illustrative Example 4 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A developer constructing single family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Section I improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee at the time totals $9,062 per home, which is comprised of the Section I portion of$7,207 and the Section II portion of 1,855. The credit of$200,000 can only be used against the developer's Section I Fee of 7,207 per home, which will cover approximately 27.75 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 28th home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Section I Fee. The Section II portion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes included in the development, as the Section I credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the Fee. 9 Illustrative Example 5 (Public Facilities Fee): Assume that a developer contributes 10 acres of land for a planned 20 acre community park to offset the Fees due for the Community Parks Land fee component. The last adopted fee study used a standard cost estimate of$420,000 per acre for calculating the cost of improved community parkland. The fee credit due to the developer will be calculated using this cost estimate (10 acres —' 420,000 per acre = $4,200,000). Illustrative Example 6 (Public Facilities Fee): A developer constructing single family homes in Dublin contributes neighborhood park improvements valued at $200,000. The Neighborhood Parks Improvements portion of the Fee for a single family home is $2,280 of the total Fee of$32,643. The developer must pay a Fee of $30,363 for each single- family home (total Fee of$32,643 less credit of$2,280) until the $200,000 credit is used up. This credit will cover the Neighborhood Parks, Improvements component of the Fee for the first 87 single-family homes constructed ($200,000/$2,280=87.72). When the developer applies for the building permit for the 88th home, he or she will begin paying this component of the Fee with the balance of the Public Facilities Fee due for the project. D. Use of Fee Credits 1. Credits expire when used or 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, whichever occurs first. 2. The life of credits may be extended by 5 years at the request of the credit holder(for a total life of 15 years). 3. A credit holder that has been granted a 5-year extension may request one additional 1-year extension (for a total life of 16) years, at the discretion of the City Manager. 10 The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and applied as credits to the Fees as authorized by the developer. The City's Administrative Services Department will keep record of credit utilization and balance. 4. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the Fee facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with these guidelines. E. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1. Dedicated the land or constructed improvements/facilities representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and a labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City Manager or designee. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. F. Transferring of Credits 1. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category of the Fee in question. Such transactions shall be 11 subject to an administrative fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. 2. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. 3. In certain circumstances, and as required in the interest of equity, the City Manager may, at his or her sole discretion, authorize the transfer of credits to a person who does not own an interest in property subject to the Fee. G. Options After Initial 10-year or Extended Credit Life At or prior to expiration of the credit, the developer has the following options: a. The expired unused fee credit shall automatically convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under these guidelines, unless Developer submits a written request for extension no later than three (3) months prior to the credit expiration date or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. The period for right to reimbursement extends ten (10) years from the date of expiration. b. As an alternative, Developer can request that credits exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to reimbursement. To exercise this option, Developer must make a request, in writing, no less than three (3) months prior to credit expiration, or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. Developer must secure a written approval from the City Manager or designee for the request. Credits cannot be re-converted to a right to reimbursement. c. Developers that hold a right to reimbursement on June 16, 2015 may request that the right to reimbursement convert back to credits that would exist in perpetuity. Such a request must be made in writing by September 16, 2015, or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding EDTIF Section II Residential BART Garage Fees) 12 Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of Fee credits, which occurs 10 years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, or after credit extension (5 or 6 years, depends the number of years a credit is extended). Right to reimbursement life is 10 years. Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: 1. Reimbursement will be only from funds that were collected in payment of the same Fee as the one for which a developer is seeking reimbursement or, in the case of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, and paid to Dublin for any improvements also included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, and will not come from the City's General Fund. 2. The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement on an annual basis based on Fee programs, such as the Eastern Dublin and Downtown Impact Fees, and the Public Facilities Fee programs. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights 1. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Department will also determine, for each of the Fees, the amount of Fee funds that are unspent and unplanned. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. 2. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, 50%will be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the reimbursement set aside will be allocated to all reimbursement rights on a pro-rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the 13 remaining un-reimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be carried over to another fiscal year. The following example illustrates this allocation: Illustrative Example: During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for Eastern Dublin TIF improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed for the Eastern Dublin TIF are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (the oldest agreement): $50,000 Developer B:20,000 Developer C:30,000 For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set- aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has 28,000 of outstanding reimbursements (beginning balance of$50,000 less the $22,000 payment). The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently hold reimbursement rights as follows: Holder of Current Value of Percent of Total Amt.of$22,000 Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursements Reimbursement Balance Owed Outstanding Distributed Remaining Developer A $28,000 35.90% 7,898.00 $20,102.00 Developer B $20,000 25.64% 5,640.80 $14,359.20 Developer C $30,000 38.46% 8,461.20 $21,538.80 TOTAL 78,000 22,000.00 $56,000.00 J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers With respect to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, the improvements requested to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map on the development project. Absent a Map, a letter must be submitted for 14 approval prior to the approval of the improvement agreement. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the Public Works Director to make a determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. 2. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF), developers may, with City approval, be permitted to design and construct facilities included in the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program. The design and construction materials/methods must be in accordance with standard City specifications, and City inspectors shall be responsible for construction inspection throughout the duration of the construction period. The PFF Facilities to be constructed or dedicated by the developer must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map or improvement program on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, including the layout of timeline/milestones of the construction, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the Public Works Director to make an informed determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating PFF Facilities in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond and a labor and materials bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the PFF Facilities. K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits to Miscellaneous Infill Development-Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Only 1. Trip credit shall be determined by the City based upon the adopted trip generation rates as specified in the Fee program. Examples of how trip credits can be applied to miscellaneous infill development projects within the Downtown TIF area are presented below. 15 Illustrative Example 1: User X moves his/her fast food restaurant business into an individual (standalone) building located within the Downtown TIF area. Previous use of the building consisted of a sit-down restaurant, which was vacated approximately two years prior to User X obtaining his/her use permit. Would User X be entitled to trip credit? Answer: Yes, he/she would be entitled to trip credit for the previous sit-down restaurant use which generates fewer trips than a fast food restaurant. User X would pay TIF based on the net trips estimated for his/her project. Note: If the subject building was vacated more than five years prior to the date when the use permit was issued to User X, User X would then not receive any trip credit. Illustrative Example 2: User X (insurance company office) and User Y (dental office) occupy office space in two separate general office buildings (building A and building B, respectively). Both buildings are located within the Downtown TIF area. The two users have decided to switch office spaces (e.g., User X would relocate to the space in building B and User Y would relocate to the space in building A). Would either user be required to pay TIF? Answer: No, because as each user moves into the other space, he/she would receive full trip credit for the previous use, based on the uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in the Fee program. Note: Although User Y operates a dental office, which generates more trips than an insurance company office (User X), the same trip generation rate (i.e., Standard Commercial Office) is used in both cases to calculate the TIF, as both uses are proposed to take place within a general office building. 16 Illustrative Example 3: User X proposes to change the use of his/her individual standalone) space within the Downtown TIF area from Health Club to Bowling Center/Video Arcade. How would the TIF be determined? Answer: The TIF would be determined based on the net trips estimated for the proposed project. For example, User X would be charged TIF based on the proposed Bowling Center/Video Arcade use, but would receive trip credit for the discontinued Health Club use. Illustrative Example 4: User X proposes to establish an Urgent Care Medical Office within a general office building by replacing existing retail/restaurant uses located on the first floor of the building. How would the trip credit be determined? Answer: The trip credit would be determined based on the trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office. Note: The TIF would be based upon the increase in trips due to the proposed project (e.g., the difference between Clinic trips and Standard Commercial Office trips). 2. Trip credits shall follow the land use and not the user. For example, assume User X relocates from Space A to Space B, both of which are located within the Downtown TIF area. User X shall not receive trip credit for vacating Space A. User X shall be charged the appropriate TIF amount for moving into Space B, subject to receiving trip credit as specified below. Similarly, the appropriate TIF amount shall be charged to the next user of Space A, subject to the appropriate trip credit. 3. Trip credit associated with unoccupied space shall be issued if, and only if, the space has been vacant for five (5) calendar years or less prior to the date when a use permit is issued to the new user. 17 4. TIF calculations/trip credit for uses, other than Urgent Care Medical Office, located within a general office building that houses multiple tenants (such as professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, bank or savings and loan institutions, medical offices, restaurant or cafeteria, retail facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in the Fee Program. For Urgent Care Medical Office use within a general office building, the trip generation rate for Clinic, as specified in the Fee program, shall be used to calculate the TIF and the trip credit. 5. Trip credit for uses located within a shopping center containing retail stores, as well as non- merchandising facilities (such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, recreational facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for the appropriate type of Shopping Center as specified in the Fee program. L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage 1. Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) for $6 million of BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage) With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, payment of Section II Residential BART Garage Fees, payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ACSPA), which is responsible for the parking garage construction and dedication of the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public. Except for interest earned on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to distribution, the maximum amount to be paid to ACSPA shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six million dollars). Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subject to the following specific guidelines: a. The maximum to be disbursed from fees collected shall be six million dollars 6,000,000), which amount shall not be increased for any reason including inflation. In addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSPA. 18 b. Disbursement will be only from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees Section II Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any other source including the City's General Fund. c. The amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the fee. There is no guarantee that ACSPA will receive a total of$6,000,000. d. The City will determine and report on an annual basis to ACSPA, the amount of funds collected from the Section II Residential BART Garage fee and the amount available for disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any. e. The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSPA is described below. 2. Process for Payment to ACSPA —Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds a. Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds i.Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available for public use, the ACSPA shall provide to the City a written certification of the completion of the BART Garage. ii. Within 45 days of receipt of the certification described above, City shall calculate the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of the first day of the month preceding the date of the notice. City shall also calculate and account for accrued interest based on the quarterly balance of Section II BART Garage Fees and the earning rate applied to pooled funds managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSPA the funds as calculated along with a report showing the maximum remaining fees that may be paid to ACSPA. iii. Thereafter, funds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described below. b. Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Available for Payment 19 Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Section II Residential BART Garage fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for the fiscal year that just ended. This shall include accrued interest. ii. The City shall distribute to ACSPA, Section II Residential BART Garage fees available, to the extent that the total distribution including previous payments, excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximum amount described above. iii. The Administrative Services Department shall annually report to the ACSPA the current balance remaining Section II Residential BART Garage fees that may be paid. 20 RESOLUTION NO. 8- 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PAYMENT DATE WHEREAS, one of the City Council's Fiscal Year 2009/2010 High Priority Goals and Objectives was to develop an Economic Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 127-09 approving the Downtown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Deferral Program for non- residential projects ("the Program"); and WHEREAS, the Program allows non-residential developers to defer Downtown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees from building permit issuance to the issuance of the first permanent utility meter for the project; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-11 approving an extension of the Program for Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, and amended the final TIF payment date to June 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an Economic Development Strategy on November 6, 2012,which includes the continuation of economic incentives as a strategic priority; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 62-13 approving an extension of the Program for Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and amended the final TIF payment date to June 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Program, as adopted by Resolution No. 62-13, was to run for Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends extending the Program for Fiscal Years 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-2020, and amend the TIF payment date from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2022, two years following the completion of the extended Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby amend the Program as follows: 1. The program shall run through the end of Fiscal Year 2019-20. 2. All Traffic Impact Fees deferred pursuant to the Program shall be paid no later than June 30, 2022 if said fees have not already been paid upon issuance of the first permanent utility meter for a project. Page 1 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, and Mayor Haubert NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso No. 8-15,Adopted 1-20-15, Item 4.10 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 117 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE GUIDELINES FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE, FIRE FACILITIES FEE AND NOISE FEE WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted the Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines ("the Guidelines"), which superseded the Guidelines previously adopted for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the Guidelines presently limit the "life" of impact fee credits to 10 years, with the credit holder being eligible for an additional 5 year extension upon request, and after the credits expire they convert to a "right of reimbursement"; and WHEREAS, in order to consider its options for handling the anticipated expiration of various credits,the City desires to authorize a credit holder to extend expiring credits for an additional year. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby amend subsections VI.E.1 and VI.E.2 to read as follows: 1. Credits expire when used or 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement,whichever occurs first. The life of credits may be extended by 5 years at the request of the credit holder(for a total life of 15 years), and, in addition, a credit holder that has been granted a 5-year extension may request one additional 1-year extension (for a total life of 16 years). The additional 1-year extension is at the discretion of the City Manager. 2. In the event the fee credits are unused at expiration, the fee credit shall convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under these guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 10/J Mayor ATTES : fi4f/ ri City Clerk Reso No. 117-14,Adopted 7-15-14, Item 4.8 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 62- 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PAYMENT DATE WHEREAS, one of the City Council's Fiscal Year 2009/2010 High Priority Goals and Objectives was to develop an Economic Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 127-09 approving the Downtown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Deferral Program for non- residential projects ("the Program"); and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-11 approving an extension of the Program for Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, and amended the final TIF payment date to June 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Program allows non-residential developers to defer Downtown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees from building permit issuance to the issuance of the first permanent utility meter for the project; and WHEREAS, the Program, as adopted by Resolution No. 95-11, was to run for Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13; and WHEREAS, because of the slow economic recovery, the City Council's Standing Economic Development Committee requested that the City Council consider extending the Program for Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and amend the TIF payment date from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2017, two years following the completion of the extended Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby amend the Program as follows: 1. The program shall run through the end of Fiscal Year 2014-15. 2. All Traffic Impact Fees deferred pursuant to the Program shall be paid no later than June 30, 2017 if said fees have not already been paid upon issuance of the first permanent utility meter for a project. Page 1 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: fr City Clerk Reso No. 62-13,Adopted 5-21-13, Item 4.6 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 123 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING A SINGLE POLICY FOR EXEMPTIONS FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE, FIRE FACILITIES FEE AND NOISE FEE WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 210-04 establishing the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 1-95 establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 32-96 establishing the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council.adopted Resolution 37-97 establishing the Fire Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 33-96 establishing the Noise Fee; and WHEREAS, the resolutions above, and their successors, are referred to in this resolution as the Fee Resolutions, and the above named fees shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Fees'; and WHEREAS, in the interest of achieving a greater degree of uniformity across the Fees, the City Council desires to adopt a common set of exemptions for the Fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the provisions of the Fees as adopted and as later amended, the following provisions shall apply in the administration of the Fees: Exemptions 1. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from the collection of Fees: a) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit (e.g., second dwelling unit) is added to a single-family unit, or another unit is added to an existing multi-family building. b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing single-family residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the replacement or reconstruction includes the addition of a residential unit (e.g., second dwelling unit). Page 1 of 3 c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing multi-family residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished, provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the replacement or reconstruction increases the number of residential units on the property. d) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the reconstructed building would increase the destroyed or demolished building's impacts as measured by the provisions for calculating the Fee contained in the Fee Resolution. e) Any addition to an existing non-residential structure that would not increase the building's impacts as measured by the provisions for calculating the Fee contained in the applicable Fee Resolution. f)With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee only, retail uses within the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and the Fairway Ranch High-Density Residential Development, as these uses are considered ancillary to the adjoining residential uses and will not generate outside vehicle trips. g) The City Council, in its sole discretion, may waive the applicability of the Fee to certain development constructed or to be constructed by a public entity on land having an appropriate General Plan land use designation upon findings of the City Council that such a waiver is in the interest of the public health, safety, and/or welfare, for reasons specified in the findings. Such reasons may include, but are not limited to, that the Fee, as it would apply to such development by a public entity, will be sufficiently recovered in whole or in part from residential development, the residents of which may constitute the primary users of the public entity development. 2.Partial Exemption. A partial exemption may be granted based on prior Fees paid in the situation of a change in the type of use as follows: If within 10 years of paying the Fees for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced by a new type of development, an exemption may be given for up to the amount which was paid by the prior development project. In the event that the replacement project would result in a lower Fee, the new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights. Any change in use outside of the 10 year period stated shall be obligated to pay the entire Fee except to the extent that another exemption applies. Page 2 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None g, szej, Mayor ATTEST: 6(4,0 C P W City Clerk Reso No. 123-13,Adopted 7-16-13, Item 4.10 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 122 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE, FIRE FACILITIES FEE AND NOISE FEE WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 210-04 establishing the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 1-95 establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 32-96 establishing the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 37-97 establishing the Fire Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 33-96 establishing the Noise Fee; and WHEREAS, the above named fees shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Fees"; and WHEREAS, in the interest of achieving a greater degree of uniformity across the Fees, the City Council desires to adopt a common set of guidelines for the Fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A, which Guidelines shall supersede the Guidelines previously adopted for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Public Facilities Fee. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ALL Mayor ATT T: Pc, City Clerk Reso No. 122-13,Adopted 7-16-13, Item 4.10 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES I.Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 210-04 and as subsequently amended), the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 1-95 and as subsequently amended), the Public Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 32-96 and as subsequently amended), the Fire Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 37-97 and as subsequently amended) and the Noise Fee (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 33-96), which fees are, unless otherwise provided, hereinafter referred to as the Fee" or "Fees." Except as otherwise provided herein, terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner as such terms are defined in the Resolution. The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Specific Plans, and the most recent Impact Fee Studies. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application of these guidelines. H. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing. III. Fee Administration A. Responsible Departments The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the 1 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines number of vehicle trips assigned to the project. Unless otherwise provided in the applicable Fee Resolution, the Fee will be collected with the payment for the building permit for the development project. B. Effective Fees The Fees owed by a development project will be those in effect when the building permit is obtained. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for projects will be calculated as provided for in the Fee Resolutions. However, in certain circumstances, the applicable resolutions may not appropriately reflect or apply to a particular project. For example, mixed use projects and projects that involve land uses that are not included in the Resolution. For non-residential development projects in which the land use is not included in the definitions contained in the applicable Fee resolution, the Community Development Director will determine which of the defined categories is appropriate, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definition of such terms. For mixed-use development projects, the Community Development Director will determine the projected percentage of each of the uses at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for each different use. If the uses are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial fee calculation purposes will be assumed as Industrial. Any additional Fee owed as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and collected at the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the time of final inspection. No refund of the Fee will be given if the resulting uses are different from the projected land use. 2 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines For mixed-use projects that contain both residential and non-residential portions, the Fee will be based upon the residential per dwelling unit fee schedule for the residential portion and the non-residential per square foot schedule for the non-residential portion. The non-residential portion will be allocated among the uses as described above in these guidelines. Quasi-public uses (churches, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be subject to the Fees. For these uses, the Community Development Director will determine which of the categories most appropriately reflects the land use and allocate the project to this category. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. 1.Where the Fee in question is calculated based on trips generated, including but not limited to quasi-public uses, the Public Works Director will undertake a specific traffic study, to be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. IV. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payor, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payor as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Refunds Refunds of Fees associated with withdrawn applications or projects on which construction has not commenced, will be done in accordance with existing procedures for refunds of paid building permits. 3 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record. Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, bonds or other instruments taken to secure payment. If, pursuant to said procedures for paid building permits, a refund is no longer available, and if, within 10 years of the original payment of the Fees, new building permits are issued for a project on the subject property, the developer of the new project shall be required to pay only the difference between the amount of the Fees that were originally paid, and the amount of the Fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for the new project. This calculation of the difference in Fee amounts shall be done on a Fee by Fee basis. Thus, if any one Fee is reduced or eliminated between the time of the original payment and the issuance of building permits for the new project, the original payment amount for that reduced or eliminated Fee shall not be included in the calculation of the amount owed for the other Fees. B. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Fee; An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Fee will be expended upon; and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. C. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department: The City will maintain a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees. 4 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash balances. The City will identify, in accordance with State Law, the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Fees. The City will provide a description and accounting of any interfund transfers made by the Fee Fund. The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end. The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. VI. Developer Fee Credits This Section VI applies only to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Public Facilities Fee, and the definitions contained in the Resolutions establishing and amending said Fees shall apply. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the "Fee" or "Fees" in this section shall mean only the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Public Facilities Fee.) A. General. This section VI establishes the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursement to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fees are imposed (Fee facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project the developer may, subject to the restrictions described herein, use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the credit will convert to a reimbursement right unless the developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.E of these Guidelines. 5 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines B. Applicability of Administrative Guidelines to Pre-Existing Credits Allotted to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority These guidelines do not apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under the terms of the Agreement between the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Surplus Property Authority regarding coordination of certain Freeway Improvements dated March 12, 1991. These guidelines do apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under development agreements entered into between January 1, 1995 and the effective date of these guidelines, to the extent provided for in a specific fee credit/reimbursement agreement to be entered into between the City and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. C. Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the Fee facilities or dedication of land. 1.All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2.This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3.The developer will pay an administrative fee, due on the effective date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, to be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. The purpose of this administrative fee is to cover the administrative costs associated with establishing and monitoring the credit/reimbursement agreement. 6 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines 4.Any credits, which are unused ten years following their creation and which have not been extended pursuant to Section VI.E of these Guidelines, shall convert to a right to reimbursement. The right to reimbursement terminates ten years after it is created. 5. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall either be increased for inflation or accrue interest. 6.Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specified in these guidelines. 7.The developer will sign a certificate attached to the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read and understood. 8.With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Public Facilities Fee, credits earned by constructing or dedicating a certain category of Fee Facilities can only be used to offset fees for that same category. The Fee for other categories will be paid by the developer as specified in these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories. For example, with respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, unused credits from Section I Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements) cannot be used to offset the Section II component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Likewise, with respect to the Public Facilities Fee, unused credits from the Community Parks, Land component of the Fee cannot be used to offset the Libraries component of the Fee. Public Facilities Fee 9.With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, no fee credits shall be established for the Section II Residential BART Garage" component of the Fee. Payments from those monies shall be made in accordance with subsection VI.K, below. D. Calculating the Fee Credits 7 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines For purposes of calculating the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, the fee credits will be segregated into the following categories: Section I: Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements Section II (Excludes Section II Residential BART Garage): Citywide Traffic Improvements Section III: Regional Transportation Note: Section III Fee suspended effective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee remains in place.) For purposes of calculating the Public Facilities Fee, the fee credits will be segregated into the following ten categories: Citywide: Community Parks, Land Citywide: Community Parks, Improvements Citywide: Community Buildings Citywide: Libraries Citywide: Civic Center Eastern Dublin: Neighborhood Parks, Land Eastern Dublin: Neighborhood Parks, Improvements Eastern Dublin: Aquatic Center Western Dublin: Neighborhood Parks, Land Western Dublin: Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1.General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for Fee facilities constructed or land dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in the applicable Fee Resolutions and/or any 8 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines subsequent replacement resolutions. There must be a minimum value of $50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. 2. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the Fee facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that, in some cases, the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match the Fee facilities shown in the exhibits to the Fee Resolution. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. Illustrative Example 1 (Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the TIF. The land dedication to be applied for a Fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Fee. The Resolution used a standard cost measurement of $33 per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the TIF. The Fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by the proper square foot cost measurement after automatic annual adjustments based on the change in land acquisition costs. 9 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Illustrative Example 2 (Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A Developer constructing multi-family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (TIF improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Fee totals $2,320 per dwelling unit. The credit of $200,000 will cover approximately 86.21 dwelling units. When the building permit is issued for the 87`" dwelling unit, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee. Illustrative Example 3 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Traffic Impact Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the TIF. The land dedication to be applied for a fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Traffic Impact Fee. Resolution 41-96 used a standard cost measurement of $7 per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the Traffic Impact Fees. The fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by this per square foot cost measurement. Illustrative Example 4 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A developer constructing single family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Section 1 improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee totals $6,950 per home, which is comprised of the Section I portion of$4,700 and the Section II and III portions of$2,250. The credit of$200,000 can only be used against the developer's Section I Fee of$4,700 per home, which will cover approximately 42.55 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 43rd home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Section I Fee. The Section II and III portions of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes included in the development, as the Section I credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the Fee. 10 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Illustrative Example 5 (Public Facilities Fee): Assume that a developer contributes 10 acres of land for a planned 20 acre community park to offset the Fees due for the Community Parks, Land fee component. The last adopted fee study used a standard cost estimate of$420,000 per acre for calculating the cost of improved community parkland. The fee credit due to the developer will be calculated using this cost estimate (10 acres —' 420,000 per acre = $4,200,000). Illustrative Example 6 (Public Facilities Fee): A developer constructing single family homes in Eastern Dublin contributes neighborhood park improvements valued at 200,000. The Neighborhood Parks, Improvements portion of the Fee for a single family home is currently $925 of the total Fee of $11,219. The developer must pay a Fee of 10,294 for each single-family home (total Fee of$11,219 less credit of$925) until the 200,000 credit is used up. This credit will cover the Neighborhood Parks, Improvements component of the Fee for the first 216 single-family homes constructed 200,000/$925=216.22). When the developer applies for the building permit for the 217th home, he or she will begin paying this component of the Fee with the balance of the Public Facilities Fee due for the project. E. Use of Fee Credits 1.Credits expire when used or 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement unless extended an additional five years at the request of the credit holder), whichever occurs first. 2. In the event the fee credits are unused following 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (or fifteen years if extended at the request of the credit holder), the fee credit shall convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under these guidelines. 3.The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and tracked as they are used by the developer. The City's Administrative Services Department will keep record of the unused 11 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines credits and provide this information to the Building & Safety Division at the time Fee credits are used. 4.Only the developer who builds or dedicates the Fee facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with these guidelines. F. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1.Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and a labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City Manager. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. G. Transferring of Credits 1.The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category of the Fee in question. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transfer fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs 12 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines associated with the credit transfer. The administrative transfer fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. 2.There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. 3.In certain circumstances, and as required in the interest of equity, the City Manager may, at his or her sole discretion, authorize the transfer of credits to a person who does not own an interest in property subject to the Fee. H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding EDTIF Section II Residential BART Garage Fees) Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of Fee credits, which occurs 10 years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement creating the Fee credit. Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: 1.Reimbursement will be only from funds that were collected in payment of the same Fee as the one for which a developer is seeking reimbursement or, in the case of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, from fees collected by Contra Costa County and paid to Dublin for any improvements also included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, and will not come from the City's General Fund. 2.The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement on an annual basis. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights 1. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Department will also determine, for each of the Fees, the amount of Fee funds that are unspent and unencumbered as of the close of the fiscal year. For funds that are unspent and unencumbered, the City will allocate the necessary amount to be used to finance needed Fee 13 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines facilities for the upcoming fiscal year. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. 2. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, 50% will be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the reimbursement set aside will be allocated to all reimbursement rights on a pro-rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining un-reimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be carried over to another fiscal year. The following example illustrates this allocation: Illustrative Example: During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for DTIF improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed for the DTIF are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (the oldest agreement): $50,000 Developer B: 20,000 Developer C: 30,000 For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set- aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has 28,000 of outstanding reimbursements (beginning balance of$50,000 less the $22,000 14 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines payment). The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently hold reimbursement rights as follows: Holder of Current Value of Percent of Total Amt.of$22,000 Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursements Reimbursement Balance Owed Outstanding Distributed Remainine Developer A $28,000 35.90% 7,898.00 $20,102.00 Developer B $20,000 25.64% 5,640.80 $14,359.20 Developer C $30,000 38.46% 8,461.20 $21,538.80 TOTAL 78,000 22,000.00 $56,000.00 J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers I.With respect to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, the improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the Public Works Director to make a determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. 2.With respect to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF), as a matter of policy the City will design and construct community parks, community buildings, libraries, Civic Center improvements and the Eastern Dublin Aquatic Center. Developers may, with City approval, be permitted to design and construct neighborhood parks/squares and certain portions of community parks. The design and construction materials/methods must be in accordance with standard City specifications, and City inspectors shall be responsible for construction inspection throughout the duration of the construction period. The PFF Facilities to be constructed or dedicated by the developer must be submitted for approval in writing to the Parks and Community Services Director no later than thirty calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map on the development project. The 15 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, as determined by the Parks and Community Services Director, for the Parks and Community Services Director will attempt to make a determination regarding the approval. The developer constructing or dedicating PFF Facilities in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond and a labor and materials bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the PFF Facilities. K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits to Miscellaneous Infill Development-Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Only 1. Trip credits shall follow the land use and not the user. For example, assume User X relocates from Space A to Space B, both of which are located within the Downtown TIF area. User X shall not receive trip credit for vacating Space A. User X shall be charged the appropriate TIF amount for moving into Space B, subject to receiving trip credit as specified below. Similarly, the appropriate TIF amount shall be charged to the next user of Space A, subject to the appropriate trip credit. 2. Trip credit associated with unoccupied space shall be issued if, and only if, the space has been vacant for five (5) calendar years or less prior to the date when a use permit is issued to the new user. 3.TIF calculations/trip credit for uses, other than Urgent Care Medical Office, located within a general office building that houses multiple tenants (such as professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, bank or savings and loan institutions, medical offices, restaurant or cafeteria, retail facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. For Urgent Care Medical Office use within a general office building, the trip generation rate for Clinic, as specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution, shall be used to calculate the TIF and the trip credit. 16 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines 4.Trip credit for uses located within a shopping center containing retail stores, as well as non- merchandising facilities (such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, recreational facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip generation rate for the appropriate type of Shopping Center as specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. 5.Trip credit shall be determined by the City based upon the adopted weekday trip generation rates as specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. Examples of how trip credits can be applied to miscellaneous infill development projects within the Downtown TIF area are presented below. Illustrative Example 1: User X moves his/her fast food restaurant business into an individual (standalone) building located within the Downtown TIF area. Previous use of the building consisted of a sit-down restaurant, which was vacated approximately two years prior to User X obtaining his/her use permit. Would User X be entitled to trip credit? Answer: Yes, he/she would be entitled to trip credit for the previous sit-down restaurant use which generates fewer daily trips than a fast food restaurant. User X would pay TIF based on the net daily trips estimated for his/her project. Note: If the subject building was vacated more than five years prior to the date when the use permit was issued to User X, User X would then not receive any trip credit. 17 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Illustrative Example 2: User X (insurance company office) and User Y (dental office) occupy office space in two separate general office buildings (building A and building B, respectively). Both buildings are located within the Downtown TIF area. The two users have decided to switch office spaces (e.g., User X would relocate to the space in building B and User Y would relocate to the space in building A). Would either user be required to pay TIF? Answer: No, because as each user moves into the other space, he/she would receive full trip credit for the previous use, based on the uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. Note: Although User Y operates a dental office, which generates more daily trips than an insurance company office (User X), the same trip generation rate (i.e., Standard Commercial Office) is used in both cases to calculate the TIF, as both uses are proposed to take place within a general office building. Illustrative Example 3: User X proposes to change the use of his/her individual standalone) space within the Downtown TIF area from Health Club to Bowling Center/Video Arcade. How would the TIF be determined? Answer: The TIF would be determined based on the net daily trips estimated for the proposed project. For example, User X would be charged TIF based on the proposed Bowling CenterNideo Arcade use, but would receive trip credit for the discontinued Health Club use. Illustrative Example 4: User X proposes to establish an Urgent Care Medical Office within a general office building by replacing existing retail/restaurant uses located on the first floor of the building. How would the trip credit be determined? 18 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Answer: The trip credit would be determined based on the trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office. Note: The TIF would be based upon the net increase in daily trips due to the proposed project (e.g., the difference between Clinic trips and Standard Commercial Office trips). L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) for $6 million of BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage) With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, payment of Section II Residential BART Garage Fees, payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ACSPA), which is responsible for the parking garage construction and dedication of the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public. Except for interest earned on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to distribution, the maximum amount to be paid to ACSPA shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six million dollars). Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subject to the following specific guidelines: a.The maximum to be disbursed from fees collected shall be six million dollars 6,000,000), which amount shall not be increased for any reason including inflation. In addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSPA. b.Disbursement will be only from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees Section II Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any other source including the City's General Fund. c.The amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the fee. There is no guarantee that ACSPA will receive a total of$6,000,000. d.The City will determine and report on an annual basis to ACSPA, the amount of funds collected from the Section II Residential BART Garage fee and the amount available for disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any. 19 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines e.The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSPA is described below. 2.Process for Payment to ACSPA—Section 11 Residential BART Garage Fee Funds a. Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds i.Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available for public use, the ACSPA shall provide to the City a written certification of the completion of the BART Garage. ii. Within 45 days of receipt of the certification described above, City shall calculate the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of the first day of the month preceding the date of the notice. City shall also calculate and account for accrued interest based on the quarterly balance of Section II BART Garage Fees and the earning rate applied to pooled funds managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSPA the funds as calculated along with a report showing the maximum remaining fees that may be paid to ACSPA. iii. Thereafter, funds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described below. b.Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Available for Payment i.Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Section II Residential BART Garage fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for the fiscal year that just ended. This shall include accrued interest. ii. The City shall distribute to ACSPA, Section II Residential BART Garage fees available, to the extent that the total distribution including previous payments, 20 EXHIBIT A Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximum amount described above. The Administrative Services Department shall annually report to the ACSPA the current balance remaining Section II Residential BART Garage fees that may be paid. 21 RESOLUTION NO. 95- 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTEIdDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PAYMENT DATE WHEREAS, one of the City Council's Fiscal Year 2009/2010 High Priority Goals and Objectives was to develop an Economic Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, in September 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 127-09 approving the Downtown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Deferral Program for non-residential projects ("the Program"); and WHEREAS, the Program allows non allows non-residential developers to defer powntown and Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees from building permit issuance to the issuance of the first permanent utility meter for the project; and WHEREAS, the Program, as adopted by Resolution 127-09, was to run for Fiscal Years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011; and WHEREAS, because of the slow economic recovery, the City Council's Ad-Hoc Economic Development Committee requested that the City Council consider e~ending the Program for Fiscal Years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 and amending the Traffic Impact Fee Payment Date from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2015, two years following the completion of the extended Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby amend the Program as follows: 1. The program shall run through the end of Fiscal Year 2012/2013. 2. All Traffic Impact Fees deferred pursuant to the Program shall be paid no later than June 30, 2015 if said fees have not already been paid upon issuance of the first permanent utility meter for a project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of June, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Hart ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTES : c.~,~ ~ Deputy City Clerk Reso No. 95-11, Adopted 6-21-11-11, Item 42 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 127- 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, one of the City Council's Fiscal Year 2009-2010 High Priority Goals and Objectives is to develop an Economic Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, in January 2009, the City Council adopted the Sales Tax Reimbursement Program as the first of possibly many programs that the City would create to stimulate economic development activities in the City; and WHEREAS, after careful review of additional incentive options, Staff recommends the establishment of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Deferral Program for non-residential projects, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the creation of the TIF Deferral Program will potentially impact the collection of approximately $213,000 in traffic impact fees over the next two fiscal years; and WHEREAS, the TIF Deferral Program does not adversely impact work associated with current Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), as the active CIP projects involve the repayment of loans associated with improvements already completed; and WHEREAS, to the extent funds are collected on a deferred basis, timeframe for repayment of loans will also be extended, resulting in increased interest costs to the TIF program; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the provisions of Resolutions 210-04, 211-04, 111-04 and 20-07, adopting the Downtown TIF and Eastern Dublin TIF and the associated Administrative Guidelines, traffic impact fees for non-residential projects may be deferred from payment at building permit to the issuance of the first permanent utility meter for the development; and WHEREAS, payment of the deferred TIF will be the amount in effect at the time of payment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Traffic Impact Fee Deferral Program for the Fiscal Years of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Page 1 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 S` day of September, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers, Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso No. 127-U9, Adopted 9-1-09, Item 8.2 Page 2 Of 2 DOWNTOWN AND EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FEE (TIF) DEFERRAL PROGRAM Overview: o Program to run for two fiscal year periods - 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. o Program for non-residential project only. o A fee. deferral agreement will be required. Agreement will be recorded against the property and payment will be secured through one or more of the following options: o Assigned bank deposit/account o Irrevocable letter of credit -letter shall remain valid throughout the duration of the construction project and can only be released upon City approval when the fees are paid. o Surety bond o Reservation of funds in escrow account of the senior lender, solely for the benefit of the City to assure payment. o Property Lien/Deed of trust (no subordination allowed; no existing liens on the property) o An application with a $5,000 not-to-exceed deposit will be required to participate in the program. This amount will cover staff and legal time, as well as fixed costs. o City staffwould be able to defer traffic impact fees from building permit issuance to, in most instances, prior to the first request for occupancy (see detail next). Payment of the fee will be subject to the rate established at the time the fee is paid. o Trigger for payment is the issuance of a utility meter for the project. No meter will be issued until full payment is received on all outstanding items including all outstanding processing costs (Finance Control Number - FCN). o All program participants, regardless of building permit issuance date, must pay the TIF by June 30, 2013 (two years after the program's conclusion) if not paid for earlier prior to occupancy. o Staff will report back to City Council at the end of the first year to determine the program's effectiveness. EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 1 1 of 2 Benefits: o Time/value of money - Allows a development project to carry the T1F costs over several months, enabling them to package the fees into their fixed financing - as opposed to at the time of the construction loan. Fiscal Impact: o Based on current projections and assuming full participation in the program, there is potential for a defer al of approximately $213,000 in TIF. o No significant impact on current CIl' projects. The active CIP projects involve the repayment of loans associated with improvements already completed. To the extent that funds are collected on a defer ed basis, it will extend the timeframe for repayment and increase interest costs to the TIF program. 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVISING ADMINISTATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) applicable to development occurring in all areas west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, referred to as the "Downtown Area;" and WHEREAS, the Downtown TIF was adopted on October 19, 2004, via Resolution 210- 04; and WHEREAS, City Council previously adopted Resolution 211-04, Establishing the Downtown TIF Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, or other administrative aspects of the Downtown TIF Program; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Administrative Guidelines are necessary to provide greater flexibility to the Public Works Director to determine the trip generation rate calculations and to ensure language consistency between the Downtown TIF Administrative Guidelines and the Eastern Dublin TIF Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the revised Guidelines, as prepared, are consistent with the requirements of Resolution 211-04, as well as existing laws and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the revised Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof to supersede all prior versions of the Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenb.rand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None rY . Of) J r0p-~ Mayor ATT7jT: f!~ City Clerk Reso No. 11-12, Adopted 2-7-12, Item 4.4 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF DUBLIN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRA TIVE GUIDELINES I. Introduction/OYen'iew These guidelines apply to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fees (hereafter known as the Fee" or "Fees") adopted by the City of Dublin through Resolution 210-04 (hereafter Resolution") and any subsequent replacement resolution. Terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner as such terms are defined in the Resolution. The administrative guidelines provide procedures for calculation of the Fee, calculation and use of credits and reimbmsements, and other administrative aspects of the Fee. The administrative guidelines establish the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursements to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fee is imposed (TIF facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constmcted and/or. dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shaIl be determined pursuant to Section VI of these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in Downtown Dublin in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cmmot use or transfer the credit before all of the TIF improvements are completed, then the credit will convert to a reimbmsement right, which will commence when all of the TIF improvements are completed The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer ,to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Specific Plans, the most recent Traffic Impact Fee Study, and various other Downtown Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrati ve Guidelines Page 3 Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for residential development projects \ivill be calculated based upon the per unit Fee for each of the categories noted in the Resolution (i.e., Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium/High Density Residential, High Density Residential) and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fees for non-residential development are calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis The number of average weekday vehicle trips for. each type of development is determined by the land use categories specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. However. if the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the development proiect is not appropriatel\! reflected in Exhibit D to the Resolution or thtit the intensity of the proposed land use is not consistent with the adopted land use categories in Exhibit D. then the Public Works Director will have the option of requiring a traffic anal\!sis or utilizing an existing, relevant stud\! for the pUf1)ose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development proiect. The Public Works Director will require that an\! new traffic anal\!sis costs b\! borne b\! the applicant. Fees for non- residential development will be chamed for am addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square teet.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - For mixed-use development projects, involving residential and/or non-residential uses, the Community Development Director will detennine the projected percentage of each non-residential use at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis among the various rates stated for each different use As an example, If a large single building is divided betwe~n commercial office space and industrial warehouse space and the uses are lUlknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building pennit does not include adequate interior details to detennine the intended use, the use for the initial Fee calculation Deleted: However. ifthe Public: Works Dired,ol detenuines thatthe land use of the deYt~lopllle111 project i,':l not. specitically listed on Exhibit. D to t.he Resolllt1cm, then the Public Work:.: Director Will undert.ake a sr~cific tJaftic study, to be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of delenll..inlng: the estimated trip generat.ion of the proposed development. project. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 4 purposes will be assumed as "Industrial without Retail." Any additional Fees owed as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and collected at the time that a building permit is issued for interior temmt Improvements. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the time the building permit for tenant improvements is Issued. No refund of Fees will be given if the resultlllg uses are different from the projected land use. The Fee for the residential portion of a mixed-use development project shall be based on the proposed number of units, in a manner similar to when the Fee is calculated for an exclusive residential development project The average \veekday trip generation rate for any land use, which is not appropriate Iv reflected f11~ Exhibit D t~) _t~l~ f._e::(~I~I~i\?I~,_ i:!.l~I~I~I~lg:J~l~ _n.?! !i:!.~i~e<l_ _ _ _ -{ Deleted: spccitknlly h,ted to, public/semi-public uses, shall be detennined by the Public Works Director. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development Exemptions Exemptions from the Fee will be given to certain development in Downtown Dublin as set forth in section "5" (Exemptions from Fee) of the Resolution incorporated in these guidelines by reference. IV. Fee Collection 1. Pa~'ment of Traffic Impact Fees for Non-Residential Development The Fee for non-residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit and will be collected by the Building & Safety Division. The number of estimated average weekday vehicle trips, determined as described in Section me, above, multiplied by the non-residential Fee per trip, will be the basis for the collected Fee. The square footage or other appropriate measure as Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrati ve Guidelines Page 5 identified on tile building permit will be the basis for detennining tile number of trips on Exhibit D to the Resolution. Following is an example Non-Residential Fee Example: Assume tiult the development pn~iect is a 15,540 square foot standard commercial office building. The estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate for this type of development is 20 trips per 1,000 square feet, and fue Fee is $136 per trip for non-residential development FEE CALCULATION: 15,540 square feet/l ,000 square feet = 15.54 x 20 trips = 311 trips x $136 per trip = $42,296 Traffic Impact Fee. Amendments to a non-residential building permit which result in 500 additional square feet of operational space or more shall result in additional Fees O\ved based on tile added area. B. Pa)lUent of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential Development If the City incorporates tile Improvements described in the Resolution into its annually adopted long-tennCapital Improvement Program (CIP), tilen tile Fees for residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit Prior to tile incorporation of tilese facilities into the CIP, tile Fees will not be due until the dwelling is issued a Certificate of Occupancy. The developer may voluntarily pay fue full fee when the building pennit is issued or as otherwise appropriate under applicable law. C. Pa)lUent of Fees in Excess of $20,000 When tile amount of payment for Fees exceeds $20,000 on any given day, payment shall be made in one of tile following ways I) paid by check drawn on a bank witilin tile State of Califomia, 2) paid by cashier's check, or 3) if paid in same day funds by a wire transfer, tile wire transfer must be pre-arrangedwith the City's Finance Division. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 7 public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. The developer will pay an administrative fee, as established in the City's Master Fee Schedule, prior to the execution of the credit/reimbursement agreement The purpose of this administrative tee is to cover the administrative costs associated \vith establishing and monitoring the credit/reimbursement agreement 4. Any credits, which are unused before all of the TIF improvements are completed shall convert to a right to reimbursement The right to reimbursement will commence when all of the TIF improvements are completed. J. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall be increased for int1ation or accme interest 6. . Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided the credit is transterred to a persoll/finll having a legal interest in real property within the area subject to the Fee and provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specified in Section IXA of these guidelines. 7. The credit/reimbursement agreement will indicate that the developer has obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read and understood. VI. Calculating the Fee Credits A. General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for TIF facilities constructed or right of way dedicated for a particular development Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 8 proleGt The Gontributed land or improvements must be the faGilities desGribed in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution B. Determination of Value The Public Works Directonvill detenlline the value of the contributed t~lcilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, \-vhidl plans shall quantify the size of the TIF faGilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that in some Gases the scope of construGtion or dedication will not exadly match the TIF faGilities shown in Attadullent B-I to Exhibit B to the Resolutioil and Exhibit C to the Resolution. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution: or b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measmements in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee Gredits include t~lcility financing costs. 1111lsrrorive Example 1:. Assun~e that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening projeGt must be included in the TIF. For eadl TIF improvement, the Resolution used the appropriate Gost measmement per square foot for right-of-vvay dediGation in calculating the TIF. The Fee Gredits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by the proper square foot Gost measurement aftcr automatic aIll1ual adjustmcnts bascd on thc change in land acquisition costs. 1111lstrative Example 2: A Developer cimstructing mu1ti-t~lI11ily homes contributes tratlic signal improvements (TIF improvcmcnt) valucd at $100,000. Assume that Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 9 the Fee totals $1,360 per dwelling unit. The credit of $100,000 will cover approximately 73.53 dwelling mllts. When the building pennit is issued for the 74th dwelling mllt, the developer vvill have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee VII. Use of Fee Credits A Credits expire when used or when all of the TIF improvements are completed, whichever occurs first. B. In the event the fee credits are unused before all of the TIF improvements are completed, the fee credit shan convert to a reimbursement right as provided for lUlder Section X and XI of these guidelines. C The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and tracked as they are used by the developer D. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the TIF facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with these guidelines. Vill. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1. Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City: or 2. Provided the City with a perfonnance bond and a labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupmlcy for any building that is part of the proJect. The perfonnance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page I () materials bond shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of Califomia and approved by the City Manager. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain street improvements, which \vill be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a perlormance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. IX. Transferring of Credits A The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subJect to the TIF. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transfer fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated \vith the credit transfer. The administrative transfer Fee is included in the Citv's Master Fee Schedule. B. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. X. Reimbursement Rights Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of Fee credits, which occurs when all of the TIF improvements are completed Reimbursemerit will be only from flUlds collected as Downtmvn Traffic Impact Fees, and will not come from the City's General Fund. XI. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights Within one vear after all TIF improvements are built, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of the TIF funds that are unspent as of the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrati ve Guidelines Page 11 completion date of all the TIF improvements. The City will use the remaining funds that are unspent to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for t~1cilities already contributed, if ,my such reimbursement rights exist Reimbursements will be made in order of creation of the credit/reimbursement agreements. XII. Other Miscellaneous Administratiye Guidelines A. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers The improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director no later than 14 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map by the City Council on the development project The submittal of the improveri1ent plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail as determined by the Public Works Director The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a perfonnancebond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. B. Refunds Refunds of vvithdrawn applications will be done in accordance with existing procedures for paid building permits. Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, survey bonds or other mstruments taken to secure payment C. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State L3\\' in regards to accounting for developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrati ve Guidelines Page 12 A brief description of the Fee~ An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements ,vhich the Fee will be expended upon: and For improvements ,vhich are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities vvill commence. D. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department The City willmaintam a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees. The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash balances. The City will identify in accordance with State Law the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Fees. The City will file an annual accounting of' all development impact fees, inc1udmg the Downtown trafflc Impact Fee, with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. xm. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits Credit will be issued for daily trips generated by an existing land use, or by the most recent land use if the site has been vacant for a period of three years or less prior to the date when a project application is filed with the City. Downtmvn Traffic Impact Fee Administrati ve Guidelines Page 13 A Fee shall be charged and paid for changes to existing land uses, businesses tUld/or tenants that require discretionary approval by the City (i.e. Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map, Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment or adoption, General Plan Amendment), if the new use is expected to create a net increase of 100 trips or more during the AM or PM peak hour, after subtracting the credited trips AM or PM peak hour trips for existing and proposed land uses will be based upon trip generation rates obtained from ITE Trip Generation, SANDAG Tr4fic Generators, or other sources, as determined by the Public Works Director. RESOLUTION NO. 211 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN tIIt""""""*** ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) applicable to development occurring in all areas west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail referred to as the Downtown Area"; and WHEREAS, the Downtown TIF was adopted on October 19, 2004 by Resolution 210-04; and WHEREAS, Resolution 210-04 provides for the adoption of Administrative Guidelines (hereafter Guidelines") by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, and other administrative aspects of the Downtown TIF Program; and WHEREAS, Guidelines have been prepared which address common issues related to the collection of the TIF and administration of credits and reimbursement; and WHEREAS, the Guidelines as prepared are consistent with the requirements of Resolution 210-04 and existing laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, "Draft Copies" of the Guidelines were distributed to Interested Parties for their review and comment prior to consideration by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2004. AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: De uty City Clerk G: ICC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\1 0-19-04\reso-tifadmin gdeln.DOC (Item 6.4) CITY OF DUBLIN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES I. Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fees (hereafter known as the Fee" or "Fees") adopted by the City of Dublin through Resolution W-04 (hereafter Resolution") and any subsequent replacement resolution. Terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner as such terms are defmed in the Resolution. The administrative guidelines provide procedures for calculation of the Fee, calculation and use of credits and reimbursements, and other administrative aspects of the Fee. The administrative guidelines establish the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursements to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fee is imposed (TIF facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to Section VI of these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in Downtown Dublin in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit before all of the TIF improvements are completed, then the credit wil1 convert to a reimbursement right, which will commence when all of the TIP improvements are completed. The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Specific Plans, the most recent Traffic Impact Fee Study, and various other Downtown I IT A. R.eso t...U. 71 Þ¡f,) TO es~USIf A-ðmIA.lI~ TRA..Z'pII¡$ ~vp$S Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 2 fee studies and updates. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application ofthese guidelines. II. Authority of City Manager To Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutioI!s, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing. III. Fee Calculation A. Imposition of Fees Except as exempted under subsection 'D.' of this section, Fees are imposed on all development in Downtown Dublin as set forth in section '2.' (Traffic Impact Fee Imposed) of the Resolution incorporated in these guidelines by reference. The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips assigned to the project. Unless otherwise provided, the Fee will be collected with the payment for the building permit·for the development project. B. Effective Fees The Fees owed by a development project will be those in effect when the building permit is obtained. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 3 c. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for residential development projects will be calculated based upon the per unit Fee for each of the categories noted in the Resolution (i.e., Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, MediumlHigh Density Residential, High Density Residential) and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fees for non-residential development are calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis. The number of average weekday vehicle trips for each type of development is determined by the land use categories specified in Exhibit D to the Resolution. However, if the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the development project is not specifically listed on Exhibit D to the Resolution, then the Public Works Director will undertake a specific traffic study, to be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. For mixed-use development projects, involving residential and/or non-residential uses, the Community Development Director will determine the projected percentage of each non-residential use at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis among the various rates stated for each different use. As an example, if a large single building is divided between commercial office space and industrial warehouse space and the uses are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial Fee calculation purposes will be assumed as "Industrial without Retail". Any additional Fees owed as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and collected at the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the time the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 4 building permit for tenant improvements is issued. No refund of Fees will be given if the resulting uses are different from the projected land use. The Fee for the residential portion of a mixed-use development project shall be based on the proposed number of units, in a manner similar to when the Fee is calculated for an exclusive residential development project. The average weekday trip generation rate for any land use, which is not specifically listed oil Exhibit D to the Resolution, including, but not limited to, public/semi-public uses, shall be determined by the Public Works Director. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. D. Exemptions Exemptions from the Fee will be given to certain development in Downtown Dublin as set forth in section '5.' (Exemptions from Fee) of the Resolution incorporated in these guidelines by reference. IV. Fee Collection Á. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Non-Residential Development The Fee for non-residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit and will be collected by the Building & Safety Division. The number of estimated average weekday vehicle trips, determined as described in Section III.C., above, multiplied by the non-residential Fee per trip, will be the basis for the collected Fee. The square footage or other appropriate measure as identified on the building permit will be the basis for determining the number of trips on Exhibit D to the Resolution. Following is an example: Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 5 Non-Residential Fee Example: Assume that the development project is a 15,540 square foot standard commercial office building. The estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate for this type of development is 20 trips per 1,000 square feet, and the Fee is $136 per trip for non-residential development. FEE CALCULATION: 15,540 square feet/I,OOO square feet = 15.54 x 20 trips = 311 trips x $136 per trip = $42,296 Traffic Impact Fee. Amendments to a non-residential building permit which result in 500 additional square feet of operational space or more shall result in additional Fees owed based on the added area. B. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential Development If the City incorporates the Improvements described in the Resolution into its annually adopted long-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP), then the Fees for residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the incorporation of these facilities into the CIP, the Fees will not be due until the dwelling is issued a Certificate of Occupancy. The developer may voluntarily pay the full fee when the building permit is issued or as otherwise appropriate under applicable law. C. Payment of Fees in Excess of $20,000 When the amount of payment for Fees exceeds $20,000 on any given day, payment shall be made in one of the following ways: I) paid by check drawn on a bank within the State of California, 2) paid by cashier's check, or 3) if paid in same day funds by a wire transfer, the wire transfer must be pre-arranged with the City's Finance Division. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 6 D. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will Qbtain a mailing address ITom each payee, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payee as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Finance Division will maintain the records for a period of twenty years ITom their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. V. Allotment of Developer Fee Credits The City understands the practicality of having developers construct and/or contribute some of the TIP facilities described in the Resolution and any subsequent replacement resolution. For this reason, the City will allot fee credits against the collection of Fees for constructing or contributing TIP facilities. A. Fee Credit / Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the TIF facilities or dedication of TIP right of way. 1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page? public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. The developer will pay an administrative fee, as established in the City's Master Fee Schedule, prior to execution of the credit/reimbursement agreement. The purpose of this administrative fee is to cover the administrative costs associated with establishing and monitoring the credit/reimbursement agreement. 4. Any credits, which are unused before all of the TIF improvements are completed, shall convert to a right to reimbursement. The right to reimbursement will commence when all of the TIP improvements are completed. 5. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall be increased for inflation or accrue interest. 6. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided the credit is transferred to a person/firm having a legal interest in real property within the area subject to the Fee and provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specified in Section IX.A. of these guidelines. 7. The credit/reimbursement agreement will indicate that the developer has obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read and understood. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 8 VI. Calculating the Fee Credits A. General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for TIP facilities constructed or right of way dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. B. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the TIP facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that in some cases the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match the TIP facilities shown in Attachment B-1 to Exhibit B to the Resolution and in Exhibit C to the Resolution. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro- rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. Illustrative Example J: Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Fees due rrom a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the TIP. For each TIF improvement, the Resolution used the appropriate cost measurement per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the TIF. The Fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by the proper square foot cost measurement after automatic annual adjustments based on the change in land acquisition costs. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page9 Illustrative Example 2: A Developer constructing multi-family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (TIP improvement) valued at $100,000. Assume that the Fee totals $1,360 per dwelling unit. The credit of $100,000 will cover approximately 73.53 dwelling units. When the building permit is issued for the 74th dwelling unit, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee. VII. Use of Fee Credits A Credits expire when used or when all of the TIF improvements are completed, whichever occurs first. B. In the event the fee credits are unused before all of the TIP improvements are completed, the fee credit shall convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under Section X and XI of these guidelines. C. The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and tracked as they are used by the developer. D. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the TIF facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with these guidelines. VIII. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1. Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and a labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 10 to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City Manager. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. IX. Transferring of Credits A. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the TIP. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transfer fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative transfer Fee is included in the City's Master Fee Schedule. B. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. X. Reimbursement Rights Reimbursement rights are created from the converSIOn of Fee credits, which occurs when all of the TIF improvements are completed. ReÏmbursement will be only from funds collected as Downtown Traffic Impact Fees, and will not come from the City's General Fund. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 11 XI. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights Within one year after all TIF improvements are built, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of the TIP funds that are unspent as of the completion date of all the TIF improvements. The City will use the remaining funds that are unspent to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. Reimbursements will be made in order of creation of the credit/reimbursement agreements. XII. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers The improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director no later than 14 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map by the City Council on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail as determined by the Public Works Director. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. B. Refunds Refunds of withdrawn applications will be done m accordance with existing procedures for paid building permits. Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record. Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, survey bonds or other instruments taken to secure payment. Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 12 C. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Fee; An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Fee will be expended upon; and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. D. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department: The City will maintain a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees. The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash balances. The City will identify in accordance with State Law the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Fees. The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees, including the Downtown traffic Impact Fee, with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. Downtown Traffic hnpact Fee Administrative Guidelines Page 13 XIII. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits Credit will be issued for daily trips generated by an existing land use, or by the most recent land use if the site has been vacant for a period of three years or less prior to the date when a project application is filed with the City. A Fee shall be charged and paid for changes to existing land uses, businesses and/or tenants that require discretionary approval by the City (i.e., Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map, Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment or adoption, General Plan Amendment), if the new use is expected to create a net increase of 100 trips or more during the AM or PM peak hour, after subtracting the credited trips. AM and PM peak hour trips for existing and proposed land uses will be based upon trip generation rates obtained from ITE Trip Generation, SANDAG Traffic Generators, or other sources, as determined by the Public Works Director. G:\Downtowr¡ TIF\2004 Downtown TlFIFinalladmjr¡ guidelinesßnal.DOC Cost Index for the same month for the prior year. The City Manager may round the adjusted Improvements construction cost to whole dollars. b. Land Acquisition Cost. Annually each July 1, the City Manager shall adjust the cost of acquiring real property interests for the Improvements, as shown on Table C-l of the Report, by calculating the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of the most recent appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting development impact fees) and the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology). The City Manager may round the adjusted Improvements land acquisition cost to whole dollars. c. Total Annual Fee Adjustment. Annually each July 1, the City Manager shall adjust the Fee by applying the total annual Fee adjustment for that year to the prior year's Fee. The total annual Fee adjustment shall be reached by apportioning the adjustment in construction cost and land acquisition cost calculated according to this Section according to the percentage each cost comprises of the whole Fee. 12. Administrative Guidelines The City Council may, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for credit, reimbursement, or other administrative aspects of the Fee. The amount of any credit or reimbursement shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any credit or reimbursement, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements described herein. Reimbursement shall only be ftom revenues raised by payment of the Fee. 13. Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date ofthe resolution. 14. Severability Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart None None None ATTEST: i. ,LlIt-- \ \ - 0 ..... JDepu~lerk G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\10-19-04\reso..downtown tit:DOC (Item 6.4) 8 TABLE 2A: DESCRIPTION OF ÁPPROVED DEVELOPMENT PROJECI'S: NON- TIF TRIP GENERATION No. Project" Size Trip Rate" Net Trips TIF Trips KSF/DU Dally P.M. Daily P.M. Daily 1. Shamrock Village Center+- 25.85 26.62 5.96 688 154 2. Popeye's fast food 2.23 496.12 33.48 1,107 75 3. Chrysler Auto Sales 24.89 37,5 2.8 933 70 4. Dublin Toyota Expansion 1.4 37.5 2.8 53 4 5. Archstone Apartments'" 177 6.63 0.62 1,174 110 6. Scarlett Place (previouslyTrumark Homes"') 60 6.63 0.62 398 37 7. Park Sierra Apts. <- 285 6.63 0,62 1,890 177 8, 7·11 Convenience Store'" 2.80 634.2 45.46 1.776 127 9. Dublin Nlssan 23 37.5 2.8 863 64 10. Dublin Volkswagen 20 37.5 2.8 750 56 11. Arlen Ness Office and Sales"'" 68.4 40.0 2.8 2,052 192 12. Kindercare 1808 3,2 0.63 576 114 13. Palace Auto 4.09 37.5 2.8 154 12 14. Hexeel+ 150b 4.12 0.58 618 87 15. Home Depot Expo'" 93.13 33.8 2.9 3,150 270 16. Safeway'" 66 66.6 6.9 4,395 455 17. Corrie Center Expansion'" 46.4 10.37 1.12 481 52 18. Valley Center: 5 KSF retail, 3 KSF offiee 8 29.6 3 237 24 19. Schaefer Ranch"'" 474 17.44 1.9 8,267 902 20. Armstrong Garden Center"'" 6.4 36.1 3.9 231 25 21. Tarç¡et Expansion 9.6 56.67 4,:27 544 41 Totals 30,337 3,048 Refer to Figure lA for project location. Source: Trip Generation, 6u, Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 25% pass-by trips are assumed for retail. Trips are based on project traffic impact study. a Number of students. b Number of employees. City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Improvement Fee T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 8 November 7,2002 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVISING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) applicable to development occurring within the Eastern Dublin SpeCific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the current TIF was adopted on June 18, 2004, via Resolution 111-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 20-07, Adopting Revisions to the Eastern Dublin TIF Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, or other administrative aspects of the TIF Program; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Administrative Guidelines are necessary to provide greater flexibility to the Public Works Director to determine the trip generation rate calculations and to ensure language consistency between the Eastern Dublin TIF Administrative Guidelines and the Downtown TIF Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the revised Guidelines, as prepared, are consistent with the requirements of Resolution 111-04, as well as existing laws and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the revised Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof to supersede all prior versions of the Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None X-llnJ- Mayor A7Z{f~ City Clerk Reso No. 10-12, Adopted 2-7-12, Item 4.4 Page 1 of 1 EXIllBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GillDELINES Revision Adopted Resolution # 20-07 (2/20/2007) I. Introduction/Oveniew These guidelines apply to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (hereafter known as the 'Fee' or 'Fees') adopted by the City of Dublin through Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement .resolution. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee includes three categories of improvements and facilities. Section I improvements and facilities are those located exclusively in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. . Section II improvements and facilities are those projects to which Eastern Dublin developers contribute a proportionate share, including projects located in other areas of the City. Section II Residential BART Garage improvements include 500 spaces in Phase I of the Eastern Dublin BART garage, necessitated by residential development outside the Transit Center. Section III improvements and facilities are those of a regional natme. NOTE: Section III Fee suspended effective September 12,1998, as long as Tri-Valley TranspOltation Development Fee remains ih place.) The administrative guidelines provide procedures for calculation of the Fee, calculation and use of credits and reimbursements, and other administrative aspects of the Fee. In addition, the guidelines include procedures for construction of designated facilities by developers The administrative guidelines establish the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursements to developers who construct aneVor dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Eastern Dubliri Traffic Impact Fee is imposed (TIP facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the developmentproject. The amOlmt of the credit shall be determined pursuant to Section VI of these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may use the credittoward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these guidelines. If the cleveloper cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the credit \vill convert to a reimbursement right. At the end of the ten-year period, the developer may elect to extend the credit t<.)r an additional five years. The combination of credit ancl reimbursement rights will terminate twenty-tlve years after the etIective clate of the agreement creating such rights. The administrative guidelines also establish the authority for the distribution of monies collected under "Section II Residential BART Garage". The application of these guidelines will at times refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the most recent Traffic Impact Fee Study, ancI various other fee studies and Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 2 of 13 updates. Such reference documents are subject to change and may atlect the application ofthese guidelines. II. Authorit). of CitJ M.mager to Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager willlw\e the authority to detennine how the resolutions, ordinances,. guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in \\Titing Ill. Fee Calculation A. Imposition of Fees Except as exempted under subsection n of this section, Fees are imposed on all development in Eastern Dublin as described below 1. All new development, including new construction of anv building or structure residential or non-residential): 2. Additions to non-residential buildings or stl1lctures which result in an increase of 500 square feet or more: 3. Additions to residential buildings or structures which increase the number of units i.e. construction of a "granny unit''). The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Conununity Development Department is responsible for detennining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips a.ssigned to the project Unless otherwise provided, the Fee will be collected with the payment for the building pennit for the development project B. Effective Fees The Fees owed by a development project will be those in dIect \\hen the building permit is obtained. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees tl1f residential development projects will be calculated based upon the per unit fee for each of the categories noted in Resolution 111-04 (i.e. Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium/High Density Residential, High Density Residential) and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fees tl1f non-residential development are calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis. The number of average weekday vehiele. trips tl)f each type of development is determined by the land use categories specified in "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04. However. if the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the development proiect is not appropriatelv reHected in Exhibit C to the Resolution or that the intensitv of the proposed land use is not consistent with the adopted land use cateQories in Exhibit C. then tbe Public Works Director will have the option of requiring Eastem Dublin Tramc Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 3 of 13 a traffic analvsis or utilizing an existing, relevant studv for the pUlpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development proiect The Public Works Director will require that anv new tratlic analvsis costs bv bome bv the applicant l(~e~s __ _ -- for non-residential development will be charged for any addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet For mixed-use non-residential development projects. the Conununity Development Director, upon consultation with the Public Works Director, will detelmine the proJected percentage of each use at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitIement is approved.' The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis among the various rates stated for each different use (For example, a large single building could be divided between conunercial otfice space and industrial warehouse space). If tIle uses are unknO\\U at tIle time of obtaining a building permit and tIle building pennit does not include adequate interior details to detennine tIle intended use, the use for the initial Fee calculation purposes will be assumed as "Industrial witIlout Retail". Any additional Fees owed as a result of a ditlerent final use of fue propelty will be calculated and 'collected a t the time tIlat a building pennit is issued for interior tenant inlprovements. Tllis fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at tIle tinle tIle building permit for tenant improvements is issued. No refund of Fees will be given if the resulting uses are difterent from tIle projected land use. The average weekday trip generation rate for quasi-public uses, wllich is not appropriately retlected on the "Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate" schedule tIlat was adopted as part of tIle Traffic Impact Fee Resolution (Ex/libit C to Resolution 111-(4), as detelmined by tIle Public Works Director, will be established by a prl:iect specific traffic study Tllis study \vill be conducted by tIle City (Public Works Department) and paid for by the project applicant Affordable housing projects developed by govenunent agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees tIlat are assessed on private residential development D. Exemptions 1. Total Exemption. TIle following types of development will be exempt from tIle collection of Traffic Impact Fees: a) Any alteration or addition to a residential stmcture, except to tIle extent tIlat a residential unit is added to a single-family unit, or anotIler unit is added to an existing multi -tamily building. b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure tIlat has been destroyed or demolished, provided tIlat tIle building permit for reconstruction is obtained witIlin one year atter tIle building was destroyed or demolished, unless tIle replacement or reconst.ruction increases tIle square footage of the stmcture 50% or more. c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential stmcture tIlat has been destroyed or demolished provided that tIle building pelmit fix ne\v reconstmction is obtained witllin one year atter tile building was destroyed or demolished and tile reconstructed building would not Deleted: ,However. if the Public WorL~ Director determines that the land use of the development project is not appropriately reflected on "'Exhlbit C'" of Resolution 111-04, then the Public \'ilorks Department will lluclel1ake a specific traffic study. to be paid for by the applic<:Ult. for the purp'ose ,of determining Ule estillwted trip generation of the proposed development project Eastem Dublin Trame Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Resa 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 4 0.1' 13 increase the destroyed 0.1' demalished building's trips based an the Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generatian Rate" as applied to. the ariginal building 2. Pattial Exemptian A partial exemptian may be granted based an priar Fecs paid in the situatian 0.1' a change in the type afuse as described belaw: If within 10 years 0.1' paying Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees for a specific develapment praject, the praject is demalished and replaced by anew type 0.1' develapment, an exemptian may be given far up to. the am01mt which was paid by the prior develapment proJect Proaf 0.1' payment shall be abligatian 0.1' the individual/entity requesting the exemptian. The new develapment shall nat accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights, in the event that the replacement project wauld result in it lawer Fee. Any change in use autside 0.1' the 10 year periad stated shall be abligated to. pay the entire Fee. IV. Fee Collection A. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Non-Residential Development The Trame Impact Fee far nan-residential develapment will be due and payable at the issuance 0.1' a building pennit and will be callected by the Building & Safety Divisian. The number 0.1' estimated average weekday vehicle trips, detennined as described in Sectio.n III.c, abavc, multiplied by the nan-residential fee per trip, will be the basis far the co.llected Fee. The square t\.)atage or ather apprapriate measure as identitied an the building permit \\'ill be the basis t\')1" detennining the number 0.1' trips an "Exhibit C" 0.1' Resalutian 111-04. Fallawing is an exaniple: Non-Residential Fee Example: Assume that the develapment pnz;ect is a 15,540 square fo.at standard cammercial affice building. The estimated weekday vehicle uip generatian rate t\')1" this type 0.1' develapment is 20 u'ips per 1.000 square feet, and the Fee is $360 per u'ip t\')1" nan-residential develapment FEE CALCULATION: 15,540 square feet/l,OOO square feet = 15.54 x 20 u'ips = 310.8 hips x $360 per u'ip = $111,888 Traffic Impact Fee. Amendments to. a nan-residential building permit which result in 500 additianal square feet or more shall result in additianal fees awed based an the added area. B. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential Development If the City incorparates the facilities described in Resalutian 111-04 into. its annually adapted lang-tenn Capital Impravement Plan (ClP), then the Traffic Impact Fees fo.r residential develo.pment will be due and payable at the issuance af a building permit Prior to. the incorparatian 0.1' these facilities into. the CIP, the Fee will nat be due until the dwelling is issued a certificate o.f o.ccupancy. The develaper may vo.hmtarily pay the full fee when the building permit is issued 0.1' as atherwise appropriate under applicable law. C. Payment of Fees in Excess of $50,000 When the amaunt af payment far Tratnc Impact Fees exceeds $50,000 an any given day, payment shall be made in o.ne 0.1' the t\.)llo.wing ways 1) paid by check drawn an a bank withm the State 0.1' Califamia, 2) paid by cashier's check, 0.1' 3) if paid in same day funds Eastem Dublin TratIic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 5 of 13 by a wIre transfer, the wire transfer must be pre-31Tanged with the Citv's Finance Division D. Payment of Fees in Conjunction with Development Agreements . The Tratlic Impact Fees can be collected at an earlier point of time than what is noted in this section if agreed to by a "developer within the terms '01' a Development Agreement E. P~\yment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the TratIic Impact Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with rehmding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payee, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payee as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant tl1I the building permit The Finance Division will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. V. Allotment of Developer Fee Credits The City understands the practicality of having developers constmct and/or contribute some of the TIF facilities described in Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement resolution. For tillS reason, tile City will.allot tee credits against the collection of Fees for constructing or contributing TIF facilities. A. Fee Credit I Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of tee credits and/or provision tl1I a reimbursement will only occur in accordance WitII a \\Titten credit/reimbursement agreement between tile City and the developer responsible for ilie construction of tile TIF facilities or dedication of TIP right of way. 1. All tee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by tile City Attornev. 2. TIllS credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at ilie time the improi,:ements are secured aneVor tile right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The tenus of tillS agreement may, at tile City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure celtain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. The developer will pay an adlninistrative tee, due on tile etlective date of tile credit/reimbursement agreement, to be established in tile City's Master Fee Schedule. The purpose of tillS administrative tee is to cover the admiriistrative costs associated WitII esta blislIing and monitoring the creditlreimbursement agreement 4. Any credits, which are unused ten years tl)llowing tIleir creation, shall convelt to a .right to reimbursement The right to reimbursement terminates tifteen years after it is created. Altematively, credit holders may elect by providing written notice to tile City Manager to extend tile telm of tile credit tl1I an additional five years. Notices of tile election to extend the tenumust be received no sooner than one year prior to Eastem Dublin Traftk Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 6 of 13 and no later than six months pnor to the conversion of the credits to a right to reimbursement If the credit holder elects to extend the term of the credit for tive years, then any credits remaining at the end of the tive-year extension shall convert to a right of reimbursement The light to reimbursement telmina tes ten vears after it is created. All lights to reimbursement shall telminate twenty-tive years after the etlective date of the agreement creating such rights. 5. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall be increased for lllt1ation or accme interest 6. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided the credit is transferred to a person/finn having a legal interest in real property within the area subject to the Fee and provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specitied in Section IXA. of these guidelines. 7. The developer will sign a certiticate attached to the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelll1es and thev were read and understood. 8. No fee credits shall be established for "Section II Residential BART Garage component of the Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Payments from those monies shall be made in accordance with a separate section of these guidelines. B. Applicability of Administrative Guidelines to Pre-Existing Credits Allotted to the Alamedn County Surplus Property Authority These guidelines do not apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitleclllllclei' the terms of the Agreement between the City of Dublin, tile City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Smplus Property Authority regarding coordination of certain Freeway Improvements dated March 12, 1991. These gmdelines do apply to existing fee crcdits to which the Alamcda County Surplus Property Authority is entItled under development agreements entered into between January 1, 1995 and tile effective date of these guidelines, to the extent provided for in a specitic fee credit/reimbursement agreement to be entered into behveen the City and the Alameda County Surplus Propelty authority. VI. Calculating the Fee Credits For calculation purposes, the fee credits will be segregated into the following categories: Section I Eastem Dublin Tramc Improvements Section II (Excludes Section II Resid"nti31 B3rt G3rag"): Citywide Tramc Improvements Section III Regional Transportation Eastem Dublin Trat1lc Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 7 of 13 Note: Section III Fee suspended etfective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri-Vallev Transportation Development Fee remains in place) A. General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will idcntit~. thc total credit by category for TIP facilities constructed or right of way dedicated for a particular development project The contributed land or improvements must be the tacilities described in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. There must be a minimum value of 50,000 in inlprovements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. B. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will detennine the \~alue of the contributed tacilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the TIP tacilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that in some cases the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match segments shO\m in the TIP RepOli. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution: oi' b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include tacility financing costs. Illustrative Example J: Assume that a developer dedicates land t<.1r the partial widening of a major street to offset the Traffic Impact Fees due from a development project To quality for a credit, this roadway widening prl~iect must be included in the TIP. The land dedication to be applied for a fee credit shall not include improvements inunediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Trat1lc Impact Fee. Resolution 111-04 used a standard cost measurement of $7 per square foot t<.)t' right-of-way dedication in calculating the Traffic Impact Fees. The fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by detennining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by this per square foot cost measurement . Illustrative Example 2: A developer constructing single tinnily homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Category I improvement) valued at $200,000. Assmne that the Traffic Impact Fee totals $6,950 per home, which is comprised of the Category I portion 01'$4,700 and the Category 2 pOltion 01'$2,250. The credit of $200,000 can only be used against the developer's Category 1 Fee of $4,700 per home, which will cover approximately 42.55 homes. When the building permit is issued tor the 431t! home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Category I Fee. The Category 2 pOltion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building pennit tCl!" all homes included in the Eastem Dublin Tratlic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 8 of 13 development, as the CategOlY I credit cannot be used to offset these pOltions of the Fee. VII. Use of Fee Credits A Credits expire when used or ten years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (unless extended an additional tive years at the request of the credit holder), whichever occurs tlrst. B. In the event the fee credits are unused following ten years liorn the date of the credit/reunbursement agreement (or fifteen years if extended at the request of the credit holder), the fee credit shall conveJt to a reimbursement right as provided tl)r under Section X and XI of these guidelines. - C. The value of the credits in each category will be listed in the agreement and trackcd by fee category as they are used by the developer. The City's Finance Division will keep record of the unused credits and provide this infol1nation to the Buildmg Safety Division at the tune fee credits are used. D. Credits earned by constructing or dedicating a certain category of improvements can only be used to offset fees for that categOlY. The balance of the Tramc Impact Fee, which is to be used tl1r other categories of improvcments, will be paid by the developer as specified in Section IV of these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories For example, unused credits from Category 1 pOltion of the Tratllc Impact Fees cannot be used to offset amounts due tl)r Category 2 and Category 3. E. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the TIF facilities will be entitled to tlle original or initial credits, until such time as tlley mav be transferred in accordance with tllese guidelines. VIII. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Perform.mce Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by tlle developer until the developer has eitller Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City: or 2. Provided tlle City Witll a pertl)l1nanCe bond and labor and materials bonds or otller adequate security to insure tllat the unprovements will be constructed prior to the first Certiticate of Occupancy for any building that is a part of tlle project. The pertlmnance bond or otller security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and tlle lalx1r and materials bond shall be in an amount equal to 50% of tlle engineer's estunate. The bonds shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City's City Manager. Eastem Dublin Tramc Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 9 of 13 Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of cOlupleting certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to the Ci ty to otlset a portion of the Traffic Impact Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a pert()lmanCe bond and a labor and materials bond t\.1r the completion of the street improvements Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. IX. Tnmsferring of Credits A. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category. of TraHic Impact Fee. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transter tee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transter. The administrative transter fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. B. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transterred between developments. X. Reimbursement Rights Sections I & IT - Excluding Section II Residential BART Garage) Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion oftee credits, which occurs ten years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement creating the fee credit (unless the credits have been extended an additional tive years at the request of the credit holder). Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: A. The reimbursement rights shall expire nventy.. fi ve years after t.he initial da te of the credit/ reimbursement agreement creating the tee credit. B Reimbursement will be only from funds collected as Eastem Dublin Tratllc Impact Fees or from tees collected by Conlra Cosla County and paid to Dublin t\.1r any improvements also included in the Eastern Dublin Tramc Impact Fee, and will not come from the City's General Fund. C. The City will detennine the amount of funds available t\.)f reimbursement in each of the categories on an annual basis D The procedure tor prioritizing reimbursements is described in Section XI of these guidelines. XI. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights A. Determina tion of FUIlds A vaila ble tl.)f Reimbursement Within 0180 days of the end of each tlscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Tramc Impact Fees collected t\.1r the tlscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Dep31tment will also determine the amount of Tramc Impact Fee funds that are unspent and unencumbered as of the close of the fiscal year. For funds that are unspent and unencumbered in each fee category, the City will allocate the necessary amOlmt to be used to finance needed TIP facilities tl.)f the upcoming t~scal year ancVor to repay amounts due on outstanding loans t\.)f previously Eastem Dublin Tratlic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 10 ofl3 constructed TIF facilities. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement 'rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. B. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, tifty percent will be used to pa y the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right IS paid otT before tilis portion of funds is entirely consumed, tilen the balance of tile 50% will go toward tile next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this 'metilod until it is exhausted The otiler half of the reimbursement set aside will be allocated to all reimbursement rights on a pro-rata basis according to tileir amounts outstanding, including the remaining unreimbursed portion of tile oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside hmds will not be canied over to anotiler tlscal year The following example illustrates tilis allocation Illustrative Example: During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for a celtain category of improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (tile oldest agreement) Developer B: Developer C: 50,000 20,000 30,000 For tile upcoming tiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce CUlTent reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of tile $44,0(0) of the reimbursement set-aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has $28,000 of outstanding reimbursements Beginning balance of $50,000 less the $22,000 payment) The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,clOO) is allocated proportionally to all tirree parties who cUITentiy hold reimbmsement rights as follows: Current Y.due of Rei'mbursement Owed 28,000 20,000 30,000 78,000 Percent of Total Reimbursements Outs.and ing 35.90% 25.64% 38.46%AmI. of$22,000 Reimbursement Distributed 7,898.00 5,640.80 8,461.20 22,000.00 Reimbursement Balance Remainim! 20,102.00 14,359.20 21.53880 56,000.00 Holde.. of Reimbursement Developer A ' Developer B Developer C TOTAL XII. Pa~'ment to Alameda Coun~' Surplus Proper~' Authority (ACSPA) For $6 million of BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage) Payment of Section II Rcsidcntial BART Garage Fees can occur upon completion of phase I of the parking garage and surface parking inunediately adjacent to tile new garage at the eastern Dublin / Pleasanton Bi\RT Station, consisting of approximately 1,706 parking spaces, and tile availability of the BART Garage for public use. Payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Propelty AUtilority (ACSPA), wllich IS responsible for the parking garage construction and will dedicate the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public use upon its completion Except for interest eamed on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to distribution, tile maximum amount to be paid to ACSPA shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six Eastem Dublin Traftic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page II 01'13 million dollars) Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subJect to the following specitic guidelines: A The maximum to be disbursed fr.om fees collected, as described in XII subsecti6n B, shall be six million dollars ($6,000,000) and tlus amount shall not be increased t~)f any reason including inflation. In addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSP A B.Disbursement will be only from tile Eastem Dublin Traftic Inlpact Fees Section II Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any otller source including tile City's General Fund. C.Once tile BART Garage is completed, tile amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the fee There is no guarantee that ACSPA will receive a total 01'$6,000,000. D.The City will detemune and report on an annual basis to ACSP A, tile amount of funds collected from tile Section II Residential BART Garage fee and tile amount available t~)f disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any. E.The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSP A is described in Section XIII of tllese guidelines. XIII. A Process for Payment to ACSP A -Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available t~)f public use, tile ACSP A shall provide to the City a written celiification of tile completion of the BART Garage. . 1. 11.Witllin 45 days of receipt of tile certification described in Section XIII(A)(i) City shall calculate the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of the tirst clay of the month preceding tile date of tile notice. City shall also calculate and account t~)f accrued interest based on tile quarterly balance of Section II BART Garage Fees and tile earning rate applied to pooled funds managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSP A tile funds as calculated along witll a report showing tile maximum remaining fees tilat may be paid to ACSPA Thereafter, nmds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described in subsection B below. lll. B.Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Gar~ge Fee Funds Available for Payment 1. Witlun 180 days of tile end of each fiscal year, tile Administrative Services Depariment will make an accmmting of all Section II Residential BART Garage fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for tile tiscal year that just ended. Tllis shall include accrued interest 11. The City shall distribute to ACSPA, Section II Residential BART Garage fees available, to tile extent that tile total distribution including previous payments, Eastem Dublin Traftk Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20-07 (2/20/2007) Page 12 of 13 excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximlUn amount described in Section XII. 111 The Administrative Services Depaltment shall annually report to the ACSPA the current balance remaining Section II Rcsidential BART Garagc fees that may be paid XIV. A. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers The improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be .submitted f()!" approval in Titing to the Public Works Director no later than thirty calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufticlent detail as detennined by the. Public Works Director. The Pubic Works Director will attempt to respond to the request within twenty business days. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a pOltion of the tratlic fee must post a perfonnance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building pennits fl.)r the construction of the improvements. B.Refunds Refunds of withdrawn applications will be done in accordance with existing procedures fl.1r paid building permits Payable to entity making payment or propelty O\\TIer of record. Payable in accordance with State Law. ' Not applicable to letters of credit surety bonds or other instnunents taken to secme payment. c.Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures fl.1r complying with State Law in regards to accounting fl.1r developer fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Trat1ic Impact Fee: An identification of the inlprovements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Tratlic Impact Fee will be expended upon: and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected da te by which construction of the facilities will commence. Funds and Accounting The City \vill incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responSibility of the Administrative Services Department D. The City will maintain separate funds fCl!- the collection and expenditure of TralTic Impact Fees as fl.)llows: Section I Eastern Dublin Tratlic Improvements Section II: City-Wide Trat1ic Improvements Section II Residential BART Garage The Citv will allocate interest to fees collected in the funds based upon cash balances at the end of each quarter. Eastem Dublin TratIic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso 20..07 (2/20/2007) Page 13 of 13 The City will identify in accordance with State Law the beginning and ending balance of the flmds held for the TratIic Impact Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identity the amount of fees collected and interest eamed in each fiscal year for Traffic Impact Fees. The City will provide a description and accounting of any interflmd transfers made by the Traffic Impact Fee Funds. Although it may be authorized by State Law, it shall not be City policy to loan TIP monies for another public pmpose. The Citv will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 davs of each fiscal vear end. The City will tIle an annual accounting of all development impact fees, including the TraftIc Impact Fee, with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. RESOLUTION N0.41-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA, AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95 AND REVISED BY RESOLUTION N0.41-96, RESOLUTION N0.225-99, AND RESOLUTION NO.111-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan were adopted by the City in 1993; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan has been the subject of various amendments, and all references herein to the "SP" are to the Specific Plan as amended to date; and WHEREAS, the GPA outlined future land uses for lands within the City's eastern sphere of influence, including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development; and WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action programs for -the lands covered by it; and WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are included on the Land Use and Boundary Map of the Eastern Dublin TIF Area, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda"), were prepared and considered by the Council; and WHEREAS, the GPA and SP provided for, and the EIR and Addenda analyzed, future buildout of Eastern Dublin and identified freeway, freeway interchange and road improvements, as well as transit improvements, pedestrian trails and bicycle paths necessary to implement the SP; and WHEREAS, the GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the Year 2010, and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by future development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted. a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within Eastern Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain transportation improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and Page 1 of 10 WHEREAS, supplemental CEQA documents, including supplemental environmental impact reports, mitigated negative declarations, negative declarations and addenda have been prepared for Eastern Dublin development since the EIR was certified in 1993; and WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, addenda and supplemental CEQA documents assumed that certain traffic improvements would be made and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and WHEREAS, a Program EIR ("the Transit Center EIR") was prepared for the Dublin Transit Center project, and certified by the Council by Resolution 215-02; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Transit Center project area was added to the SP area and the Transit Center EIR identified new improvements beyond those identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, no new improvements or changes to the improvements described in the EIR and the Transit Center EIR have been identified in any of the supplemental CEQA documents, except for the CEQA documents or other documents referenced in the 2009 Study'Update, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995, establishing an Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" for development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of Dublin by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in a document dated November 1994 and entitled "Traffic Impact Fee-Eastern Dublin" (hereafter "Study"), which was attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 1-95; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 further relies upon a second report which was prepared for the City of Dublin by Santina and Thompson in a document dated December 30, 1994, entitled, "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact. Fee Study/Roadway Costs, Initial Level" (hereinafter "Cost Report"), which was attached as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 1-95; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 41-96 on April 9, 1996, revising the fee established under Resolution No. 1-95; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 41-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City by TJKM ("1996 Study Update") and cost estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson ("1996 Cost Estimate Update"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 225-99 on December 7, 1999, revising the fee established under Resolution No. 41-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 225-99 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared by the Department of Public Works ("1999 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update", hereinafter "1999 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 111-04 on June 15, 2004, revising the fee established under Resolution No. 225-99; and Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 111-04 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared by the Department of Public Works ("2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update", hereinafter "2004 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, Section 8 of Resolution No. 111-04 provides that .the City will periodically review the fee and make revisions as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City's Department of Public Works has prepared a revised report, dated January 12, 2009, entitled, "2009 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update" (hereafter "2009 Study Update") which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Update Study includes and incorporates Tables 1 and 2 and Attachments 1 to 10; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in certain respects; and WHEREAS, the 2009 Study Update, which includes updated cost estimates, together with a copy of the Agenda Statement and proposed Resolution were available for public inspection and review for ten 10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance public improvements and facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements and facilities are listed in the Study, the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Study Update, and the 2009 Study Update under Sections I, II, and III and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements and Facilities." The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section I refer to Improvements and Facilities within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and such Improvements and Facilities are funded 100% through the Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section II refer to Improvements and Facilities within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed, in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the Fee funds the proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct such Improvements and Facilities. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within the wider region, including development within Eastern Dublin. Although the City has adopted the Tri-Valley .Transportation Development Fee by Resolution 89-98, as amended by Resolution 85-99, and Section 10 of Resolution 89-98 suspends Section III fees, the portion of the Fee attributable to Section III improvements will be adjusted if and when Section III portion of the Fee becomes effective again by any adjustments made to the cost of improvements and/or right-of--way from the effective date of Resolution 89-98 to the date the Section III portion of the Fee becomes effective. B. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the Improvements and Facilities. Page 3 of 10 C. After considering the Study, the 1996 Study Update, the Cost Estimate Report, the 1996 Cost Estimate Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, the 2009 Study Update, Resolution No. 1-95, Resolution 41-96, Resolution 225-99, Resolution 111-04, the Agenda Statement, the SP, the General Plan, the Environmental Documents, all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on April 7, 2009, the Council reapproves and readopts the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, the 2009 Study Update and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996 Cost Estimate, the 1999 Cost Study Update the 2004 Study Update, and the 2009 Study Update, and incorporates each herein, and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA, the SP, and the City's General Plan. D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the EIR, Addenda, Transit Center EIR and supplemental CEQA documents ("Environmental Documents"). E. The Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the Environmental Documents as necessary to accommodate traffic from and/or to, to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the Environmental Documents. Since the certification of the Environmental Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the Environmental Documents, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the Environmental Documents' analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities is not required at this stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details as to their timing and construction are not presently known. E. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin, both residential and non-residential, will generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Improvements and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin, both residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements and Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities, and the percentage by which development within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Study Update, the 2009 Study Update, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996 Cost Estimate, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, and the 2009 Study Page 4 of 10 Update, are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development, set forth in the Study,. as revised in the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, and the 2009 Study Update bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements and Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each particular development will generate. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: Definitions a. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition of any building or structure within Eastern Dublin. b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all territory depicted within the Eastern Dublin TIF Area on the Land Use and Boundary Map attached hereto as Exhibit A. c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include those transportation and transit improvements and facilities as are described in Section I, II and III of the Study and as described in the 1996 Study Update, 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, the 2009 Study Update, the 1996 Cost Estimate, SP, and the Environmental Documents. "Improvements and Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative improvements and facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative improvements and facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative improvements. and facilities, (2) that the alternative improvements and facilities are comparable to the improvements and facilities in the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, the 2009 Study Update, and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative improvements and facilities. d. "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for up to six units per acre. e. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 6 to 14 units per acre. f. "Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 14 to 25 units per acre. g. "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 25 units per acre. Page5of10 h. "Second Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin that is issued a building permit as a second unit pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Second Unit Regulations) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Low Density Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit, High Density Dwelling Unit and Second Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the date of final inspection for the unit, provided that the Fee shall be payable by the date that the building permit is issued for any such Unit from and after the date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Improvements and Facilities. b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within Eastern Dublin at the time of issuance of the building permit for such building or structure, except where the building or structure will require a later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is required prior to occupancy. c. The Fee includes the Section I Fee Section I Residential Fee; Section II Fee; and Section II Residential BART Parking Fee. The Section II Residential BART Parking fee is a separate fee but it, together with the Section I Fee, Section I Residential Fee and Section II Fee, are referred to as the Fee." 3. Amount of Fee a. Low Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Low Density Dwelling Unit shall be $8,630 per unit. b. Medium Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Medium Density Dwelling Unit shall be $8,630 per unit. c. Medium/High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $6,041 per unit. d. High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $5,178 per unit. e. High Density Dwelling Units (Within Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,716 per unit. f. Second Units (Outside of Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Second Unit shall be $5,178 per unit. g. Non-Residential Buildings or Structures. The amount of the Fee for each Non- Residential Building or Structure shall be $739 per average weekly trip. The amount of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Uses are shown attached hereto as Exhibit C. Page 6 of 10 4. Minimum Cash Payment a. The minimum cash payment for Section I and Section II fees shall be in accordance with the Administrative Guidelines. Developers may utilize credits for the remainder of the fee, if authorized by the Administrative Guidelines. Exemptions From Fee a. Residential Alteration or Addition: Any alteration or addition to a residential structure is exempt from payment of the Fee, except to the extent that a residential unit is added on a parcel containing asingle-family residential unit or is added to an existing multi-family residential unit. b. Residential R~lacement or Reconstruction: Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished is exempt from payment of the Fee, provided that the building permit for the replacement or reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished. c. Non-Residential Replacement or Reconstruction: Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished is exempt from payment of the Fee, provided that the building permit for the replacement or reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the use of the new or reconstructed building would not increase the trips over those from the existing non-residential structure, calculated as provided in Exhibit C. d. Non-Residential Replacement or Reconstruction Partial Exemption): Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished is entitled to a partial exemption from the Fee i£ i).the building permit for the replacement or reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished; and ii) the use of the new or reconstructed building would increase the trips over those from the existing non-residential structure calculated as provided in Exhibit C. The partial exemption from the Fee shall be equal to the square footage of the existing non-residential structure that was destroyed or demolished multiplied by the number of trips shown on Exhibit C for its previous use, which total is then subtracted as a "Partial Fee Exemption" from the fees owed based on the use and square footage of the new or reconstructed building as provided in Exhibit C. The new development shall not accrue any credit or reimbursement rights in the event that the fee for the new or reconstructed building is less than the "Partial Fee Exemption" as calculated above. e. Non-Residential Alterations: Any alteration to an existing non-residential building or structure is exempt from payment of the Fee unless the alteration includes an addition of 500 square feet or more. f. Non-Residential Additions: Any addition to an existing non-residential building or structure is exempt from payment of the Fee if the addition is less than 500 square feet. g. Non-Residential Additions More Than 500 Square Feet (Partial Exemption): Any addition of 500 square feet or more to an existing non-residential building or structure is entitled to a partial exemption from payment of the Fee. The partial exemption from the Fee shall be equal to the square footage of the existing non-residential building or structure calculated as provided in Exhibit C. Page 7 of 10 h. Non-residential Uses within the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and the Groves Fairway Ranch) High-Density Residential Development: These uses are considered ancillary to the adjoining residential uses and will not generate outside vehicle trips, and are exempt from the fee. The locations are shown attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6. Use of Revenues a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Traffic Impact Fee Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Traffic Impact Fee Fund shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes: 1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of--way acquisition and constructions of the Improvements and Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2) To reimburse the City for Improvements and Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for traffic improvements. 3) To reimburse developers and/or public agencies who have constructed Improvements and Facilities; and 4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee program. b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 7. Standards The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements and Facilities are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, SP, and the Environmental Documents. 8. No Existing Deficiencies The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin and that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category I (Section I) of the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, and the 2009 Study Update, is generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin and, further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category II and III (Section II and III) of the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, and the 2009 Study Update, is generated by new development within Eastern Dublin and other new development and, therefore, the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, and the 2009 Study Update has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements and Facilities for which development within Eastern Dublin is responsible. 9. Periodic Review a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006. Page 8 of 10 b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 10. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General Plan, as well as increases due to construction costs and land values. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal approximately every three (3) years. 11. Automatic Increase in Fee The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 10 above. The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2010, and each July l thereafter, as follows: a. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown in the 2009 Study Update) shall be increased/decreased each July 1St by the annual percentage increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the month of March over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of March of the prior year. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. b. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities shall be increased/decreased annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land appraisal prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value in Year One is $10/acre and in Year Two is $11/acre, that is an annual increase of 10% which will result in a yearly increase of 10%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 10 above. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. The Section II Residential BART Parking Fee shall not be subject to the automatic fee increase and shall remain at the amount shown in Exhibit B. 12. Area of Benefit Fee A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of Benefit Fee adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the portion of the Fee designated for the construction of those improvements and facilities identified in Category I (Section I) of the Study that are major thoroughfares Page9of10 and bridges. These improvements and the estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit E attached hereto. The "Area of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the Area of Benefit in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this Resolution and in the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Study Update, and the 2009 Study Update, with the amount to be assessed for residential and non-residential as shown on Exhibit E. The Area of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Traffic Impact Fee Fund into separate accounts established for each of the improvements identified in Exhibit E. 13. Administrative Guidelines The City Council may adopt administrative guidelines for the fee program to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit or other administrative aspects of the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of--way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be ,from revenues raised by Payment of the Fee. 14. Effective Date This Resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this Resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the Resolution and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 111-04 sixty (60) days from the effective date of the Resolution. The Area of Benefit Fee established in Section 12 of this Resolution shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 hereof is declared invalid for any reason. 15. Severability Each component of the Fee, including the Section I fee, Section I Residential, Section II, Section II Residential Parking Garage Fees and each and every improvement financed by the Fee or any of the component fees, and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component fee of the Fee or other provision of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers, Biddle, Hillenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Hart ABSTAIN: None Mayor AT ST: ~( City Clerk Reso No. 41-09, Adopted 4-7-09, Item 6.2 Page 10 of 10 E~ OBIT A Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee -Land Use and Boundary Map 2008 Update ti^^^~ Eastern Dublin TIF Area s r~0 Parcels i _ ;Right of Way Specific Plan LU Public/Semi-Public Regional Park Parks/ Public Recreation so:' Open Space n•n^^^n^^. Public/Semi-Public; PL Semi-Public Residential t g,,,,, Rural Residential/Agriculture (0.01 du/ac) Single Family (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac) r h' RP ~~~ i -" Medium Density (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac) Med-Hi Density (14.1 - 25.0 du/ac)IFl ~ High Density (25.0 + du/ac) ilr ~~ ~~ Commercial/Industrial i,~+ ; `r` ' OGeneralCommercial 11~' (ii General Commercial/Campus Office t J MD j;„• ~ x i ( ~~l ! r•is Neighborhood Commercial W_ _, I x - ~~~~ ~ t I . gg~~ .. .J :, pCam us Office s liHi ~1'mJ I I E dry„ rt~3~A CPIndustrialParkd Q~~~ i~r~ _ ~ i - --- t ~' 1~ r +• ii ~^^^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^^^^.^t^^^{r ~. ' ja[^^^^^: 9s.^t~r^^q^^~^^^^t^^ U^^^^^^^^^~^^ a ^^ u u u I ~ ~ w s.o t*t^^M Miles0.5 1 2 3 R N Exhibit B City of Dublin 2009 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Prepared by Public Works Department January 12, 2009 The following is the 2009 update ("the 2009 Study Update") for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("the TIF"). This memorandum explains the methodology used in updating the previous reports prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants and Santina and Thompson for the 1996 fee update, and by the Department of Public Works for the 1999 and 2004 fee updates. The following documents are attached and are made a part of this 2009 Study Update: Table 1, which summarizes the calculations of the revised per trip traffic impact fee for Section I improvements, Section I residential improvements, Section II improvements, and Section II residential BART parking improvement; Table 2, which provides detail of total (unadjusted) improvement costs by section and prof ect segment: Attachments 1-5, which includes revised cost estimates for roadway improvements that have not yet been constructed or guaranteed; Attachment 6, which provides a summary of outstanding loans, cash advances, or credits to developers for construction of improvements or dedication ofright-of--way; Attachment 7, which provides a summary of unencumbered Section I, Section I Residential, Section II, and Dougherty Valley traffic mitigation fees which are currently on hand in reserve accounts; Attachment 8, which provided a summary of remaining Dougherty Valley Traffic Impact Fees not yet received by the City; Attachments 9, which provides detailed information on the estimated number of trips generated for each parcel in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (including the parcels within the Transit Center) that will be subject to the existing and proposed fee rates; and Attachment 10, which provides detailed information on the estimated number of residential trips generated for each parcel in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area including the parcels within the Transit Center) that will be subject to the existing and proposed fee rates. Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT ~ Tn the RPSnIi itinn i~- Summary The following Summary Table identifies the changes on the per trip TIF for Section I and Section II improvements for both residential and non-residential development projects. All Residential property located in the Transit Center is designated in the Specific Plan as High Density, and therefore only one rate is shown. Proposed TIF Summary Table -Per Trip Factors RESIDENTLAL NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Esistina Proposed Change Etistina Proposed Chanb01112008)711~20t1 Section I 591 579 2%591 579 2% Section I Residential 62 47 24%N/A N/A N/A Section II 172 160 7%172 160 7% Total Section I and II Development within 825 786 5%763 739 3% Transit Center Section II Residential BART Parkin Fee 140 77 45%N/A N/A N/A Total Section I and II Development Outside 965.863 11%763 739 3°~ Transit Center The revised fee results in the following fees per housing unit: Proposed Per Unit Residential TIF Summary Table L d U Trips Per Fee Pcr Unit Type an sc Designation Day Per Within Transit Outside of Unit Center Transit Center Low Density Up to 6 units/ 10 N/A 8,630 acre Medium Density 6.1-14 units/ 10 N/A 8,630 acre Medium/ High Density 14.1-25 7 N/A 6,041units/ acre High Density 25.1 or more 6 4,716 5,178units/ acre Sec. 8.80 Second Units Municipal 6 N/A 5,178 Code Page 2 of 12 Section I fees pay for improvements within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and these improvements are funded 100% through the TIF. Section II fees pay for improvements within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed, in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the TIF funds the proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct these improvements. . Section I fees include a Residential Adjustment that is applied to all residential development in Eastern Dublin to pay for two Park and Ride lots and the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail. These improvements benefit only residential development. Section II fees include a Residential BART Parking Fee that is applied to all residential development outside of the Transit Center in Eastern Dublin to pay for a portion of the BART parking structure within the Transit Center. Residential development within the Transit Center is within walking distance of the -BART Station and would not utilize the BART parking facility. The Section III fee rate was not updated, as the collection of the Section III fee was suspended with the adoption by the City (Resolution No. 89-98) of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. The TVTD Fee, which is collected from new development in addition to the Section I and II TIF, funds improvements formerly covered by the Section III fee. In the event collection of the Section III fee becomes necessary at some point in the future, the fee rate will be adjusted at that time for all adjustments made to the Section III portion of the TIF since the effective date of the TVTD Fee. Background The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was initially adopted in January of 1995, and subsequently updated in 1996, 1999, and 2004. The 2004 Update included annexation of the Eastern Dublin Transit Center. Since that time, some of the background data used in determining the fee has changed, requiring that the fee be revised to reflect current conditions. Background information that has changed includes more accurate projections of land use, minor changes in the scope of infrastructure improvements to be funded by the fee and substantial increases in the land value of right-of--way needed for the construction of improvements. The revised fee also takes into account the current status as of July 1,•2008) of those improvements that are complete, under construction, or guaranteed under an improvement agreement. The boundaries of the properties proposed to be subject to the fee are shown on Exhibit A to the Resolution. The boundaries include all properties currently within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (which includes the Transit Center) as well as remaining properties within the City's Sphere of Influence that have been annexed to the City or are expected to be annexed to the City. The 2009 Study Update Page 3 of 12 Cost Revisions The 2009 Study Update includes several refinements of improvements and improvement • costs. 1. Dublin Boulevard) Dougherty Road Intersection Improvements (Section II) -The cost estimate for this work has been adjusted to reflect right-of--way and design costs to date, as well as the actual construction bid prices, based on an estimate prepared by the Public Works Department on October 16, 2008. All right -of--way has been obtained and construction is complete. 2. Scarlett Drive Extension, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard (Section II) -The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 6, 2007 and aRight-of--Way Line on July 7, 2007. The cost estimate has been adjusted to reflect the preliminary design for the project, as well as the adopted CEQA document and precise plan line for the road . 3. Storm Runoff Treatment (All Sections) -The cost of vegetative and/ or structural storm runoff treatment measures has been added as determined to be appropriate by the City for its Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.. Improvements Identified Since 2004 • The 2009 Study Update also includes several new projects that are necessitated by trips generated by development in Eastern Dublin: 1. Tassajara Road Eastbound I-S80 Offramp (3'd Eastbound Left Turn Lane ) Section. II) -The need fora 3rd eastbound left turn lane was identified in the Fallon Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005 (Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-2) 2. Amador Valley Boutevard/Brighton Drive Traffic Signat (Section II)- The Dublin Unified School District certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin High School Facilities Master Plan ("Master Plan EIIZ") by its Resolution 2005-06-17 on February 14, 2006. The Master Plan EIR describes the "Project" as expansion of existing Dublin High School to accommodate 2,500 students. It indicates the 2005 enrollment was 1,300 and historically the facilities have accommodated 2,000. students (Master Plan EIR, Section S.1). The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated the March 1992 enrollment was 741 students and projected the Eastern Dublin development would increase high school enrollment by 2,923 students. The EIR indicated one new high school was needed (Chapter 3.4). The Specific Plan, as adopted in 1994, showed a high school site in Eastern Dublin and included Policy 8-1 which provided that the school sites shown on Figure 4.1 should be reserved. In 1994, a portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment area was included in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The Dublin Unified School District has determined - in its 2004 Facilities Master Plan -that no high school is needed in the Eastern Dublin Area (Specific Plan, Section 8.1.1) and the Specific Plan no longer Page 4 of 12 designates a site for a high school in Eastern Dublin (Figure 4.1). The proposed enhancement of the high school facilities is needed to serve increased enrollment . The Master Plan EIR used the level of service standard for the intersections in the City of Dublin General Plan. Applying the standard, the Master Plan E1R found that the Master Plan, plus year 2025 traffic and the development of Camp Parks would result in this intersection falling to LOS F, which is below the General Plan's identified LOS D (Impact 3.1.1). The identified mitigation is installation of a traffic signal. Resolution 2005-06-17 found that the Master Plan EIR included as a mitigation measure the construction of a traffic signal at the Amador Valley Boulevard and Brighton Drive intersection. It further found that implementation of the mitigation measure was within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. The City has determined that the need for the signal is generated by the increase in enrollment from Eastern Dublin development and that the cost of the improvement should be spread across all Eastern Dublin development. 3. Fallon Road/ Fallon Sports Park Pedestrian Overcrossing (Section I) -The cost of constructing a pedestrian overcrossing across Fallon Road from the Fallon Sports Park, located on the west side of Fallon Road, to the Fallon Village Open space and trail system on the east side of Fallon Road is included. The Traffic and Circulation chapter of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan "puts a strong emphasis on accommodating alternative modes of transportation", including walking and bicycles, noting that these modes of transportation will relieve future traffic congestion but also help minimize air pollution, reduce noise pollution and. conserve energy. It also includes an extensive trail system "designed to encourage walking and cycling" Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Sec. 5.1). Sections 5.4 and 5.5 address pedestrian circulation and bicycle circulation more specifically and Figure 5.3 shows the approximate location of pedestrian paths and bicycle routes. Figure 6.1 shows the approximate location of trials, parks, and open space areas. The pedestrian overcrossing across Fallon Road will epable residents and workers to walk or bicycle from the Tassajara Creek bike path to the easternmost trails in the Fallon Village area, shown on Figure 6.1, thus implementing the Specific Plan. The City identified the need for this improvement during the planning of the Fallon Sports Park and. the Fallon Village Development, which were planned with more specificity than the Specific Plan. Calculation of the Fee. The following is a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the new fee, as shown on the attached Table 1, dated November 25, 2008. Table 1, Line 1-Cost of Improvements/Ri t-of-Way Not Currently Guaranteed The cost of remaining improvements and right-of--way to be funded by the TIF is shown in Attachments 1 through 5. These costs are as of July 1, 2008 . The revised cost estimate (Attachment 1, Cost Estimate Summary) includes the following changes: Page 5 of 12 a) The costs of im~ovements that have already been completed or aze guaranteed have been removed from the total estimate. • b) The cost of right-of--way acquisition has been increased to reflect higher land values in the Eastern Dublin azea. The revised right-of--way cost estimates were based on the Appraisal Report, Citv of Dublin Facilitv Impact Fee Studv, East Dublin and Schaefer Ranch, June, 2006, prepared by Associated Right-of--Way Services, Inc. The appraisal is available for public review at the Department of Public Works The cost of the improvements for the remaining street segments not guazanteed .under existing improvement agreements has been modified to reflect the cost revisions and to add the additional improvements listed above. The costs for the remaining improvements have been summarized in four categories: Section I Im rovements 100,571,219 Section I Residential Im rovements 2,422,183 Section II Im rovements 35,905,603 Section II Residential BART Parking 4,827,906 Total Costs 143,726,910 The Section I improvements are required solely to accommodate development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. This report assigns 100% of the. cost of each Section 1 improvement to the Section I TIF. An exception is the portion of the Dublin Boulevazd extension from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevazd which is outside the City of Dublin sphere of influence. The City of Dublin and the City of Livermore will each contribute 50% of the cost of the 3,000 foot portion of the roadway. It is expected that this segment will remain in unincorporated County of Alameda lands between the two cities. The Section I Residential Improvements category includes several improvements that benefit only the residential development in Eastern Dublin. These improvements include the Tassajaza Creek Regional Trail and one Park and Ride lot near Fallon Road (a second Park and Ride Lot has been constructed by the Koll Corporate Center on Tassajara Road). The costs associated with these improvements are allocated solely to fees collected from residential units. The Section II improvements aze needed to accommodate development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, as well as serve traffic generated outside of the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Section II TIF fund only a share of the improvement costs based on the proportion of traffic generated within the Specific Plan Area. The Section II TIF is assigned 50% of the total cost of the Fallon Road/ I- 580 Interchange, with the remainder of the costs shared equally at 25% between the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. (The interchange project will be completed in • two phases. The City of Dublin has taken the lead in designing Phase I and is funding this project largely with Section II TIF fees; the cost participation by the three Cities Page 6 of 12 for the remaining Phase 2 work will be adjusted to account for Phase 1 contributions by the City of Dublin to maintain a 50:25:25 overall share between the Cities). Scarlett Drive and portions of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard are partially funded by prior traffic mitigation fees paid by development in the Downtown area. The costs for the remaining Section II improvements are assigned at 100% of the total cost. The Section II Residential BART Parking category includes that portion of the Eastern Dublin BART Parking Garage that serves parking generated from residential development in Eastern Dublin (this is approximately 500 spaces out of 1,680 total spaces). This report assigns this cost to the Section II Residential BART Parking fee. This fee will be paid only by residential development outside the Transit Center to a maximum of $6 Million, as development within the Transit Center would not travel by automobile to access the BART Station. Table 1, Line 2 -Balance Due on Advances and TIF Credits The City of Dublin received funding advances from County of Alameda, the City of Pleasanton and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for construction of certain improvements needed to serve Eastern Dublin development ("the funding advances"). In addition, between 1995 and the present, several developers in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area constructed or guaranteed various improvements funded by the TIF. Pursuant to the TIF, each such developer received TIF credits in return. Portions of the funding advances have been repaid. Further, developers have utilized portions of their credits against TIF fees that would otherwise be due with building permits, reducing the value of the remaining credits. A summary of balances remaining as of July 1, 2008 for credits and advances by developer is shown on Attachment 6.. The three advances made by the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, and BART are subject to interest payments on the unpaid principal. The interest to be paid must be added to the T1F. The Administrative Services Department has prepared an estimated repayment schedule for these loans as part of the 2008-09 Fiscal Year budget. These payments will occur over Fiscal Years 2008-09 thru 2011-12, and are shown on Attachment 6. The outstanding TIF credit balances as of June 30, 2008 are shown below: Section L Im rovements 78,488,678 Section I Residential Im rovements 779,717 Section II Im rovements 19,053,854 Section II Residential BART Parkin N/A Total Costs 98,322,249 Page 7 of 12 The above costs must be included in the revenue to be raised under the revised TIF Section I and Section II fees, in order that adequate funds are available to reimburse the credit holders and agencies that advanced funding Table 1, Line 3 -Total Cost of TIF Improvements Lines 1 and 2~ This line, which is the sum of Lines 1 and 2, shows the total cost of all improvements remaining to be funded under the TIF. Total costs by category are as follows: Section I Im rovements 179,059,897 Section I Residential Im rovements 3,201,900 Section II Im rovements 54,959,457 Section II Residential BART Parking 4,827,906 Total Costs 242,049,159 Table 1, Line 4 -Current TlF Fee Account Balance, Section I Fees collected from the building permits issued to date that have not been allocated to specific TIF improvements, remain in a reserve account and can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. The cash balance of Section I TIF fee revenues as of July 1; 2008 has been provided by the Finance Division, as shown on • Attachment 7. The current balance is $2,335,094. Table 1, Line 5 -Current TIF Fee Account Balance Section II The cash balance of Section II TIF fee revenues as of July 1, 2008 has been provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is $3,746,206, as shown on Attachment 7. Table 1, Line Sa -Current TIF Fee Account Balance, Section IINon-Residential BART P The cash balance of Section II TIF Non-Residential BART Parking fee revenues as of July 1, 2008 has been provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is zero, as shown on Attachment 7. Table 1, Line 6 - Dou he Valley Traffic Mitigation Fee Account Balance The cash balance of Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fees as of July 1, 2008 has been provided by the Finance. Division. The current balance is zero, as shown on Attachment 7. Table 1, Line 7 -Adjusted Cost of Remaining Improvements (Line 3 -Lines 4-61 • Page 8 of 12 The total cost of the TIF improvements and credits (Line 3) is decreased by the current balance of fees not encumbered for specific projects (Lines 4-6) Table 1, Lines 8a and 8b -Estimated Section I and Section II Fees from Estimated Remaining Trips 52,160) Collected at Current Rate A list of remaining development projects in Eastern Dublin as of July 1, 2008 is shown on Attachment 9.. Certain projects are shown as receiving building permits during the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, based on projections by the City's Building Division. These projects account for 2,160 new trips. For the purpose of developing the revised EDTIF fee, it is assumed that payment of the EDTIF will be made at the existing rate (actual payment will be at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). The revenue raised from fees applied to these trips can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. Estimated revenues from the remaining trips collected at the old rate are $1,276,560 for Section I and $371,520 for Section II. Table 1, Line 9a -Estimated Section I Residential Fees From Remaining Residential Trips (2,160) Collected at Current Rate A list of remaining residential development projects in Eastern Dublin as of July 1, 2008 is shown on Attachment 10. Certain projects are shown as receiving building permits during the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, based on projections by the City's Building Division. These projects account for 2,160 new trips. For the purpose of developing the revised EDTIF fee, it is assumed that payment of the EDTIF will be made at the existing rate (actual payment will be at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). The revenue raised from fees applied to these trips can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. Estimated revenues from the remaining trips collected at the old rate are $133,920. Table 1, Line 9b -Estimated Section II Residential BART Parking Fees From Remaining Residential Trips (2,160) Collected at Current Rate A list of remaining residential development projects in Eastern Dublin as of July 1, 2008 is shown on Attachment 10. Certain projects are shown as receiving building permits during the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, based on projections by the City's Building Division. These projects account for 2,160 new trips. For the purpose of developing the revised EDTIF fee, it is assumed that payment of the EDTIF will be made at the existing rate (actual payment will be at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). The revenue raised from fees applied to these trips can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. Estimated revenues from the remaining trips collected at the old rate are $302,400. Table 1, Line 10 -Remaining Dou hert~ValleYTraffic Mitigation Fees The City of Dublin has negotiated an agreement with the County of Contra Costa for the payment of funds to provide traffic improvements on City of Dublin streets necessitated by development in the Dougherty Valley. The original estimated level of contribution was $13,250,220. Under the terms of the agreement, these funds must be Page 9 of 12 spent on selected roads impacted by Dougherty Valley traffic, specifically Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. The fees are increased each year based on current construction costs; therefore, the total amount of fees received will exceed the above amount. The current fee effective 7/1/2008 is $2,012 per unit for units in the Shapell Development and $1,663 for units in the Windermere development. A summary of payments from Contra Costa County for Dougherty Valley Impact Fees has been provided by the Finance Division, as shown on Attachment 8. A total of 7533 residential units had received building permits in Dougherty Valley as of July 1, 2008, out of a total of 11,000 units. This leaves 3467 units to be permitted in the future, for which fees in the amount of $6,751,197.00 are estimated to be paid. For the purpose of the TIF update, the balance is split equally between Section' I and Section II, or $3,375,598.50 for each account. Revenues are split equally between the two Sections based on the agreement between the City and the County of Contra Costa, which calls for the Dougherty Valley fees to be used for the improvement of Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. The Section I Tassajara Road and Fallon Road) and Section II (Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive) costs are approximately equal for these four roadways, and revenues will be assigned in equal amounts to each section. Table 1, Line 11 -Remaining Costs to be Financed by Revised Fee (Line 7 - Lines 8, 9 and 10 The adjusted cost of the remaining improvements (Line 7) must be further adjusted to subtract the estimated fees to be collected under the old rate as well as the estimated remaining Dougherty Valley revenue (Lines 8, 9, and 10). Section I Im rovements 172,072,644 Section I Residential Im rovements 3,067,980 Section II Im rovements 47,466,132 Section II Residential BART Parkin 4,525,506 Total Costs 227,132,262 Table 1, Line 12 -Total Remaining Trips Subject to Fees A list of pending and buildout projects subject to the Eastern Dublin TIF is shown on Attachments 9 and 10. Trip generation is based on General Plan land use designations and densities approved within the Eastern Dublin TIF area. Land uses for each specific property and anticipated densities were determined by the Community Development Department. For the purpose of estimating the revised fee, it is assumed that these projects will all receive building permits after the revised fee has gone into effect. The list has been revised to reflect the current status of land use entitlements. The revised total number of trips subject to the TIF is 297,171. It should be noted that • the purpose.of this list is to develop an estimate of trips for the purpose of calculating the fee, and should not imRly approval of land uses or densities for specific properties Page 10 of 12 beyond anv existing entitlements for those properties Also actual fees will be based on the trip rates for land uses shown on Exhibit C and not the projections shown on Attachment 10. One commercial project is shown as creating no vehicle traffic. This is the retail use within the Transit Center. The retail use will serve residents within the development through pedestrian access, and will not generate vehicle trips from the outside. This retail use will be exempt from paying the TIF. There is a nominal amount of ancillary retail use within the Fairway Ranch high- density residential project, which is not shown in Attachment.9. This retail use will also be exempt from paying TIF fees, as it will not generate additional vehicle trips. A list of residential-only projects is shown on Attachment 10. The total number of residential trips is 64,845, with 58,557 trips generated outside the Transit Center. It is noted that the total number of remaining trips (297,171) is slightly higher than the estimate of total trips at the time of the 2004 Update (296,836). This is due to several land use approvals since 2004 (particularly Fallon Village and Wallis Ranch) which generated trip estimates higher than that used in the 2004 Update. A "second unit" as defined in the Resolution, would pay a fee of $5,178 per unit, which is equal to the rate for High Density Residential Units. The Community Development Director estimates that approximately 50 "second units" could be constructed within Eastern Dublin. Because second units can be no larger than 1,000 square feet (Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80), the Public Works Department estimates that the number of vehicle trips per day will be similar to the trips generated from dwelling units on property designated for over 25 units per acre, or six trips per day per unit. The total trips from the "second units" is considered de minimus and will not affect the amount of the fee. Table 1, Line 13 -Revised Fee (Cost per Trip)(Line 11 divided by Line 12) The revised fee for each section is determined by dividing the cost of improvements Line 11) by the number of trips subject to the fee (Line 12). The Section I fee will decrease by approximately 2%. There is a decrease in the Section I Residential fee of 24%. The scope of the remaining improvements remained largely unchanged. A large portion of the credits for this section have been utilized by the credit holders, reducing the overall costs that need to be financed by the fee. The Section II fee will decrease by 7%. The Section II Residential BART Parking fee will decrease by 45%. This is because the amount of fees that may be reimbursed to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (which is the sole recipient of the fees) are capped at $6,000,000, whereas Page 11 of 12 V the fee rate has been increased each year since 2004 in accordance with the annual EDTIF adjustment for construction and land acquisition costs. Since past payments have been made at ahigher-than-average amount, the remaining payments -will be at a lower than average amount. The amount to be recovered from this fee is also being spread across more units in the 2009 Update. In future years, the fee will not be automatically adjusted. Payment Plan for Interest-Bearing Loans The TIF program is liable for payments on certain loans /advances by third parties for TIF infrastructure. As many developers pay the TIF with credits, very little cash is available to repay these loans. The 2004 Update used an projected eight-year payoff period in determining the interest costs for the three interest-bearing loans. In order to generate adequate cash flow to meet the eight-year payoff, the 2004 Update included the provision that the minimum Section I cash payment be increased from 3% of the total fee to 11%, and that the minimum Section II cash payment be increased from 12.4% to 25% of the total fee. -The 2009 Update proposes to maintain the same minimum cash payment requirements. The City will utilize the fee revenue for loan repayment, with the remaining percentage of the fees retained for use on capital improvements funded by the fee or for administrative costs associated with the fee program, or distribution to holders of a right to reimbursement in accordance with the adopted Administrative Guidelines. . G:ITIFIEastern DublinlEDTIF Update 20091v 6StudyExB Accepted ehs ADDEDpsr.DOC i Page 12 of 12 C~ W m r~ C OOO V h OI N N r r av LL_ ~ a a`a mma° P mo w~ O o C Iy0 O y O 10 V WV 0D N O O 10 M O N CO O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O N O OJ OJ eJ'Ilj O O 01 C C 0 0 t~N 000 W tt IC1 OJ O to ICJ CO N N O OJ O C!j J CA N r O N O to O O r N Q O CO N N N CA' e} IO M tO V' t~ 10 t0 h I~M M N O ID N M h M O M CA N M M I~r M N M V V M lfT N N W OCYC 00 C O O O O O O O O M ti A O o 0OCNCOt0OCOOCflllNr Z U~O rn O rn ER O O O O C/} w v In In I\I`N M Il> C d Q'OD m W N W CA O N O N n 0 C P C CO 0D 7 N N I j r 1O N O O0J n N M M 0)h P M M ER fR Y! l0 p fly ONO O ONO O ONO of N o lC N f~Of CA O Of OD N C C f~OOD OOD O~J CEO 0) U .~N N CA 1~ r O r M h' CV fn ~N r!tf} Ef3 N CD O O ID W t0 O O r h O NODO0fOCOOn b w to N CO W O 00 tO tO t0 CA N If b M h N M O N M tiOtiPE969 w r u- N 0) 0) E9 r y 0 O t0 O) C W U 0 0 0 p p 0 ti f` c o o O O y o E 00 N N O O O y U LO O'LL L}L O H O) O'd O N C l l 0) U O) Q i J 0 0 N O) P COLLMa0N U N U 0 U 0 U G m JC9maiaiciw 0 r C O O d m C 0 C O U U y C 0)OJ C y n m J N N LL LL 0) X LL CV N C to N O d LL' O P o r C N N O O N H O CHWOOU0Jm Z C 0 O H H OCJl007 O Z 0)OJ C 07 W y-~P P N U U U_o L F.c N c O O O) Q c c~c c c m c c 0 G m C C o C C y 03 V d J N f0 f0 f6 O f0 d'OD O N L w d m m m m m C E E O C N ao Q-'C C C C C C O LL O c v E o l0 f0 d1 N U E ai o E E a i o c w r E LL a v a v a a~a~r 5 Ht=d d m w o y E w m O IL LL N L L 0 0' y LL LL N O L L LL V tL y m r U O V c t a O t0 Emc c E E IJ_tL v E li w w a wUmiUUvo°Q w w c CV M fit C/lIj CL1 I~000 m OOi Q r r U o m~ o sm~~ awv LL = a ui TABLE 1 Tn FxurRrr B. Table 2 2008 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Detail of Total Costs (Prior to Adjustments) by Section and Project Segment Segment SECTION I IMPROVEMENTS 2004 Cost Estimate Credits or Advances Total Balance at 3/10/04 8 Dublin Boulevard Extension -Southem Pacific RNV to East BART Access 8A Dublin Boulevard Extension -East BART Access to Hacienda Drive 682,297.20 682,297.20 9 Dublin Boulevard -Hacienda to Tassajara Road 289,250.00 289,250.00 10 Dublin Boulevard -Tassajara Road to Fallon Road 526,734.00 526,734.00 11 Dublin Boulevard Extension -Fallon Road to Airway 26,708,151.43 26,708,151.43 13 Hacienda - I-580 to Dublin Boulevard Extension (not incuding interchange) 14 Hacenda -Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive 978,691.00 978,691.00 15 Freeway Interchange -Hacienda Road with I-580 9,430,212.12 9,430,212.12 16 Arnold Drive -Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason 5,137,177.32 5,137,177.32 16A Central Parkway -Arnold to Hacienda 679,349.81 679,349.81 17 Central Parkway -Hacienda to Tassajara 3,290,449.99 3,290,449.99 18 Central Parkway -Tassajara Road to Keegan Street 264,810.00 264,810.00 18A Central Parkway -Keegan Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet 172,120.00 172,120.00 19 Gleason - Arnold Road to Hacienda 97,500.00 97,500.00 19A Gleason -Hacienda to Tassajara 20 Gleason -Tassajara to Fallon 194,610.00 194,610.00 22 Tassajara Road - 5,000 feet north of Gleason to Contra Costa County Line 24,529,720.11 24,529,720.11 22A Tassajara Road -Gleason Road to 5,000 feet north of Gleason Road 7,776,770.17 7,776,770.17 23 Tassajara Road -Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road 1,304,023.01 1,304,023.01 24 Tassajara Road -Dublin Boulevard Extension to I-580 (not including interchange)261,046.52 261,046.52 25 Tassajara Road -Freeway Interchange 2,812,216.94 2,812,216.94 26 Fallon Road -Tassajara to Gleason 7,039,841.00 7,039,841.00 26A Fallon Road -Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension 6,486,458.07 6,486,458.07 27 Fallon Road -Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 1,461,509.87 1,461,509.87 Report Update 50,000.00 50,000.00 Other Costs 300,000.00 300,000.00 Existing Credits 78,488,678.30 78,488,678.30 TOTAL SECTION I IMPROVEMENTS 100,472,938.56 178,961,616.86 SECTION it IMPROVEMENTS 1 Dougherty Road -City Limits to Amador Valley Widening 7,162,101.79 7,162,101.79 2 Dougherty Road - Amador Valley boulevard to Houston Place 5,976,042.27 5,976,042.27 3 Dougherty Road -Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard 1,331,099.00 1,331,099.00 4 Dougherty Road -Dublin Boulevard to North of I-580 Off Ramp 1,678,050.00 1,678,050.00 5 Dublin Boulevard -East of Village Parkway to Sierra Court Widening 6 Dublin Boulevard -Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Widening 2,256,638.40 2,256,638.40 7 Dublin Boulevard -Dougherty to Southem Pacific Right-of-Way 12 Freeway Interchange -Dublin Boulevard Extension with I-580 (Airway Blvd) 21 Scarlet Drive -Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension 13,996,645.00 13,996,645.00 28 Fallon and I-580 Freeway Interchange with Signals 509,986.44 509,986.44 Other Costs 500,000.00 500,000.00 Existing Credits 19,053,853.78 19,053,853.78 TOTAL 33,410,562.90 52,464,416.68 SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 29 Tassajara Creek Bike Path 903,864.00 903,864.00 30 Park and Ride Lots 1,518,318.82 1,518,318.82 Existing Credits 779,717.00 779,717.00 TOTAL SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 2,422,182.82 779,717.00 3,201,899.82 TABLE 2 Tn F.XHIRTT R_ SECTION I I RESIDENTIAL BART PARKING IMPROVEMENT Attachment 1 -Cost Estimate Summary Dou he Road - Se ment 1 4,300 feet, 104 feet curb to curb Ci Limits to Amador Valle idenin Portion of Existin Im rovements to be Re-Used Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Number Not Assi ned Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Eastern Portion, 4300 feet to be widened 4,923,753.69 Intersection Im rovements 600,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa None Subtotal 5,523,753.69 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uisition, 20.0%1,104,750.74 Contin enc Im rovement, Ri ht-of-Wa , 10.0%552,375.37 Subtotal 7,180,879.79 Traffic Miti ation Contributions er Finance, Reserve Account as of 7/01/07 425,730.00 6,755,149.79 Zone 7 Fees 406,952.00 Total 7,162,101.79 Dou he Road - Se ment 2 4,150 feet, 104 feet curb to curb Amador Valle Bouldevard to Houston Place Portion of Existin Im rovements to be Re-Used Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Number 96850 Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 3300 feet to be widened ~3,754,376.36 Intersection Im rovements 704,200.00 Ri ht-of-Wa None ~ Subtotal 4,458,576.36 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uisition, 20.0%891,715.27 Contin enc Im rovement, Ri ht-of-Wa , 10.0%445,857.64 Subtotal 5,796,149.27 Traffic Miti ation Contributions er Finance, Reserve Account as of 7/01/07 190,204.00 5,605,945.27 Zone 7 Fees 370,097.00 Total 5,976,042.27 Dou he Road - Se ment 3 Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard 900' Dou he Road - Se ment 4 Portion Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ram 500' Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 6 Dublin Court to Dou hert Road 700' Dublin Boulevard Extension - Se ment 7 Dou hert to Southern Pacific Ri ht-of-Wa 1650' Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Number 96852 Widen Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Final Estimated Total Costs, October 18, 2008 17,408,345.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum ATTACffiV~NT / • rn Fxururr u Prior Year Ex enses Thru FY 2007-08 15,944,759.00 Remainin Costs, Jul 1, 2007 1,463,586.00 Funded b Downtown TIF Fee Account, FY 2007-2008 132,487.00 Total Cost to EDTIF Cate o II and Dou he Valle Fees 1,331,099.00 Dou he Road - Se ment 4 Portion Dublin Boulevard to North of I-580 Off-Ram 500' Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Westbound On-Ram Im rovements 1,500,000.00 Subtotal 1,500,000.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uisition, 12%178,050.00 Contin en Im rovement, Ri ht-of-Wa 0% Subtotal 1,678,050.00 1,678,050.00 Zone 7 Fees Total 1,678,050.00 Dou hert Road Subtotal Se ments 1, 2, and Portions of 4 14,039,145.06 Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of Dou hert Road from the Cit Limits north to Old Ranch Road Zone 7 Fees Se ments 1 & 2 777,049.00 Subtotal 14,816,194.06 r J Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 2 of 16, 3/23/2009 t Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 5 1,800 feet, 108 Ri ht-of-wa , 6 Lanes East of Villa a Parkwa to Sierra Court Widenin Under Construction Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Number 96920 Com lete Totals for TIF Share Total Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 6 Sierra Court to Dublin Court 1300' Ci Ca ital Im rovement Pro'ect Number 96930 Totalsfior TIF Share Civil Im rovements Sierra Court to Dublin Court, er Ci .CIP 1,763,748.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Sierra Court to Dublin Court, er Ci CIP Se ment 6 556,511.00 Subtotal 2,320,259.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uisition 376,837.00 Contin en Im rovement, Ri ht-of-Wa 0%57,858.00 Subtotal 2,754,954.00 Zone 7 Fees 181,035.40 Traffic Miti ation Contributions r Finance, Reserve Account as of 7/01/07 679,351.00 Total 2,256,638.40 Dublin Boulevard Subtotal to Southern Pacific Ri ht-of-Wa Se ments 5 and 6 S 2,075,603.00 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 5 and 6 181,035.40 Subtotal 2,256,638.40 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Se ment 8 1,950 feet, 6 Lanes Southern Pacific Ri ht-of-Wa to East BART Access Com lete Totals for TIF Share Subtotal Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uistion, 20% Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10% Subtotal Zone 7 Fees N/A Total Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 3 of 16, 3/23/2009 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Se ment 8A 2,650 feet, 6 Lanes East BART Access Iron Horse Parkwa to Hacienda Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Path on north side no other roadwa im rovements 307,824.00 Intersection Im rovemnts w/o ri ht of wa 172,500.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none Subtotal 480,324.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%96,064.80 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%48,032.40 Subtotal 624,421.20 Zone 7 Fees 57,876.00 Total 682,297.20 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 9 4,600 feet, 6 Lanes Hacienda to Tassa'ara Road Com lete Exce t as Noted Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Intersection Im rovements w/o ri ht of wa 222,500.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 222,500.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uistition, 20%44,500.00 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%22,250.00 Total 289,250.00 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 10 6,320 feet, 6 Lanes Tassa'ara Road to Fallon Com lete Exce t as Noted Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Overla 900 feet use $1.50/sf x 48' x 900'64,800.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Stri in , Markin s 900 feet use $2/If x 6 x 900'10,800.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Median Landsca in 900 feet use $4/sf x 30' x 900'108,000.00 Lockhart Wa to Fallon Road: Median Landsca in 38,520s :use $4/sf x 38520sf 154,080.00 Intersection Im rovements 67,500.00 Subtotal 405,180.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uisition, 20%81,036.00 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%40,518.00 Subtotal 526,734.00 Zone 7 Fees Total 526,734.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 4 of 16, 3/23/2009 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Se ment 11 8,000 feet, 6 Lanes Fallon Road to Airwa All New Roadwa Included Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 1750/If; TIF =center 50% for 5,OOOIf w'/in Dublin; TIF = 100% for 3,000 If w/in Alameda Coun 9,625,000.00 Intersection Im rovements 725,160.00 Bride 2,400,000.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 11.57 acres 150,413.22 Habitat Miti ation 1,500,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa 9,099,040.00 Subtotal 23,499,613.22 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uistition, 20%4,699,922.64 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%2,349,961.32 Subtotal 30,549,497.19 Ci of Livermore Contribution Civil Im rovements -Livermore Contibution for 3,000 w/in Alameda Coun 1750/If, TIF = 100% for 3,000 If w/in Alameda Coun x 50%2,625,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa 1,344,000.00 Ci Administration and Contin enc 30%787,500.00 Total Ci of Livermore Contribution 4,756,500.00 Subtotal 25,792,997.19 Zone 7 Fees 915,154.24 Total 26,708,151.43 Dublin Boulevard Extension SP RNV to Airwa Subtotal without Freewa Interchan e 27,233,402.39 Subtotal 27,233,402.39 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 8, 8A, 9, 10 and 11 973,030.24 Subtotal 28,206,432.63 Freewa Interchan e - Se ment 12' Dublin Boulevard Extension with I-580 Airwa Boulevard Com lete Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Na Ri ht-of-Wa Na Subtotal Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%n/a Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%n/a Total Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 5 of 16, 3/23/2009 Hacienda - Se ment 13 1,525 feet, 6 Lanes 1-580 Not includin Interchan a to Dublin Boulevard Extension Com lete Totals far TIF Share Civil Im rovements Intersection Im rovements Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20% Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10% Total Hacienda - Se ment 14 2,640 feet, 6 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 800 ft and 1800 ft len the 660,459.23 Intersection Im rovements 37,500.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none Subtotal 697,959.23 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%139,591.85 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%69,795.92 Subtotal 907,347.00 Zone 7 Fees 71,344.00 Total 978,691.00 Hacienda Road Subtotal ithout Freewa Interchan a Se ments 13 and 14 907,347.00 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 13 and 14 71,344.00 Subtotal 978,691.00 Freewa Interchan e - Se ment 15 Hacienda Road with 1-580 Widen Offram sand Overcrossin er EDPO EIR Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements E/B Offram Additional Lane 2,152,500.00 W/B Offram Additional Lane and N/B Overcrossin Additional Lane 6,397,500.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 3200' x 12' Lane lus 100% Contin en 22,920.11 Subtotal 8,572,920.11 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, Included in Above Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa Included in Above 857,292.01 Total 9,430,212.12 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 6 of 16, 3/23/2009 Arnold Road - Se ment 16 2,640 feet, 4 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Cam Parks is on one side of Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 3,248,418.86 Intersection Im rovements 573,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 3,821,418.86 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%764,283.77 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%382,141.89 Subtotal 4,967,844.52 Zone 7 Fees 169,332.80 Total 5,137,177.32 Central Parkwa - Se ment 16A 1,400 feet, 4 Lanes Arnold to Hacienda Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements one 12ft lane and 16 ft median 461,556.78 Intersection Im rovementsw/o ri ht of wa 37,500.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none Subtotal 499,056.78 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%99,811.36 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%49,905.68 Subtotal 648,773.81 Zone 7 Fees 30,576.00 Total 679,349.81 Central Parkwa - Se ment 17 4,575 feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassa'ara Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 2500 feet of remodeled median 542,936.03 2000 feet of median and #1 lane in each direction; no ark im rovements 994,404.28 Storm Runoff Treatment 2000' x 2 Lanes x 12' lane x $13,000/ acre 14,325.07 Intersection Im rovements 112,250.00 Brid e 800,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none, aid b ark fees Subtotal 2,463,915.38 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%492,783.08 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%246,391.54 Subtotal 3,203,089.99 Zone 7 Fees 87,360.00 Total 3,290,449.99 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 7 of 16, 3/23/2009 Central Parkwa - Se ment 18 4 Lanes Tassa'ara to Kee an Street, Western 3,640 feet All New Roadwa Com lete Exce t as Noted Totals for TIF Share Civil Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Overla 900 feet use $1.50/sf x 24' x 900'32,400.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Stri in , Markin s 900 feet use $2/If x 6 x 900'10,800.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Median Landsca in 900 feet use $4/sf x 30' x 900'108,000.00 Intersection Im rovements 52,500.00 Subtotal 203,700.00 Cit Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%40,740.00 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%20,370.00 Total 264,810.00 Central Parkwa - Se ment 18A 4 Lanes Kee an Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet Com lete Exce t as Noted Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Lockhart Wa to Fallon Road: Median Landsca in 1,600 feet :use $4/sf x 16' x 1600'102,400.00 Intersection Im rovements 30,000.00 S orts Park Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 132,400.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%26,480.00 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%13,240.00 Subtotal 172,120.00 Zone 7 Fees Total 172,120.00 Central Parkwa and Arnold Drive Subtotal Se ments 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 18A 9,256,638.32 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 18A 287 268.80 Subtotal 9543 907.12 r~ Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 8 of 16, 3!23!2009 Gleason - Se ment 19 1,600 feet, 4 Lanes Arnold Road to Hacienda Roadwa Com lete, Future Traffic Si nal at Arnold Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements none Intersection Im rovements 75,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none Subtotal 75,000.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%15,000.00 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%7,500.00 Total 97,500.00 Gleason - Se ment 19A 4,650 feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassa'ara Com lete Totals for TIF Share Total 0.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 9 of 16, 3!23/2009 Gleason - Se ment 20 4,800 feet, 4 Lanes Tassa'ara to Fallon Com lete Exce t as Noted Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Overla 900 feet use $1.50/sf x 24' x 900'32,400.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Stri in , Markin s 900 feet use $2/If x4 x 900'7,200.00 Tassa'ara Road to Branni an Street: Median Landsca in 900 feet use $4lsf x 16' x 900'57,600.00 Intersection Im rovements 52,500.00 S orts Park Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 149,700.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%29,940.00 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%14,970.00 Subtotal 194,610.00 Zone 7 Fees Total 194,610.00 Gleason Drive Subtotal Se ments 19, 19A and 20 292,110.00 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 19, 19A and 20 Subtotal 292,110.00 Scarlett Drive - Se ment 21 2,400 feet, 52 feet curb to curb, 80 ft R/W Dou he Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension All New Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements r BKF En ineers Estimate, 6-15-06,4,437,000.00 Estimate Ad'ustment, 2006-2008, 5% er ear 443,700.00 Intersection Im rovements included in BKF En ineers estimate Miscellaneous Costs 1,300,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa 4,916,220.00 Subtotal 11,096,920.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uistition, 15%1,664,538.00 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%1,109,692.00 Subtotal 13,871,150.00 Zone 7 Fees 232,960.00 Traffic Miti ation Contributions er Finance, Reserve Account as of 7/01!07 107,465.00 Total 13,996,645.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 10 of 16, 3/23/2009 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 22 5,660 feet, 6 Lanes 5000 ft north of Gleason to Contra Costa Count Line All New Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Civil lm rovements median and 2 lanes, each direction 7,799,097.47 Intersection Im rovements 446,563.00 Miscellaneous Im rovements 1,237,563.00 Brid e 4,072,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa 4,933,440.00 Subtotal 18,488,663.47 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%3,697,732.69 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%1,848,866.35' Subtotal 24,035,262.51 Zone 7 Fees 494,457.60 Total 24,529,720.11 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 22A 5,000 feet, 6 Lanes Gleason to 5,000 ft north of Gleason All New Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 1 lane, each direction, Gleason to North Dublin Ranch Drive (1300'); median and 2 lanes, each direction, North Dublin Ranch Drive to north 3700'4,441,261.90 Intersection Im rovements 53,250.00 Miscellaneous Im rovements 402,288.00 Ri ht-of-Wa 868,611.00 Subtotal 5,765,410.90 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%1,153,082.18 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%576,541.09 Subtotal 7,495,034.17 Zone 7 Fees 380,016.00 Total 7,875,050.17 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 11 of 16, 3/23/2009 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 23 2,470 feet, 6 and 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road All New Roadwa Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 1 lane in each direction 760,352.62 Intersection Im rovements 159,750.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 920,102.62 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%184,020.52 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%92,010.26 Subtotal 1,196,133.41 Zone 7 Fees 107,889.60 Total 1,304,023.01 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 24 800 feet, 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to I-580 not includin Interchan e All New Roadwa Totals or TFF Share Civil Im rovements Add 1 12foot lane; $1750/ If x 12'/ 128' x 800 If 131,250.00 Intersection Im rovements 53,250.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Storm Runoff Treatment 2,865.01 800' x 12' Lane x $13,000/ acre Subtotal 187,365.01 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uisition, 20°I°37,473.00 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%18,736.50 Subtotal 243,574.52 Zone 7 Fees 17,472.00 Total 261,046.52 Tassa'ara Road Subtotal without Freewa Interchan a Se ments 22, 22A, 23 and 24 32,970,004.61 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 22, 22A, 23 and 24 999,835.20 Total 33,969,839.81 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 25 at Freewa Intersection Freewa Interchan e Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements E/B Offram Additional Lane 2,152,500.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 1500' x 12' Lane lus 100% Contin en 10,743.80 Subtotal 2,163,243.80 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%432,648.76 Contin en 10%216,324.38 Total 2,812,216.94 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 12 of 16, 3/23/2009 1r~ u Fallon Road - Se merit 26 8,080 feet, 4 Lanes Tassa'ara to Gleason Road is Existin From Si nal Hill Drive to Gleason Drive, Remainder is New Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Antone Wa to Gleason Drive: Median Landsca in , Stri in , Markin s 20,907.00 Lin Pro a 2000' , $1500 er LF x 38%570,000'.00 Silveria Pro a 1700' , $1500 er LF x 38%1,140,000.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 1700' x 12' Lane x 2 Lanes 12,176.31 Intersection Im rovements South Le at Tassa'ara Road 84,500.00 Brid a Includes Storm Runoff Treatment for Lin Se merit Estimate er MacKa and Som s 3,463,359.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Subtotal 5,290,942.31 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Maria ement, ROW Ac uistition, 20%1,058,188.46 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%529,094.23 Subtotal 6,878,225.00 Zone 7 Fees 161,616.00 Total 7,039,841.00 Fallon Road - Se merit 26A 4,840 feet, 6 Lanes, 128-140' RNV Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension Gleason to Bent Tree Drive: Street is Com lete Exce t for Median Island Landsca in Under Construction Bent Tree Drive to 300' S/O Positano Parkwa Under Construction 300' S/0 Positano Parkwa to Central Parkwa :West 20' of Street is Com lete Central Parkwa to Dublin Boulevard: West 34' of Street is Com lete, Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements Positano Parkway to Central Parkway: 128-140' RNV; Remaining TIF Portion = 64' (Center 64'); Use 64/128 x $1750/ If x 11001f 962,500.00 Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard: 140' RNV; TIF Portion =Remaining TIF Portion = 62' (Center 76' - 14' existing pavement ;Use 62/76 x $900/ If x 1270 If 1,655,280.00 Intersection Im rovements 105,060.00 Pedestrian Overcrossin at S rts Park era roved Sta e I PD Zonin Plan 2,000,000.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 155,580sf 46,431.13 Ri ht-of-Wa Jordan Pro e 2,500.00 Subtotal 4,771,771.13 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Maria ement, ROW A uistition, 20%954,354.23 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%477,177.11 Subtotal 6,203,302.47 Zone 7 Fees 283,155.60 Total 6,486,458.07 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 13 of 16, 3/23/2009 Fallon Road - Se ment 27 680 feet, 8 Lanes, 166' R/W Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of I-580 Im rovements are Existin on Westside Median island, Northbound Lanes and Fronta a Im rovments on Eastside do not Curren Exist Totals for TIF Share Civil Im rovements 166' RNV; TIF ortion = 100' 6 lanes lus 28' median ;TIF cost = $1150/ If Stn. 18+02 to Stn. 30+91: Median (28') plus 3 N/B Lanes 36'): Use 64/100 x $1150/ If x 1289'948,704.00 Intersection Im rovements 96,720.00 Ri ht-of-Wa Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 1289' x 12' Lane x 3 Lanes 13,848.76 Subtotal 1,059,272.76 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%211,854.55 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%105,927.28 Subtotal 1,377,054.59 Zone 7 Fees 84,455.28 Total 1,461,509.87 Fallon Road Subtotal without Freewa Interchan a Se ments 26, 26A and 27 14,458,582.06 Zone 7 Fees Se ments 26, 26A and 27 529,226.88 Total 14,987,808.94 Fallon 8~ 1-580 Freewa Interchan a with Si nals - Se ment 28 Totals for TIF Share Freewa Interchan a includes ri ht-of-wa new 6 In Br; Ph1=$16,134,825 er CIP & Ph2=$16,774,499 2004 U date Estimate lus 50%32,909,324.00 Subtotal 32,909,324.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW Ac uistition, 20%included Zone 7 Fees 380,298.88 Total 33,289,622.88 Dublin a s 50% of cost; Livermore and Pleasanton will contribute the remainin 50%16,644,811.44 Dublin Phase 1 Contribution 16,134,825.00 Ci of PleasantoN DSRSD Phase 1 Contribution 2,294,963.00 Dublin Phase I Contriubtions 13,839,862.00 Remainin Phase 1 Construction Costs and/ or Credits Due Not Funded in Current CIP 200,077.00 Remainin Dublin EDTIF Costs 3,005,026.44 Tassajara Creek Bike Path - Se ment 29 6,000 feet EBPRD Sta in Area to Contra Costa Coun Line Totals for TIF Share Bike Path 12ft $8/St 100%576,000.00 Ri ht-of-Wa none Subtotal 576,000.00 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%115,200.00 Contin enc Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10% ~57,600.00 Subtotal 748,800.00 Zone 7 Fees 155,064.00 Total 903,864.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 14 of 16, 3/23/2009 C7 Park & Ride 40,000 sf for 150 cars Totals for?IF Share Fallon Road Park and Ride 40,000 sf $10.00 im rovements 400,000.00 Storm Runoff Treatment = $13,000/ acre x 40000 sf 11,937.56 Ri ht-of-Wa 700,000.00 Subtotal 1,111,937.56 Ci Administration, Desi n, Construction Mana ement, ROW A uistition, 20%222,387.51 Contin en Im rovements, Ri ht-of-Wa 10%111,193.76 Subtotal 1,445,518.82 Zone 7 Fees 72,800.00 Total 1,518,318.82 Transit Center BART Parkin Structure Cost Allocation for 500 S aces Totals for TIF Share Parkin Structure 1680 S aces 20,000,000.00 Alameda Coun Contribution For Re lacement of Existin 1,180 Parkin S aces in BART Lot 14,000,000.00 EDTIF Cost Pro ortionate Share of Cost for Additional 500 S aces Used B Eastern Dublin 6,000,000.00 Fees Collected to Date 1,172,094.00 Remainin Cost 4,827,906.00 Re ort U date Totals for TIF Share Re rt U date Total 50,000.00 Totals for TIF Share OTHER COSTS Section I Ci Entrance Si ns at Hacienda Drive, Tassa'ara Road, Fallon Road 100,000.00 Eastern Dublin Travel Demand Model U date 200,000.00 Total of Other Section I Costs 300,000.00 Section II Villa a Parkwa /Amador Valle Boulevard S/B left Turn Lane Modifications 150,000.00 Amador Valle Boulevard/ Bri hton Drive Traffic Si nal 350,000.00 Total of Other Section II Costs 500,000.00 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 FeeslAttachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 15 of 16, 3/23/2009 Table 1; Cate o One Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL FEE Dublin Boulevard Extension; SP r/w to Airvva Boulevard 28,206,432.63 Hacienda Drive; excludin I-580 Interchan e 978,691.00 Hacienda Drive I-580 Interchan e; 100% of cost, excludin $3.762M Alameda Coun Loan 9,430,212.12 Central Parkwa and Arnold Drive 9,543,907.12 Gleason Drive 292,110.00 Tassa ara Road 33,969,839.81 Tassa'ara Road I-580 Interchan e; 100% of cost 2,812,216.94 Fallon Road 14,987,808.94 PSR Re orts included in se ment take-o Re ort U date 50,000.00 Other Costs 300,000.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 1 100,571,218.56 Table 2; Cate o Two Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL FEE/COMMERCIAL FEE Dublin Boulevard/ Dou he Road Widenin CIP Pro'ect 96852 1,331,099.00 Dublin Boulevard; Villa a Parkwa to Southern Pacific Ri ht of Wa 2,256,638.40 Scarlet Drive; Dublin Bou-evard to Dou he Road 13,996,645.00 Dou he Road; I-580 to CCCo 14,816,194.06 I-580 Fallon/EI Charro Interchan a 50% of cost to reflect Dublin's share after PH. 1 construction 3,005,026.44 I-580/Airwa Boulevard Interchan a COMPLETE Other Costs 500,000.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 2 35,905,602.90 Table 3; Cate o One Ad'ustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL SURCHARGE FEE Tassa'ara Creek Bike Path 903,864.00 Park and Ride Lots 1,518,318.82 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 3 2,422,182.82 Table 4; Cate o Two Ad'ustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL BART PARKING SURCHARGE FEE Transit Center BART Parkin Structure 500 S ace Cost Allocation 4,827,906.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 4 4,827,906.00 Summation of Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 143,726,910.29 J Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 1-Cost Estimate Sum Page 16 of 16, 3!23/2009 Attachment 2 -Cost Esti mate Detail Doughe Dou he Dou he Dou he Road Road Road Road SEGMT 1 SEGMT 1 SEGMT 2 SEGMT 2 DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 4,300 8,604 9,900 19,810 Grind 3.00 LF 17,200 51,600 0 0 Remove Ex Pvm'Usw 2.00 SF 30,100 60.,200 46,200 92,400 Full PavemY Section 8.00 SF 189,200 1,513,600 108,900 871,200 Curb & Gutter 25.00 LF 4,300 107,500 3,300 82,500 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 34,400 206,400 26,400 158,400 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 8,600 172,000 6,600 132,000 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 189,200 378,400 184,800 369,600. Earthwork 40.00 CY 6,667 266,680 5,452 218,080 Dro Inlets & MH's 1 4,000.00 EA 14 56,000 11 44,000 Storm Drain Pie 125.00 LF 4,500 562,500 4,500 562,500 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 5.13 66,731 3.11 40,379 Stri in 2 2.00 LF 32,000 64,000 25,600 51,200 Markin s 200.00 EA 32 6,400 28 5,600 Si ns 3 100.00 EA 40 4,000 32 3,200 Electroliers 4)6,000.00 EA 14 84,000 11 66,000 Si nal Interconnect 30.00 LF 4,000 120,000 3,200 96,000 New Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 Existin Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 Landsca e & Irri (5 5.00 SF 103,200 516,000 79,200 396,000 Gradin De th 1 0 1 0 Si nal Legs 1 0 0 0 Si nal Price not included)0 0 0 0 Brid es not included SF 0 0 0 0 Demolition Building (not included EA 0 0 0 0 Median Gut 3.00 SF 0 0 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 0 0 0 0 R/W Cost not included SF 0 0 0 0 Other R/W CosUSF 0 Length 4,000 3,200 Curb-to-Curb Width 104 104 TIF width n/a Subtotal 4,244,615 3,208,869 Surve 1 %42,446 32,089 Mobilization 10%424,462 320,887 Traffic Control 3%127,338 96,266 Clear & Grub 2%84,892 96,266 Total, civil onl 4,923,754 0.00 3,754,376 COST/LF Footnotes: 1) 200 ft. Intervals along len th of roadwa 2 er stri 3 @ 50 ft. intervals alon all lanes 4 Q 150 ft. intervals alon all lanes, including conduit 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a restoration Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail ATTACHMENT ~~ TO EXHIBIT B. Attachment 2 -Cost Estimate Detail Hacienda Hacienda Amold Amold Amold Amold Road Road Road Road Road Road SEGMT 14 SEGMT 14 SEGMT 16 SEGMT 16 SEGMT 16A SEGMT 16A DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 2,600 5,203 2,326 4,654 0 0 Grind 3.00 LF 2,600 7,800 0 0 0 0 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw 2.00 SF 17,600 35,200 32,564 65,128 0 0 Full Pavem't Section 8.00 SF 39,200 313,600 74,432 595,456 16,800 134,400 Curb & Gutter 25.00 LF 800 20,000 2,326 58,150 0 0 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 0 0 18,608 111,648 0 0 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 1,800 36,000 4,652 93,040 1,400 28,000 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 0 0 see x-sect 43,000 0 0 Earthwork 40.00 CY 2,119 84,760 0 0 1,452 58,080 Dro Inlets & MH's (1)4,000.00 EA 5 20,000 8 32,000 0 0 Storm Drain Pie 125.00 LF 100 12,500 see x-sect 1,500,000 0 0 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 0.90 11,699 2.14 27,767 0.39 5,014 Stri ing 2 2.00 LF 6,600 13,200 18,608 37,216 2,800 5,600 Markings 200.00 EA 6 1,200 14 2,800 4 800 Signs (3 100.00 EA 26 2,600 24 2,400 0 0 Electroliers 4 6,000.00 EA 0 0 8 48,000 9 54,000 Signallnterconnect 30.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape & brig (5 5.00 SF 0 0 32,564 162,820 22,400 112,000 Gradin De th 1 0 0 0 1 0 Signal Legs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Signal Price (not included 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brid es not included SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 0 Building (not included EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median Gut 3.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 800 5,600 2,326 16,282 0 0 R/W Cast not included)SF 0 n/a 74,432 n/a 0 n/a Other R/W CosUSF n/a 20 Len th 800 2,326 1,400 Curb-to-Curb Width n/a 104 TIF width 28 Subtotal 569,361.41 2,800,361.08 397,893.77 Surve 1 °k 5,693.61 28,003.61 3,978.94 Mobilization 10%56,936 280,036 39,789 Traffic Control 3%17,081 84,011 11,937 Clear & Grub 2%11,387.23 56,007.22 7,957.88 Total, civil onl 660,459.23 3,248,418.86 461,556.78 COST/LF Footnotes: 1 @200 ft. Intervals alon length of roadwa 2 er stri 3) 50 ft. intervals alon all lanes 4) 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including co 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a restoration Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail. Page 2 of 6, 3/23/2009 Attachment 2 -Cost Esti mate Detail Central P Central Pk Central P Central P Scarlet Scarlet 2250 2250 2000 ft 2000 ft Drive Drive SEGMT 17A SEGMT 17A SEGMT 17B SEGMT 17B SEGMT 21 SEGMT 21 DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 4,500 9,005 0 0 1,400 2,801 Grind 3.00 LF 4,500 13,500 0 0 2,800 8,400 Remove Ex Pvm'Usw 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full Pavem't Section 8.00 SF 36,000 288,000 48,000 384,000 120,000 960,00 Curb & Gutter 25.00 LF 0 0 0 0 3,400 85,000 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 0 0 0 0 8,000 48,000 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 0 0 4,000 80,000 4;800 96,00 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 60,000 120,000 Earthwork 40.00 CY 0 0 1,778 71,120 7,000 280,000 Dro Inlets & MH's 1 4,000.00 EA 0 0 0 0 20 80,000 Storm Drain Pie 125.00 LF 0 0 0 0 3,400 425,00 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 0.83 10,744 1.10 14,325 2.94 38,200 Stri in (2)2.00 LF 9,000 18,000 8,000 16,000 12,000 24,000 Markin s 200.00 EA 6 1,200 4 800 10 2,000 Si ns 3 100.00 EA 11 1,100 10 1,000 40 4,000 Electroliers 4)6,000.00 EA 4 24,000 15 90,000 15 90,000 Signallnterconnect 30.00 LF 0 0 2,000 60,000 1,000 30,000 New Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landsca e & trri (5 5.00 SF 10,500 52,500 28,000 140,000 40,000 200,00 Grading Depth 1 0 1 0 1 0 Si nal Les 0 0 0 0 0 0 Si nal Price not included 0 0 0 0 0 Brid es (not included SF 0 0 0 n/a Na Demolition 1 50,000 0 0 Building not included EA 0 0 0 0 Median Gut 3.00 SF 0 0 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 0 0 0 0 R/W Cost not included SF 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Other trail 48,000 RNV Cost/SF p Len th 2,250 2,000 2,400 Curb-to-Curb Width TIF width Subtotal 468,048.30 857,245.07 2,541,401.5 Surve 1 °k 4,680.48 8,572.45 25,414.02 Mobilization 10%46,805 85,725 254,140 Traffic Control 3%14,041 25,717 76,242 Clear & Grub 2%9,360.97 17,144.90 50,828.03 Total, civil onl 542,936.03 994,404.28 2,948,025.84 COST/LF Footnotes: 1 200 ft. Intervals alon len th of roadwa 2 er stri 3 50 ft. intervals alon all lanes 4 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, inGuding w 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a restoration Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail Page 3 of 6, 3/23/2009 J Attachment 2 -Cost Est imate Detail Tassajara Tassa'ara Tassa'ara Tassa'ara Tassa'ara Tassajara Road Road Road Road Road Road SEGMT 22 SEGMT 22 SEGMT 22A SEGMT 22A SEGMT 23 SEGMT 23 DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 0 0 0 0 4,940 9,885 Grind 3.00 LF 0 0 0 0 4,940 14,820 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full Pavem't Section 8.00 SF 271,680 2,173,440 208,800 1,670,400 59,280 474,24 Curb & Gutter 25.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 11,320 226,400 7,400 148,000 0 0 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earthwork 40.00 CY 80,498 3,219,920 30,934 1,237,360 2,927 117,080 Dro Inlets 8 MH's (1 4,000.00 EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storm Drain Pie 125.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 6.24 81,080 4.79 62,314 1.36 17,691 Stripin 2)2.00 LF 33,960 67,920 30,000 60,000 9,880 19,760 Markin s 200.00 EA 160 32,000 18 3,600 4 800 Si ns 3 100.00 EA 0 0 0 0 12 1,200 Electroliers (4)6,000.00 EA 50 300,000 40 240,000 0 0 Si nal Interconnect 30.00 LF 5,660 169,800 3,700 111,000 0 0 New Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape & Irri 5 5.00 SF 90,560 452,800 59,200 296,000 0 0 Grading De th 6 0 1.0 0 1 0 Signal Legs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Signal Price not included 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brid es (not included SF 2 0 1 0 0 0 Demolition Building not included EA 2 houses 0 Median Gut ~3.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/W Cost not included)SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other RNV Cost/SF Length 5,660 5,000 2,470 Curb-to-Curb Width TIF width Subtotal 6,723,359.89 3,828,674.05 655,476.40 Survey 1 %67,233.60 38,286.74 6,554.76 Mobilization 10%672,336 382,867 65,548 Traffic Control 3%201,701 114,860 19,664 Clear & Grub 2%134,467.20 76,573.48 13,109.53 Total, civil onl 7,799,097.47 4,441,261.90 760,352.62 COST/LF Footnotes: 1) Q200 ft. Intervals along len th of roadwa Z er stri 3 50 ft. intervals alon all lanes 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including co 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a n:storation Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail Page 4 of 6, 3/23/2009 7 Attachment 2 -Cost Esti mate Detail 4 inside lanes 4 inside lanes of ical of ical 4 Lane Rd 4 Lane Rd 6 Lane Rd 6 Lane R 6 Lane Rd 6 Lane Rd T ical T ical T ical T ical w/28ft median w/28ft median DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grind 3.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 FuIlPavem'tSection 8.00 SF 128,000 1,024,000 176,000 1,408,000 96,000 768,000 Curb & Gutter 25:00 LF 4,000 100,000 4,000 100,000 0 0 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 32,000 192,000 32,000 192,000 0 0 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 4,000 80,000 4,000 80,000 4,000 80,00 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earthwork 40.00 CY 7,704 308,160 9,481 379,240 5,630 225,200 Dro Inlets & MH's 1 4,000.00 EA 10 40,000 10 40,000 0 0 Stone Drain Pie 125.00 LF 4,000 500,000 4,000 500,000 500 62,500 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 3.67 47,750 4.78 62,075 2.20 28,650 Stri ing 2 2.00 LF 12,000 24,000 12,000 24,000 12,000 24,00 Markings '200.00 EA 80 16,000 8 1,600 6 1,200 Si ns (3)100.00 EA 40 4,000 40 4,000 20 2,000 Electroliers 4 6,000.00 EA 14 84,000 14 84,000 14 84,000 Si nal Interconnect 30.00 LF 2,000 60,000 2,000 60,000 2,000 60,00 New Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Utilities LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape & Irri (5)5.00 SF 48,000 240,000 48,000 240,000 56,000 280,000 Grading De th 1 p 1 0 1 0 Si nal Les 0 0 0 0 0 0 Si nal Price (not included 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridges not included SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition Buildin not included EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median Gut 3.00 SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/W Cost not included SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other RNV Cost/SF Len th 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 Curb-to-Curb Width 104 128 140 TIF width 40 64 76 Subtotal 2,719,910.23 3,174,915.30 1,615,550.14 Surve 1 %27,199.10 31,749.15 16,155.50 Mobilization 10%271,991 317,492 161,555 Traffic Control 3%81,597 95,247 48,467 Clear & Grub 2%54,398.20 63,498.31 32,311.00 Total, civil oni 3,155,095.87 3,682,901.75 1,874,038.16 COST/LF 1,577.55 1,841.45 937.02 Footnotes:use $1600 use $1850 use $950 1) 200 ft. Intervals aloe length of roadwa 2 per strip 3 50 ft. intervals aloe alt lanes 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including co 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a restoration Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail Page 5 of 6, 3/23/2009 Attachment 2 -Cost Esti mate Detail 6 inside lanes 6 inside lanes of ical of ical 8 Lane Rd 8 Lane Rd w/28ft median w/28ft median DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST Saw Cut 2.00 LF 0 0 Grind 3.00 LF 0 0 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw 2.00 SF 0 0 Full Pavem't Section 8.00 SF 144,000 1,152,00 Curb & Gutter 25.00 LF 0 0 Sidewalk 6.00 SF 0 0 Median Curb. Std 20.00 LF 4,000 80,000 Median Curb. Glue 8.00 LF 0 0 Overla 2.00 SF 0 0 Earthwork 40.00 CY 7,407 296,280 Dro Inlets & MH's (1)4,000.00 EA 0 0 Stone Drain Pipe -125.00 LF 500 62,500 Storm Runoff Treatment 13,000.00 AC 3.31 42,975 Stripin (2 2.00 LF 18,000 36,000 Markin s 200.00 EA 6 1,200 Signs 3)100.00 EA 20 2,000 Electroliers (4 6,000.00 EA 14 84,00 Signallnterconnect 30.00 LF 2,000 60,000 New Utilities LF 0 0 Existin Utilities LF 0 0 Landsca e & Irrig 5 5.00 SF 56,000 280,000 Gradin De th 1 0 Si nal Legs 0 0 Si nal Price not included 0 0 Brid es not included SF 0 0 Demolition 0 Buildin not included)EA 0 0 Median Gut 3.00 SF 0 0 Exist curb 7.00 LF 0 0 RM/ Cost not included SF 0 0 Other R/W Cost/SF Length 2,000 Curb-to-Curb Width 140 TIF width 76 Subtotal 2,096,955.21 Surve 1 %20,969.55 Mobilization 10°k 209,696 Traffic Control 3%62,909 Clear ~ Grub 2%41,939.10 Total, civil onl 2,432,468.04 COST/LF 1,216.23 Footnotes:use $1250 1 200 ft. Intervals aloe lee th of roadwa 2 er strip 3 50 ft. intervals along all lanes 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including co 5 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fronts a restoration Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 -Cost Detail Page 6 of 6, 3/23/2009 Attachment 3 November 14, 2008 Page 1 of 14 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2008 Update Intersection, Bridge and Miscellaneous Costs A. Intersection Costs: Signal Costs: The 2004 Update used $250,000 per intersection or $62,500 per leg; add 20% (5%/ year); use $75,000 per leg or $300,000 per traffic signal R/W Costs: The 2004 Update used $5,560 sf per leg; use adjoining R/W cost to determine cost CiviU Grading Costs: The 2004 Update used $22,000 per leg; add approximately 35%; use $30,000 per leg; for retrofit projects, curb and gutter, drainage, landscaping, etc., needs to be replaced, use $60,000 B. Bridge Costs: The 2004 Update used $135/sf for bridges; add approximately 50%; use $200/sf C. Miscellaneous Costs Miscellaneous costs include all additional costs not included in TIF cost spreadsheet and are detailed by each road segment In some cases, an allowance has been provided in the TIF for construction of frontage improvements that would normally be constructed by the abutting property owner upon development of the property. In these cases, the abutting properties have limited development potential and it maybe necessary for the City or other developers to install some or all of the frontage improvements in order to provide for the safe and orderly development of the roadway. Inclusion of these costs in the TIF does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for these costs or obligate the City to install them at public cost, nor does it prohibit the City from recouping these costs at a later date. Segment 1-Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic signals are existing at Amador Valley Boulevard and Willow Creek Drive (a traffic signal exists at Willow Creek Drive); modification will be needed to accommodate street widening from four to six lanes; allow 100% of full signal costs per leg at each intersection for modification Costs = 2 x $300,000 = $600,000 ATTACffiVJ~NT ~ • TO EXFIIBIT B. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 14 November 14, 2008 Segment 2 -Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place Intersection improvements exist at Scarlett Drive and Houston Place. Intersection modifications are needed at the Scarlett Drive intersection to accommodate a second southbound left turn lane. The northbound approach will need to be modified to accommodate the lane shifts; the existing northbound right turn lane will also need to be modified. Both legs will require signal modifications. The 1999 Update used $24.20/sf for right-of--way; add 40%; use $35/sf. The standard civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: 21egs x $75,000 per leg for signals x 50% _ $75,000 21egs x 5,560 x $35.00 = $389,200 21egs x $30,000 for civil costs x 400% _ $240,000 704,200 Segment 3 -Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard Intersection costs are included in the City Project. Segment 4 -Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard to North of I-580 Off-Ramp Intersection costs are included in the City Project. Segment 5 -Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) The project is complete. Segment 6 -Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Intersection and miscellaneous costs are included in the improvement costs for the City CIP project. Segment 7 -Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P Right-of--Way Intersection costs are included in the City Project. 7 Attachment 3 November 14, 2008 Page 3 of 14 C. Segment 8 -Dublin Boulevard; S/P Right-of--Way to Iron Horse Parkway Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. Segment 8A -Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. A second eastbound left turn lane is needed within the existing landscaped median at Arnold Drive; work will require civil and signal modifications. Civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: 1 leg x $75,000 per leg for signals x 50% _ $37,500 1 leg x $30,000 x 200% _ $60,000 Landscaping $75,000 172,500 Segment 9 -Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements exist. A right turn lane is needed westbound at Hacienda Drive. Right-of--way for the turn lane exists. Signal modifications will be necessary. Civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: l leg x $75,000 per leg for signals x 50% _ $37,500 1 leg x $30,000 per leg x 200% _ $60,000 Landscaping $75,000 Demolition $50,000 222,500 Segment 10 -Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Partial improvements are needed on west leg of the Dublin Boulevard/ Fallon Road intersection (civil and signal modification). Partial ,improvements are needed on the east leg of the Dublin Boulevard/ Tassajara Road intersection (civil) Cost: ~' t Attachment 3 Page 4 of 14 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 50% for modification = $37,500 2 legs x $30,000 per leg for civil work = $30,000 67,500 Segment 11-Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard Complete improvements are needed at Fallon Road (east leg), and Doolan Road (four legs). Cost = 5 legs x $75,000 per leg for signal = $375,000 1 leg x 5,560 x $12.00 = ~ $66,720 41egs x 5,560 x $6.00 = $133,440 5 legs x $30,000 = $150,000 725,160 November 14, 2008 Abridge is needed at the Doolan Canyon Creek crossing. Bridge will be 100' long x 120' wide. Cost =100 x 120 x $200.00/sf =2,400,000 Mitigation will be required for loss of habitat at the bridge crossing. Mitigation is presumed to be required on a 3:1 ratio. Additional r/w will. be required for mitigation. Cost =100 x 120 x 3 x $12.00/sf = $432,000 Habitat Improvement Costs: _ $500,000 Habitat Design, Permitting, Monitoring $500,000 1,432,000 Use $1,500,000 for mitigation. Civil costs are based on construction of the TIF improvements (64') from Fallon Road to the east edge of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (5,000') and full street improvements (128') easterly to the Livermore city limit (3,000'), to the current west end of North Canyons Parkway. This presumes that no developer will be build the abutting frontage improvements for the easterly portion, and this cost will be borne by the TIF. Segment 12 -Airway Boulevard) I-580 Interchange Interchange improvements exist; no additional improvements are necessary.L' C~ Attachment 3 Page 5 of 14 November 14, 2008 Segment 13 -Hacienda Drive, I-580 to Dublin Boulevard Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. Segment 14 -Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Street improvements exist except for interior traffic lanes. Signal modification is needed on the south leg of the Gleason Drive intersection to conform to the added lane. Cost: 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 50% for modification = $37,500 Segment 15 -Hacienda Drive/ I-580 Interchange Interchange improvements are complete. Per Eastern Dublin Property Owners' (EDPO) EIR, further interchange improvements are needed to (1) widen the eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to provide a third eastbound left turn lane, (2) widen the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 41anes, striped to provide three through lanes and an exclusive auxiliary lane for the westbound on-ramp, (3) modify the westbound loop on-ramp as needed, and (4) widen the westbound off ramp approach to provide a third westbound left-turn lane. Costs used in the 2004 Update are as follows: 1) Widen EB Offramp: $1,435,000 2) Widen WB Offramp $1,245,000 3) Widen NB Overcrossing: $3,020,000 4) Modify WB Onramp Loop: (Costs included under overcrossing) 2004 Cost: $5,700,000 Escalation cost (2004-2008) @ 50% $2,280,000 8,550,000 Segment 16 -Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Street will be widened to provide two additional lanes on west side; east side is existing; widening will require replacement of signal on north and south legs of Central Parkway and new signal on north and south legs of Gleason Drive. A separate southbound right turn lane will need to be added at Dublin Boulevard, requiring right-of--way, civil, and signal work. Attachment 3 Page6of14 November 14, 2008 Cost: 41egs x $75,000 per .leg for signal x .100% for replacement = $300,000 Arnold Drive SB Right Turn Lane @ Dublin Blvd.(2004 Update) _ 195,000 Escalation cost for civil work(2004-2008) $78,000 573,000 Segment 16A -Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Street improvements are existing except for inside lanes; intersections and signals are existing; signal modifications will be needed on the east leg of the Arnold Drive/ Central Parkway intersection. Cost: 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 50% _ $37,500 Segment 17 -Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements exist except for inside lanes; intersections and signals exist; signal modifications will be needed on the west leg of the Tassajara Road intersection. A new signal is needed at the entrance to the second phase of Emerald Glen Park (TIF pays for north leg only). Cost: 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 50% _ $37,500 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 100% _ $75,000 112,250 The Tassajara Creek bridge will need to be widened from two to four lanes. The bridge is 100' long; two 12' travel lanes and a 16' median will be required. Cost: 100 x 40 x $200.00/sf = $800,000 Segment 18 -Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street Intersection improvements exist at Tassajara Road. Partial improvements are needed on the east leg of the Central Parkway/ Tassajara Road intersection (civil and signal modification) Cost = 1 le x $75,000 per leg x 50% for modification = $37,500 C, Attachment 3 Page7of14 November 14, 2008 1 leg x $30,000 per leg for civil work = $15,000 52,500 Segment 18A -Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road Street improvements exist. Partial intersection improvements (civil) are needed on the west leg of the Fallon Road intersection. Costal leg x $30,000 = $30,000 30,000 Segment 19 -Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Street improvements exist. A future signal is needed at Gleason Drive and Arnold Drive; right-of--way and civil improvements are existing Cost: 1 leg x $75,000 per signal leg x 100% _ $75,000 Segment 19A -Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements are existing Segment 20 -Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Improvements are existing. Partial improvements are needed on the east leg of the Gleason Drive/ Tassajara Road intersection (civil and signal modification) Cost = 1 leg x $75,000 per leg x 50% for modification = $37,500 1 leg x $30,000 per leg for civil work = $15,000 52,500 Segment 21- Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Miscellaneous Costs The construction of a box culvert construction will result in the loss of an existing open channel. If the channel is determined to be a jurisdictional wetland, construction of replacement wetlands maybe re uired. An estimate of $300,000 is allowed for permitting Attachment 3 November 14, 2008 Page8of14 and construction. Cost: $300,000 An existing oil pipeline, fiber optics line, and recycled water line are located in the raikoad right-of--way. Relocation of these utilities may be needed at the new culvert crossing, and/ or additional protection maybe needed if the lines are to remain as longitudinal encroachments under the new road. In addition, an existing pole on an overhead 60kv transmission line is in conflict with the road extension. Portions of an overhead distribution line may need to be relocated. A number of existing pole line guy wires are located in the right-of--way. These utilities have prior rights and any relocation costs will be the cost of the project. A cost of $1,000,000 is allowed for the various utilities. Total Miscellaneous Costs: Wetland Mitigation: $300,000 Utilities: $1,000,000 1,300,000 Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line Ultimate street improvements do not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are needed on the south and north legs of the Fallon Road intersection. Right-of--way costs for the intersection are included in the total right-of--way quantity. The fourth (eastern) leg of the intersection is a local road into the Mission Peak property and will be the responsibility of that developer. Intersection improvements include afree-right turn lane southbound on Tassajara Road through the intersection. The lanes are 34' in width and 400' long. Cost of street improvements is $1850/ if for the 128' wide street. - Cost: 400 x (34/128) x $1850 = $196,563 A pedestrian/ bicycle bridge is needed to carry pedestrians and bicycles over the free-right turn lane. The bridge is 8' wide by 60' long. - Cost: $250,000 Total intersection costs: $196,563 44 6,563 Several ro ,ernes have limited develo went otential and may not develo . An allowance 7 U Attachment 3 November 14, 2008 Page9of14 7 is needed in the TIF to pay for the cost of frontage improvements that may be necessary for the orderly construction of the road. Bragg-Silva Property: 11001f Tipper Property: 6001f Kobold Property: 3001f Nielsen Property: 6001f 26001f Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane, an 8' shoulder and a 6' sidewalk. Cost of improvements is $1850/ if for a typical 128' wide six-lane street. Sidewalk cost is $6.00/sf, or $36/lf fora 6' sidewalk. Total Frontage Costs: 2600 x ((1850 x .20/128) + 36) _ $845,163 A Class Ibicycle/ pedestrian trail is needed along the Bragg-Silva frontage. The trail is 8' wide by 1100' long. Cost is $8.00/sf (consistent with the Tassajara Creek trail, Segment 29). Cost: 1100 x 8 x $8.00 = $70,400 Sidewalk is needed along the Tipper, Kobold, and Nielsen frontages. Sidewalk width is 6'; total length is 2000. Cost is $6.00. sf (consistent with detailed cost estimate) Cost: 2000 x 6 x $6.00 = $72,000 A retaining wall is needed along the west side of the road at the border of the Lin and Bragg-Silva properties, with a second wall needed at the south end of the Tipper property. The walls are needed to avoid placing fill within the creek setback zone. The approximate length of the walls is 500', with an average height of 10'. Cost: 500' x 10' x $50/ sf = $250,000 Total Miscellaneous Costs: $845,163 70,400 72,000 250,000 1,237,563 . A bridge is needed at the Moller Drainage (Moller property). The bridge is 128' wide and 120' long. Cost is $200/sf Cost: 120 x 128 x $200 = $3,072,000 Attachment 3 Page 10 of 14 November 14, 2008 Streambed stabilization work (drop structures or other provisions) is needed at the northern bridge to prevent upward channel bed downcutting after the existing culvert is removed. An allowance is needed for stabilization work and possible habitat mitigation. Right-of--way needed for the stabilization downstream of the Tassajara Road right-of--way is located within the Vargas-Fredrich properties; an allowance is included under right-of- way costs in the event this land needs to be purchased instead of being dedicated. Cost: $1,000,000 Total bridge costs: $4,072,000 Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gleason Drive Existing improvements include one TIF travel lane and a landscaped median in each direction from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north; full frontage improvements on the east side of the street, and full frontage improvements along the west side of the street from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north. Future improvements include the construction of one TIF travel lane in each direction from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north and full TIF improvements from this point to a point 5000' north of Gleason Drive (the Northern Drainage creek crossing). It is anticipated that frontage improvements will be obtained along the Adams property (west side) as a result of future development. Intersection improvements at Gleason Drive will include modification of the traffic signal and installation of a second left turn lane on the north leg; right-of--way is existing. Cost: l .leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 for civil work = $22,000 Total Intersection Costs: $53,250 Several properties on the west. side have limited development and/or are publicly owned; an allowance is needed in the TIF to pay for frontage improvements that may be needed for the orderly development of the road. EBRPD Property: 1701f Goodwin Property: 215 if United States of America (Camp Parks): 100 if Spferflage: 5201f Total: 1,005 if Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane, an 8' shoulder and a 6' sidewalk. Cost of improvements is $1850/ if for a typical 128' wide six-lane street. Sidewalk cost is $6.00/sf, or $36/lf fora 6' sidewalk. Attachment 3 Page 11 of 14 November 14, 2008 Total Frontage Costs: 1005 x ((1850 x 20/128) + 36) _ $326,688 Repair of the existing pavement along the east side of the road is needed. In addition, a asphalt conform and overlay is needed to provide an interim lane in the ultimate median pending widening of the road from four lanes to six lanes. Cost: 1400' x 27' x $2.00 = $75,600 . Total: $402,288 Segment 23 -Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive The north leg of Gleason Drive intersection will require signal and civil modification to accommodate second left turn lane. Both legs of Central Parkway intersection will require signal and civil modifications for second left turn lanes. Cost: 3 legs x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% for modification = $93,750 31egs x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $66,000 159,750 Segment 24 -Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to I-580 A northbound right turn lane is needed at Dublin Boulevard (existing right turn lane will become #3 travel lane). Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 50% for modification = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $22,000 53,250 Segment 25 -Tassajara Road/ I-580 Interchange Interchange improvements are complete. Per the Fallon Village EIR, further interchange improvements are needed to widen the eastbound off-ramp approach at Tassajara Road to provide a 5th lane. Costs used in the 2004 Update for similar work at the Hacienda Drive interchange are as follows: Widen EB Offram : $1,435,000 Attachment 3 November 14, 2008 Page 12 of 14 2004 Cost: $1,435,000 Escalation cost (2004-2008) @ 50% $717,500 2,152,500 Segment 26 -Fallon Road, Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive Street is existing from Signal Hill Drive to Gleason Drive. Intersection improvements are needed on south leg of the Tassajara Road intersection. Cost: 1 legs x $62,500 per leg. for signal x 100% _ $62,500 1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil improvements = $22,000 84,500 Abridge is needed at the Northern Drainage crossing. Per plans and estimates prepared by MacKay and Somps, the bridge is 83' wide by 125' long. Grading for the approach fill and the slide repair to the north of the bridge requires 120,000 cy of material. MacKay and Somps has estimated the cost of the bridge and grading as follows: Bridge Structure: $2,424,828 Stitch Piers: $591,531 Bioswale $219,000 Habitat Mitigation: $231,000 Cost: $3,463,359 Segment 26A -Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension Street improvements exist on the east side of the street from Gleason Drive to Bent Tree. Frontage improvements are existing on the west side of the street from Bent Tree Drive to the Upper Loop Road (700'); the existing improvements on the east side of the street need to be reconstructed per the new alignment. Frontage improvements are existing on the west side of the road from the Upper Loop Road to Central Parkway (1350'). Frontage improvements plus 14' of the outside SB TIF lane are existing between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard (1270'). A traffic signal is existing at Central Parkway (31egs) along with a SB right turn lane. The SB right turn lane is existing at Dublin Boulevard. C7 7 Attachment 3 Page 13 of 14 November 14, 2008 Partial intersection improvements (civil, R/W) are needed for the south leg of Central Parkway . Area BSb (south leg Central) _ $3,000/acre (use $13.50/ sf) Cost: 1 leg x 5,560 x $13.50 = $75,060 1 leg x $30,000 per leg for civil costs x 100% _ $30,000 105,060 Segment 27 -Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard to I-580 Street improvements are existing on the westside. Improvements are needed for the median island, northbound TIF lanes (three) and frontage improvements on the westside. Partial intersection improvements (civil and right-of--way) are needed on the south leg of the Dublin Boulevard intersection. Area A-4 (south of Dublin Boulevard) _ $12.00 Cost: 1 leg x 5,560 x $12 = $66,720 1 leg x $30,000 for civil costs = $30,000 96,720 Segment 28 -Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Interchange costs are based on the CIP cost of $11,694,458 for Phase 1 and the 2004 Update estimate of $11,182,999 plus 50% for Phase 2 Under a current agreement between the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, Dublin will pay 50% of the cost and Pleasanton and Livermore will each pay 25% of the cost. Segment 29 - Tassajara Creek Bike Path There are no miscellaneous costs. Park and Ride Facili 1 Attachment 3 Page 14 of 14 November 14, 2008 The Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road lots are existing. Cost of the Fallon Road lots is estimated at $10.00/ sf. Cost: 40,000 x $10.00/ s~ $400,000 Other Costs A cost of $6,000,000 is allowed for construction of a new parking structure at the BART station to replace the existing parking lot, which will be developed as part of the Transit Center. The structure will provide a total of 1,680 parking spaces and will cost 20,000,000. The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority will pay for replacement of the existing 1,180 spaces on the surface lot, at a cost of $14,000,000. The.TIF fee will pay for an additiona1500 spaces, intended to serve new growth in Eastern Dublin, at a cost of $6,000,000. A new fee section, the Section II Residential BART Parking Surcharge Fee, will pay this cost to be paid only by residential development. An allowance of $50,000 is provided for the fee update. This will be a Section I cost. These costs include staff time (salaries, benefits and overhead), legal review, and consultant costs for traffic studies or other technical work. A cost of $100,000 is allowed for three City entry signs at the I-580 interchanges on Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. These will be a Section I cost. A cost of $100,000 is allowed for miscellaneous traffic and alignment studies associated with T1F improvements. These are Section I costs. Traffic studies indicate that the existing southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard will need to be~lengthened to provide 210' of storage (plus a 90' taper) to accommodate increased left turns utilizing Amador Valley Boulevard to reach Eastern Dublin. Cost is estimated at $150,000. This will be a Section II cost. Traffic studies indicate that a traffic signal is will be warranted at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Brighton Drive to accommodate additional traffic between Eastern Dublin and Dublin High School. Cost is estimated at $350,000. This will be a Section II cost. Attachment 4 Page 1 of 8 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2008 U datep Right-of--Way Costs v November 25, 2008 Note: All right-of--way costs are for planning and estimating purposes only, and are not a commitment to reimburse°property owners or provide TIF credits in the amounts shown in the estimates. Reimbursements or credits will be based on actual square footages of R/W, which are acquired or dedicated. Segment 1-Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard Right-of--Way is existing Segment 2 -Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place Right-of--Way is existing Segment 3 -Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard Right-of-way has been acquired. Segment 4 -Dougherty Road to North of I-580 Off-Ramp Right-of--way has been acquired. Segment 5 -Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) Right-of--Way is existing Segment 6 -Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Right-of--way costs of $549,477 are used from Sierra Court to Dublin Court per the City CIP. Right-of--way has been acquired from Dublin Court to Dougherty Road. Cost: $556,511 r ATTACHII~NT _ ' • TO EXHIBIT B. Attachment 4 Page 2 of 8 November 25, 2008 Segment 7 -Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P R/W Right-of--way has been acquired. Segment 8 -Dublin Boulevard, S/P R/W to Iron Horse Parkway Right-of--Way is existing Segment 8A -Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive Right-of--Way is existing ' Segment 9 -Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of--Way is existing Segment 10 -Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Right-of--Way is existing. Segment 11-Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (June 2006) unless otherwise noted Southside, Fallon Road to 4300' east R/W = $25.00/sf Southside, 4300' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 740' R/W = $12.00/sf Northside, Fallon Road to 900' east R/W = $0.25/sf Northside, 900' e/o to 3520' e/o Fallon Road, 2620' R/W = $25.00/ sf Northside, 3520' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 1520' R/W = $12.00 / sf City Limits to Airway Boulevard (3000'): use $7.00/sf per ARWS Study TIF =16' median plus four 12' lanes =128' (64' each side) (six lane roadway, City of Livermore will contribute 50% of cost) Right-of--Way Costs = 4300' x 32' x $25.00 = $3,440,000 740' x 32' x $12.00 = $284,160 900' x 32' x $0.25 = $7,200 C, i C. L' Attachment 4 Page 3 of 8 November 25, 2008 2620' x 32' x $25.00 = $2,096,000 1520' x 32' x $12.00 = $583,680- 3000' x 128' x $7.00 $2,688,000 9,099,040 Segment 12 -Airway Boulevard/ I-580 Interchange Right-of--Way is existing Segment 13 -Hacienda Drive, I-580 to Dublin Boulevard Right-of--Way is existing Segment 14 -Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Right-of--Way is existing Segment 15 -Hacienda Drivel I-580 Interchange Right-of--Way is existing Segment 16 -Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Right-of--way is needed along the west side of Arnold Drive. It is anticipated that Camp Parks will dedicate the needed right-of--way at no cost to the City as a condition of redeveloping the southerly portion of the property. Segment 16A -Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Right-of--Way is existing Segment 17 -Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of--Way is existing Attachment 4 Page 4 of 8 November 25, 2008 Segment 18 -Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street Right-of--Way is existing Segment 18A -Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road Right-of--Way is existing Segment 19 -Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Right-of--Way is existing Segment 19A -Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of--Way is existing Segment 20 -Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Right-of--Way is existing. Segment 21-Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard BKF Engineers, working for the City's Scarlett Drive Capital Improvement Project, has estimated the needed right-of--way for the project as follows: Camp Parks: 43,341 sf County of Alameda: 138,829 sf Scarlett Homes, LLC and SP Transportation Company: 10,495 sf Scarlett Place LLC: ~ 53,146 sf Total: 245,811 sf The 2004 Update used $20.00/sf, based on recent acquisitions along Dublin Boulevard. . Right-of--way cost: 245,811 sf x $20.00/sf = $4,916,220 r~ U r~ Attachment 4 Page 5 of 8 November 25, 2008 Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line The ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) was used as the basis for costs in the 2004 Update. The 2007 Update uses the 2004 Update costs, with an escalation of 23.00% as of July 1, 2005 and 17.61% as of July 1, 2007, or a total escalation of 45% over the 2004 prices. Area F-1 (westside, 5000' n/o Gleason to CC County Line, 5660') R/W = $17.00/sf x 145% _ $24.65; use $25.00/ sf 1999 Update (eastside, 5000' n/o Gleason to Silveria, 2500') R/W = $11.00/sf + 10% _ 12.10/sf x 145 % _ $17.54; use $18.00/ sf Area F-2 (eastside, Silveria and Mission Peak frontage, 1500') R/W = $6.00/sf x 145% _ $8.70; use $9.00/ sf 1999 Update (eastside, Mission Peak to CC County Line, 1660') R/W = $11.00/sf + 10% 12.10/sf x 145 % _ $17.54; use $18.00/ sf TIF R/W is existing (TIF width = 64', existing R/W = 66'); TIF R/W needed for portions of road which shift from existing centerline; non-TlF R/W will need to be acquired along frontages of property without development poteritial (six lanes total) Wallis Ranch Frontage:Total /W needed 132,376 sf (per RJA Precise Plan Alignment) Non-TIF : 32' x 2300' (73,600 sf) Net TIF R/W 58,776 sf x $25.00/sf = $1,469,400 Bragg/ Silva Frontage: Net TIF R/W (per sales agreement) Fredrich Frontage: Total R/W needed 13,039 sf (Parcel 1 per RJA) 10,614 sf (Parcel 2 per RJA) Non-TIF : 32' x 685' (21,920 sf) Net TIF R/W 1,733 sf x $25.00/sf = Vargas Frontage: Total R/W needed Non-TIF : 32' x 325' 32' x 600 x %Z Net TIF R/W Tipper Frontage: Total R/W needed Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire 21,488 sf (per RJA) 10,400 sf) 9,600 sf) 1,488 sf x $25.00/sf = 18,995 sf (per RJA) 402,312 43,325 37,200 n„~~; Attachment 4 Page 6 of 8 November 25, 2008 Net TIF R/W 18,995 sf x $25.00/sf = $474,875 Mission Peak Frontage: Total R/W needed 21,680 sf (per RJA) Non-TIF R/W 32' x 400' (12,800 sf) Net T1F R/W Moller Frontage: Total R/W needed Non-TIF R/W 32' x 1200' 8,880 sf x $9.00/sf = $79,920 78,756 sf (per RJA) 38,400 sf) Net TIF R/W 40,356 sf x $18.00/sf = $726,408 Right-of--Way Contingency (to be used in the event $800,000 property needs to acquired in the absence of or in advance of dedication through development) Right-of--Way Contingency for Creek Stabilization: 36,000sf x $25.00/ sf Total R/W Costs 900,000 4,933,440 Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gleason Drive TIF R/W is existing (TIF width = 64', existing R/W = 66'.); non-T1F R/W will need to be acquired from parcels without development potential (six lanes total) The ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) was used as the basis for costs in the 2004 Update. The 2007 Update uses the 2004 Update costs, with an escalation of 23.00% as of July 1, 2005 and 17.61% as of July 1, 2007, or a total escalation of 45% over the 2004 prices. 1999 Update used $18.00/ sf on east side of road; add 10%; use $19.80/sf x 145% _ $38.71, use $29.00/ sf EBRPD Frontage: 31' x 170' 5,270 sf x $29.00 = $152,830 Goodwin Frontage 31' x 215' USA (Camp Parks) 31' x 100' Sperfslage: per RJA 2006 Acquisition for Bridge Net 6,665 sf x $29..00. _ $193,285 3,100 sf x $29.00 = $89,990 17,114 sf 2,200 sfj 14,914 sf x $29.00 = $432,506 C7 C~ C, Attachment 4 Page 7 of 8 November 25, 200 Total R/W Costs $868,611 Segment 23 -Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Right-of--Way is existing Segment 24 -Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to I-580 Right-of--Way is existing Segment 25 -Tassajara Road/ I-580 Interchange Right-of--Way is existing Segment 26 -Fallon Road, Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive Right-of--Way is existing Segment 26A -Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension Right-of--Way is existing from Gleason Drive to the Upper Loop Road, and from Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard. Right-of--way is needed along the Jordan property frontage between the Upper Loop Road and Central Parkway. The majority of the needed right-of way falls within the existing 30' roadway easement and/ or the 32 `frontage improvements, and is not eligible for T1F credit. There is a portion of the right-of--way opposite Central Parkway that will be eligible. The right-of--way is approximately 6,000 sf in area; an allowance of 10,000 sf is provided in the TIF. Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (June 2006) eastside, Old Fallon Road to 2000' south) R/W = $0.25/ sf Right-of--Way Costs: 10,000 sf x $0.250 = ~ $2,500 2,500 Attachment 4 Page 8 of 8 November 25, 2008 Segment 27 -Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard to I-580 Right-of--Way is existing on the westside. Additional right-of--way needed along the east side; this right-of--way is located within the existing 30' roadway easement and/or within the 32' frontage improvements, no TIF credit will be given for the dedication. Segment 28 -Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Right -of--Way costs are included in the overall project cost estimate. Segment 29 -Tassajara Creek Bike Path Path is located within Tassajara Creek setback open space parcels; no TIF credit will be given Park and Ride Facility Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road lots are existing; Right-of--way is needed for Fallon Road lot (east side of road); per 1999 Update, lot is 40,000 sf The ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) was used as the basis for costs in the 2004 Update. The 2007 Update uses the 2004 Update costs, with an escalation of 23.00% as of July 1, 2005 and 17.61% as of July 1, 2007, or a total escalation of 45% over the 2004 prices. Area A-4 (eastside) R/W = $12.00'sf x 145% _ $17.40; use 17.50/ sf R/W costs = 40,000 x $17.50 = $700,000 r~ ZONE 7 FEES TIF AREA L` Attachment 5 -Zone 7 Fees Road Segment Price per ftZ Length in ft TIF width in ft Quantity in ft2 Cost: Zone 7 Fee Dou he Road - Se ment 1 1.820 4,300 ,49 223,600 406,952.00 Dou he Road - Se ment 2 1.820 4,150 49 203,350 370,097.00 Dou he Road - Se ment 3 1.820 900 49 0 ~0.00 Dou hert Road - Se ment 4 1.820 550 49 0 0.00 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 5 1.820 Com lete Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 6 1.820 2,030 49 99,470 181,035.40 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 7 1.820 0 0.00 Dublin Boulevard Extension- Se ment 8 1.820 1,950 0 0.00 Dublin Boulevard Extension- Se ment 8A 1.820 2,650 12 31,800 57,876.00 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 9 1.820 4,600 0 Com lete Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 10 1.820 1,975 49 0 0.00 Dublin Boulevard - Se ment 11 1.820 9,500 49 502,832 915,154.24 Freewa Interchan e - Se ment 12 1.820 0 0.00 Hacienda - Se ment 13 1.820 0 Com lete Hacienda - Se ment 14 1.820 2640 12 39,200 71,344.00 Freewa Interchan e - Se ment 15 1.820 0 Com lete Arnold Drive - Se ment 16 all TIF 1.820 2640 28 93,040 169,332.80 Central Parkwa - Se ment 16A 1.820 1400 25 16,800 30,576.00 Central Parkwa - Se ment 17 1.820 4575 25 48,000 87,360.00 Central Parkwa - Se ment 18 1.820 3640.0 Com lete Central Parkwa - Se ment 18A 1.820 1430 25 0 0.00 Gleason - Se ment 19 1.820 1600 0 Com lete Gleason - Se ment 19A ~1.820 4650 0 Com lete Gleason - Se ment 20 1.820 4650 0 Com lete Scarlet Drive - Se ment 21 1.820 128,000 232,960.00 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 22 1.820 5660 49 271,680 494,457.60 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 22A 1.820 5000 49 208,800 380,016.00 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 23 1.820 2470 25 59,280 107,889.60 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 24 1.820 800 12 9,600 17,472.00 Tassa'ara Road - Se ment 25 1.820 0 18,000 32,760.00 Fallon Road - Se ment 26 1.820 8080 25 88,800 161,616.00 Fallon Road - Se ment 26A 1.820 4840 49 155,580 283,155.60 Fallon Road - Se ment 27 1.820 680 49 46,404 84,455.28 Fallon Road & I-580 Freeway Interch. W/ Si nals - Se ment 28 1.820 208,955 380,298.88 Tassa'ara Creek Bike Path - Se ment 29 1.820 7100 12 85,200 155,064.00 Park & Ride 1.820 40,000 72,800.00 Total 2,578,391 4,692,672.40 ATTACffi1~NT TO EXFIIBIT B. 3/23/2009 Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Zone 7 Fe Attachment 6 20-Nov-OS Summary of Outstanding Credits and Advances Existing Credits as June 30, 2008 Pending Credits as November 20, 2008 Developer Section 1 Section II ACSPA 20,486,279.46 1,604,592.93 DR Acquisitions I, Fallon Road 2,736,612.00 DR A uisitions II, Dublin Ranch Area G RNV 4,402,221.77 DR Acquisitions III, Fire Stn. 18 82,448.00 Lin Family 6,270,321.99 10,704,056.14 MSSH Development 1,615,547.50 Toll CA II 49,806.90 91,290.00 Toll Dublin LLC 456,477.52 Triad Dublin 336,663.01 Braddock and Logan 1,046,941.98 272,309.75 Standard Pacific 463,986.37 Dr. Sabri Arac, Tassajara Road Interchange 135,098.75 General Motors, Tassajara Meadows 284,059.29 Pfeiffer Ranch Investors 473,799.54 Regent Land investment, LLC 2,878,877.66 Sorrento at Dublin Ranch 359,242.37 227,353.50 Subtotal Miscellaneous 42,078,384.11 12,899,602.32 Interest Bearing Advances ACSPA Advance 2,546,712.43 Future Interest 613,705.00 BART Advance 2,781,727.03 Future Interest 212,107.00 City of Pleasanton Advance (7.75%1,636,853.21 Future Interest 81,535.00 Subtotal Loans 1,718,388.21 6,154,251.46 Subtotal Existing Credits/ Advances 43,796,772.32 19,053,853.78 Pending Credits (Work Is Guaranteed Under An Improvement Agreement And The Credit For The Work Has Been Determined; A Credit Agreement Is Not Yet In Place But Will Be Processed Upon Adoption Of The 2008 EDTIF Update Kobold, Tassajara Road R/V11, S ment 22 62,455.02 Lin Family, Gleason Drive, Segment 20 (" ")4,804,441.00 Lin Family, Fallon Road, Segment 26 (" ")172,081.00 Lin Famil ,Fallon Road, Segment 26A (" ")369,777.00 Lin Family, Central Pkwy., Fairway Ranch, Segment 18A (" "1,009,226.00 Lin Family, Dublin Blvd., Fairway Ranch, Segment 10 " ")1,369,155.00 Avalon Bay, Dublin Blvd., Median landscaping, Segment 8 194,875.20 Toll Bros., Central Parkwa , Overla /Striping, Segment 18 81,322.20 Toll Bros., Central Parkwa ,Overlay/ Striping, Segment 18A 22,334.10 Lin Famil ,Central Parkwa , Lockhart to Fallon, Se ment 18A 6,250,149.48 Lin Famil ,Dublin Blvd., Lockhart to Fallon, Segment 10 8,055,206.19 Lin Famil ,Dublin Blvd., Southern Frontage, Segment 10 191,871.48 Lin Family, Fallon Road, I-580 to Dublin Blvd., Segment 27 4,971,503.37 Lin Famil ,Fallon Road, Dublin Blvd to Central, Segment 26A 4,610,880.70 Lin Family, Fallon Road, Central to Bent Tree, Segment 26A 2,327,723.92 Pulte, Gleason Drive, Median LS, Segment 20 166,400.00 Braddock and Logan, Fallon Road, Segment 26A 812,221.32 ATTACffiV~NT ~ . TO EXHIBIT B. r~ o[a~ ~.rea~i Grand Total 98,322,249.08 C, Attachment 7 Eastern Dublin TIF November 24, 2008 Credit/ Fee Balance Summary TIF Category Account Source Balance 7/01/08) Section 1 Fee Administrative Services 2,335,094.20 De artment Section 2 Fee Administrative Services 3,746,205.96 De artment Section 2Non-Transit Center 1,172,094.00 Administrative Services Residential BART Parkin De artment Dougherty Valley Traffic 0.00 Administrative Services Mitigation Fee Department C. L' ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT B. 7 LL U QU t6 Q U H H N 00 N C 7 0 A Q W N O O Z N O r O ti v~ N N LL C o n rn rn rn LL M R„CO C7 M o ea vs o o o c co m co 0 H 0 0 of a~roi m w of o ifs 0 o ri l o co a~ iy o ug y o n c~ m v m v c_ 0 0 d a~ LL O CD F f9 w LL O N OON LL O u> f~D N o N ap o aD N co N f0 L N v c 0 0 o r~ i LL t L E- L H rn o 0 0 0 0 LLQ LL o 0 Q Q N p~p L C r N O O Q C~F~-~d'fn ATTACffiV~NT $ . TO EXHIBIT B. w 'O au'' m 1~- ~ d LL' 7 ~ N O ~ LL y ~ Q d p d f.,a°~LLO N ~°•~ a w J+ ~ A O C di ~ C r C CC '~ E ? c aLL~ O) w W C ~ O AEo`m maa`N M.awm m o y .O-` O a="a~ N N m y e J m E Z C m O m O O I~ O t~ f~ N tn aD O 0 M O N 00 N O 0 0 M 0 1O 0 0 0 0 0 0 11~ 0 0 aD 0 1~ 0 O O 0 O N O O OD M N O O 00 O 0 fD M O O OO 10 O M O O N N Q CO I!') 0 00 17 0 00 1~ N 0 M N e- O~h tO M M N f~O CO N M M O M d' N I~ IU N fD I~O O N d' N O r- I~ C~ M I~ N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N O N O N h M M t0 N 0 1~p M M 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0O d' M M M M O N O O f~0 N fO f0 C0 0 N M f~ M y N w y N w y w y w y 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 w y w y w y wy w y 7 7 7 w y 7 7 7 y 7 Y Y p Y Y V O Y Y O Y O V O O V O O O O O Y Y Y Y Y O O Y C C Y U V O In O to O O fO In N 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 t0 10 0 O f0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 N O O O O O O M lO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M CO N OO C")N 7 00 0 e-f~l0 Oi 7 0 ln 00 f~0 0 0 0 0 O O a0 0 0D O M O In M OD M N t0 N 0 O M M h r- O M N L7 O aD M M c-N P 0 V'r r- O N M N M N M 0 OD 1n N O R N O I~ t M O tt O M M O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 0 fO et 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N W W O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l[)to t{C V R N M t~i~M N o tCf O O O O M O 0 N 0 O 0 O o O M IO M O CO 00 M tn O 0 O M ODM M DO N CO N y O am M M F r O M OD N Oj O f~1~t0 fO 0 f~O V'O N r N O N 0 M 01 f~ 0 M 0 ID 0 N O N 0 M 0 St' 0 M 1[j M 0 et V 0 f0 O M N r-CO d' f6 f0 lC f0 l0 c f6 f° f0 c t0 c m c m c t0 c N c N c N c f6 c m c c0 G m m f 0 m v y N f0 m o N C m C m m m m m m m m m m C C p p m v tl1 C C C v y U V Qom'm m y m D a m y y y y y y y y y L a E V 0 y U a a O m Q' 0 E E m ms y m m E U y m a m m m m m m m m m m m m y m o! 7 a E o m f m E y m y m y m y m C l 0 N c E E y C E 0 o!s s E U E E O M y 0 m V m y O m O U O U C y O U y 7 E C C C C C c L:C C E E 6 O O U O U y O y C c y y y y O p C E E O L N m L c m E E m LL m m m m m m m m m m m LL m LL O E E m c m m L E m c m c m c m m L m U U 2 m c c E 2 m c N U m E E E E E E E E E E m m a c c U E U 2 E m C~ m C7 c E L m C7 LL o v v v v v c c LL L m C7 m C7 3 E L L L E 3 m 2 c_v m m c m v m m m m m m m m O O m 2 2 2 Z Nai a s c c U U y t0 O m m O m U C.)D LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N 0 2 2 2 p p tp a Q m U m., UI m LL LL Q fA ln W WQQp a M U O m y r N M In t0 I~O O m VNZZZZZZZZZZmO1ygyUN L L L d L L 0 c c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 C L L L C m N c d 3 m m in m w m m. c m c m m c m m. c m C m O U U U f0 U U L U L V N m m m m m y C C C O O J t U U U U U E O m Q Q O C O C C O C m C m fO c 0 Q' C 0 C 0 d' c 0 0 0 U) 0 V~ 0 0 V1 0 fn 0 V) 0 C/)f~ C O t L U L U L U L y m y y m m f0 O O p p C C C LL c C C C L L L L L L L t t C C c 7 V C c c N C f0 C N C t`0 G W C N C N O 2 C a a a L a a a c c c c c c c c c c o a o L c~cLi a c c c H H 1=H 0 c O c 7 m f0 t0 N t0 m f6 N f0 c C m c 7 a a a C c C C c 7 o N LLm c c c c c c c c R y a a a a a c U 5 a a a a a a a a a c O j m n O a a w m W W y m ~ as d • O O. O. Q 0 C m E L U N Q a~ v m o a` O n Q C O C m C7 a F= ai.c m E L U m ATTACffi1~NT /• mn ~vuTDrr ~ r~ pa+•p N M M O O et f0 l~ 0 f~ 0 0 0 N 0 d' O W O O O O et 0 fO 1~ O N M M h 0 0 a0 0 N 0 0D O M O O 0 r tO fO et O I" O eF O r O f~ O tp O O ln tCS 0 0 0 c0 N++~p,~ d' M l[) N O N O N fp CO d' O r M N tO h M N M N 1~ M 0 1O r 0 OD O N In eY W et O N N t~ M r OD fp r M N r r 0 Cp 0 NDaLL r N w LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O'O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 O ag 0 o M o ® 1=~epLL.o N N p. y 10 7 0 N 0 r 00 0 0 0 0 f0 N O N O r O O f~tD t0 N t0 N OD f0 N 0 N 0 r 00 0 N 1~0 M M t0 st 0 N f0 N 0 r 0 0 r 0 N N r M M M M 0 r 0 H am+ T ~ R w N w N 3 w N w N v-• N r v7 7 7 7 7 w tl) w W w N w W N p V- N w N w y w N N w N N q.. N H O N W Y Y Y O p Y Y Y p p p Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y y p Y Y Y y p O C N D) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 tO 0 0 M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f0 10 M et N et t0 et 0 O M N eF O 0 O 10 eF I~ r 1f1 O 0 O 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ~ 0 O N eY 0 N 1~ f~ 0 f0 0 M 0 e} O O M M N sP D O O N M eY f'7 r M r O N fO 10 N 0 M er LL7 1f) 0D I~ 10 f~ c0 M M et O r l~ M M O O tn M O h 1~ 00 0 10 E a r O N r N M eY r I~N N n N N r f~r r N N Md LL C to p 0~ O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E `o ~ NaEiad~ n: omv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E~`cO 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 ao N o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O n d ~d m N a~-0 O N c00 0 0 0 0 M N O c07 M a 0 O 0 0 N N fD N CV f~O 1l 10 1fj 0 ri 0 0 0 O f~O r m O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m fq N N N M O V r O)e1'OD N N t0 0 N d,M O N N j a D O O M r rj r N r N N O m• N f0 N C l0 C l9 t0 C m f0 f0 l0 Ri t0 N f0 C C m m f0 C e m v1 C m m N N m m m m C m L m m U m 0 m N U m m U m p m y p q m m E m m U O N m U m U m m U E m O Oi v_ a vV1 R m p N m E G N m m LL m m m x u a E C N m y m x y m E o U a m LL E 1,G m p a 1,c o m E E E m m m C N m E O M E O m m U E O O y E E 0 E m o U o U m 7 m C„rn N a i o y 7 r N c m O n. C 7 N v, 7 c m a S o o U 7 o U 1f1 fq N W E O C y C m E y)C m N C m E m E E t0 y C C m D y c o L E m to E C m 07 E L E m E u C m C m C m O O x l-E m N l9 LL m 0 U LL A L m O p o O N 0 0 0 L O LL C U m C E O E C U d E 0 C C V E G V x C C V C E E E L m m E c 3 3 E L L v v c c vm J v m o J v m c o J v m 2 N v m r v m m m r NZ2L20 07 J 7 p N t0 t0 m N f0 l0 N t0 f0 C '~' C U E m m m C L C L C L m m C C O O O p C V C O O O O m N C L L L U U U fL Nm U U U m C 7 d~ jm W o g a c H F-F- r N m L a L s z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mo aci m aci c m m m m m m m m m m co m m m m m m m m m ca a U U a O O C O c C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 o C a m U U LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL LL m LL a LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL m LL v c m m c a c s m p LL C7 x 0 O Y O Y H NUmm OSm as m Q O. Q W c m E L U f0 Q 0.. , O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 im 0 0 M m V M r t=a a"N H O LL O O O O O 0 0 0 a O. U ~ dl d Q d 1- .O ~ LL N ONN o,o r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ew°i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oe • 3 o o o o is ~ O c oMa i c~w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a E `o~ N_d d d N aH.. B O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 7 ~O O O O CO')N V O O O a~a N UY cn OD N to a v N C7 c+~N m m m m m c m v aci v m v m y d'N Q' y N d'Q' H Gf t9 N N N N C N fq m y E m E m d E m O iy O li O LL E a~E P E E m E c m o c v o v c E o m dt N ch z o a a a a a C E c N N a O Y t U m t Q m c U m t c c y p c o Z m m m m m o m m O fn fn fn fn fn 0 LNL r V W 7 a E- z Z W F'^- V/ Q W O O N r 0 Q i N ~ d ~ O ~ as v 0 d d Q m C m E L U Q m v m o a v m o. Q c 0 c m C7 n I- m iE Q O 1~ N 0 M V~ O a N O r O tfl 0 0 0 et 0 0 0 In 0 of 0 aD 0 IS 0 O O O O O O O Of tD M E0 N 0 M 0 O cO In 0 7 0 f~ 0 0) 0 d' 0 0 O 0 tt e1' O f0 n 0 0 0 0 r 0 l~ 0 0 op 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. tw7 ad+ d 0 r M N r a0 M r O el r r p N M Ln N fO I~ r O N a N OD r h O N fO O V' O r fO 1~ M N M N I~ M l0 OD O1 CO M D7 N d' F d aLLa o ~ N o o o o o co oo o~o o o o o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 o o o o o co o o o o 0 0 0 0 yw0 N r N et'10 M O. y O y aoLL ONN o.o n m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 0 m m m o o a o 0 0 o n m o i.o 0 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d w A O v v v v v v v v v v d v v v v ti v v v o c v v v v v v v v v v o v o v v v v v v v v o v v v v cmm o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O C M N d'r m d'O O ln sr OC 1~0 Q1 0 00 0 a0 C7 iA O EO of f~O V O N fO 0 7 f~aD r 0 0 0 et 0 3 CEp ` 00 N N7 M r n p N M O N O tt N a M 0 V' 0 M 0 r 0 N O O C' O r tO f~ M N M N si' tO O CO M r fO r M f~O N d d QOM6 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O C. ~d.. r Q O O O O O t O fO O f O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R E C D r N r r N l0 M i E N ~ M d d d N w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p E y C~ 0 0 0 0 0 O t[) N f) N 1' W N 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 00 10 O N O O 7 N N N d d ` a-ate d c0 M N f~ d O r O t0 O O O O O n 7 O O n r 0 tp 0) r N M O D7 N N l M aT H 0 0 0 00 0 7 0 r 0 Q1 tO eT O Of M O C7 V M N i O O O M tO r n M f0 O 00 Q1 r r X17 M ED N lf)s{ et N O yj N M r M r N r fO N M a M r N r aD N N tn r N f0 fC t0 f6 fo f0 N C d jp C m p jp c0 C m C IO C N C c0 C fC C f0 C t0 C c6 fp l4 l0 f0 C m A l0 l0 C m f0 f0 l9 c0 C d p N C m f0 f0 t9 O f0 N f0 m N t0 f0 l0 f0 C m Om G m O y C C m m m m m m m m C m C m C C c6 C m y C C C y C C m f0 C m C fo C d N C C m y C m C m C m C C m C m C C m C C m C m C w m v N m m O m O N O N O N O y N O N O fq O N V fq O N m V m C v y m d 9 d O d O m m C o N v M m O oN m m v N m Q' v N v N v m m 4 N v N m v fN m 9 v N v N d m Q' m N y m 4' m a' m d' m Q: m m d' m Q' m d' m 0' m N m m N d N d M d M m m p m m om' N m m m om N m m 0_' m m Q' m Q' N m m R'd 2' f0 m m d' y m m R~ m Q. y m ftl y LL' m N m N H)N f/J N M fd V)N N T N d m N N N m N m N y tlf N H M N N m y p L c m p L y c E m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m E N E N m C c m m C cn C n C p E m c m rn c c m E m en c c m p L m C c m p L c m c m c m E m c m c m E m c m E. t0 c m c m E N p L y x p E 2 O LL a~ p E p E p E p E p E p E p E p E O E p E LL m LL m m p p E L m p m o m C L lL d p E m p p E LL d m p E m p p E p E p E p E LL m p E p E LL d p E LL m p E p E LL m 2 c E E L c v v v v o v v v v o c c 3 j t t L j C O O O C 3 O Q E L E O O O C O O C O c O O c 7J7 v d v 2 m m m m m m m m m m J m S S tq m r J m m 2 m r m T m m m m y m q m m tq omNC2m2m O C N N M Q r IL C y J L 7 m m y m f0 f0 f0 m N C L m m m p LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL t6 N W r-d.w m ZS m C O O C O O O L U i i N n N c V U c Q:Q m O F- M y N M I O t4 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zd d O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 y y y d w d w d w m r r N M L C L C co L c C E t C C C C C d C m C c c m m 3 m d V d v d V m m m m m m m m m m m L L m o a a a L a L a c d o C m 0' m Q'lC m Q' o 0 0 f~ 0 n 0 fn 0 fn 0` N o fn o Cn O m m L O L O L V M r N N co m m m m m m ns m m co x o a d c d a O c D c U L O L U L V D t0 A C C LL C U V U U V U U U U L C c C C C C d C d C d p C C C C C C C C C C C N C~ LL C O c O t lp H m Y C t6 C m C m Q' C C O p L 7 L 7 L 0 d 7 C C C C C C C C C V a L a 0 d 0 Q: 0 F'1-H O O O O O O O O O O O d C c~N O Z m 0 l d p C p f6 p_' N Q' N Q' l0 Q' l9 Q' N Q' f6 f6 Q' N R' C 7 p 7 p N LL t6 LL f6 LL c6 LL f0 LL m LL m LL C LL f0 LL f6 LL m LL N LL d m N O 2 N d'7QCCCCCCCCCC 7 p 7 p 7 p a 7 d 0 3 U n n NSaaaaaaaaaGOO Q O p 0 0 0 O V i~ Q r U m m rn O N a m a Q 01 C m E L v Q M V m O a m O O. Q l4 C m V fp c 0 C m U O. 0 c m E z ATTACffiV~NT ~. ern ~YUrurr u a~ ~ m m t- ~ a LL N~ LL 0 0 o y Oa a y o d o co H a o LL N oNN a H .r T~ N m ~,o c- 3o 10 ~ ch o aLL~ of 0 o 0c ~ w ~ m E ° r~ m aaN wv«c o0 o udi O omw~ a'ar- N N m C m v N m m y d O 9 E a J m I I m d U Z m m c HEmH a 1 v N p O d N 1 N U N i l0 C t0 f" V W a 0 w 00 O O N r 7 4- O N a z J m Z V W O/y IL a N N V N m ~ O ~as v • 0 a n Q rn c m V N V d O a a~°i 0 a a c 0 c d C7 n F- O~C m U Y+ Q 1~ u 1 Exhibit C EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Effect(ve May 3, 2009 ' 3/23/2009 Residential (Within Transit Center) High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)4,662/unit Residential (Outside of Transit Center) Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre)8,470lunit Medium Density Dwelling (6.1-14 units per acre)8,470/unit Medium/High Density Dwelling (14.1-25 units per acre)5,929/unit High Density Dwelling (25.1 or more units per acre)5,082/unit Second Units per Sec. 8.80 of the Municipal Code 5,082/unit Non-Residential Development Other Than Residential 730/trip LAND USE ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE Non-Residential) TRIP GENERATION RATE* HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING: 10/room OFFICE: Standard Commercial Office 20!1,000 sf RECREATION: Recreation Community Center 26/1,000 sf Health Club 40/1,000sf Bowling Center 33/1,000 sf Golf Course 8/acre Tennis Courts 33/court Theaters: Movie 220/screen Live 0.2/seat Video Arcade 96/1,000 sf EDUCATION Private Schools 1.5/student Daycare/ Pre-school 2.4/student HOSPITAL: General 12/bed Convalescent/Nursing 3/bed Clinic 24/1,000 sf CHURCH:9/1,000 sf INDUSTRIAL: Industrial (with retail)16/1,000sf Industrial (without retail)8/1,000 sf Sources of information for Trip Generation Rates: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL). These trip generation rates are based on averages. Most retail uses are given a 35% pass-by reduction. 1 J EXHIBIT C. Tn fhc I?ccn ~ ~+inn Page 1 of 2 LAND USE Non-Residential) RESTAURANT: ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RATE 1WITH PASS-BY) Quality (leisure) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate Bar(favern See appropriate Shopping Center Rate xlnth.~.nu~:.:fhrc~w ~h ::.:::.:.;;:.;:.;::.;:.;:.:;.;:.;;:.;:.>.:;;:.;:.::.;:.;:.;:.::.::.:::::::::::~~v1~.,4i)U:.:~#:.;::::.::.::::.::::::::::::. AUTOMOTIVE: FINANCIAL: Bank/Savings and Loan COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: Super Regional Shopping Center More than 600,000 SF; usually more than 60 acres; with usually 3+ major stores) and not biscted by a public arterial street See appropriate Shopping Center Rate 22/1,000 sf Regional Shopping Center 33/1,000 sf 300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually 30-60 acres; w/usually 2+ major stores) and not bisected by a public arterial street Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center 46/1,000 sf Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres; w/usually 1 major store or grocery store and detached restaurant and detached restaurant and/or drug store) and not bisected by a public arterial street Commercial Shops: Retail/Strip Commercial (no major store) 26/1,000 sf Supermarket 98/1,000 sf t*,:tli~........ •:.:;:;.:3~Zjsf't ODft ~f:.:.;:.:_:~;;;;:-: Discount Store 46/1,000 sf Land uses that are shaded will always pay at the individual trip rate as these uses tend to generate destination trips. Commercial/retail and certain recreation uses will pay at the individual trip rate if the site is a stand-alone land use; if the land use is part of a larger shopping center, the appropriate shopping center trip rate will apply. Exhibit C EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Effective May 3, 2009 st2~2oos Page 2 of 2 g:IEDTlF UPDATPExhibit C -Fee Rates 2009 Update E~ obit D Non-Residential Uses On Properties Designated Residential Exempt From Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee) Exem'ted Parcels Parcels Right of Way Eastern Dublin TIF Area s~~~ i 555 '" i..n.nnu...u.ti NN y I yN~ `V 1 ~4 i'ti y ~,, ~~sly ~'~r a ,~L~ 4>*~ ~ ,sue ti...........r.....ti Y ?tI - ~1`"y~ ~s~ s" ~>2 ~`` ~~;? 7 ~ r'-' J~-:. l / t~ r t~E'' ~1 ~~I~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ by ~I ~N~1J ~'L' ^hl-+_~~ "7. lc` 1 ,~ ? U ~ X~lh.tT,1 ( t LJ 1 -N 1rJt , f f ~a, -- ~_u ,, lI1 fl'c~ l fi A. ~i4 ~jJ 4Y1 /JFFnr ~s..i I i ' ^r.. ~ ~ZL 1 1~ `,~eC 11~ S s I4 ~ 1 tl~" L..-tS . 7 J 7 L j ~ I ~~ ~~Yi y e X G r ~~~~~ ~ S 3~i EZ1 ~ - Y,,rI~~~,.i II 11 ~i lr L~ n rtf ~tis ~ ~.i \' j y L~r~~~ ~--r..rmst~-T-~ ~-~". ~!i{ "3i~-^h+r,-; 2-y , q\I ~Q 16i,'~1~I py ry rttY'.-I1(~1~?v _..fTl1J' ~1 ~ '.lam' 7iii lx 1 rf ~ ~ JI ~ ~ i ~1~ !; ~ j~J F ~ i -rzI~~' i~1 `~ L~ f 9 r ~~4 y U Ir i T r.l'~~ I.~i I ~ r ' y .i gyp q~ ~ -~, , i r d J~ rn ~~ r~ s,. o- id Miles March 20090.5 1 2 3 Exhibit E AREA OF BENEFIT MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES- WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Cost of Roadway *Cost of Bridge Improvements Improvements Dublin'Boulevard Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the 23,136,432.63 $ 5,070,000.00 DKS revised report form December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10). Hacienda Drive Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin 691 00 $978Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report). Central Parkway Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road 8 12 $ 1,040 000503907 00improvementassumptionsonpage1oftheDKSrevised report). Gleason Drive Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon road (from the ElR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report). (The 282 110.00 $ -project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road due to no development proposed. in the.. future study area.) Tassajara Road Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of--way from Dublin Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6 lanes over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard 28 293 600.0057795981 $ 5toI-580 from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/1.4.0 Fallon Road Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes over a 6- lane right-of-way from I-580_to Tassajara road (from the 12 502;367.00018272.24 $ 4EIRfutureroadimprovementassumptionsonpage1of the DKS revised report). Street Alignment Study A study is required to specify the exact street alignments 0 000 001intheEasternDublinarea.0 Right-of--Way Contingency Funds are required to acquire land in the event that right- of-way must be obtained through condemnation and 0 value of land is greater than the appraised value. Total $ 73,607,372.80 $ 15,905,967.00 The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 66,865 related trips for residential and 232,086 trips for non- residential is $2,460/unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-14 units per acre), $1,723 for Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,477 for High Density Residential (more than 25 units); and $246/trip for non-residential The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density Residential is $530/unit, for Medium/High Density Residential is $372/unit, and for High Density Residential is $319lunit, and non-residential is $53/trip. The eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 3,916 Low Density units; 4,863 Medium Density units; 2,680 Medium/High ansity units;and 3,952 High Density units. These cost estimates do not include credits due for construction of portions of these major thoroughfares and bridges. In the event that the Area of Benefit Fee becomes effective, the appropriate credit amounts will be calculated and the Area of Benefit Fee will be adjusted~accordingly. EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. 20 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVISING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) applicable to development occurring within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the current TIF was adopted on June 18, 2004, via Resolution 111-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 221-04 on November 16,2004, Adopting Revisions to the Eastern Dublin TIF Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, or other administrative aspects of the TIF Program; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Resolution 111-04 established a TIF category for Section II entitled Residential BART Garage Fee" that will be collected by the City and paid to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Administrative Guidelines are necessary to address the disbursement of BART Garage Fees and to incorporate other minor updated wording in order to maintain conformance with the TIF Program; and WHEREAS, the revised Guidelines, as prepared, are consistent with the requirements of Resolution 111-04 and existing laws and regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the revised Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit" A. " and by reference made a part hereof to supersede all prior versions of the Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTESI;: ! I .' I I J -.. fr' '~.,.~ City Clerk Reso No. 20-07, Adopted 2/20/07, Item 8.4 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES Revision Adopted Resolution # 20 - 07 (2/20/2007) I. Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (hereafter known as the 'Fee' or 'Fees') adopted by the City of Dublin through Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement resolution. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee includes three categories of improvements and facilities. Section I improvements and facilities are those located exclusively in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Section II improvements and facilities are those projects to which Eastern Dublin developers contribute a proportionate share, including projects located in other areas of the City. Section II Residential BART Garage improvements include 500 spaces in Phase I of the Eastern Dublin BART garage, necessitated by residential development outside the Transit Center. Section III improvements and facilities are those of a regional nature. NOTE: Section III Fee suspended effective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee remains in place.) The administrative guidelines provide procedures for calculation of the Fee, calculation and use of credits and reimbursements, and other administrative aspects of the Fee. In addition, the guidelines include procedures for construction of designated facilities by developers. The administrative guidelines establish the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursements to developers who construct and/or dedicate any ofthe improvements and facilities for which the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee is imposed (TIF facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to Section VI of these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the credit will convert to a reimbursement right. At the end of the ten-year period, the developer may elect to extend the credit for an additional five years. The combination of credit and reimbursement rights will terminate twenty-five years after the effective date of the agreement creating such rights. The administrative guidelines also establish the authority for the distribution of monies collected under "Section II Residential BART Garage". EXHIBIT A To the Resolution Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 20f 13 The application of these guidelines will at times refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the most recent Traffic Impact Fee Study, and various other fee studies and updates. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application of these guidelines. II. Authority of City Manager To Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing. III. Fee Calculation A. Imposition of Fees Except as exempted under subsection D. of this section, Fees are imposed on all development in Eastern Dublin as described below: 1. All new development, including new construction of any building or structure residential or non-residential); 2. Additions to non-residential buildings or structures which result in an increase of 500 square feet or more; 3. Additions to residential buildings or structures which increase the number of units i.e. construction of a "granny unit"). The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips assigned to the project. Unless otherwise provided, the Fee will be collected with the payment for the building permit for the development project. B. Effective Fees The Fees owed by a development project will be those in effect when the building permit is obtained. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for residential development projects will be calculated based upon the per unit fee for each of the categories noted in Resolution 111-04 (i.e. Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium/High Density Residential, High Density Residential) and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fees for non-residential development are calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis. The number of average weekday vehicle trips for each type of Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 30f 13 development is determined by the land use categories specified in "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04. However, if the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the development project is not appropriately reflected on "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04, then the Public Works Department will undertake a specific traffic study, to be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. Fees for non-residential development will be charged for any addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. For mixed-use non-residential development projects, the Community Development Director, upon consultation with the Public Works Director, will determine the projected percentage of each use at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis among the various rates stated for each different use (For example, a large single building could be divided between commercial office space and industrial warehouse space). If the uses are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial Fee calculation purposes will be assumed as "Industrial without Retail". Any additional Fees owed as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and collected at the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the time the building permit for tenant improvements is issued. No refund of Fees will be given if the resulting uses are different from the projected land use. The average weekday trip generation rate for quasi-public uses, which is not appropriately reflected on the "Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate" schedule that was adopted as part of the Traffic Impact Fee Resolution (Exhibit C to Resolution 111-04), as determined by the Public Works Director, will be established by a project specific traffic study. This study will be conducted by the City (Public Works Department) and paid for by the project applicant. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. D. Exemptions 1. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from the collection of Traffic Impact Fees: a) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single-family unit, or another unit is added to an existing multi-family building. b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished, provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 40f 13 c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's trips based on the Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate" as applied to the original building. 2. Partial Exemption. A partial exemption may be granted based on prior Fees paid in the situation of a change in the type of use as described below: If within 10 years of paying Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced by a new type of development, an exemption may be given for up to the amount which was paid by the prior development project. Proof of payment shall be obligation of the individual/entity requesting the exemption. The new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights, in the event that the replacement project would result in a lower Fee. Any change in use outside ofthe 10 year period stated shall be obligated to pay the entire Fee. IV. Fee Collection A. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Non-Residential Development The Traffic Impact Fee for non-residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit and will be collected by the Building & Safety Division. The number of estimated average weekday vehicle trips, determined as described in Section III.C., above, multiplied by the non-residential fee per trip, will be the basis for the collected Fee. The square footage or other appropriate measure as identified on the building permit will be the basis for determining the number of trips on "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04. Following is an example: Non-Residential Fee Example: Assume that the development project is a 15,540 square foot standard commercial office building. The estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate for this type of development is 20 trips per 1,000 square feet, and the Fee is $360 per trip for non-residential development. FEE CALCULATION: 15,540 square feet/l,OOO square feet = 15.54 x 20 trips = 310.8 trips x $360 per trip = $111,888 Traffic Impact Fee. Amendments to a non-residential building permit which result in 500 additional square feet or more shall result in additional fees owed based on the added area. B. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential Development If the City incorporates the facilities described in Resolution 111-04 into its annually adopted long-term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), then the Traffic Impact Fees for residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the incorporation of these facilities into the CIP, the Fee will not be due until the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 50f 13 dwelling is issued a certificate of occupancy. The developer may voluntarily pay the full fee when the building permit is issued or as otherwise appropriate under applicable law. C. Payment of Fees in Excess of $50,000 When the amount of payment for Traffic Impact Fees exceeds $50,000 on any given day, payment shall be made in one of the following ways: 1) paid by check drawn on a bank within the State of California, 2) paid by cashier's check, or 3) if paid in same day funds by a wire transfer, the wire transfer must be pre-arranged with the City's Finance Division. D. Payment of Fees in Conjunction with Development Agreements The Traffic Impact Fees can be collected at an earlier point of time than what is noted in this section if agreed to by a developer within the terms of a Development Agreement. E. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Traffic Impact Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payee, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payee as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Finance Division will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. v. Allotment of Developer Fee Credits The City understands the practicality of having developers construct and/or contribute some of the TIF facilities described in Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement resolution. For this reason, the City will allot fee credits against the collection of Fees for constructing or contributing TIF facilities. A. Fee Credit / Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the TIF facilities or dedication of TIF right of way. 1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. The developer will pay an administrative fee, due on the effective date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, to be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. The purpose of this administrative fee is to cover the administrative Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 60f 13 costs associated with establishing and monitoring the credit/reimbursement agreement. 4. Any credits, which are unused ten years following their creation, shall convert to a right to reimbursement. The right to reimbursement terminates fifteen years after it is created. Alternatively, credit holders may elect by providing written notice to the City Manager to extend the term of the credit for an additional five years. Notices of the election to extend the term must be received no sooner than one year prior to and no later than six months prior to the conversion of the credits to a right to reimbursement. If the credit holder elects to extend the term of the credit for five years, then any credits remaining at the end of the five-year extension shall convert to a right of reimbursement. The right to reimbursement terminates ten years after it is created. All rights to reimbursement shall terminate twenty-five years after the effective date of the agreement creating such rights. 5. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall be increased for inflation or accrue interest. 6. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided the credit is transferred to a person/firm having a legal interest in real property within the area subject to the Fee and provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specified in Section IX.A. of these guidelines. 7. The developer will sign a certificate attached to the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read and understood. 8. No fee credits shall be established for "Section II Residential BART Garage component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Payments from those monies shall be made in accordance with a separate section of these guidelines. B. Applicability of Administrative Guidelines to Pre-Existing Credits Allotted to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority These guidelines do not apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under the terms of the Agreement between the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Surplus Property Authority regarding coordination of certain Freeway Improvements dated March 12, 1991. These guidelines do apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under development agreements entered into between January 1, 1995 and the effective date of these guidelines, to the extent provided for in a Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 7 of 13 specific fee credit/reimbursement agreement to be entered into between the City and the Alameda County Surplus Property authority. VI. Calculating the Fee Credits For calculation purposes, the fee credits will be segregated into the following categories: Section I: Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements Section II (Excludes Section II Residential Bart Garage): Citywide Traffic Improvements Section III: Regional Transportation Note: Section III Fee suspended effective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee remains in place.) A. General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit by category for TIF facilities constructed or right of way dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. There must be a minimum value of 50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. B. Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the TIF facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that in some cases the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match segments shown in the TIF Report. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. Illustrative Example 1: Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Traffic Impact Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the TIF. The land dedication to be applied for a fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Traffic Impact Fee. Resolution 111-04 used a standard cost measurement of $7 per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the Traffic Impact Fees. The fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 80f 13 determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by this per square foot cost measurement. Illustrative Example 2: A developer constructing single family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Category 1 improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee totals $6,950 per home, which is comprised of the Category 1 portion of $4,700 and the Category 2 portion of $2,250. The credit of $200,000 can only be used against the developer's Category 1 Fee of $4,700 per home, which will cover approximately 42.55 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 43rd home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Category 1 Fee. The Category 2 portion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes included in the development, as the Category 1 credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the Fee. VII. Use of Fee Credits A. Credits expire when used or ten years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (unless extended an additional five years at the request of the credit holder), whichever occurs first. B. In the event the fee credits are unused following ten years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (or fifteen years if extended at the request of the credit holder), the fee credit shall convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under Section X and XI of these guidelines. C. The value of the credits in each category will be listed in the agreement and tracked by fee category as they are used by the developer. The City's Finance Division will keep record of the unused credits and provide this information to the Building Safety Division at the time fee credits are used. D. Credits earned by constructing or dedicating a certain category of improvements can only be used to offset fees for that category. The balance of the Traffic Impact Fee, which is to be used for other categories of improvements, will be paid by the developer as specified in Section IV of these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories. For example, unused credits from Category 1 portion of the Traffic Impact Fees cannot be used to offset amounts due for Category 2 and Category 3. E. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the TIF facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with these guidelines. VIII. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 90f 13 1. Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and labor and materials bonds or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is a part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be in an amount equal to 50% of the engineer's estimate. The bonds shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City's City Manager. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Traffic Impact Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will be completed. IX. Transferring of Credits A. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category of Traffic Impact Fee. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transfer fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative transfer fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. B. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. X. Reimbursement Rights Sections I & II - Excluding Section II Residential BART Garage) Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of fee credits, which occurs ten years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement creating the fee credit (unless the credits have been extended an additional five years at the request of the credit holder). Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: A. The reimbursement rights shall expire twenty-five years after the initial date ofthe credit/ reimbursement agreement creating the fee credit. B Reimbursement will be only from funds collected as Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees or from fees collected by Contra Costa County and paid to Dublin for any improvements Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 100f 13 also included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, and will not come from the City's General Fund. C. The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement in each of the categories on an annual basis. D. The procedure for prioritizing reimbursements is described in Section XI of these guidelines. XI. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights A. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Traffic Impact Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Department will also determine the amount of Traffic Impact Fee funds that are unspent and unencumbered as of the close of the fiscal year. For funds that are unspent and unencumbered in each fee category, the City will allocate the necessary amount to be used to finance needed TIF facilities for the upcoming fiscal year and/or to repay amounts due on outstanding loans for previously constructed TIF facilities. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. B. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, fifty percent will be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the reimbursement set aside will be allocated to all reimbursement rights on a pro-rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining unreimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be carried over to another fiscal year. The following example illustrates this allocation: Illustrative Example: During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for a certain category of improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (the oldest agreement): Developer B: Developer C: 50,000 20,000 30,000 For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set-aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has $28,000 of outstanding reimbursements Beginning balance of $50,000 less the $22,000 payment). The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently hold reimbursement rights as follows: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 11 of 13 Holder of Current Value of Percent of Total Amt. of $22,000 Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursements Reimbursement Balance Owed Outstandinl!: Distributed Remaininl!: Developer A $28,000 35.90% $7,898.00 $20,102.00 Developer B $20,000 25.64% $5,640.80 $14,359.20 Developer C $30.000 38.46% $8.461.20 $21,538.80 TOTAL $78,000 $22,000.00 $56,000.00 XII. Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSP A) For $6 million of BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage) Payment of Section II Residential BART Garage Fees can occur upon completion of phase I of the parking garage and surface parking immediately adjacent to the new garage at the eastern Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station, consisting of approximately 1,706 parking spaces, and the availability of the BART Garage for public use. Payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSP A), which is responsible for the parking garage construction and will dedicate the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public use upon its completion. Except for interest earned on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to distribution, the maximum amount to be paid to ACSP A shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six million dollars). Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subject to the following specific guidelines: A. The maximum to be disbursed from fees collected, as described in XII subsection B, shall be six million dollars ($6,000,000) and this amount shall not be increased for any reason including inflation. In addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSP A. B. Disbursement will be only from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees Section II Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any other source including the City's General Fund. C. Once the BART Garage is completed, the amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the fee. There is no guarantee that ACSP A will receive a total of $6,000,000. D. The City will determine and report on an annual basis to ACSP A, the amount of funds collected from the Section II Residential BART Garage fee and the amount available for disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any. E. The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSP A is described in Section XIII of these guidelines. XIII. Process for Payment to ACSP A -Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds A. Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds 1. Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available for public use, the ACSP A shall provide to the City a written certification of the completion of the BART Garage. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 120f 13 11. Within 45 days of receipt ofthe certification described in Section XIII(A)(i) City shall calculate the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of the first day of the month preceding the date of the notice. City shall also calculate and account for accrued interest based on the quarterly balance of Section II BART Garage Fees and the earning rate applied to pooled funds managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSP A the funds as calculated along with a report showing the maximum remaining fees that may be paid to ACSP A. 111. Thereafter, funds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described in subsection B below. B. Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Available for Payment i. Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Section II Residential BART Garage fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for the fiscal year that just ended. This shall include accrued interest. 11. The City shall distribute to ACSP A, Section II Residential BART Garage fees available, to the extent that the total distribution including previous payments, excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximum amount described in Section XII. 111. The Administrative Services Department shall annually report to the ACSP A the current balance remaining Section II Residential BART Garage fees that may be paid. XIV. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers The improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than thirty calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail as determined by the Public Works Director. The Pubic Works Director will attempt to respond to the request within twenty business days. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the traffic fee must post a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the improvements. B. Refunds Refunds of withdrawn applications will be done in accordance with existing procedures for paid building permits. Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record. Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, surety bonds or other instruments taken to secure payment. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Reso #20 - 07 (2/20/2007) Exhibit A (2/20/2007) Page 130f 13 C. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Traffic Impact Fee; An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Traffic Impact Fee will be expended upon; and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. D. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department: The City will maintain separate funds for the collection and expenditure of Traffic Impact Fees as follows: Section I: Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements Section II: City-Wide Traffic Improvements Section II Residential BART Garage The City will allocate interest to fees collected in the funds based upon cash balances at the end of each quarter. The City will identify in accordance with State Law the beginning and ending balance of the funds held for the Traffic Impact Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identify the amount of fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Traffic Impact Fees. The City will provide a description and accounting of any interfund transfers made by the Traffic Impact Fee Funds. Although it may be authorized by State Law, it shall not be City policy to loan TIF monies for another public purpose. The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end. The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees, including the Traffic Impact Fee, with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. RESOLUTION NO. 221 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IIIr IIIr l1li * .. ft 'III * REVISING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) applicable to development occurring within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the current TTF was adopted on June IS, 2004, with Resolution 111-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 23~99 on February 16, 1999, establishing Administrative Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, or other administrative aspects of the Traffic Impact Fee Program; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Resolution 111-04, establishing the fee program, requires certain revisions to the Administrative Guidelines in order to maintain conformance with the fee program; and WHEREAS, the previously adopted guidelines have been revised to bring the guidelines into conformance with the fee program; and WHEREAS, the revised Guidelines, as prepared, are consistent with the requirements of Resolution 111-04 and existing laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, "Draft Copies" of the revised Guidelines were distributed to Interested Parties for their review and comment prior to consideration by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the revised Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and by retèrence made a part hereof to supersede all prior versions of the Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 2004. AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Deputy City Clerk G:\CC-MTUS\2004-qtr4\Nov\11-16"()4\Rerso-ED11F reviR£.IX>C (Item 7.1) EXHIBIT "A" OF RESOLUTION 22.' -04 CITY OF DUBLIN EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES Revised November 16, 2004) I. Introduction/Overview These guidelines apply to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (hereafter known as the 'Fee' or 'Fees') adopted by the City of Dublin through Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement resolution. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee includes three categories of improvements and facilities. Category I improvements and facilities are those located exclusively in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan arca. Category 2 improvements and facilities are those projects to which Eastern Dublin developers contribute a proportionate share, including projects located in other areas of the City. Category 3 improvements and facilities are those of a regional nature. NOTE: Category 3 Fee suspended effective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee remains in place.) The administrative guidelines provide procedures for calculation of the Fee, calculation and use of credits and reimbursements, and other administrative aspects of the Fee. In addition, the guidelines include procedures for construction of designated facilities by developers. The administrative guidelines establish the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursements to developers who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee is imposed (TIF facilities). When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a developer, the developer shall be given a credit to be applied against the Fees due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to Section VI of these guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project, the developer may use the credit toward the Fees for another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfcr the credit within ten years, then the credit will convert to a reimbursement right. At the end of the ten-year period, the developer may elect to extend the credit for an additional five years. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16, 2004 Page 2. combination of credit and reimbursement rights will terminate twenty-five years after the effective date ofthe agreement creating such rights. The application of these guidelines will at times refer to various reference documents adopted by the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, the Eastem Dublin Spccific Plan, the most recent Traffic Impact Fee Study, and various other fee studies and updates. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the application of these guidelines. II. Authority of City Manager To Interpret Situations Not Covered Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, fue City Manager will have the authority to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered. Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing. III. Fee Calculation A. Imposition of Fees Except as exempted under subsection D. of this section, Fees are imposed on all development in Eastern Dublin as described below: 1. All new development, including new construction of any building or structure residential or non-residential); 2. Additions to non-residential buildings or structures which result in an increase of 500 square feet or more; 3. Additions to residential buildings or structures which increase the number of units i.e. construction of a "granny unit"). The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works and Engineering Departments are responsible for determining the number of vehicle trips assigned to the project. Unless otherwise provided, the Fee will be colIected with the payment for the building permit for the development project. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 3. B. Effective Fees The Fees owed by a development project will be those in effect when the building permit is obtained. This section shall be applicable whether the fees are paid in cash or a credit is used. C. Basis for Calculating Fees The Fees for residential development projects will be calculated based upon the per unit fee for each of the categories noted in Resolution 111-04 (i.e. Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, MediumlHigh Density Residential, High Density Residential) and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fees for non-residential development are calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis. The number of average weekday vehicle trips for each type of development is determined by the land use categories specified in "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04. However, if the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the development project is not appropriately reflected on "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04, then the Public Works Department will undertake a specific traffic study, to be paid for by the applicant, for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of the proposed development project. Fees for non-residential development will be charged for any addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. For mixed-use non-residential development projects, the Community Development Director will determine the projected percentage of each use at the time the Final Map or other appropriate entitlement is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis among the various rates stated for each different use (For example, a large single building could be divided between commercial office space and industrial warehouse space). If the uses are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial Fee calculation purposes will be assumed as "Industrial without Retail". Any additional Fees owed as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 4. and collected at the time that a building permit is isslled for interior tenant improvements. This fee calculation shall be at the rate in effect at the time the building permit for tenant improvements is issued. No refund of Fees will be given if the resulting uses are different from the projected land use. The average weekday trip generation rate for quasi-public uses, which is not appropriately reflected on the "Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate" schedule that was adopted as part of the Traffic Impact Fee Resolution (Exhibit C to Resolution 111-04), as determined by the Public Works Director, will be established by a project specific traffic study. This study will be conducted by the City (Public Works Department) and paid for by the project applicant. Affordable housing projects developed by government agencies and non-profit entities will be subject to the same Fees that are assessed on private residential development. D. Exemptions 1. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from the collection of Traffic Impact Fees: a) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single-family unit, or another unit is added to an existing multi-family building. b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished, provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure 50% or more. c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building would not Eastcrn Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16, 2004 Page S. mcrease the destroyed or demolished building's trips based on the Estimated Weekday Vehiele Trip Generation Rate" as applied to the original building. 2. Partial Exemption. A partial exemption may be granted based on prior Fees paid in the situation of a change in the type of use as described below: If within 10 years of paying Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced by a new type of development, an exemption may be given for up to the amount which was paid by the prior development project. Proof of payment shall be obligation of the individual/entity requesting the exemption. The new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights, in the event that the replacement project would result in a lower Fee. Any change in use outside of the 10 year period stated shall be obligated to pay the entire Fee. IV. Fee Collection A. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Non-Residential Development The Traffic Impact Fee for non-residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building permit and will be collected by the Building & Safety Division. The number of estimated average weekday vehicle trips, determined as described in Section lIl.C., above, multiplied by the non~residential fee per trip, will be the basis for the collected Fee. The square footage or other appropriate measure as identified on the building permit will be the basis for determining the number of trips on "Exhibit C" of Resolution 111-04. Following is an example: Non-Residential Fee Example: Assume that the development project is a 15,540 square foot standard commercial office building. The estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate for this type of development is 20 trips per 1,000 square feet, and the Fee is $360 per trip for non·residential development. FEE CALCULATION: 15,540 square feet/l,OOO square feet = 15.54 x 20 trips = 310.8 trips x $360 per trip = $111,888 Traffic Impact Fee. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 6. Amendments to a non-residential building permit which result in 500 additional square feet or more shall result in additional fees owed based on the added area. B. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential Development If the City Incorporates the facilities described in Resolution 111-04 into its annually adopted long-term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), then the Traffic Impact Fees for residential development will be due and payable at the issuance of a building pennil. Prior to the incorporation of these facilities into the CIP, the Fee will not be due until the dwelling is issued a certificate of occupancy. The developer may voluntarily pay the full fee when the building pennit is issued or as otherwise appropriate under applicable law. C. Payment of Fees in Excess of $50,000 When the amount of payment for Traffic Impact Fees exceeds $50,000 on any given day, payment shall be made in one of the following ways: 1) paid by check drawn.on a bank within the State of California, 2) paid by cashier's check, or 3) if paid in same day funds by a wire transfer, the wire transfer must be pre-arranged with the City's Finance Division. D, Payment of Fees in Conjunction with Development Agreements The Traffic Impact Fees can be collected at an earlier point of time than what is noted in this section if agreed to by a developer within the terms of a Development Agreement. E. Payment Records The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Traffic Impact Fees. Records will be maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payee, as well as the applicable Assessor's Parcel Number, and will note the payee as the entity or person whose name appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Finance Division will maintain the records for a period of ten years from their col1ection, unless a legal mandate exists for a longer retention. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 7. V. Allotment of Developer Fee Credits The City understands the practicality of having developers construct and/or contribute some of the nF facilities described in Resolution 111-04 and any subsequent replacement resolution. For this reason, the City will allot fee credits against the collection of Fees for constructing or contributing TIF facilities. A. Fee Credit / Reimbursement Agreement Required The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance with a written crediVreimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible for the construction of the TIF facilities or dedication of TIF right of way. 1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City Attorney. 2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or Final Subdivision Map. 3. The developer will pay an administrative fee, due on the effective date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, to be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. The purpose of this administrative fee is to cover the administrative costs associated with establishing and monitoring the credit/reimbursement agreement. 4. Any credits, which are unused ten years following their creation, shall convert to a right to reimbursement. The right to reimbursement terminates fifteen years after it is created. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16, 2004 Page 8. Alternatively, credit holders may elect by providing written notice to the City Manager to extend the term of the credit for an additional five years. Notices of the election to extend the term must be received no sooner than one year prior to and no later than six months prior to the conversion of the credits to a right to reimbursement. If the credit holder elects to extend the term of the credit for five years, then any credits remaining at the end of the five-year extension shall convert to a right of reimbursement. The right to reimbursement terminates ten yeaTS after it is created. All rights to reimbursement shall terminate twenty-five yeaTS after the effective date of the agreement creating such rights. S. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shaII be increased for inflation or accrue interest. 6. Credits arc transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided the credit is transferred to a person/firm having a legal interest in real property within the area subject to the Fee and provided that the administrative transfer fee is paid, as specified in Section lX.A. of these guidelines. 7. The developer will sign a certificate attached to the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read and understood. B. Applicability of Administrative Guidelines to Pre-Existing Credits Allotted to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority These guidelines do not apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under the terms of the Agreement between the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Surplus Property Authority regarding coordination of certain Freeway Improvements dated March 12, 1991. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16, 2004 Page 9. These guidelines do apply to existing fee credits to which the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is entitled under developmCllt agreements entered into between January 1,1995 and the effective date of these guidelines, to the extent provided for in a specific fee credit/reimbursement agreement to be entered into between the City and the Alameda County Surplus Property authority. VI, Calculating the Fee Credits For calculation purposes, the fee credits will be segregated into the following categories: Category I: Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements Category 2: Citywide Traffic Improvements Category 3 : Regional Transportation Note: Category 3 Fee suspended effective September 12, 1998, as long as Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee remains in place.) A. General The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identifY the total credit by category for TIT facilities constructed or right of way dedicated for a particular development project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. There must be a minimum value of 50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before credits will be allotted to a developer. B, Determination of Value The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed facilities based upon improvemCllt plans submitted by the developer and approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the TIF facilities to be constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that in some cases the scope of construction or dedication will not exactly match segments shown in the TIF Report. The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements as noted in Resolution 111-04 and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro-rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in Resolution 111-04 and/or any Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 10. subsequent replacement resolution. The fee credits cannot exceed the cost estimates of the improvements in the most recent fee study and resolution. In no case shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. Illustrative Example 1: Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to offset the Traffic Impact Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening project must be included in the TlF. The land dedication to be applied for a fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and are not to be funded by the Traffic Impact Fee. Resolution 111-04 used a standard cost measurement of $7 per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the Traffic Impact Fees. The fee credits due to the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated multiplied by this per square foot cost measurement. Illustrative Example 2: A developer constructing single family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Category I improvement) valued at $200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee totals $6,950 per home, which is comprised of the Category I portion of $4,700 and the Category 2 portion of $2,250. The credit of $200,000 can only be used against the developer's Category 1 Fee of $4,700 per home, which will cover approximately 42.55 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 43,d home, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Category 1 Fee. The Category 2 portion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes included in the development, as the Category I credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the Fee. VII. Use of Fee Credits A. Credits expire when used or ten years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (unless extended an additional five years at the request of the credit holder), whichever occurs first. B. In the event the fee credits are unused following ten years from the date of the credit/reimbursement agreement (or fifteen years if extended at the request of the credit Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 11. holder), the fee credit shall convert to a reimbursement right as provided for under Section X and XI of these guidelines. C. The value of the credits in each category will be listed in the agreement and tracked by fee category as they are used by the developer. The City's Finance Division will keep record of the unused credits and provide this information to the Building Safety Division at the time fee credits are used. D. Credits earned by constructing or dedicating a certain category of improvements can only be used to offset fees for that category. The balance of the Traffic Impact Fee, which is to be used for other categories of improvements, will be paid by the developer as specified in Section IV ofthese guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee categories. For example, unused credits from Category I portion of the Traffic Impact Fees cannot be used to offset amounts due for Category 2 and Category 3. E. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the TIP facilities will be entitled to the original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with thcse guidelines. VIII. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either: 1. Dedicated the land or improvements representing the credits to the City; or 2. Provided the City with a performance bond and labor and materials bonds or other adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is a part of the project. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be in an amount equal to 50% of the engineer's estimate. The bonds shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City's City Manager. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16, 2004 Page 12. Illustrative Example: Assume a developer is in the midst of completing certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to the City to offset a portion of the Traffic Impact Fee. The developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the improvements will bc completed. IX. Transferring of Credits A. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an interest in property that is subject to the same category of Traffic Impact Fee. Such transactions shall be subject to an administrative transfer fee, which shall cover the City's administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative transfer fee shall be established in the City's Master Fee Schedule. B. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between developments. X. Reimbursement Rights Reimbursement rights are created fÌ'Om the conversion of fee credits, which occurs ten years after the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement creating the fee credit (unless the credits have been extended an additional five years at the request of the credit holder). Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific guidelines: A. The reimbursement rights shall expire twenty-five years after the initial date of the credit! reimbursement agreement creating the fee credit. B Reimbursement will be only from funds collected as Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees or from fees collected by Contra Costa County and paid to Dublin for any improvements also included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, and will not come from the City's General Fund. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 13. C. The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement in each of the categories on an annual basis. D. The procedure for prioritizing TCimbursements IS described III Section XI of these guidelines. XI. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbnrsement Rights A. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department will make an accounting of all Traffic Impact Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The Administrative Services Departmcnt will also determine the amount of Traffic Impact Fee funds that are unspent and uneneumbcred as of the close of the fiscal year. For funds that are unspent and unencumbered in each fee category, the City will allocate the necessary amount to be used to finance needed TIF facilities for the upcoming fiscal year and/or to repay amounts due on outstanding loans for previously constructed TIF facilities. The remaining funds (the reimbursement set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist. B. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, fifty percent wi\1 be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balancc of the 50% will go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the reimbursement set aside will be allocated to all reimbursement rights on a pro-rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining unreimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be carried over to another fiscal year. The following example illustrates this allocation: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 14. lllustrative Example: During one fiscal year, the City collects $88,000 in Fees for a certain category of improvements. The total outstanding reimbursements owed are $100,000 to the following developers: Developer A (the oldest agreement): Developer B: Developer C: 50,000 20,000 30,000 For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set-aside is used to pay Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has $28,000 of outstanding reimbursements Beginning balance of $50,000 less the $22,000 payment). The other half of the reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently hold reimbursement rights as follows: Holde, of Current Value of Pe..ent of Total Am!. of $22,000 Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursement Reimbursement. Reimbursement Balaoce Owed Outstandiol! Distributed Rematnloi!" Developer A $28,000 35.90% $7,898.00 $20,102.00 Developer B $20,000 25.64% $5,640.80 $14,359.20 Developer C $30.000 38.46% $8.461.20 $21.538.80 TOTAL $78,000 $22,000.00 $56,000.00 XII. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines A. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers The improvements to be constructed or dedicated must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than thirty calendar days prior to the approval of the Final Map on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail as determined by the Public Works Director. The Pubic Works Director will attempt to respond to the request within twenty business days. The developer constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the traffic fee must post a Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 15. performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the construction ofthe improvements. B. Refnnds Refunds of withdrawn applications will be done in accordance with existing procedures for paid building permits. Payable to entity making payment or property owner of record. Payable in accordance with State Law. Not applicable to letters of credit, surety bonds or other instruments taken to secure payment. C. Annual Review of Fee Collection The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for developer fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the following items: A brief description of the Traffic Impact Fee; An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements which the Traffic Impact Fee will be expended upon; and For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence. D. Funds and Accounting The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department: The City will maintain separate funds for the collection and expenditure of Traffic Impact Fees as follows: Category I: Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements Catcgory II: City-Wide Traffic Improvements Category II (Non-Transit Center Residential Surcharge): Eastern Dublin Transit Center Parking The City will allocate interest to fees collected in the funds based upon month end cash balances. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines November 16,2004 Page 16. The City will identify in accordance with State Law the beginning and ending balance ofthe funds held for the Traffic Impact Fee as of fiscal year end. The City will identify the amount of fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year for Traffic Impact Fees. The City will provide a description and accounting of any interfund transfers made by the Traffic Impact Fee Funds. Although it may be authorized by State Law, it shall not be City policy to loan TIF monies for another public purpose. The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end. The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees, including the Traffic Impact Fee, with the City Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end. RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA, AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95 AND REVISED BY RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 AND RESOLUTION NO. 225-99 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and WHEREAS, the SP has been the subject of various amendments, including an amendment known as the Transit Center Specific Plan Amendment that added 90.65 acres to the area covered by the specific plan; and WHEREAS, the GPA outlined future land uses for approximately 4,176 acres within the City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square fee of commercial, office, and industrial development; and WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action programs for approximately 3,404 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas are included on the Land Use and Boundary Map of the Eastern Dublin TIF Area attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 "(Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and WHEREAS, two Supplemental EIRs, for the IKEA project and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation (respectively "the IKEA SEIR" and ''the EDPOA SEIR"), have been certified for portions of the GPA and SP areas; and WHEREAS, the Diagram of the Eastern Dublin TIF Area also includes the Transit Center area, and the area diagrammed on the Map is referred to as "Eastern Dublin"; and WHEREAS, a Program EIR (''the Transit Center EIR") was prepared for the Dublin Transit Center project, and certified by the Council by Resolution 215-02; and WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda, the EDPOA SEI1L the IKEA SEI1L and the Transit Center EIR (collectively "the Environmental Documents") describe the freeway, freeway interchange, and road improvements necessary for implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements, pedestrian trails, and bicycle paths; and WHEREAS, the Environmental DocumentS assumed that certain traffic improvements would be made and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within Eastern Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain transportation improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development on eXisting public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the Year 2010, and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by future development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995, establishing an Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" for development within Eastern Dublin; and WItEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of DUblin by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in a document dated November 1994 and entitled "Traffic Impact Fee-Eastern Dublin" (hereafter '"Study"), which is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 1-95; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 further relies upon a second report which was prepared for the City of Dublin by Santina and Thompson in a document dated December 30, 1994, entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Costs, Initial Level" (hereinafter "Cost Report"), which was attached as Exhibit C.. to Resolution No. 1-95; and WHEREAS, the .City Council adopted Resolution No. 41-96 on April 9, 1996, revising the fee established under Resolution No. 1-95, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 41-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City by TJKM ("1996 Study Update") and cost estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson ("1996 Cost Estimate Update"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 225-99 on December 7, 1999, revising the fee established under Resolution No. 41-96, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 225-99 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared by the Department of Public Works ("1999 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update", hereinafter "1999 Study Update"), and WHEREAS, Section 8 of Resolution No. 225-95 provides that the City will periodically review the fee and make revisions as appropriate; and 2 WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a revised report, dated May 27, 2004, as revised and entitled "2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update" (hereafter ''2004 Update Study") which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study includes and incorporates the following items: Table 1, which summarizes the calculations of the revised per trip traffic impact fee for Section I improvements, Section I residential improvements, Section II improvements, and Section II residential BART parking improvement; Table 2, which provides detail of total (unadjusted) improvement costs by section and project segment: Attaclmaents 1-5, which includes revised cost estimates for roadway improvements that have not yet been constructed or guaranteed; Attachment 6, provided by the Finance Division, which provides a Summary of outstanding loans, cash advances, or credits to developers for construction of improvements or dedication of right-of-way; Attachment 6a, which segregates the current balance of Section I Residential fee credits from the total Section I credits; Attachment 7, which provides a summary of unencumbered Section I, Section I Residential, Section II, and Dougherty Valley traffic mitigation fees which are curremly on hand in reserve accounts; Attachment 8, which segregates the current balance of unencumbered Section I Residential fees from the total Section I funds; Attachments 9, which provides detailed information on the number of trips generated for each parcel in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (including the parcels within the Transit Center) that will be subject to the existing fee rate; Attachment I0, which provides detailed information on the number of trips generated for each parcel in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area which will be subject to the proposed fee revision; and Attachment 12, which provides a plan.for paying off existing interest-bearing loans; and WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 1-95, 41-96, and 225-99 set forth the relationship between future developmem in Eastern Dublin, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvemems and facilities; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in certain respects; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study and the 2004 Cost Estimate Update were available for public inspection and review for ten (I0) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided as required by law. WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Fcc") is to finance public improvements and facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements and facilities are listed in the Study, the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update and the 2004 Update Study under Sections I, II, and III and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements and Facilities." Thc Improvements and Facilities listed under Section I refer to Improvements and Facilities within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and such Improvements and Facilities are funded 100% through the Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section II refer to Improvements and Facilities within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed, in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the Fee funds the proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct such Improvements and Facilities. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section IH ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within thc wider region by the Year 2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. Although the City has adopted the TVTD Fee by Resolution 85-95, and Section 10 of that resolution suspends Section III fees, the portion of the Fee attributable to Section III improvements will he adjusted if and when the Section III portion of the Fee becomes effective again by any adjustments made to the cost of improvements and/or right-of-way from the effective date of Resolution 85-95 to the date the Section HI portion of the Fee becomes effective. B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall he used to finance the Improvements and Facilities. C. After considering the Study, the 1996 Study Update, the Cost Estimate Report, thc 1996 Cost Estimate Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, Resolution No. 1-95, Resolution 41-96, Resolution 225-99, the Agenda Statement, thc SP, the General Plan, the Environmental Documents, all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on June 15, 2004, the Council reapproves and rcadopts the Study, as revised by thc 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996 Cost Estimate, the 1999 Cost Study Update and the 2004 Update Study, and incorporates each herein, and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA, the SP, and the City's General Plan. D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the Environmental Documents. E. The Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the Environmental Documents as necessary to accommodate traffic from and/or to, to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the Environmental Documents. Since the certification of the Environmental DocumentS, there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the Environmental Documents, no substantial cbarmges in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the Environmental Documents' analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities is not required at this 4 stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details as to their timing and construction are not presently known. E. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin, both residential and non-residential, will generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Improvements and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin, both residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 3. That there is a reasonable reIationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements and Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total mount it will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities, and the percentage by which development within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Study Update, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996 Cost Estimate, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development, set forth in the Study, as revised in the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements and Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each particular development will generate. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: I. Definitions Development" shall meantheconstruction, alterationoradditionofanybuildingorstructurewithinEasternDublin.b. "EasternDublin" shallmeanallterritorydepictedwithintheEasternDublinTIFAreaontheLandUseandBoundaryMapattachedheretoasExhibitA.c. "ImprovementsandFacilities" shallincludethosetransportationandtransitimprovementsand facilitiesasaredescribedinSectionI, IIandIIIoftheStudyandasdescribedinthe1996StudyUpdate, 1999StudyUpdate, the2004UpdateStudy, 1996CostEstimate, SP, andtheEnvironmentalDocuments. "Improvements andFacilities" shallalsoincludecomparable alternative improvementsandfacilitiesshouldlaterchangesin projectionsofdevelopmentintheregionnecessitateconstructionof suchalternativeimprovementsand determines (I) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative improvements and facilities, (2) that the alternative improvements and facilities are comparable to the improvements and facilities in the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 update Study, and (3) that the revenue bom the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative improvements and facilities. d. "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for up to six units per acre. e. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a ~twelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 6 to 14 units per acre. f. "Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 14 to 25 units per acre. g. "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin Constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 25 units per acre. 2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Low Density Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit, and High Density Dwelling Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the date of fmal inspection for the unit, provided that the Fee shall be payable by the date that the building permit is issued for any such Unit from and af[er the date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Improvements and Facilities. b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within Eastern Dublin at the time of issuance of the building permit for such building or stru~e, except where the building or structure will require a later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which ease, with the approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is required prior to occupancy. Each component of the Fee, including the Section I Fee, Section I Residential Fee, Section II Fee and Section II Residential Parking Garage Fee, is a separate fee and together they are referred to as the "Fee." 3. Amount of Fee a. Low Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Low Density Dwelling Unit shall be $6,950 per unit. b. Medium Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Medium Density Dwelling Unit shall be $6,950 per unit. c. Medium/High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit sl/all be $4,865 per unit. 6 d. High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,170 per unit. e. High Density Dwelling Units (Within Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $3,564 per unit. f. Non-Residential Buildings or Structures. The amount of the Fee for each Non- Residential Building or Structure shall be $549 per average weekly trip. The amount of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Uses are shown on Exhibit C. 4. Minimum Cash Payment a. The minimum cash payment for Section I fees shall be 1 I% of the total fee. The minimum cash payment for Section II fees shall be 25% of the total fee. Developers may utilize credits for the remainder of the fee, if authorized by the Administrative Guidelines. The City will utilize the appropriate percentage of the cash payment for repayment of existing interest-bearing loans or advances t~om other agencies, as listed on Attachment 6 to Exh.ibit B. The remaining percentage of the cash payment will be used for construction of remaining improvements as listed on Attachment 1 to Exhibit B. 5. Exemptions From Fee a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following: 1) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single-family residential unit or is added to an existing multi-family residential unit; 2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year at, er the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more. 3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's trips based on Exhibit. C. 4) Retail uses within the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and the Fairway Ranch High-Density Residential Development, as these uses are considered ancillary to the adjoining residential uses and will not generate outside vehicle trips. 6. Use of Revenues Therevenuesraised bypaymentoftheFeeshallbeplacedintheTraffic ImpactFeeFund. SeparateandspecialaccountswithintheTraffic such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes: 1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and constructions of the Improvements and Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2) To reimburse the City for Improvements and Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gitts intended by the grantor to be used for traffic improvements. 3) To reimburse developers and/or public agencies who have constructed Improvements and Facilities; and 4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee program. b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 7. Standards The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements and Facilities are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, SP, and the Environmental Documents. 8. No Existing Deficiencies The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin and that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category I (Section I) of the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, is generated entirely by new development within Eastern 'Dublin and, further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category II and III (Section II and III) of the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, is generated by new development within Eastern Dublin and other new development and, therefore, the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements and Facilities for which development within Eastern Dublin is responsible. 9. Periodic Review a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006. b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shag make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 8 10. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General Plan, as well as increases due to construction costs and land values. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal approximately every three (3) years. 11. Automatic Increase in Fee The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 9 above. The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July I, 2005 and each July 1 thereatter, as follows: a. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown in the 2004 Cost Estimate Update) shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20~city average) for the month of April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. b. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities shall be increased/decreased annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land appraisal prepared for the City for purposed of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value in Year One is $10/acre and in Year Two is $11/acre, that is annual increase of 10% which will result in a yearly increase of 10%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 9 above. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. 12. Area of Benefit Fee A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of Benefit Fee adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the portion of the Fee designated for the construction of those improvements and facilities identified in Category I (Section I) of the Study that are major thoroughfares and bridges. These improvements and the estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit I) attached hereto. The "Area of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the Area of Benefit in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this resolution and in the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, with the amount to be assessed for residential and non-residential as shown on Exhi. bi.t.lD. The Area of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Traffic Impact Fee Fund into separate accounts established for each of the improvements identified in Exhibit D. 13. Administrative Guidelines The City Council may adopt administrative guidelines for the fee program to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit or other administrative aspects of the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursemem or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described here~ Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by Payment of the Fee. 14. Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediat~!y. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 225-99 sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution. The Area of Benefit Fee established in Section 12 of this resolution shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 hereof is declared invalid for any reason. 15. Severability Each component of the Fee, including the Section I fee, Section I Residential, Section II, Section II Residential Parking Garage Fees and each and every improvement financed by the Fee or any of the component fees, and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component fee of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2004. AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Omvetz and Sbranti, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: Vm. Zika ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Deputy City Clerk G:ICC-MTGSL2OO4-qtr2~JunelO6-15-O4~reso'edtif. DOC (Item 6. D 10 Exhibit B City of Dublin 2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Prepared by Public Works Department May 27, 2004 The following is the 2004 update ("the 2004 Update") for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("the TIF"). This memorandum explains the methodology used in updating the previous reports prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants and Santina and Thompson for the 1996 fee update, and by the Department of Pubtic Works for the 1999 fee update. Summary The following Summary Table identifies the changes on the per trip TIF for Section I and Section II improvements for both residential and non-residential development projects: Proposed TIF Summary Table Section I $391 $425 9% $391 $425 9% Section I Residential $48 $45 (6%) N/A N/A N/A Section II $99 $124 25% $99 $124 25% Section II Residential $0 $101 N/A ,N/A N/A N/A BART Garage Total Section I and N/A $594 N/A N/A $549 N/A Section II Development Within Transit Center) .. Total Section I and $538 $695 29% $490 $549 12% Section II Development Outside Transit Center) The revised fee results in the following fees per housing unit: Proposed Residential TIF Summary Table Low Density Up to 6 units/acre t 0 N/A $6,950 Medium Density 7-14 units/acre 10 N/A $6,950 Medium/High Density 15-25 units/acre 7 N/A $4,865 High Density 26 or more . 6 $3,564 $4,170 units/acre Section I fees pay for improvements within the Eastern Dublin Specific" Plan Area, which are needed solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and these improvements are funded 100% through the TIF. Section II fees pay for improvements w/thin or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed, in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the TIF funds the proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct these improvements. Section I fees include a Residential Adjustment that is applied to ali residential development in Eastern Dublin to pay for two Park and Ride lots and the Tassajara Creek RegiOnal Trail. These improvements benefit only residential development. SectiOn I1 fees include a Residential BART Parking Adjustment that is applied to all residential development outside of the Transit Center in Eastern Dublin to pay for a portion of the BART parking structure within the Transit Center. Residential development within the Transit Center is within walkdng distance of the BART station and would not utilize the BART parking facility. The Section IZ fee rate was not updated, as the collection of the Section III fee was suspended with the adoption by the City (Resolution No. 89-98) of the Th-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. The TVTD Fee, which is collected from new development in addition to the Section I and II TIF, funds improvements formerly covered by the' Section 1It fee. In the event collection, of the Section III fee becomes necessary at some point in the future, the fee rate will be adjusted at that time for all adjustments made to the TIF since the effective date of the TVTD Fee. Page 2 of 19 Background The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was initially adopted in January of t995, and subsequently updated in 1996 and again in 1999. Since that time, some of the background data used in determining the fee has changed, requiring that the £ee be revised to reflect current conditions. Background information that has changed includes more accurate projections of land use, minor changes in the scope of infrastructure improvements'to be fi~mded by the' fee and substantial increases in the land value of right- of-Way needed for the construction of improvements. The revised fee also takes into account the current stares (as of January l, 2004) of those improvements that are complete, Under construction, or guaranteed under an improvement agreement. The most significant changed circumstance is the proposed inclusion of the area known as the Transit Center in the TIF area. This area, bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, 1-580, and the Iron Horse Trail, is not currently included in the area covered by the Eastern Dublin TflX: The land, which is owned by'the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), was the subject of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment approved by the City Council on December 3, 2002 Resolution No. 216-02), allowing development o£ site for office and residential uses. The Transit Center will conuibute to the need for a number of transportation infrastructure improvements not currently funded by the TlY program. In conjunction with the Transit Center approvals, ACSPA requested annexation to the Eastern Dublin TW area because certain of the improvements needed by the Transit Center are also needed by Eastern Dublin development. These improvements are the widening o£ the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection and widening o£ the westbound on-ramp from southbound Dougherty Road to 1-580, the widening of Scarlett Drive from two to four lanes, and the widening of the westbound off-ramp and the northbound overcrossing at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. The boundaries of the properties proposed to be subject to the fee are shown on Exhibit A to the Resolution. The boundaries include all properties currently within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (which includes the Transit Center) as well as remaining properties within the City's Sphere of Influence that have been annexed to the City or are expected to be annexed to the City. The 2004 Fee Update Inclusion of the Transit Center in the TIF Area. The City Council approved a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan _~endmentJ Stage I Development Plan/ Tentative Map for the Eastern Dublin BART Transit Center on December 3, 2002, allowing development of two million square feet o£ office space, 70,000 square feet o£ retail space, and 1,500 units of high-density residential development. This development will contribute to the need for a number of roadway Page 3 of 19 improvements not currently included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Among other things, the Transit Center approvals amended the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to include the Transit Center area. The Transit Center property is not currently located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin TIF and is not now subject to the payment of the TIF Fee, although it is now within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, which owns the Transit .Center property, has requested that the Property be annexed into the TIF area and that certain of the improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts from the Transit Center development be added to the scope of improvements funded by the TIF. Staff indicated in the Transit Center staff report that it would return to the Council with a proposed amendment to the TIF to include improvements required by the Transit Center that are appropriate for inclusion in the TIF program. The resulting extended TIF area is shown in the Land Use and Boundary Map in Exhibit A to the Resolution. Inclusion of the Transit Center in the TIF Area is justified because the Transit Center, like the rest of Eastern Dublin, relies on the Eastern Dublin transportation network that the TIF funds. Like the remainder of Eastern Dublin (including the General Plan Amendment area), the Transit Center is in an area that was characterized by the lack of developed transportation infrastructure to serve the necessary urban development. That infrastructure is necessary only to serve development in Eastern Dublin, and, since the Transit Center is within Eastern Dublin, it should pay its proportionate share of the costs of the necessary infrastructure. One important issue to note is that, if the Transit Center and the improvements associated with the Transit Center are included in the area covered by. the Eastern Dublin TIF, the TtF amount for those properties within the current TIF area will be less than it would have been under the 2004 Update had the Transit Center not been included, as shown in Attachment 11 to this Update Study report. Thus, it is appropriate to include the Transit Center and the associated improvements in the TIF. Addition of New Improvements to the Infrastructure Funded by the TIF. The 2004 Update includes several improvements that were not included in the previous version of the TIF. This section of the update provides the reasons for the inclusion of those improvements. Improvements Related to Transit Center. Several improvements required as a condition of approval of the Transit Center Project are appropriate for inclusion in the TIF. These improvements are estimated to cost $10.7 million and are the following: 1) Dublin/Dougherty intersection [Dougherty Road north leg and soUth leg and Dublin Blvd. west leg and east leg], Condition No. 26 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02~40, approving Parcel Map 7892; Page 4 of 19 2) Scarlett Drive improvements between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, Condition No. 27 o.f,P!~ng Commission Resolution No. 02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892; and 3) Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange, Condition No. 29 of Planning Commission Resolution No.02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892. The 1999 Study Update includes Scarlett Drive as a two-lane' facility; the proposed 2004 Update Study shows the road as a four-lane facility as a result of additional traffic from the Transit Center. While the Transit Center requires the completion of these improvements, the need for these improvements is necessitated not just by the trips associated with the Transit Center alone but cumulatively by the trips from Eastern Dublin and the Transit Center. In other words, both the Transit Center and other Eastern Dublin developments would generate additional trips in the area and contribute to the need for the improvements. Thus, the costs of these improvements should be spread across the entirety of Eastern Dublin. Other improvements that were required as conditions of approval of the Transit Center, such as the roadway extensions of Martinelli Way west of Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, south of Dublin Boulevard, and other internal roadway improvements, were considered to be inappropriate for inclusion in the TIF because they were more local in nature. In addition to the improvements listed above, the Transit Center developer reqUested that the City consider including certain parking spaces in the proposed BART parking garage in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. This improvement was not a condition of approval of the Transit Center, because the parking garage was proposed as part of the Project. The City commissioned a study by Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, dated October 11, 2002, to determine the extent of the need for parking spaces at the BART station attributable to Eastern Dublin development. (The Omni-Means study is presented as Attachment 3 to the Staff Report.) The Omni-Means study indicates that Eastern Dublin creates a need for parking stalls at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and that that need will continue to grow as Eastern Dublin develops. Based on a license plate survey at the existing Dublin BART station, the study concludes that 400 to 500 of the future East Dublin BART parking spaces would be used by Eastern Dublin residents at buildout. The estimated cost of the proposed 1,680 parking space BART parking garage is $20 million. As there are 1,680 total spaces in the BART parking garage, the 500 spaces required by Eastern Dublin constitute 30% of the total spaces in the garage. Thirty percent of the $20,000,000 cost of the garage is $6,000,000. This would equate to $6 million in proportionate cost to construct 500 of the total 1,680 garage spaces to service parking demand by BART riders residing in Eastern Dublin. In addition, since the Transit Center EIR indicates that the Transit Center does not necessitate the BART parking garage, the costs associated with the BART parking garage should only be charged to the remainder of Eastern Dublin, which creates the need for the Page 5 of 19 spaces in the garage. In addition, since the Omni Means study demonstrates that Eastern Dublin's use of the BART parking garage is associated with residential development and not commercial development, the $6,000,000 in costs associated with the parking garage should be imposed only on residential development. Accordingly, the proposed fee update includes an adjustment to the Section II fees, much like the existing Section I Residential Adjustment, that applies only to residential development outside of the Transit Center Area to fund the .portion of the costs of the BART parking garage attributable to Eastern Dublin. The adjustment is described as the Section II BART Parking Adjustment. Calculation of the Fee. The following is a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the new fee, as shown on the attached Table I, dated May 25, 2004. Line 1 - Cost of Improvements/Right-of-Way Not Currently Guaranteed The cost of remaining improvements and right-of-way to be funded by the TIF is shown in Attachments 1 through 5. The revised cost estimate (Attachment 1, Cost Estimate Summary) includes the following changes: a) The costs of improvements that have already been Completed or are guaranteed have been removed from the total estimate. b) The cost of right-of-way acquisition has been increased to reflect higher land values in the Eastern Dublin area. The revised fight-of-way cost estimates were based on the Valuation Analysis Report for Traffic and Facility Impact Fee Study, Dublin Ranch and Portions of Emerald Glen East of Tassaiara Creek in East Dublin, May, 2003, prepared by Associated Right-of-Way Services, Inc. The appraisal is available for public review at the Department' of Public Works c) The cost of the improvements for the remaining street segments not guaranteed under existing improvement agreements has been increased to cover minor changes in the scope of improvements on these streets. Those changes are summarized as follows: The cost of the Community Park frontage right-of-way has been added to the TIF, as these improvements benefit all of Eastern Dublin. The park is located in the eastern portion of Dublin Ranch along Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, and Fatlon Road (Segments 18A, 20, and 26A). The 1999 update included only cost of frontage improvements, with the right-of-way paid out of the Public Facilities Improvement Fee. ~Frontage costs reflect the realignment of Fallon Road' to follow the Old Fallon Road right-of-way, which is 600' west of the alignment shown On the existing General Plan. Page 6 of 19 The cost of Segment 11, Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard, has been amended to include the improvements and right-of-way for the two outside lanes in easterly 3,000' section through the Extended Planning Area, east of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Since this area currently has little development potential, fi'ontage improvements will not likely be borne by adjoining properties and would therefore need to be paid out of the T~. The 2004 Update Study assigns 50% of the entire cost of this portion of Dublin Boulevard to the TIF. City of Livermore Staff has agreed to incorporate the remaining 50% of the cost for this improvement into the on-going update of Livermore's TI1:r program. The Eastern Dublin Property Owners ~nmexation (EDPOA) SEIR shows the need to provide an additional northbound lane on Hacienda Drive over the 1-580 interchange (Segment 15), as well as widen the existing eastbound and westbound off-ramps from four lanes to five lanes. This requires reconstruction of the existing westbound loop on-ramp. These improvements are necessary to serve cumulative traffic generated from development within the TIF boundary. The cost of bridge construction on Tassajara Road north of Fallon Road (Segment 22) has been increased to provide creek stabilization and possible habitat mitigation. In addition, the cost has been revised to reflect the.proposed Tassajara Road precise alignment, which differs from the alignment used in the 1999 update; the current costs include free-right mm lanes southbound at Fallon Road with a grade separated pedestrian walkway. The cost of bridge construction on Fallon Road south of Tassajara Road (Segment 26) has been modified to reflect the current bridge design, and includes grading work needed to provide the approach fills. Right-of-way and improvement costs have been increased on Fallon Road between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway (Segment 26A) to reflect the change from a four-lane road to a six-lane road. The existing southbound left turn lane at the Village Parkway/.~,'nador Valley Boulevard intersection must be 'lengthened to provide adequate storage for additional trips to Eastern Dublin. A separate right turn lane is needed on southbound Arnold Road at Dublin Boulevard, as identified in the SEIR for the IKEA Retail Center development. A traffic study will be performed to analyze overall traffic impacts on the 1-580 corridor from trips generated from new development and regional through traffic. t"-" · A portion of the costs of BART parking structure to be constructed with the Transit Center at the Eastern Dublin BART station wilt be assigned to the TIF to Page 7 of 19 reflect that Eastern Dublin residential development creates the needs for that percentage of the garage facility. d) The cost of additional improvements required of the Transit Center project has been added. These additional improvements are summarized as follows:. Scarlett Drive will be widened from a~two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard (segment 21, as required under Condition 27 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40 ). Costs include right-of-way for the reconstruction of the existing Iron Horse Trail, which lies on the proposed Scarlett Drive alignment. Improvements at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road and the Dougherty Road/I-580 Interchange (Segments 3,4, 6 and 7) previously assigned to the Transit Center have been added to the TIF. This includes a second northbound right-turn lane, lengthened triple westbound left-tm lanes, a third eastbound through lane, a fourth southbound through lane on Dougherty Road between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound onramp, and widening of the diagonal westbound onramp to two lanes, as described in Condition 26 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40. Modifications are required at the Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange (Segment '15) to widen the existing westbound offramp from four lanes to five lanes, and widen the northbound overcrossing to four laries at the interchange, as described in Condition 29 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40. e) Right-of-way and improvement costs include an allowance for frontage improvements which are typically the responsibility of the adjoining property owner in certain areas where the development potential of the adjoining property is limited and the land may not develop'. These locations are detailed in Attachments 3 and 4 and are generally located on the northern end of Tassajara Road. The allowance will allow the TIF to pay for the Cost'of improvements or right-of-way in the event these are needed to allow the orderly and safe development of the surrounding area. This allowance would be used only if necessary and its inclusion in the T~ does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility of this work. Developers will not receive credit for frontage improvements if these improvements are installed by the developer in conjunction with development of the property. f) The cost of the Zone 7 fee for new impervious' surfaces has been added to each segment. Costs are detailed in Attachment 5. The costs for the remaining improvements have been summarized in four categories: Page 8 of 19 Section I Improvements $76,470,693 Section I Residential Improvements $1,935,859 Section II Improvements $43,465,782 Section II Residential BART Parking $6,000,000 Total Costs $127,872,334 The Section I improvements are required solely to accommodate development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. This report assigns 100% of the cost of each Section 1 improvement to the Section I TIF. The Section I Residential Improvements category includes several improvements that benefit only the residential development in Eastern Dublin. These improvements include the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail and one Park and Ride lot near Fallon Road (a second Park and Ride Lot has been constructed by the Koll Corporate Center on Tassajara Road). The City of Livermore will contribute 50% of the cost of the 3,000 foot portion of Dublin Boulevard outside the City of Dublin Sphere of Influence. The report assigns 100% of the cost of the remainder of the improvements to the Section I Residential TIF. The Section II improvements are needed 'to accommodate development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, as well as serve traffic generated outside of the Specific Plan Area~ Therefore, it is appropriate that the Section II TIF fund only a share of the improvement costs based on the proportion of traffic generated within the Specific Plan Area. The Section II TIF is assigned 50% of the total cost of the Fallon Road/1- 580 Interchange, with the remainder of the costs assigned to the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. Scarlett Drive and portions of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard are partially 'funded by prior traffic mitigation fees paid by development in the Downtown area. The costs for the remaining Section II improvements are assigned at 100% of the total cost. The Section II Residential BART Parking category includes that portion of the Eastern Dublin BART Parking Garage that serves parking generated from residential development in Eastern Dublin (this is approximately 500 spaces out of 1,680 total spaces, or 30% of the total structure cost). This report assigns this cost to the Section 1I Residential BART Parking T/F. This fee will be paid only by residential development outside the Transit Center, as development within the Transit Center would not travel by automobile to access the BART Station. Line 2 Balance Due on TIF Credits The City of Dublin received funding advances from County of Alameda, the City of Pleasanton and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for construction of certain improvements needed to serve Eastern Dublin development ("the funding Page 9 of'19 advances';). In addition, between 1995 and the present, several developers in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area constructed or guaranteed various improvements funded by the TIF. Pursuant to the TIF, each such developer received TIF credits in return. Portions of the funding advances have been repaid. Further, developers have utilized portions of their credits against TIY fees that would otherwise be due with building permits, reducing the value of the remaining credits. A summary of credits per developer is shown on Attachment 6, based on a detailed history of loans and credit agreements provided by the Finance Division on November 10, 2003 and on March 4, 2004. The three loans to the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, and BART are subject to interest payments on the unpaid principal. The interest to be paidmust be added to the TIF. For the purpose of estimating the cost of the interest,' it is assumed that the City of Dublin will utiliZe 90% of the Section I and II fee revenue over each of the next eight years as payment on the loans, allowing the loans to be paid in full over that time period. The means of accruing the needed funds is discussed later in this memorandum. The credit tot'al includes several adjustments for improvements, right-of-way, or fee payments for which credits are pending and expected to be completed prior to adoption 0f the 2004 Update. This includes a cash payment by the Quarry Lane School for its Phase 1 development, improvement and dedication of Gleason Drive Segment 20) by the Lin Family as part of the Dublin Ranch Area A infrastructure, and' improvement and dedication of both Dublin Boulevard (Segment 10) and Central Parkway (Segment 18A) between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way as part of the Fairway Ranch development. The Section I Residential Surcharge credit balance has been adjusted to reflect credits given for the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail since the 1999 TIF update. These changes are detailed on Attachment 6a. The outstanding TIF credit balances as of March 4, 2004 are shown below: Section I Improvements $59,669,243 Section I Residential Improvements $2,981,334 Section II Improvements $5,969,269 Section II Residential BART Parking N/A Total Costs $68,619,847 Page 10 of 19 The above costs must be -included in the revenue to be raised under the revised TIF Section I and Section II fees, in order that adequate funds are available to reimburse the credit holders. Line 3 - Total Cost of TIF Improvements (Lines 1 and 2) This line, which is the sum of Lines 1 and 2, shows the total cost of all improvements remaining to be funded under the TIF. Total costs by category are as follows: Section I Improvements $136,139,936 Section I Residential Improvements $4,917,193 Section II Improvements $49,435,051 Section 11 Residential BART Parking $6,000,000 Total Costs $196,492,180 Line 4 - Current TIF Fee Account Balance, Section I Fees collected fi.om the building permits issued to date that have not been allocated to specific TIF improvements, remain in a reserve account and can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. The cash balance of Section [ TIF fee revenues as of March 4, 2004 has been provided by the Finance Division, as shown on Attachment 7. The current balance is $53,732. Line 5 - Current T1F Fee Account Balance, Section II The cash balance of Section II TIF fee revenues as of March 4, 2004 has been provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is $4,609,182, 'as shown on Attachment 7. Line 6a- Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fee Account Balance The 'City of Dublin has negotiated an agreement with the County of Contra Costa for the payment of funds to provide traffic improvements on City of Dublin streets necessitated by development in the Dougherty Valley. The estimated level of contribution is $13,473,460. Under the terms of the agreement, these funds must be spent on selected roads impacted by Dougherty Road traffic, specifically Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. The cash balance of Dougherty Valley impact fees as of March 4, 2004 has been provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is $2,290,841. For the purpose of the TIF update, the balance is split equally between Section I and Section II, or 1,145,421 for each account, as shown on Attachment 7. Revenues are split equally between the two Sections based on the agreement between the City and the Count5, of Page 11 of 19 Contra Costa, which calls for the Dougherty Valley fees to be used for the imprOvement of Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. The Section I (Tassajara Road and Fallon Road) and Section II (Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive) costs are approximately equal for these four roadways, and revenues will be assigned in equal amounts to each section. Line 6b - Section I Residential Fee Collected to Date (Credit to Residential Account Balance) A portion of the Section I fees collected to date inclUde the residential surcharge. The fees collected to date should be applied against the remaining cost of the Section I residential improvements. Since the surcharge is not collected as a separate fee, the total fees collected must be estimated by the number of building penn/ts issued to date. The estimate is detailed in Attachment 8. The estimated fees are $1,344,110. This amount may be deducted from the remaining residential surcharge costs. However, since these funds'are included in the Finance Division Section I account balance, this amount must be deducted from the account balance, which results in an increase in the remaining Section I costs. Line 7 - Ad_iusted Cost of Remaining Improvements (Line 3 -Lines 4-6) The total cost of the TIF improvements and credits (Line 3) is decreased by the current balance of fees not encumbered for specific projects (Lines 4-6) Lines 8a and 8b - Estimated Section I and Section 1I Fees from Remaining Trips ( 10,600). ' A list of current approved development projects is shown on Attachment 9. For the purpose of calculating the revised TIF, it is assumed that the projects on this list will be issued building permits accounting for 10,600 trips prior to the revised TIF taking effect; therefore, payment of the TIF will be made at the existing rate (actual payment will be at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). The revenue raised from fees applied to these trips can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. Estimated revenues from the remaining trips collected at the old rate are 4,144,600 for Section I and $1,049,400 for Section II. It is nOted that, with this update, all of these trips happen to be from residential development: Line 9- Estimated Section I Residential Fees From Remaining Residential Trips (10,600) Collected at Current Rate For the purpose of calculating the revised TIF, it is assumed that building permits accounting for 10,600 residential trips wilt be issued prior to the new fee taking effect, and that payment of the TIF will be at the existing rate (actual payment will be Page 12 of 19 at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). This will generate Section I Residential Improvement revenue in the amount of $508,800. Line 10 - Remaining Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fees The total remaining Dougherty Valley fees (see discussion under Line 6a above) to be collected are equal to the amount available under the agreement minus fees collected to date (account balance and funds transferred out to projects). This amount is equal to $5,959,814.60 for each section. The detail is shown on Attachment 7. Line 11 - Adiusted Costs to be Financed by Revised Fee (Line 7 - (Lines 8, 9 and 10)) The adjusted cost of the remaining improvements (Line 7) must be further adjusted to reflect the portion of the work to be financed by the revised TIF fee. This is done by subtracting the estimated fees to be collected under .~the old rate as well as the estimated remaining Dougherty Valley revenue (Lines 8, 9, and 10). Total cost by category is as follows: Section I Improvements $126,180,479 Section I Residential Improvements $3,064,283 Section I1 Improvements $36,671,234 Section Il Residential BART Parking $6,000,000 Total Costs $171,915,996 Line 12 - Total Remaining Trips Subiect to Fees A list of pending and buildout projects subject to the Eastern Dublin TIF is shown on Attachment 10. Trip generation is based on General Plan land use designations and densities approved within the Eastern Dublin TIF area. Land uses for each specific property and anticipated densities were determined by the Community Development Department. For the purpose of estimating the revised fee, it is assumed that these projects will all receive building permits after the revised fee has gone into effect. The list has been revised to reflect the current status of land use entitlements. The revised total number of trips subject to the TIF is 296,836. It should be noted that the purpose of this list is to develop an estimate of trips for the purpose of calculating the fee, and should not imply approval of land uses or densities for specific properties beyond any existing entitlements for those properties. Also, actual fees will be based on the trip rates for land uses shown on Exhibit C, and not the projections shown on Attachment 10.. One commercial project is shown as creating no yehicle traffic. This is the retail use within the Transit Center. The retail use will serve residents within the development through pedestrian access, and will not generate vehicle trips from the outside. This retail use will be exempt from paying the TIF. Page 13 of 19 There is a nominal amount of ancillary retail use within the Fairway Ranch high- density residential project, which is not shown in Attachment 10. This retail use will also be exempt from paying TIF fees, as it will not generate additional vehicle trips. A list of residential-only projects is shown on Attachment 10a. The total number of residential trips is 68,257. The total number of estimated trips includes 49,030 total trips and 9,030 residential trips from the Transit Center project, which is being annexed to the TIF with this update. Line 13 - Revised Fee (Cost per Trip)(Line 11 divided by Line 12) The revised fee for each section is determined by dividing the cost of improvements Line 11) by the number of trips subject to the fee (Line 12). The increase in the Section I fee is approximately 9%. The table below shows the major cost changes responsible for the cost increase; costs are approximate and do not include miscellaneous minor changes. Page 14 of 19 Costs to be Financed by TH (1999 Update) '$112,589,633 8% Cost Escalation to 2004 < $9,007, ! 71 2004 Value of TIF Costs (rounded to the nearest $1,000) $121,597,000 Section I Fees Received Since 1999 (65,000 trips, $361-$391/trip) ($25,097,000) Remaining TIF Costs $96,500,000 Additional Right-of-Way Cost Increases Above 10% $6,000,000 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange, Widen W/B Offramp $1,245,000 Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange, Widen N/B Overcrossing $3,020,000 Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange, Widen E/B Offramp $1,435,000 Arnold Road Southbound Right Turn Lane at Dublin Boulevard $200,000 Zone 7 Fees $1,700,000 Community Park Frontage Right-of-Way $2,400,000 DiManto Property Right-of-Way Condemnation $3,500,000 Tassajara Road Improvements $9,300,000 Additional Interest, Loans ~ $1,200,000 1-580 Corridor Study $100,000 City Entry Signs $100,000 Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road Intersection Alignment Study $100,000 Loss of Anticipated Dougherty Valley Fees ($6.5 M vs. $9.1 M)- $2,600,000 City of Livermore Contribution to Dublin Blvd, Fallon Road to Airway ($3,200,000) Blvd. Total Additional Costs $29,700,000 Total Costs $126,200,000 Cost Increase (Cost Increase Factor) 31% (1.31) Total Trips w/o Transit Center [ 247,806 Additional Trips From Transit Center 49,030 Total Trips 296,836 Trips Increase rounded to nearest full % (Trip Increase Factor) 20% (1.20) Fee Increase (Cost Increase Factor / Trip Increase Factor) 9% (1.09) The total number of remaining trips in the original TIF subject 'to the revised fee is 247,806; this number is increased approximately 20% to 296,836 by the addition of Page 15 of 19 49,030 trips from the Transit Center. The addition of these trips reduces the actual fee increase to 9%. There is a m/nor decrease in the Section I Residential fee of 6%. The scope of the remaining improvements remained largely unchanged, with the cost increased by 10% to allow for five years of inflation. The total number of remaining residential trips in the original TIF subject to the revised fee is estimated at 59,227; this number is increased approximately 15% to 68,257 by the addition of 9,030 trips from the Transit Center. The addition of these trips is the reason for the drop in the fee. The increase in the Section II fee is 25%. Major cost increases are summarized as follows: Page 16 of 19 Costs to be Financed by TIF (1999 Update) *28,478,389 8% Cost Escalation to 2004 $2,278,271 2004 Value of TIF Costs $30,756,660 Section II Fees Received Since 1999 (65,000 Trips at $91-$99/trip) ($6,156,660) Remaining TIF Costs $24,600,000 Additional Costs Dougherty Road, Traffic Signal Modification ' $350,000 Dublin Boulevard (Transit Center Share) $500,000 Dougherty Road (Transit Center Share) ' · $4,000,000 Dougherty Road/1-580 Interchange $1,700,000 Transit Center Improvements) Scarlett Drive $2,300,000 Transit Center Improvements) Fallon Road / 1-580 Interchange (Increased City Participation) $2,500,000 Airway Boulevard Interchange ($2,100,000) Already Built By City of Livermore) Village 'Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard SB left Turn Modification $150,000 Loss of Anticipated Dougherty Valley Fees ($7:i M.vs.~ $10;5 M)' '...- ....... $3,400,000 Additional Interest, Loans $600,000 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project, Village ParkwaY to Sierra Court ' $1,100,000 Downtown Traffic Impact Fees ($2,400,000) Total Additional Costs ~ $12,100,000 Total Costs $36,700,000 Cost Increase rounded to nearest fUll % (TriP~increase Factor) 50% (1.50) Total Trips w/o Transit Center 247,806 Additional Trips From Transit Center 49,030 Total Trips 296,836 Trips Increase (Trip Increase Factor) 20% (1.20) Fee Increase (Cost Increase Factor / Trip Increase Factor) 25% (1..25) The total number of remaining trips in the original TIF subject to the revised fee is 247,806; this number is increased approximately 20% to 296,836 by the addition of Page 17 of 19 49,030 trips from the Transit Center. The addition of these trips reduces the actual fee increase to 25%. The Section II Residential BART Parking fee isa new fee, and therefore there is no comparison to the old fee. Payment Plan for Interest-Bearing Loans The TIF program is liable for payments on certain loans by third parties for TIF infrastructure. As many developers pay the TIF with cred/ts, very little cash is available to repay these loans. The 2004 Update uses an eight-year payoff period in determining the interest costs for the three interest-bearing loans. This requires that the Update include a plan for accruing adequate fee revenues to meet the assumed payment schedule. It should be noted that the payment plan is developed for the purpose of estimating interest costs, and is not a commitment to fullY pay these loans within this schedule. Actual payments will be based on the actual revenue obtained fi'om development, which may vary from the projections in the 2004 Update due to developer's schedules, economic conditions, etc. Attachment 12 includes a discussion of the three loans and a proposal to pay off the loan principals. The diScussion includes a critical point: although the total eight-year interest mOunt of the loans is a very small portion of the TIF costs, historically the revenue from TIF cash payments has only been adequate to pay the annual interest on the loan and nOt reduce the principal. If this state of affairs were to continue, the interest payments would continue indefmitely because the principal WoUld never be lowered. The ongoing interest payments result in the toss of fees that could otherwise be used to construct improvements or pay back existing credits. The 2004 Update includes the provision that the minimum Secti°n I cash payment be. increased from 3% of the total fee to 11%, and that the minimum Section II cash payment be increased from 12.4% to 25% of the total fee. Developments with existing development agreements would continue to pay the. portion of the TIF in cash specified in the development agreement. The City will utilize 'the appropriate percentage of the fee revenue for loan repayment, with the remaining percentage of the fees retained for use on capital improvements funded by the fee or for administrative costs associated with the fee program. Analysis of the eight-year cash flow for the Section II account shows that there is adequate Section II funding to allow loan payments and also fund scheduled Capital Improvement Projects (specifically, improving the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection and widening Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Dougherty Road to Sierra Court) that are funded through the TIF. The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, in addition to receiving cash payments against the existing Section II loan, may utilize the existing loan as credit Page 18 of 19 against Section II fees which would otherwise be due. Since this will result in a decrease in Section II revenue and also result in a more rapid payment of the loan, the City may suspend payments on the ACSPA loan if necessary to maintain adequate funds for Section II capital improvement projects. G:IEDTIF Updatel2004 Study Update. DOC Page 19 of 19 2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Detail of Total Costs (Pdor to Adjustments) by Section and Project Segment Credits or Advances Segment 2004 Cost Estimate Balance at 3/10/04 Tota: SECT ON. iMPROVEMENTS 8 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Southern Pacific RAN to East BART Access $ 265,345.60 $ 265.345.60 8A Dublin Boulevard Extension - East BART Access to Hacienda Ddve $ 612,095.80 $ 612,095.80 9 :)ublin Boulevard - Hacienda to Tassajara Road $ · 195,325.00 $ 195,325.00 10 Dublin Boulevard - Tassajara Road to Fallon Road $ 6,773,679.10 $ 6,773,679.10 11 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Fallon Road to Airway $ 12,620,161.00 $ 12,620,16t .00 13 i Hacienda - t-580 to Dublin Boulevard Extension (not including nterchange) $ $ 14 Hacienda - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive $ 445,353,92 $ 445,353.92 15 Freeway Interchange - Hacienda Road with 1-580 $ 5,700,000.00 $ 5,700,000.00 16 Arnold Drive - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gteason $ 3,772,937.91 $ 3,772,937.91 16A Central Parkway - Arnold to Hacienda $ 357,497.72 $ 357,497.72 17 Central Parkway - Hacienda to Tassajara ' $ 1,903,486.47 $ 1,903,486.47 18 Central Parkway - Tassajara Road to Keegan Street $ 151,067.80 $ 15.1,067.80 18A Central Parkway - Keegan Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet $ 4,628,468.00 $ 4,628,468.00 t9 Gleason - Arnold Road to Hacienda $ 81,250.00 $ 81,250,00 19A Gleason - Hacienda to Tassajara ' ' $ $ 20 . Gleason- Tassajara to Fallon $ 379,718.30 $ 379,718.30 22 Tassajara Road - 5,000 feet north of Gleason to Contra Costa County Line $ 15,961,385.12 $ 15,961,385.12 22A Tassajara Road - Gteason Road to 5,000 feet north of Gleason Road $ 3,675,284.50 $ 3,675,284.50 23 Tassajara Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road $ 670,958.96 $ 670,958.96 24 Tassajara Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1-580 (not including interchange) $ 142.876.20 $ 142,876.20 25 Tassajara Ro~d - Freeway Interchange $ $ 26 Fallon Road - Tassajara to Gteasor~ $ 7,396,405.60 $ 7,396,405.60 26A Fallon Road - Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension $ 8,726,697.02 $ 8,726,897.02 27 IFalton Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 $ 1,610,699.04 $ 1,610,699.04 Repod Update $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Other Costs $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Exsting Credits $ $ 59,669,243.23 $ 59,669,243.23 TOTAL SECTION.I IMPROVEMENTS $ 76,470,693.07 $ 59,669,243.23 $ 136,139,936.30 SECTION I1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 I Dougherty Road - City Limits to Amador Valley Widening $ 3,348,516.00 $ 3,348,516.00 2 IDougherty Road - Amador Valley boulevard to Houston Place $ 3,167,756.82 $ 3,167,756.82 3 ~Dougherty Road - Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard $ 562,837.70 $ 562,837.70 4 IDougherty Road - Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off Ramp $ 5,587,007.86 $ 5,587,007.86 5 IDublin Boulevard ~ East of Villag~ Parkway to Sierra Court Widening $ 1;138,400.00 $ 1,138,400.00 6 Dublin Boulevard - Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Widening $ 2,747 168.78 $ 2,747,168.78 7 Dublin Boulevard - Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way $ 1,061,221.19 $ 1,061,221.19 12 !Freeway Interchange - Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 (Airway Bird) $ $ 21 Scarlet Drive - Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension $' 10,338,137.12 $ 10,338,137.12 28 Fallon and t-580 Freeway Interchange with Signals $ 15,364,736.37 $ 15,364,736.37 Other Costs $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 IExisting Credits $ 5,969,269.34 $ 5,969,269.34 TOTAL $ 43,465,781.84 $ 5,969,269.34 $ 49,435,051.18 SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 29 ITassajara Creek Bike Path $ 1,062,179.40 $ 1,062,179.40 30 Park and Ride Lots $ 873,680.00 $ 873,680.00 IExisting Credits $ 2,981,334.00 $ 2,981,334.00 TOTAL SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 1,935,859.40 $ 2,981,334.00 $ 4,917,193.40 SECTION I I RES IDENTIAL BART PARKING IMPROVEMENT t'TOTAL SECTION $ 6.000.000.00 t $ 6,000,000.00 I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 6,000,000.00 $ $ 6,000,000.00 tGRANDTOTAL ALL IMPROVEMENTS ]$ 127,872,334.31 'l $ 68,619,846.57 I$ 196,492,180.88 Attachment 1 - Cost Estimate Summary Doughery Road - Segment 1 4,300 feet, 104 feet curb to curb City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening) Portion of Existing Improvements to be Re-Used Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Eastern portion, 4300 feet to be widened $ 2,570,022.00 Intersection Improvements 200,000.00 Right-of-Way None $ Subtotal $ 2,770,022.00 ICity Administration, Design, Construction ManaCeme'nt, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $ 554,004.40 Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Way), 10.0% $ 277,002.20 Subtotal $ 3,601,028.60 Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees $ (362,498.00) 3,238,530.60 Zone 7 Fees $ 109,985.40 Total $ 3,348,516.00 Doughery Road - segment 2 4,150 feet, 104 feet curb to curb Amador Valle~/Bouidevard to Houston Place Portion of Existing Improvements to be Re-Used Totals for TIF Share Civil improvements 3300 feet to be widened $ . 1772,058.40 Intersection Improvements .......... 507,604.0O Right-of-Way None $ Subtotal $ '' 2,479,662.40 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $ 495,932.48 Contingency (improvement, Right-of-Way), t0.0% $ 247,966.24 Subtotal $ 3,223,561.12 Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees $ (161,953.00) 3,061,608.12 Zone 7 Fees $' 106,148.70 Total $ 3,167,756.82 Dougherty Road - Segment 3 Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900') Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Included Intersection ImProvements Intersection Improvements Dublin Boulevard to Sierra Lane, per City CIP $ .343,850.00 Right-of-Way per City CIP $ 138,690.00 Subtotal $ 482,540.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 12.0% $ 57,277.50 Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Way), 0.0% $ Subtotal $ 539,817.50 Zone 7 Fees $ 23,020.20 Total l $ 562,837.70 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page I of 16, 6/9/2004 Doughert¥ Road - Segment 4 550 feet Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp Widen Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Westbound On-Ramp Improvements $ 1,500,000.00 IntersectiOn Improvements ' ' South Leg, per City OIP $ 1,028,300.00 Rig ht-of-Way South Leg, per City ClP $ 2,957,420.00 Subtotal $ 5,485,720.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 12% $ 651,154.96 Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Way) 0% $ Subtotal $ 6,136,874.96 Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees $ (563,935.00) 5,572,939.96 Zone 7 Fees $ 14,067.90 Total $ 5,587,007.86 Dougherty Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) (Segments 1, 2, 3 & 4) .$ 12,412,896.18 Note'that the City of. San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of Dougli~'rty Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road) Zone ~i",Fees (Segments 1, 2, 3 & 4) $ 253,222.20 Subtotal $ 12,666,118.38 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 5 1,800 feet, 108 Right-of-way, 6 Lanes East of Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) Under Construction (City Capital Improvement Project) Totals for TIF Share Civil. Improvements Additior~al Construction Costs $ - I lntersection Improvements with right of Way Bridge Widening $ Right-of-Way and Demo Subtotal $ City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20% ' $ - Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Wa)/) 10% $ - Subtotal $ - Zone 7 Fees $ - Total $ 1,138,400.00 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum · Page 2of 16, 6/9!2004 Dublin BOulevard - Segment 6 , 2,030 feet, 108 Right-of-Way, 6 'Lanes Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening) Future improvements Will be Similar to Segment 5 Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Sierra Court to Dublin Court, per City CIP. $ 1,138,700.00 Intersection Improvements Dublin Court to Dougherty Road, per City ClP $ 702,000.00 Dublin Court to Dougherty Road, Construct Double E/B left Turn Lane (Rebuild Median) $ 150,000.00 Right-of-Way Sierra Court to Dublin Court, per City CIP $ 496,500.00 Dublin Court to Dougherty Road, per City CIP $ 439;139.00 Subtotal $ 2,926,339.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 12% $ 347,356.44 Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Way) 0% $ Subtotal $ 3,273,695.44 Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees $ (578,450.00) 2,695,245.44 Zone 7 Fees .' $ 51,923.34 Total $ 2,747,168.78 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 7 1,650 feet, 6 Lanes Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Capital Improvement Project) Totals for TIF Share Intersection Improvements East Leg, per City ClP $ 948,620:00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 12% $ 112,601.19 Total $ 1,061,221.19 Dublin Boulevard Subtotal' (to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way) (Segments 5, 6 and 7) $ 4,894,866-63 Zone 7 Fees (Segments 5, 6 and 7) $ 5t,923.34 Subtotal $ 4,946,789.97 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 8 950 feet, 6 Lanes Southern Pacific Right-of-Way tO East BART Access Totals for TIF Share. Civil Improvements 800 ft median island, path and path right of way on north side $ 149,904.00 Intersection Improvements 54,208.00 Right-of-Way None $ Subtotal $ 204,112.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistion, 20% $ .40,822.40 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 20,411.20 Subtotal $ 265,345.60 Zone 7 Fees N/A Total $ 265,345.60 TtF spreadsheet Zone 7 FeesllAttachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 3 of 16, 6/9/2004 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 8A 2,650 feet, 6 Lan~s East BART Access (Iron Horse ParkwaY) to Hacienda Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil mprovements Path on north side (no other roadway improvements) $ 307,824.00 intersection Improvemnts 1'50,250.00 Rig ht-of-Way none $ Subtotal $ 458,074.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 91,614.80 Contingency ( mprovem.ents, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 45,807.40 Subtotal $ 595,496.20 Zone 7 Fees $ 16,599.60 Total $ 612,095.80 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9 4,600 feet, 6 Lanes Hacienda to Taesajara Road Complete Totals for TtF Share Civil Improvements Intersectibh' Improvements with right of way 150,250.00 Bridge $ Right-of-way Subtotal $ 150,250.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 30,050.00 IContingencY (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 15,025.00 Total $ 195,325.00 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10 6,320 feet, 6 Lanes Tassajara Road to Fallon Tassajara Road to Keegan Street is COmplete, Keegan Street to L(~ckhart Wa)/is Under Construction Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Tassajara Road to.Keegan Street: Overlay, Striping, Markings, Median Landscaping (3645 feet) $ 239,754.00 Keegan Street to Lockhart Way: Overlay, Striping, Markings (700 feet) $ 9,677.00 Lockhart Wa)/to Fallon Road:$885/If and 50% (cl to cl), (1 ft grading included), (1,975 feet) $ 873,937.50 Intersection Improvements $ 437,990.00 Box Culvert' $ 120,000.00 Right-of-Way $ 3,490,305.00 Subtotal $ 5,171,663.50 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20% $ 1,034,332.70 Oontingency' (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 517,166.35 Subtotal $ 6,723,162.55 Zone 7 Fees $ 50,516.55 Total $ 6,773,679.10 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 4 of 16, 6/9/2004 Dublin Boulevard Extension -Segment 11 8,000 feet, 6 Lanes Fallon Road to Airway All New Roadway Included Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 885/1f; 50% (cl to cl), (1 ft grading included), 5,000 If; 100%, 3,000 If $ 4,867,500.00 Intersection Improvements 622,660.00 Bridge - 1,620,000.00 Right-of-Way 4,890,240.00 Subtotal $ 12,000,400.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 2,400,080.00 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 1,200,040.00 Subtotal $ 15,600,520.00 City of Livermore Contribution. Civil Improvements r 885/If, 50%, 3,000 If ' $ (1,327,500.00) ight-of-Way ~ $ (1,152,000.00) CityAdministration and Contingency (30%) $'- (743,850.00) Total City of Livermore Contribution $ (3,223,350.00) Subtotal $ 12,377,170.00 Zone 7 Fees $ 242,991.00 Total $ 12,620,161.00 Dublin Boulevard Extension (SP PJW to Airway) Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $ 20,156,499.35 The City.of Dublin borrowed $2,408,955 from the City of Pleasanton to build the 40 ft width of ublin Boulevard Extension from SPRW to Tassajara Road; loan is included under credits) $ Subtotal $ 20,156,499.35 one 7 Fees (Segments 8, 8A, 9, 10 and 11) $- 310,107.15 Subtotal $ 20,466,606.50 Freeway Interchange - Segment 12 Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 (Airway Boulevard) Complete Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements n/a Right-of, Way n/a Subtotal $ Cit~, Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% n/a Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% n/a Total $ TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Esiimate Sum Page 5 of 16, 619/2004 Hacienda - Segment 13 1,525 feet, 6 Lanes 1-580 (Not including interchange) t6 Dublin Boulevard Extension Complete Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Intersection Improvements Right-of-Way ' Subtotal $ City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW A~quistition, 20% $ Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ Total $ Hacienda - Segment 14 2,640 feet, 6 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 800 ft and 1800 ff tengths $ 298,609.20 Intersection Improvements 3t ,250.00 Right-of'Way none $ Subtotal $ 329,859.20 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 65,971.84 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 32,985.92 Subtotal $ 428,816.96 Zone 7 Fees $ 16,536.96 Total $ 445,353.92 Hacienda Road SubtOtal (Without Freeway Interchange) (Segments 13 and 14) $ 428,816.96 Zone 7 Fees (Segments 13 and 14) $ t6,536.96 Subtotal $ 445,353.92 Freeway Interchange - Segment 15 Hacienda Road with '1-580 Widen Offramps and Overcrossing per EDPO EIP, Totals. for TIF Share Civil Improvements E/B Offramp (Additional Lane) $ 1,435,000.00 W/B Offramp (Additional Lane) and N/B Overcrossing (Additional Lane) $ 4,265,000.00 Subtotal $ 5,700,000.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, (Included in Above) $ Contingency (Improvements, Right:of~wa¥) (Included in Above) $ Total $ 5,700,000.00 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 6 of 16, 6/9/2004 Arnold Road -Segment 16 2,640 feet, 4 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Camp Parks is on one side of Roadway) Totals for TtF Share Civil Improvements 2,427,578.21 intersection Improvements 445,000.00 Right-of-Way Subtotal $ 2,872,578.21 City Administration, Design~ Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 574,515.64 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 287,257.82 Subtotal $ 3,734,351.67 Zone 7 Fees' $ 38,588.24 Total $ 3,772,937.91 Central Parkway - Segment '! 6A 1,400 feet, 4 Lanes Arnold to Hacienda Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements one 12ft lane and 16 ft median) $ 229,694.40 Intersection Improvements 31,250.0O Right-of-Way none $ Subtotal $ 260,944.40 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 52,188.88 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 26,094.44 Subtotal $ 339,227.72 Zone 7 Fees $ 18,270.00 Total $ 357,497.72 Central Parkway - Segment 17 4,575 .feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassajara Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 2500 feet of remodeled median $ 299,862.00 2000 feet of median and #1 lane in each direction; (no park improvements) $ 484,682.40 Intersection Improvements $ 93,75O.OO Bridge 540,000.00 Right-of-Way none, paid by park fees . $ Subtotal $ 1,418,294.40 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 283,658.88 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 141,829.44 Subtotal $ 1,843,782.72 Zone 7 Fees $ 59,703.75 Total S 1,903,486.47 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 7 of 16, 6/9/2004 Central Parkway - Segment t8 4 Lanes Tassajara to Keegan Street, Western 3,640 feet All New Roadway Complete Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvemen[s (Overlay, Striping, Markings) 30,158.00 Median Landscaping 86,048.00 Sports Park Right-of-Way Subtota]$ 116,206.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management.. ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 23,241.20 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 11,620.60 Total $ 151,067.80 Central Parkway - Segment 18A 4 Lanes Keegan Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet Road is Under Construction Between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way (800'), Remainder is New Fallon Road is Located on Existing Old Fallon Road Alignment) Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 770 + 84 (6 ft grading) per linear foot @ 38% (1,430') $ 464,064.00 Keegan Street to Lockhart Wa,/': Overlay, Striping, Markings $ 7,655.00 Intersection improvements 159,560.00 Sports Park 246,346.00 Right-of-Way 2,668,380.00 Subtotal $ 3,546,005.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management. ROW Acquistition. 20% $ 709,201.00 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 354,600,50 Subtotal $ 4,609,806.50 Zone 7 Fees $ 18,661.50 Total $ 4.628,468.00 Central Parkway and Arnold Drive Subtotal (Segments 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 18A) I $ 10,678,236.41 Zone 7 Fees (Segments 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 18A) I $ 135~221.49 Subtotal $ 10~8t3,457.90 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 8 of 16, 6/9/2004 Gleason - Segment 19 1,600 feet, 4 Lanes Arnold Road to Hacienda Roadway Complete, Future Traffic Signal at Arnold Drive Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements none $ Intersection Improvements 62,500.00 Right-of-Way none $ - Subtotal $ 62,500.00 City Adm nistration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 12,500.00 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 6,250.00 Total $ 81,250.00 Gleason - Segment 19A 4,650 feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassajara Complete Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Cross-over work $ - Median and #1 lanes for 1,750 feet $ - Park work $ - Intersection Improvements Bridge Right-of-Way Subtotal $ - City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ - Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ - Total $ - TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 9 of 16. 6~9~2004 Gleason - Segment 20 4,800 feet, 4 Lanes Tassajara to Fallon Construction Underway, RAN Dedication Prior to August 1, 2004 Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements D Manto Frontage: Median Landscaping, Overlay, Striping and Markings $ 292,091.00 Intersection improvements Sports Park $ Right-of-Way ' . Subtotal $ 292,09t.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 58,418.20 I Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 29,209.10 Subtotal $ 379,718.30 Zone 7 Fees $ Total $ 379,718.30 Gleas°n Drive Subtotal (Segments 19, 19A and20) I $ 460,968.30 Note the portion of Gleason Drive from Falion Road to Doolan Road is not included because no development is proposed for Doolan.Ca~nYon as part of the Dublin General Plan Amendment) Zone 7'F~s (Segments 19, 19A and 20) Subtotal $ 460,968.30 Scarlet Drive. Segment 21 2,400 feet, 52 feet curb to curb, 80 ft PJW Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil lmpro, rVements 864/!f~@ 100% @ 1000', 1400' Complete @50% (south half complete) $ 1,469,102.40 intersection Improvements . 195,700.00 Miscellaneous. Costs 1,805,400.00 Right-of-Way 4,700,000.00 Subtotal $ 8,170,202.40 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 1,634,040.48 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 817,020.24 Subtotal $ 10,621,263.12 Zone 7 Fees $ 20,880.00 Downtown Traffic impact Fees $ (304,006.00) Total $ 10,338,137.12 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 10 of 16, 6/9/2004 Tassajara Road - Segment 22 5,660 feet, 6 Lanes 5000 ft north of Gleason to Contra Costa County Line All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements median and 2 lanes, each direction $ 2,899,406.88 Intersection Improvements 208,000.00 Miscellaneous Improvements 778,400.00 Bridge 4,820,000.00 Right-of-Way .. 3,460,819.00 Subtotal $ 12,166,625.88 City AdminiStration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 2,433,325.18 Ccmtingenc¥ (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 1,216,662.59 Subtotal $ 15,816,613.64 Zone 7 Fees $ 144,771.48 Total $ 15,961,385.12 Tassajara Road - Segment 22A 5,000 feet, 6 Lanes Gleason to 5,000 ft north of Gleason All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 1 lane, each direction, Gleason to North Dublin Ranch Drive (1300'); median and 2 lanes, each direction, North Dublin Ranch Drive to north (3700') $ 1,821,744.00 intersection Improvements 53,250.00 Miscellaneous Improvements 160,078.00 Right-of-Way 693,693.00 Subtotal $ 2,728,765.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 545,753.00 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 272,876.50 Subtotal $ 3,547,394.50 Zone 7 Fees $ 127,890.00 Total $ 3,675,284.50 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 11 of 16, 6/9/2004 Tassajara Road - Segment 23 2,470 feet, 6 and 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 1 tane in each direction .... $ 331,577.28 ntersecti0n. Improvements $ 159',750.00 Right-of-Way ~ ....... ~. ..... $ Subtotal $ 491,327.28 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 98,265.46 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 49,132.73 Subtotal $ 638,725.46 32,233.50Zone7Fees Total $ 670,958.96 Tassajara Road - Segment 24 800 feet, 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1~580 (not including Interchange) All New ROadway Totals for TiF Share Civil Imp~5~]ements Add 1'12foot lane $ 52,800.00 Intersecti6h Improvements 53,250.00 Right-of-Way ~ ' Subtotal $ 106,050.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 21,210.00 Contingenby (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10%' $ 10,605.00 Subtotal $ 137,865.00 5,011.20Zone7Fees Total $ 142,876.20 Tassajara Road Subtotal {without Freeway Interchange) (Segments 22, 22A, 23 and 24) $ 20,140,598.61 Zone 7 Fees (Segments 22, 22A, 23 and 24) .......................... : TotaI S'$ 20,450,504.79309'906'18 Tassajara Road - Segment 25 at FreeWay Intersection Freeway Interchange Complete Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements $ . Intersection improvements Included Rig hr-of-Way Excess Developer Contribution (to be refunded) $ State Grants Subtotal $ City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% Included Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% Total $ spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 12 of 16, 6/9/2004 Fallon Road - Segment 26 8,080 feet, 4 Lanes Tassajara to Gleason Road is Existing From Signal Hill Drive to Gleason Drive, Remainder is New Totals for TiF Share Civit. Improvements Antone Way to Gleason Drive: Median Landscaping, Striping, Markings $ 20,907.00 Lin Property (2000'), $770 per LF $ 1,540,000.00 Silveria Property (1700'), $770 per LF $ 1,309,000.00 intersection Improvements (South Leg at TaSsajara Road) 84,500.00 Bridge 135'83W'125L $ 1,604,625.00 Right-of-Way 1,049,400.00 Subtotal $ 5,608,432.00 ICityAdministration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% " $ . 1,121,686.40 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 560,843.20 Subtotal $ 7,290,961.60 iZone 7 Fees $ 105,444.00 Total $ 7,396,405.60 Fallon ROad - Segment 26A 4,840 feet, 6 Lanes Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension Street is EXisting or Under Construction From Gleason Drive to Bent Tree Drive (694'), Remainder is New Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements Gleason Drive to Bent Tree Drive: Median Landscaping,. Median Curbs, Transition Pavement Bent Tree Drive to Dublin Btvd: Full Improvements (Includes Reconstruction Along Tract 7142; $ 1,219,9t 9.00 also includes Fire Stn. 18 Frontage Improvements at $82,448.36) Intersection Improvements 559,300.00 Sports Park 470,156.00 Right'of-Way 4,368,240.00 Subtotal $ 6,617,615.00 C!~y Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 1,323,523:00 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 661,761.50 Subtotal $ 8,602,899.50 Zone 7 Fees $ 123,797.52 Total $ .8,726,697.02 TIF spreadsheet. Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 13 of 16, 6/912004 Fallon Road - Segment 27 680 feet, 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements 57911f for 6 inside lanes & 28ft median (r/w to r/w), (1 ft grading) $ 393,720.00 Intersection Improvements 151,220.00 Right-of-Way ' 680,680.00 Subtotal $ 1,225,620.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 245,124.00 Contingency(Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 122,562.00 Subtotal $ 1,593,306.00 Zone 7 Fees $ 17,393.04 TOtal $ 1,610,699.64 Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) (Segments 26, 26A and 27) $ 17,487,167.10 Zone 7 Fees (Segments 26, 26A and 27) $ 246,634.56 Total $ 17,733,801.66 Fallon & 1-580 Freeway Interchange With Signals - Segment 28 Totals for TIF Share Freeway Interchange new 6 In Br; Ph1=$17,649,782 & Ph2=$11,182,999 $ 28,832,7'81.00 Right-of-Way 1,787,617.00 Subtotal $ 30,620,398.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% included Zone 7 Fees $ 109,074.73 Total $ 30,729,472.73 Dublin pays 50% of cost; Livermore and Pleasanton will contribute $ 15,364,736.37 Tassajara Creek Bike Path - Segment 29 7,100 feet ' Greenbrier Property Line to Contra Costa County Line Totals for TIF Share Bike Path 12ff @ $8/st @ 100% $ 681,600.00 Bridge 101,250.00 Right_of_Way .... none ' ' ' $ Subtotal: $ 782,850.00 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 156,570.00 Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 78,285.00 Subtotal $ 1,017,705.00 Zone 7 Fees $ 44,474.40 Total $ 1,062,179.40 i'IF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 14 of 16, 6/9/2004 Park & Ride 40,000 sf for t50 cars ~l~l/ Totals for TIF Share Fallon Road Park and Ride 40,000 sf @ $4.40 improvements $ 176,000.00 ight-of-Way 480,000.00 Subtotal $ 656,000.00 City Adminisiration, Design, ConstrUCtion Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 131,200.00 Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 65,600.00 Subtotal $ 852,800.00 Zone 7 Fees $ 20,880.00 Total $ 873,680.00 Transit Center BART Parking Structure (Cost Allocation for 500 Spaces) Totals for TIF Share Parking Structure (1680 Spaces) $ 20,000,000;00 Alameda County Contribution For Replacement of Existing 1,180 Parking Spaces in BART Lot) $ 14,000,000.00 EDTIF Cost (Proportionate Share of Cost for Additional 500 Spaces Used By Eastern Dublin) $ 6,000,000.00 Total i '$ .6,000,000.00 Report Update Totals for TIF Share Report Update Total $ .100,000.00 I Totals for TIF Share OTHER COSTS Section I Dubtin Boulevard at Fallon Road - Realignment Study $ 100,000.00 City Entrance Signs at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road $ 100,000.00 1-580 Corridor Impact Study $ !00,000.00 Total of Other Section I Costs $ 300,000.00 Section II Village Parkway/ Amador Valley Boulevard S/B taft Turn Lane Modifications $ 150,000.00 Total of Other Section II Costs $ 150,000.00 TIF spreadsheet ·Zone 7 Feesi/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 15 of 16, 6/9/2004 Table 1; Category One Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL FEE Dublin Boulevard Extension: SP r/w to Airway Boulevard $ 20.466.606.50 Hacienda Drive: excluding 1-580 interchange $ 445,353.92 Hacienda Drive 1-580 Interchange; 100% Of cost. e~<clUding $3.762M Alameda County Loan $ 5,700,000.00 Central Parkway and Arnold Drive $ 10,813,457.90 Gleason Drive $ 460,968.30 Tassajara Road ' ' $ 20,450,504.79 Tassajara Road [-580 Interchange; 100% of cost $ Fallon RoaC $ 17.733.801.66 PSR Reports (included in segment take-off) Report Update $ 100.000.00 Other Costs $ 300.000.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 11 $ 76,470,693.07 Table 2; Category Two Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL FEE/COMMERCIAL FEE Dubiin Boulevard; Village Parkway to Southern Pacific Right of Way $ 4,946.789.97 Scarlet Drive; Dublin Boulevard to. Dougherb/Road $ 10.338,137.12 Dougnerty Road; 1-580 to CCCo $ 12.666,118.3.8 1-580 Fallon/EI Charro Interchange (50% of cost to reflect Dublin's share) $ 15.364,736,37 1-580/Airway Boulevard Interchange (COMPLETE) ............... $ Other Costs $ 150,000,00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 2 $ 43,465,781.84 Table 3; Category One Adjustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL SURCHARGE FEE I Tassajara Creek Bike Path I $ 1.062,179.40 Park andRid~- Lots $ 873.680.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 3 $ 1,935,859.40 Table 4; Category Two Adjustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL BART PARKING SURCHARGE FEE Transit Center BART Parking Structure (500 Space Cost Allocation) I $ 6,000,000.00 SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 4 $ 6,000,000.00 Summation of Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 I $ 127,872,334,31 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sun: Page t6 of 16. 6/912004 Attachment 2 - Cost Est/ ate Detail Dougherty Dougherty , Dougherty ! Dougherb/ Dublin Dublin Road Road i Road Road Boulevard Boulevard SEGM'T 1 SEGM'T 1 SEGM'T 2 SEGMq' 2 SEGM'T 8 SE(~Mq' 8 DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY CO~T Saw Cut $ 1 00 LF 4,300 $4,300 9,9001 $9,900 1,600 $1,600 Grind $ 1.50' LF 17,200 $25,800 0{ $0 4,000 $6,000 Remove Ex Pvm'tJsw $ 1.00 SF 30,1001 $30,100 46,200 $46,200 12,800 $12,800 Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF 189,200 $794,640 108,900 $457,380 0 $0 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 4,300 $56,760 3,300 $43,560 0 $0 Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 34,400 $120,400 26,400 $92,400 0 $0 ledian Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 8,600 $94,600 6,600 $72,600 1,600! $17,500 Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 '$0 0] $0 Overlay $ 1.40 SF 189,200 $264,880 184,800 $258,720 8,000 $11,200 Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 6,667 $66,670 5,452 $54,5200 $0 Drop Inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 EA '14 $28,000 11 $22,000 01 $0 Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00 LF 4,500 $337,500 4,500 $337,500 0 $0 Striping (2) $ 1.50 LF 32,0001 $48,000 25,600 $38,400 0 $0 Markings $ 100.00 EA ' 32 $3,200 28 $2,800 0 _ $0 Signs (3) $ 100.00 EA40 $4,000 32 $3,200 0 $0 Electroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 lEA 14i $28,000 11 $22,000 0 · $0 Signal In,erconnect $ 15.00 LF 4,000 $60,000 3,200 $48,000 0 $0 New Utilities $LLFF I 0! $0 0 $0 0 $0 Existing Utilities $ , 0! $0 0 $0 0 $0 Landscape & Irrig (5) $ 4.00 SF 103,200' $412,800 79,200 $316,800 12,800 $51,200 Grading Depth 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Signal Legs , 1 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Signal Price (not included) i I 0 $0 0 $0 ~ 0 $0 Bridges (not included) SF0 $0 0 $0 i 0 $0 DemolitionEA I $0 Building (not included) ! 0 $0 0 $0 1 $0 Median Gut $ 3.00 ISF 0 $0 0 $0 12,8001 $38,400 Exist curb $ 7.00 LF 0 $00 $0 I 0 ~ $0 RAN Cost (not included) SF 0 $0 0 0 0 n/a Other R/W CostJSF 00Length4'00410 I 3,200 . Curb-to-Curb Width I 104 . iF width n/a Subtotal I I $2,379,650 $1,825,980 $138,800 urvey 1% $23,797 $18,280 $1,388 Mobilization 3% I $71,390 $54,779 $4,164 47,593 i $36,520 $2,776TrafficControl2%! , i $36,520 $2,776Clear & Grub 2% i $ 47,593 Total, civil only ~ $2,570,022 ~ $0.00 t $1,972,058 $149,904 COST/LF Footnotes:. ~ 1) @200 ft, Intervals along length of roadway I 2) per strip I 3) @ 50 ft; intervals along afl lanes . 4) @ 150 fl. intervals along all lanes, including conduit , 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration ! TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 1 of 7, 6/9/2004 J ' ' ~rnold Attachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail ! - Hacienda Hacienda Arnold Arnold Arnold I Road Road Road Road Road Road · SEGM'T 14 ;EGM'T'14 SEGMq' 16 SEGMq' 16 SEGM'T 16A ~;EGM'T'16A DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 2,600 $2,600 2,326 $2,326 0 0 Gdnd $ 1.50 LF 2,6001 $3,900 0 $0 0 0 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00 SF 17,600 $17,600 32,564 $32,564 0 0 Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20· SF 39,200 $164,640 74,432 $312,614 16,800 70,560 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 800! $10,560 2,326 $30,703 0 0 Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 0' $0 18,608 $65,1281 0 0 Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 1,800 $19,800 4,652 $51,1721 1,400 15,40o Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 $01 0 0 Overlay $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 see x-sect $43,000 0 0 Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 2,119 $21,190 0 $0 1,452 14,520 Drop inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 tEA 5 $10,000 8 $16,000 0 0 Storm Drain Pipe I$ 75.00 iLF 100 $7,500 see x-sect $1,560,000 0 0 Striping (2) i $ 1.50 'LF 6,600 $9,900 '18,608 $27,912 2,800 4,200 Markings ! $ 100.00 EA 6 $600 14 $1,400 4 400 Signs (3) $ 100.00 EA 26 $2,600 24! $2,400 01 0 Electroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA 0 $0 8! $16,000 ~ 18,000 Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 0 $0 0: $0 0 New Utilities $ LF I 0 $0 0 $0 . 01 0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 ~ $0 01 $01 0 0 Landscape & lrdg (5) $ 4.00 SF ~ $01 32,564 $130,2561 22,40~ 89,600 rd,ng epth $0 0 0 Signal Legs 0 ~ $0 0$0 '0 0 Signal Pdce.(not included) 0 $0 0 $0 · 0! 0 I Bridges (not i[tcluded) SF 0 $0 0 $01 0i 0 IDemo ton .. 0 Building (not included) EA 0 $0 0 $0! 0 0 Median Gut $ 3.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0! 0 0 Ex st curb $ 7.00 LF 800 $5,600 2,326 $16,282 0 0 Cost (not included) SF 0 n/a 74,432 n/a 0 n/a Other PJVV Cost/SF n/a 20[ I Length 800 2,326 1,400 Curb-to-Curb Wi'dth n/a 104 TIF width J ' 28 Subtotal ... $276,490.00 $2,247,757.60 $212,680.00 Survey . 1% I $2,764.90 $22,477.58 $2,126.80 Mobilization . 3% I $8,294.70 $67,432.73 $6,380.40 Traffic Control. 2%I $5,529.80 $44,955.15 $4,253.60 Clear & Grub j 2%-i ~ $5,529.80 $44,955.15 $4,253.60 Total, civil only $298,609.20 $2,427,578.21 $229,694.40 COSTILF Footnotes: 1) @200 ft. Intervals along length of roadway 2) per strip 3) @ 50 f. intervals along all lanes 4) @ 150 ff. intervals along all lanes, including conduit 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration TlF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 2 of 7, 6/9/2004 Attachment 2 ~ Cost Estimate Detail Confait IJ I _. i ' . Pkwy Central Pkwy ,Central Pkwy Central Pkwy Scarlet Sc~'rlet 22501 225012000ft 2000 ft Ddve · Drive SEGMq' 17A 'JSEGM'T 17A SEGM"F 17B SEGM'T 17B SEGM% 21 SE-GM'T 2t DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST IQUANTITY COST QUANTITY CO---~T Saw Out $ 1.00 LF 4,500 $4,500 0 $0 1,400 $t,400 Gdnd $ 1.50 LF 4,500 $6,7501 O! $0 2,800 $4,200 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00SF 0 $0 0 ,0 0 $0 Full Pavem"t Section $ 4.20 SF 36,000$0 ~) $504,000151,200 48,00 $201,600i 120,000 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 0 $0 3,400J $44,880 Sidewalk' $ 3.50 SF 0 $0 0 $0 8,000 $28,000 Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 0 $0 4,000 $44,000 4,8001 $52,800 Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 ILF 01 $0 0 $0 01 $0 Overlay $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 0 $01 60,000 $84,000 Earthwork I $ 10.00 CY 0 $0 1,778 $17,780 7,000 $70,000 Drop Inlets & MH's (1) I $ 2,000.00 EA 0 $0 0 $0 20 $40,000 Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00, LF 0i $0 01 $0 3,400 $255,000 Striping (2) $ 1.50 LF 9,000 $13,500 8,000 $12,000 12,000 $18,000 Markings $ 100.00 EA 6 $600 4i $400 10 $1,000 Signs (3) $ 100.00 EA 11 $1,100 10i $1,000 40 $4,000 E/octroi/ers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA 4 $8,000 15 $30,0001 15 $30,000 Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 0 $0 2,0001 $30,000~, 1,000 $15,000 New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0! $0 ¢, 0 $0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 $0 01 $01 0 $0 Landscape & Irrig (5) $ 4.00 SF 10,500 $42,000 28,0001 $112,0001 40,000 $160,000 Grading Depth 1 $0 1 ! $01 I $0 Signal Legs 0 $0 0 $0¢ 0 $0 Signal Price (not included) / 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Bddges (not included) SF $0 0: $0 n/a n/a Demolition 1 $50,000 $0 $0 Building (not included) EA 0 $01 $0 $0 Median Gut $ 3.00 SF 0 $01 ' $0 ' $0 lEx/st curb ' $ 7.00 LF I 0 $0 $0 $0 R/W Cost (not included) SF I 0!n/a n/a n/a In/a Other I trail I $48,000 PAN CostJS F 0 Length ' I 2,250 2,000 2,400 Curb-to-Curb Width I~' TIF width / Subtotal/ $2T~,650.00 $448,780.00 I $1,360,280.00 Survey 1% $2,776.50 :$4,487.80 $ 13,602.80 Mobilization 3% $8,329.50 $13,463.40 $40,808.40 Traffic Control 2% $5,553.00 $8,975.60 $27,205.60 Clear & Grub 2% $5,553.00 $8,975.60 $27,205.60 Total, civil only $299,862.00 $484,682.40 $1,469,102.40 COST/LF Footnotes: I I) @200 ft. Intervals along length of roadway 2) per stdp I I , 3) @ 50 ft. intervals along ail lanes I 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes; including Conduit 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 3 of 7, 6/9/2004 tAttachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail ! Road ' Road I Road Road Road 1 Road SEGM'T 22 SEGM"T22 SEGM'T 22A SEGMq' 22A SEGM'T 23 SEGM'T 23 DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 0 $0 0i $0 4,940 $4,940 Grind $ 1.50 LF 0 $0 0 $0 4,940 $7,410 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00 SF 0 $0 01 $0 0' $0 Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF 271,680 $I, 141,056 208,800 $876,960 59,280 $248,976 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sidewalk $ 3:50 SF 0 $0 0 $81,45°00 0 $0 Median Curb. Std '-$ 11.00 LF 11,320 $124,5201 7,400 0 $0 Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Oveday $ t.40 SF 0$0 0 $0 0 Earthwork !$ 10.00 CY 80,498 $804,9801 30,934 $309,340 2,927 $29,270 Drop Inlets & MH's (1) i $ 2,000.00EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Storm Drain. Pipe $ 75.00 I LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 . $0 Stdping (2) $ 1.50 t LF 33,960 $50,940 i 30,0001 $45,000 9,880 $14,820 Markings $ 100.00 EA 160 $16,000 18 $1,800 4 $400 Signs.(3) $ 100.00 EA 0 SO ~ $0 12 $1,200 Electroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA 50 $100,000 37400 $80,000 0 $0 Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 5,660 $84,900 , $55,500 0 $0i New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 01 $0! 0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 Landscape& Irdg (5) $ 4.00 SF ' 90,560 $362,240 59,200 $236,8001 0 $0 Grading Depth 6 $0 1.0 $0 Signal Legs n0i $0 0 . $0 0' $0 Signal Price (not included)'~1 $0 0 $0 0 ! $0 Bddges (not included) SF 2! $0 1 $0 ' 0 $0 Demolition Building (not included) EA i2 houses $0 Median Gut $ 3.00 SF / 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Exist curb $ 7.00 LFi 0i $0 0 $0 0 $0 RAN Cost {not included) SF0 $0, 0 $0 0 $0 5660 5,000 Other RNV Cost/SF Length , 2,470 Curb-to-Curb Width TIF width l Subtotal $2,684,638.00 $1,686,800.00 $307,016.00 Survey 1% $26,846.36 $16,868.00 $3,070.16 Mobilization 3% $80,539.08 $50,604.00 $9,210.48 Traffic Control 2% $53,692.72 $33,736.00 $6,140.32 Clear & Grub 2% $53,692.72 $33,736.00 $6,140.32 Total, civil only $2,899,406.88 $1,821,744.00 $331,577.28 COST/LF Footnotes: · 1) @200 ft. intervals along length of roadway 2) per strip I 3) @ 50 ft. intervals along ali lanes 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including conduit 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 4 of 7, 6/9/2004 tAttachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail I I _ / _ Sports Sports Sports iSports ISports Sports 1 [ Park Park Park Park Park Park I at Sag 18 at Sag 18 at Sag 20 iat Sag 20 at Sag 26A at ~.eg 26A DESCRIPTION IPRICES UNITS QUANTITY. COST QUANTITY iCOST QUANTITY COST Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 O' -' $0 Grind $ 1.50 LF 0 $0 0 $0~ . $0 Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 62,000 $ 0 Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF 30,000 $126,000 5,000 $21,000 $260,400 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 1,500 $19,800 250 $3,300 3,100i $40,92~ Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0! $0 Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Oveday $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 1,111 $11,110 185 $1,850 13,778 $137,780 Drop Inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 EA 14 $28,000 2 $4,000 31 $62,000 Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00 LF 1,500 $112,500 250 $18,750 3,100 $232,500 Stdping (2) $ 1.50 LF 3,000 $4,500 500 $750 6,200 $9,300 Markings $ 100.00 EA 0 $01 0 $0 0 $0 Signs (3) $ 100.00 EA 14 $1,4001 2 $200 62 $6,200 Etectroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA special $30,000 special0 $6,000 special $60,000 ISignal Interconnect $ ' 15.00 LF 01 $0 ~ $0 0 $0 New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Landscape & trrig (5) I $ 4.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Grading Depth i 1 $0 1 $0 6 $0 ISignal Legs 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 iSignal Pdce (not included) 0 $0 0 $0, 0 $0 Bridges (not included) SF 0 $0 0~ $0 0 $0 Demolition I 0 I Building (not included) EA i 0 $0 0 $0 $0 lMedian Gut $ 3.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 01 $0 I Exist curb $ 7.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0r 01 $0 PJW Cost (not included) SF 0 $0 0 $01 01 $0 Other Leggth ! 1,500 ! 250 ! 3,100 Curb-to-Curb Width 0 0 TIF width 0 0 Subtotal $333,310.00 $55,850.00 $809,100.00 Survey 1% $3,333.10 $558.50 $8,091.00 Mobilization 3% __ $9,999.30 I $1,675.50 . $24,273.00 Traffic Control 2% $6,666.20 $1,117.00 I $16,182.00 Clear & Grub 2% $6,666.20 $1,117.00 $16,182.00 Total, civil only $359,974.80 $60,318.00 $873,828.00 COST/LF Footnotes: ' l) @200 ft. Intervals along length of roadway 2) per stdp j ! i j 3) (~ 50 ft. intervals along all lanes 4) @ 150 fl. intervals along ali lanes, including conduit 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration j , TiF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 5 of 7, 6/9/2004 Attachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detaii I 4 Lane/ 4 inside ianes ~, inside lanes of typical .of typical Rdwy 4 Lane Rdwy 6 Lane Rdw,/ 6 Lane Rdwy 6 Lane Rdwy 6 Lane Rdwy ITypical Typical Typical Typical w/28ff median w/28ft median DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY ~;OST law Cut $ 1.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 Grind $' 1.50 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Remove Ex Pvm",Jsw $ 1.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF 128,000 $537,800 176,000 $739,200 96,000 $403,200 Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 4,000 $52,800 4,000 $52,800 0 $0 SideWalk $ 3.50 SF 32,000 $112,000 32,000 $112,000 0 $0 Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 4,000 $44 000 4,000 $44,000 4,000 $44,000 Median Curb. Glue $ ' 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Over/ay $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 01 $0 0 $0 Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 7,704 $77,040 9,4811 $94,810 5,630 $56,300 Drop Inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 EA 10 $20,000 10'~ $20,000 0 $0 Storm Drain Pipe ~ $ 75.00 LF 4,000 $300,000 4,000! $300,000 500 $37,500 Striping (2) $ 1.50 LF 12,000 $18,000 12,000 $18,000 12,000 $18,000 Markings $ 100.00 EA 80 $8,000 8 $800 6 i $600 signs (3) $ 100.00 EA 40 $4,000 40 $4,0O0 20! $2,00O Electroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA 14 $28,000 14 $28,000 2 014.00 $28,000 Signal Interconnect $ 1.5.00 LF 2,000 $30,000 2,000 $30,000 $30,000 New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 01 $0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0. 0 t $0 Landscape & Irdg (5) $ 4.00 SF 48,000 $192,000 48,000 $192,000i 56,000' $224,000 Grading Depth 1 $0 1 $0: 1 $0 Signal Legs 0 $0 0 $0' 0 $0 Signal Price (not included) 0$0 0 $0' 0= $0 8ddges (not incladed) SF 01 $01 0 $0 0 $0 Demolition ...... 0Building (not included) EA $0! 0 $0 0 $0 Median Gut~' $ 3.00 SF 01 $0 0 $0 0 ' : $0 I Exist curb $ 7.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 R/VV Cost (not included) SF0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ther VV Cost/SF 2,000 'Length I I 2,000 $0 2,000 Curb-to-Curb Width 1041 128 140 TIF width 40] 64 76 Subtotal $1,423,440.00 $1,635,610.00 $843,600.00 Survey 1% $14,234.40 $16,356.'t0 $8,436.00 42,703.20 '$49,068.30 $25,308.00Mobilization ' 3% I Traffic Control ...... 2% $28,468.80 $32,712.20 $16,872.00 Clear & Grub 2% $28,468.80 $32,712.20 $16,872.00 Total, civil only I $I ,537,315.20 1 766,458.80 91 1,088.00 COST/LF I $768.66 I . $883.23 $455.54 Footnotes: I use $770 use $885 use $455 2)(1 ) per@200stdpff. Intervals along ilength of roadway 3) @ 50 ft. intervals along all lanes l(4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including conduit j(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration I TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail I~age 6 of 7, 6/cJ/2004 iAttachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail i I I inside lanes 6 inside lanes I I I !of typical of typ cai i i8 Lane RdWy 8 Lane Rdwy I. w/28ft median wf28ft median DESCRIPTION PRICES t UNITS QUANTITY COST SaTM Cut $ 1.00 !LF 0 $0 Grind $ 1.50 ILF 0 $0 Remove Ex Pvm'tJsw $ 1.00 ISF0, $0 Full Pavem't Section , $ 4.20 ISF 144,0001 $604,800 Curb & Gutter I $ 13.20 !LF 0 $0 Sidewalk I$ 3.50 iSF 0 $0 Median Curb. Std I $ 11.00 LF 4;000 $44,000 Median Curb. Glue $ 8;00 LF 0 $0 Oveday $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 7,407 $74,070 Droplnlets&MH's(1) $ 2,000.00 iA 0 $0 Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00LF 500 $37,500 Striping (2) $ 1.50 LF 18,000 $27,000 Markings $ 100.00EA 6 $600 Signs (3) $ 100.00 EA 20 $2,000 Etectroliers (4) $ 2,000.00LFEA 14 $28,000 Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 2,000 $30,000 New Utilities $ ' ILF 0 $0 Existing Utilities $ LF 0 $0 Landscape & Irrig (5) $ 4.00 SF 58,000 $224,000 Grading Depth 1 $0 Signal Legs 0 $0 Signal Pdce (not included) I , 0 $0 Bridges (not included) ISF 0 $0 emolition SF $ 0 Building (not included) EA 0 $0 Median GUt $ 3.00 0 $0 t Exist curb $ 7.00 LF 0 $0 OtherPJWCost (not included) SF . 0 $0 R/W Cost/SF Length i 2,000 Curb-to-Curb Width 140 TIF width - 76 Subtotal "' $1,071,970.00 Survey 1% $10,719.70 Mobilization 3% ~ $32,159. t0 Traffic Control 2% $21,439.40 Clear & Grub 2% $21,439.40 Fotal, civil only $1,157,727.60 OST/LF $578.86 Footnotes: use $579 1) @200 ft. Intervals atong length of roadway 1(2) per strip I 1(3) @ 50 ft. intervals along all lanes 4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including Conduit 5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 7 of 7, 6/9/2004 Attachment 3 May 25, Page 1 of 16 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update Intersection, Bridge and Miscellaneous Costs A. Intersection Costs: Signal Costs: 1999 Update used $225,000 per intersection or $56,250 per leg; add approximately 10%; use $62,500 per leg or $250,000 R/W Costs: 1999 Update used 5,560 sfper leg; use adjoining R/W cost to determine cost Civil/Grading Costs: 1999 Update used $1,029 for grading and $18,750 for civil per leg; add approximately 10%; use $22,000 per leg; for retrofit projects, curb and gutter, drainage, landscaping, etc., needs to be replaced, use $44,000 B. Bridge Costs: 1999 Update used $120/sf for bridges; add approximately 10%; use $135/sf C. Miscellaneous Costs Miscellaneous costs include all additional costs not included in TIF cost spreadsheet and are detailed by each road segment In some cases, an allowance has been provided in the TIF for construction of frontage improvements that would norma!ly be constructed by the abutting property owner upon development of the property. In these cases, the abutting properties have limited development potential and it may be necessary for the City or other developers to install some or all of the frontage improvements in order to provide for the safe and orderly development of the roadway. Inclusion of these costs in'the TIF does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for these costs or obligate the City to install them at public cost, nor does it prohibit the City from recouping these costs at a later date. Segment 1 - Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic signals are existing at Amador Valley Boulevard and Willow Creek Drive (a traffic signal was recently installed at Willow Creek Drive using $195,000 of Dougherty Valley mitigation funds); modification will be needed to accommodate street widening from four to six lanes; allow 100% of full signal costs per leg at each intersection for modification Costs = 2 x $200,000 = $400,000 Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 2 of 16 Segment 2 - Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place ~ Intersection improvements exist at Scarlett Drive and Houston Place. Intersection mOdifications are needed at the Scarlett Drive intersection to accommodate a second southbound left mm lane. The northbound approach will need to be modified to accommodate the lane shifts; the existing northbound right turn lane will also need to be modified. Both legs will require signal modifications. The 1999 Update used $22.00/sf for fight-of-way; add 10%; use $24.20/sf. The standard civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: 2 legs x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% = $62,500 2 legs x 5,560 x $24.20 = $269,104 2 legs x $22,000 for civil costs x 400% = $176,000 507,604 Segment 3 - Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard IntersectiOn costs of $343,850 are used per the City CIP. Cost: $343,850 Segment 4 - Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp Intersection costs of $1,028,300 are used per the City CIP. Cost: $1,028,300 Segment 5 - Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) Project is currently funded under CIP and is under construction. The project has incurred additional costs not included in the current budget, and an additional $400,000 is needed to cover these costs. Cost = $400,000 Segment 6 - Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Costs for intersection improvements on the west leg of the intersection (Dublin Court to Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 3 of 16 Dougherty Road) are $702,000 for improvement costs and $496,500 for R/W costs per the 'City CIP. Costs for the widening between Sierra Court and Dublin Court are $1,138,700 for civil costs and $439,139 for R/W costs per the City CIP. Reconstruction of the existing median is needed between Dublin Court and Dougherty Road to accommodate a double eastbound left turn lane onto Dougherty Road. The cost of this work is not currently included in the CIP and must be added to the total project cost. Cost: Sawcutpavement: 1,540 lfx $1/sf = $1,540 Remove existing landscaping: 8,000 slx $1/sf = $8,000 Remove existing electrolier: 3 Ea. x $1,000/ea. = $3,000 Remove existing median curb: 1,540 lfx $3/If = $4,620 Excavation: 8,000 sfx $3/sf = $24,000 Install new median curb: 1,540 If x $11/If = $16,940 Install new pavement: 2,000 slx $5/sf = $10,000 Install subdrains: 770 tfx $20/If = $15,400 Install new electroliers: 3 Ea. x $2,000/ea. = $6,000 Install new landscaping and irrigation: 8,000 slx $4/sf = $32,000 121,500 Use $150,000 Segment 7 - Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P Right-of-Way Costs for intersection improvements on the east leg of the intersection are $692,900 for improvements and $255,720 for right-of-way per the City CIP. Segment 8 - Dublin Boulevard, S/P Right-of-Way to Iron Horse Parkway Street improvements exist. Intersection improvements are needed at the Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection to allow operfing of the east (northbound) side of the road and to provide a crosswalk.on the east side of the intersection in alignment with the Iron Horse Trail. The cost for this work is $54,208 per the City CIP. Segment 8A - Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. A second eastbound left turn lane is needed within the existing landscaped median at Arnold Attac~e~t 3 M~y 25, 2004 a~e 4 of 16 Drive; work will require civil and signal modifications. Civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 x 200% = $44,000 Landscaping $50,000 125,250 Segment 9 - Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements exist. A right turn lane is needed westbound at Hacienda Drive. Right-of-way for the turn lane exists. Signal modifications will be necessary. Civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 per leg x 200% = $44,000 Landscaping $50,000 Demolition $25,000 150,250 Segment 10 - Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Complete improvements are needed on west leg.of Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersection. Partial improvements are needed at Dublin Boulevard/Tassaj ara Road intersection (civil and r/w, signal modification) Cost = 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal = $62,500 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250 1 leg x 5,560 x ($28.00 + $38.00/2) = $183,480 1 leg x 5,560 x $21.00 = $116,760 2 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $44,000 437,990 Street improvements require drainage work not included in TIF spreadsheet. A 10' x 8' box culvert and 84" pipe are needed to convey flows across the road as shown on the Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 5 ell6 Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Plan. Each structure will be 140' long. The 1999 Update used $106,900; add approximately 10%; use $120,000 Cost= $120,000 Segment 11 - Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard Complete improvements are needed at Fallon Road (east leg), and Doolan Road (four legs). Cost = 5 legs x $62,500 Per leg for signal = $312,500 1 l'eg x.5,560 x $12.00 = $66,720 4 legs x 5,560 x $6.00 = $133,440 5 legs x $22,000 = $110,000 622,660 A bridge is needed at the Doolan Canyon Creek crossing. Bridge will be 100' long x 120' wide. Cost = i00 x 120 x $135.00/sf= $1,620,000 Civil costs are based on construction of the TIF improvements (64') from Fallon Road to the east edge of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (5,000') and full street improvements (128') easterly to the Livermore city limit (3,000'), to the current west end of North Canyons Parkway. This presumes that no developer will be build the abutting frontage improvements for the easterly portion, and this cost will be borne by the TIF. Segment 12 - Airway Boulevard/1-580 Interchange Interchange improvements exist; no additional improvements are necessary. Segment 13 - Hacienda Drive, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. Segment 14 - Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Street improvements exist except for interior traffic lanes. Signal modification is Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 6 of 16 needed on the south leg of the Gleason Drive intersection to conform to the added lane. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250 Segment 15 - Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange Interchange improvements are complete. Per Eastern Dubhn Property Owners' (EDPO) EIR, further interchange improvements are needed to (1) widen the eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to provide a third eastbound left turn lane, (2) widen the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes, striped to provide three through lane~ and an exclusive auxiliary lane for the westbound on-ramp, (3) modify the westbound loop on-ramp as needed, and (4) Widen the westbound offramp approach to provide a third westbound left-turn lane. 1) Widen E/B Offramp: $1,435,000 2) Widen W/B Offramp $1,245,000 3) Widen N/B Overcrossing: $3,020,000 4) Modify W/B Onramp Loop: (Costs included under overcrossing) Cost: $5,700,000 Segment 16 - Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Street will be widened to provide two additional lanes on west side; east side is existing; widening will require replacement of signal on north and south legs of Central Parkway and new signal on north and south legs of Gleason Drive. A separate southbound right turn lane will need to be added at Dublin Boulevard, requiting right-of-way, civil, and signal work. Cost: 4 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% for replacement = $250,000 Arnold Drive S/B Right Turn Lane ~ Dublin Blvd. = $195,000 445¢000 Segment 16A- Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Street improvements are existing except for inside lanes; intersections and signals are Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 7 of 16 existing; signal modifications will be needed on the east leg of the Arnold Drive/Central Parkway intersection. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% = $31,250 Segment 17 - Central Parkway, I-Iacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements exist except for inside lanes; intersections and signals exist; signal modifications will be needed on the west leg of the Tassajara Road intersection. A new signal is needed at the entrance to the second phase of Emerald Glen Park (TIF pays for north leg only). Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% = $31,250 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 100% = $62,500 93,750 The Tassajara Creek bridge will need to be widened from two to four lanes. The bridge is 100' long; two 12' travel lanes and a 16' median will be required. Cost: 100 x 40 x $135.00/sf = $540,000 Segment 18 - Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street Intersection improvements exist at Tassajara Road. Segment 18A- Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road The street is currently under construction between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way 800'). The remainder of the street does not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are needed on the west leg of the Fallon Road intersection. Per ARWS Fee Impact Study Area C-5 (west side of intersection) R/W = $13.50/sf Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal = $62,500 1 leg x 5,560 x $13.50'sf for R/W = $75,060 1 leg x $22,000 = . $22,000 159,560 Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 8 of 16 Frontage improvements are needed along 1500' of the Community Park frontage. This presumes that the west end of the park is relocated 600' west of the location shown on the current General Plan, at the extension of Lock_hart Way, and the east end of the park will be located 600' west of the location shown on the current General Plan, at the revised Fallon Road alignment which will follow the Old Fallon Road right-of-way. Frontage improvements consist of curb and gutter,: 12' travel lane, and 8' shoulder. Sidewalk and landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park costs. Cost for street improvements is $770/lf+ $84/lf for grading, or $854/lf; right-of-way width = 104' Cost: 1500 x 20/104 x $852~ = $246,346 Segment 19 - Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Street improvements exist. Future signal is needed at Gleason Drive and Arnold Drive; right-of-way and civil improvements are existing Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per signal leg x 100% = $62,500 Segment 19A - Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Street improvements are existing Segment 20 - Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road StYeet is under constrUction. Credit agreement will be executed prior to new TIF rates going into effect on August 1, 20.04. Credit will be provided at old rates. Pending credits are included in total credit mounts. Per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area C-4 (Southwest coruer of intersection) R/W = $13.50/sf Cost: 2 legs x $62,500 per signal leg x 100% = N/A 1 leg x 5,560 x $13.50 = N/A 2 legs x $22,000 per leg = N/A N/A Frontage improvements are needed along 650' of the Community Park frontage. Frontage Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 9 of 16 improvements consist of curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane and an 8' shoulder. Sidewalk and landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park costs. Cost for street improvements is $770/lf plus $146/lf for grading, or $916/lf; right-of-way width = 104' Cost; 650' x 20/104 x $916 = N/A Segment 21 - Scarier Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Northerly portion of street from Dougherty Road to Houston Place exists; intersection improvements exist. Extension of street south to Dublin Boulevard is nec,e~s .ary; full intersection improvements on north leg of Dublin Boulevard intersection are required. 1999 Update used $15.00/sf for right-of-way; use $20.00 for update based on recent acquisitions along Dublin Boulevard. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% = $62,500 f~eg x 5,560 x $20.00 = $111,200 1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil costs = $22,000 195,700 Miscellaneous Costs A box culvert will need to be constructed over the existing G-1 flood control channel. The culvert extension will be approximately 200 feet long. The cost is estimated at 2,000 per foot. Cost: 200' x $2,000/if = $400,000 The culvert construction will result in the loss of an existing open channel. If the channel is determined to be a jurisdictional wetland, construction of replacement wetlands may be required. An estimate of $100,000 is allowed for permitting and construction. Cost: $100,000 The Iron Horse Trail will need to be reconstructed for the entire length of the project. The existing trail is 12' wide with 2' gravel shoulders on either side. Use $8.00/sf. A new bridge will be needed over the G-1 channel; the bridge will be 50' long; use 75,0O0. Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 10 of 16 Cost: 2400' × 12' x $8.00/sf= $230,400 Bridge: $75,000 305,400 An existing oil pipeline, fiber optics line, and recycled water line are located in the railroad right-of-way. Relocation of these utilities may be needed at the new. culvert crossing, and/or additional protection may be needed if the lines are to remain as longitudinal encroachments under the new road. In addition, an existing pole on an overhead 60kv transmission line is in conflict with the road extension. Portions of an overhead distribution line may need to be relocated. A number of existing pole line guy wires are located in the right-Of-way. These utilities have prior fightS and any relocation costs will be the cost of the project. A cost of $1,000,000 is allowed for the various utilities. Total Miscellaneous Costs: Trail: $305,400 Box Culvert $400,000 Wetland Mitigation: $100,000 Utilities: $1,000,000 1,805,400 Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line Ultimate street improvements do not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are needed on the south and north legs of the Fallon Road intersection. Right-of-way costs for the intersection are included in the total 'fight-of-way quantity. The fourth (eastern) leg of the intersection is a local road into the Mission Peak property and will be the responsibility of that developer. Intersection improvements include a free-right turn lane southbound on Tassajara Road through the intersection. The lanes are 34' in width and 400' long. Cost of street improvements is $512/lf for the 64' TIF improvements. Cost: 400 x (34/64). x $512 = $108,800 A pedestrian/bicycle bridge is needed to carry pedestrians and bicycles over the free- fight turn lane. The bridge is 8' wide by 60' long. Cost: $100,000 Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 1l of 16 Total intersection costs: $108,800 Pedestrian Bridge: $100,000 208,800 Several properties have limited development potential and may not develop. An allowance is needed in the TIF to pay for the cost of frontage improvements that may be necessary for the orderly construction o£the road. Bragg-Silva Property: 1100 If Tipper Property: 600 If Kobold Property: 300 if Nielsen Property: 600 If 2600 if Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, an 8' shoulder and a 12'travel lane. Cost of improvements is $512/lf for the 64' TIF improvements. Cost: 2600 x (20/64) x $5.12 = $416,000 A Class I bicycle/pedestrian trail is needed along the Bragg-Silva frontage. The trai'l is 8' wide by 1100' long. Cost is $8/sf (consistent with the Tassajara Creek trail, Segment 29). Cost: 1100 x 8 x 8 = $70,400 Sidewalk is needed along the Tipper, Kobold, and Nielsen frontages. Sidewalk width is 6'; total length is 2000. Cost is $3.50' sf (consistent with detailed cost estimate) Cost: 2000 x 6 x $3.50 = $42,000 A retaining wall is needed along the west side of the road at the border of the Lin and Bragg~Silva properties, with a second wall needed at the south end of the Tipper property. The walls are needed to avoid placing fill within the creek setback zone. The approximate length of the walls is 500', with an average height of 10'. Cost: 500' x 10' x $50/sf= $250,000 Total Miscellaneous'Costs: $416,000 70,400 42,0O0 250,000 778,400 Attachment 3 May 25, 2004' Page 12 of 16 Two bridges are needed, at the Northern Drainage (Kobold property) and the Moller Drainage (Moller property). Each bridge is 128' wide; southerly bridge is 100' long and northerly bridge is 150' long. Cost is $135/sf Cost: (I00 + 150) x 128 x $135 = $4,320,000 Streambed stabilization work (drop structures or other provisions) is needed at the northern bridge to prevent upward channel bed downcutting after the existing culvert is removed. An allowance is needed for stabilization work and possible habitat mitigation. Cost: $500,000 Total bridge costs: $4,820,000 Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gleason Drive Existing improvements include one TIF travel lane and a landscaped median in each direction from Gleason Drive to a.point 1300' north; full frontage improvements on the east side of the street, and full frontage improvements along the west side of the street from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north. Future improvements include the construction of one TIF travel lane in each direction from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north and full TIF improvements from this point to a point 5000' north of Gleason Drive (the Northern Drainage creek crossing). It is anticipated that frontage improvements will be obtained along the Adams property (west side) as a result of future development. Intersection improvements at Gleason Drive will include modification of the traffic signal and installation of a second left turn lane on the north leg; right-of-way is'existing. Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 for civil work = $22,000 Total Intersection Costs: $53,250 Several properties on the west side have limited development and/or are publicly owned; an allowance is needed in the TIF to pay for frontage improvements that may be needed for the orderly development of the road. EBRPD Property: 170 If Goodwin Property: 215 If United States of America (Camp Parks): 100 If Spferflage: 520 If Total: 1,005 1£ Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 13 of 16 Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane, an 8' shoulder and a 6' sidewalk. Cost of improvements is $885/l£for a typical 128' wide six-lane street. Sidewalk cost is $3.50/sf, or $21/lf for a 6' sidewalk. Total Frontage Costs: 1005 x ((885 x 20/128) + 21) = $160,078 Segment 23 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive IntersectiOns are existing. Right-of-way is existing. North leg of Gleason Drive intersection will require signal and civil modification to accommodate second lef~ turn lane. Both legs of Central Parkway intersection will require signal and civil modifications for second left turn lanes. Cost: 3 legs x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% for modification = $93,750 3 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $66,000 159,750 segment 24 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 Intersection improvements are existing. Right-of-way is existing. Northbound fight turn lane is needed at Dublin Boulevard (existing fight turn lane will become #3 travel lane). Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 50% for modification = $31,250 1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $22,000 53,250 Segment 25 _ Tassajara Road/1-580 Interchange Interchange improvements are existing Segment 26 - Fallon Road, Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive Street is existing from Signal Hill Drive to Antone Way, and is under construction between Antone Way and Gleason Drive. Intersection improvements are needed on south leg of the Tassajara Road intersection. Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 14 of 16 Cost: 1 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100%.= $62,500 1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil improvements = $22,000 84,500 A bridge is needed at the Northern Drainage crossing. Per plans and estimates prepared by MacKay and Somps, the bridge is 83' wide by 125' long. Grading for the approach fill and the slide repair to the north of the bridge requires 120,000 cy of material. MacKay and Somps estimated the grading cost as $1.70/cy. Cost: 83' x 125' x $135 = $1,400,625 12©, 000 x $1.70 = $204,000 1,604,625 Segment 26A - Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension Street improvements exist on north side of street from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon Road 1600'). Improvements are under construction between Gleason Drive and Bent Tree Drive (694') and will be credited at the existing TIF rate (pending credits are included in the total credit amount). Street does not currently exist south of Old Fallon Road. Intersection improvements are under construction at the Gleason Drive intersection. Full intersection improvements are needed at both legs of Central Parkway and on the north leg of the Dublin Boulevard intersection. Area B-4 (north leg Dublin Blvd.) = $28.00/sf Area B5b (south leg central) = $3,000/acre (use $13.50 Area C-5 (nOrth leg of Central) = $13.50/sf Cost: 3 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal costs x 100% = $187,500 2 legs x 5,560 x $13.50.= $150,120 1 leg x 5,560 x $28.00 = $155,680 3 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil costs x 100% = $66,000 559,300 Attachment 3 May 25, 2004 Page 15 of 16 Frontage improvements are needed along the Community Park frontage from Gleason Drive to Central Parkway. The length of the park frontage is' 3,400 If. Frontage improvements consist of curb and gutter, an 8' shoulder and a 12' travel lane. Sidewalk and landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park improvements. Cost of the improvements is $885/lffor 128' wide street. Cost: 3,400 x (20/128) X $885 = $470,156 Segment 27 - Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 Street improvements do not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are needed on the south leg of the Dublin Boulevard intersection. Area A-4 (south of Dublin Boulevard) = $12.00 Co,st: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% = $62,500. 1 leg x 5,560 x $12 = $66,720 1 leg x $22,000 for civil cOsts = $22,000 151,220 Segment 28 - Fallon Road/1-580 Interchange Interchange costs are based on the estimate in the 1999 update; 10% is added for inflation. Under a current agreement between the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, Dublin will pay 50% of the cost and Pleasanton and Livermore will each pay 25% of the cost. Segment 29 - Tassajara Creek Bike Path A bridge is needed across Tassajara Creek at the extension of Somerset Drive. The width of the pathway will be 8', with an additional 2' to allow a concrete barrier between the path and the adjoining vehicle lanes. This is 5' wider than the 4' sidewalk that would otherwise be allowed. Length of the bridge is 150'. Attachment 3 ' May 25, 2004 Page 16 of 16 Cost: 5' x 150' x $135/lf= $101,250 Park and Ride Facility The Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road lots are existing. Cost of the Fallon Road lo'ts is estimated at $4.40/sf. Cost: 40,000 x $4.40/sf= $176,000 Other Costs A cost of $6,000,000 is allowed for construction of a new parking structure at the BART station to replace the existing parking lot, which will be developed as part of the Transit Center. The structure will provide a total of 1,680 parking spaces and will cost 20,000,000. The Alameda County Surplus Property 'Authority will pay for repla.cement of the existing 1,180 spaces on the surface lot, at a cost o£$14,000,000. The TIF fee will pay for an additional 500 spaces, intended to serve new growth in Eastern Dublin, at a cost of $6,000,000. A new fee section, the Section II Residential BART Parking Surcharge Fee, will pay this cost to be paid only by residential development. An allowance of $100,000 is provided for the fee update. This will be a Section I cost. A cost orS100,000 is allowed for three City entry signs at the 1-580 interchanges on Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. These will be a Section I cost. A cost of $200,000 is allowed for miscellaneous traffic and alignment studies associated with TIF improvements. These are Section I costs. Ti-affic studies indicate that the existing southbound left turn lane m the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard will need to be lengthened to provide 210' of storage (plus a 90' taper) to accommodate increased lef~ tums utilizing Amador Valley Boulevard to reach Eastern Dublin. Cost is estimated at $150,000. This will be a Section II cost. Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 ' Page 1 of 12 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update Right-of-Way Costs Note: All right-of-way costs are for planning and estimating purposes only, and are not a commitment to reimburse property owners or providd TIF credits in the amounts shown in the estimates. Reimbursements or credits will be based on actual square footages of R/W, which are acquired or dedicated. Segment 1 - Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard Right-of-Way is existing Segment 2 - Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place Right-of-Way is existing Segment 3 - Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard Right-of-way costs of $138,690 are used per the City C~ Cost: $138,690 Segment 4 - Dougherty Road to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp Ri~lat-of-way costs of $2,957,420 are used per the City CIP Cost: $2,957,420 Segment 5 - Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) Right-of-Way is existing Segment 6 - Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Right-of-way costs of $439,139 are used per the City CIP Cost: $439,139 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 2 of 12 Segment 7 - Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P R/W Right-of-way costs of $255,720 are used per the City CIP ~ Cost: $255,720 Segment 8 - Dublin Boulevard, S/P R/W to Iron Horse Parkway Right-of-Way is existing Segment 8A - Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive Right-Of-Way is existing Segment 9 - Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of-Way is existing Segment 10 - Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Right-of-Way exists Tassajara Road to Keegan Street (3600') and Keegan Street to Lockhart Way (775') Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) Area A-2 (southside, Keegan to 1300' east) R/W = $13.00/sf Area A-3 (southside, 1300' e/o Keegan to Fallon Road, 1420') R/W = $13.00/sf Area B-3 (northside, Keegan to 1750'east) R/W = $38.00/sf Area B-4 (northside, 1750' e/o Keegan to Fallon Road, 970') = $28.00/sf TIF = 30' median plus four 12' lanes = 78' (39' each side) (six lanes total) Right-of-Way Costs = 525' x 39' x $13.00 = $266,175 1420' x 39' x $13.00 -- $719,940 975' x 39' x $38.00 = $1,444,950 970' x 39' x $28.00 = $1,059,240 3,490,305 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 3 of 12 Segment 11 - Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard '~ Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted Area A-4 (southside, Falton Road to 2640' east) R/W = $12.00/sf Area A-5 (southside, 2640' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 2400') R/W = $6.00/sf Area B-5a (northside, Fallon Road to 900' east) R/W = $11.00/sf Area B-5b (northside, 900' e/o to 2640' e/o Fallon Road, I740') R/W = $3,.000/acre = 0.07/sf, use $6.00/sf Area B-6a (northside, 2640' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 2400') R/W = $3,000/acre = 0.07/sf, use $6.00/sf City Limits to Airway Boulevard (3000') 1999 Update used $12.00/sf; use $6.00/sfper ARWS Study TIF = 16' median plus four 12' lanes =. 128' (64' each side) (six lane roadway, City of Livermore will contribute 50% of cost) Right-of-Way Costs = 2640' x 32' x $12.00 = $1,013,760 2400' x 32' x $6.00 = $460,800 900' x 32' x $11.00 = $316,800 1740' x 32' x $6.00 = $334,080 '~ 2400' x 32' x $6.00 = $460,800 3000' x 128' x $6.00 x 50% $1,152,000 3,738,240 segment 12 - Airway Boulevard/1-580 Interchange Right-of-Way is existing Segment 13 - Hacienda Drive, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard Right-of-Way is existing Segment 14 - Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive Right-of-Way is existing Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 ~-~ Page 4 of 12 Segment 15 - Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange Right-of-Way is existing Segment 16 - Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Right-of-way is needed along the west side of Arnold Drive. It is anticipated that Camp Parks will dedicate the needed right-of-way at no cost to the City as a condition of redeveloping the southerly portion of the property. Segment 16A - Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Right-of-Way is existing Segment 17 - Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of-Way is existing Segment 18 - Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street Right-of-Way is existing Segment 18A - Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road The street segment is presumed to terminate at the revised alignment of Fallon Road, which follows tl~e existing Old Fallon Road right-of-way 600' west of the alignment shown on the current General Plan. This shortens the length of the road by 600'. The westerly end of the Community Park is also presumed to move 600' west of its current location to the extension o£Lockhart Way. The length of park frontage remains at 1500'. Right-of-way was dedicated between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way (800') as part of the Fairway Ranch project. Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area B-3 (southside, Keegan Street to 1200' east) R/W = $38.00/sf Area B-4 (southside, 1200' to 2230' e/o Keegan Street, 1030') R/W = $28.00 Area C-3 (northside, Keegan Street to 1500' east) R/W = $33.00 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 5 of 12 Area C-4 (northside, 1500' to 2230' e/o Keegan Street, 730') R/W = $13.50 TIF = 16' median plus two 12' lanes = 40' (20' each side) (four lanes total) Community Park Frontage. Width = 12' lane, 8' shoulder, 12' parkway = 32' Right-of-Way Costs = 400' x 20' x $38.00 = $304,000 1030' x 20' x $28.00 = $576,800 700' x 20' x $33.00 = $462,000 730' x 20' x $13.50 = $197,100 770 x 32' x $33.00 = $813,120 (Community Park) 730' x 32' x $13.50 = $315,360 (Community Park) 2,668,380 Segment 19 - Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive Right-of-Way is existing Segment 19A - Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road Right-of-Way is existing Segment 20 - Gleason. Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Right-of-Way is existing, Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street, 1000' Remainder of right-of-way froTM Brarmigan Street t° Fallon Road will be dedicated prior to August 1, 2004, and will receive TIF credits at existing TIF rates. Pending credits are included in total credit amounts. Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted Area C-2 (southside, Brannigan Street to 1400' east) R/W = $35.00. Area C-3 (southside, 1400' to 3000' e/o Brarmigan, 1600') R/W = $33.00 Area C-4 (southside, 3000' e/o Brannigan to Fallon Road, 800') R/W = $13.50 1999 Update (northside, Brannigan Street to 1400' east) R/W = $13.90 + 10% = 15.29/s£ Attachment 4 May 25, .2004 Page 6 of 12 Area C-3 (northside, 1400' to Fallon Road, 2400') R/W = $33.00 TIF'Width = 16' median plus two 12' lanes = 40' (20' each side) (four lanes total) Right-of-Way Costs: t400' x 20' x $35.00 = N/A. 1600' x 2(7 x $33.00 = N/A 80t7 x 20' x $13.50 = N/A 1400' x 20' x $15.29 = N/A 2400' x 20' x $33.00 = N/A 650' x 32' x $13.50= N/A (Community Park) N/A ' Segment 21 - Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Sc~rlett Drive currentlY exists as a two lane facility from Dougherty Road to Houston Place, a distance of 1400 lineal feet. Improvements are located in the southerly 50' of the 100' railroad right-of-way, which was dedicated by a developer as part of an adjoining apartment project. Between Houston Place and Dublin Boulevard, a distance of 1000 lineal feet, the road does not currently exist. The southerly 50' is still owned by the developer and will need to be acquired. Although portions of the land may not be needed for the road, it is presumed that the entire parcel will need to be acquired. The northerly half of the 100' railroad right-of-way is oWned by Alameda County from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard. The entire 2400' length will need to be acquired from the County. Although portions of the land may not be needed for the road, it is presumed that the entire parcel will need to be acquired. A portion of the new road must swing out of the Alameda County right-of-way onto the Camp Parks property. The estimated area needed for the road is 40,000 sr. An additional 20-50' right-of-way acquisition from Camp Parks along the length of the road is needed to in order to maintain the right-of-way for the future Alameda County Transit Corridor..It is presumed that the coUnty would trade this new right-of-way for the existing right-of-way which it owns, and would credit the purchase by the City of the existing fight-of-way in return for the replacement land. Therefore, no additional cost is assigned to this property, except for potential utility relocations. A cost of $500,000 is allowed for the relocation of the existing oil piPeline pumping station. Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 7 of 12 The 1999 Update used $15.00/sf; use $20.00 for the update based on recent acquisitions along Dublin Boulevard: 50' x 1000' x $20 = $1,000,000 50' x 2400' x $20 = $2,400,000 40,000 slx. S20 = $800,000 20-50' x 2400' x $20 = N/A Camp Parks Utility Relocation $500,000 4,700,000 Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) unless otherwise noted Area F-1 (wests/de, 5000' n/o Gleason to CC County L/ne, 5660') R/W = $17.00/sf 1999 Update (eastside, 5000' fifo Gleason to Silveria, 2500') R/W = $11.00/sf+ 10% = 12.10/sf Area F~2 (eastside, Silveria and Mission Peak frontage, 1500') R/W = $6.00/sf 1999 Update (eastside, Mission Peak to CC County Line, '1660') R/W = $11.00/sf+ 10% 12.10/sf TIF R/W is existing (TIF width = 64', existing R/W = 66'); TIF R/W needed for portions of road which shift from existing centerline; non-TIF R/W will need to be acquired along frontages of property without development potential (six lanes total) Wallis Ranch Frontage: Total/W needed 132,376 sf (per RJA Precise Plan Alignment) Non-TIF: 32' x 2300' ( 73,600 sf) Net TIF R/W 58,776 slx $17.00/sf = $999,192 Bragg/Silva Frontage: Total R/W needed 30,844 sf(per RJA) Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire 0 sf Remainder of Parcel (to be acquired) 45,000 sf Net TIF R/W 75,844 slx $17.00/sf= $1,289,348 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 8 of 12 Fredrich Frontage: Total R/W needed 13,039 sf (Parcel 1 per ILIA) 10,614 sf (Parcel 2 per RJA) Non-TIF: 32' x 685' (21,920 st) Net TIF RJW 1,733 slx $17.00/sf= $29,461. Vargas Frontage: Total R/W needed 21,488 sf (per RJA) Non-TIF: 32' x 325' (10,400 sf) 32' x 600 x ~2 (9.,600 sf) Net TIF R/W 1,488 slx $17.00/sf= $25,296 Tipper Frontage: Total R/W needed 18,995 sf (per RJA) Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire (0 sf) Net TIF R/W 18,995 slx $17.00/sf= $322,915 I~obold Frontage: TOtal R/W needed 3,228 sf(per RJA) Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire (0 st) Net TIF R/W 3,228 slx $12.10/sf= $39,059 Quarry Lane School: Total R/W needed 0 sf (per RJA) Neilsen Frontage: Total R/W needed 961 sf (per RJA) Non-TIF; N/A, will need to acquire (0 sf) Net TIF R/W 961 slx $12.10/sf= $11,628 Silveria Frontage: Total R/W.needed 31,105 sf(Parcel 2 per ILIA) Non-TIF R/W 32' x 15' (48,000 sf) Net TIF R/W Allow 3,000 sfat north end 3,000 slx $6.00/sf= $18,000 Haight Frontage: Total R/W needed 78,722 sf (per RJA) Non-TIF R/W 32' x 750' (24,000 sf) Fallon Road R/W included in total (24,000 sf) Net TIF R/W 30,722 sfx $6.00/sf= $184,332 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 9 of 12 Mission' Peak Frontage: Total R/W needed 21,680 sf (per RJA) .. Non-TIF R/W 32' x 400' (12,800 sf) Net TIfF R/W 8,880 slx $6.00/sf= $53,280 Moller Frontage: Total R/W needed 78,756 sf (p'er RJA) Non-TIF R/W 32' x 1200' (38,400 sf) Net TIF R/W 40,356 slx $12. t0/s£= $488,308 Total R/W Costs = $3,460,819 Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gleason Drive TIF R/W is existing (TIF width = 64', existing R/W = 66'); non-TIF R/W will need to be acquired from parcels without development potential (six lanes total) 1999 Update used $18.00/sfon east side of road; add 10%; use $19.80/s£ EBRPD Frontage: 31' x 170' 5,270 s£x $19.80 = $104,346 Goodwin Frontage 31' x 215' 6,665 sfx 519.80 = $131,967 ~ USA (Camp Parks) 31' x 100' 3,100 slx $19.80 = $61,380 Sperfslage: per RJA 20,000 slx $19.80 = $396,000 Total R/W Costs $693,693 Segment 23 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Right-of-Way is existing Segment 24 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 Right-of-Way is existing Segment 25 - Tassajara Road/1-580 Interchange Right-of-Way is existing Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 10. of 12 Segment 26 - Fallon Road, TasSajara Road to Gleason Drive Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted Area F-2 (westside and eastside, Tassajara Road to 1550' east) R/W = $6.00, Use $9.00 per 1999 Update; add 10%; use $9.90/sf (Silveria Ranch) 1999 Update (westside and eastside, 1550' to 2650' east of Tassajara Road, 1100') R/W 9.00/sf+ 1.0% = $9.90/sf (Dublin Ranch Area D)* Right-of-Way is existing through Dublin Ranch Area A south to Gleason Drive TIF Width = l 6' median plus two 12' travel lanes = 40' (four lanes total) Right-of-Way Costs: 40' x 1550' x $9.90/sf= $613,800 40' x 1100' x $9.90/sf= $435,600 Total Right-of-Way Costs $1,049,400 Fallon Road R/W through Area D was previously offered for. dedication, but credits have not been issued'pending acceptance of R/W by City Segment 26A - Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension Right-of-Way is existing from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon Road, 1660' Note: Non-TIF R/W dedicated along Community Park frontage received Parkland Fee Credits and is not included in TIF credits) Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area C-5 (westside, Old Fallon Road to 2000' south) R/W = $13.50/sf Area B-4 (westside, 2000' s/o Old Fallon Road m Dublin Blvd, 1200') R/W = $28.00/sf Area C-5 (eastside, Old Fallon Road to 2000' south) R/W = $13.50/sf Area B-5b (eastside, 2000' to 2600' s/o Old Fallon Rd, 600') R/W = $3,000/acre or 0.07/sf; use $11.00/sf Area B-5a (eastside, 2600' s/o Old Fallon Road to Dulbin Btvd, 600') R/W = $11.00'sf TIF Width = 16' median plus four 12' travel lanes = 64' (32' each side) (six lanes total) Community Park Frontage = 12' travel lane + 8' shoulder ~- 12' parkway = 32' Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 11 of 12 Prior dedication by Lin Family of six lane roadway from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon Road provided credit for four lanes; cost of additional two lanes needs to be added so that credit can be issued; use ARWS Fee, Impact Study Area C-4 = $13.50'sf; width = two lanes at 12' = 24' Right-of-Way Costs: 32' x 2000' x $13.50 = $864,000 32' x 1200' x $28.00 =' $1,075,200 32' x 2000' x $13.50 = $864,000 32' x 600' x $11.00 = $211,200 32' x 600' x $11.00 = $211,200 32' x 1400' x $13.50 (Park) = $604,800 24' x 1660, x $13.50 = $537,840 4,368,240 Segment 27 - Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area A-3 (eastside, Dublin Blvd to 1-580, 680') R/W = $13.00/sf Area A-4 (eastside, Dublin Blvd to 1-580, 680') R/W = $12.00/sf TIF Width = 28' median plus six 12' lanes = 100' (eight lane roadway) 60' R/W exists on eastside, overlaps TIF; Area = (94' + 80'/2) x 430' = 37,410 sf+ 70' + 60'/2) x 230' =. 14,950 sf 52,360 s£x $13.00 = $680,680 ~ Segment 28 - Fallon Road/1-580 Interchange Per Cordoba Consulting, Inc., cost estimate of October, 1999 (prepared for 1999 EDTID Update), R/W = 3.2 acres (137,509 sf) Per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area A-2 (westside) = $13.00/sf R/W costs = 137,509 x $13.00 = $1,787,617 Attachment 4 May 25, 2004 Page 12 of 12 Segment 29 - Tassajara Creek Bike Path Path is located within Tassajara Creek setback open space parcels; no TIF credit will be given Park and Ride Facility Hacienda Drive and Tassaj ara Road lots are existing; Right-of-way is needed for Fallon Road lot (east side of road); per 1999 Update, lot is 40,000 sf Per ARWS Impact Fee Study Area A-4 (eastside) R/W = $12.00'sf R/W costs = 40,000 x $12.00 = $480,000 ZONE 7 FEES ~c~- ~"~ ;~ 7_.- TIF AREA Attachment 5 - Zone 7 Fees lip Price Length width in Quantity Cost: Road Segment per ft2 in ft ft in ft2 . Zone 7 Fee Dougherty Road - Segment 1 $0.522 4,300 49 210,700 $109,985.40 Dougherty Road - Segment 2 $0.522 4,150 49 203,350 $106,148.70 Do.ugherty Road - Segment 3 $0.522 900 49 44,100 $23,020.20 Dougherty Road - Segment 4 $0.522 550 49 26,950 $14,067.90 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 5 $0.522 1,800 Under Construction Dublin' Boulevard - Segment 6 $0.522 2,030 49 I 99,470 I $51,923.34 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 7 $0.522 1,650 Completed Dublin Boulevard Extension- Segment 8 $0.522 1,950 Landscaping N/A Dublin Boulevard Extension- Segment 8A $0.522 2,650 12 I 31,800 I $16,599.60i Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9 $0.522 4,600 Completed Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10 $0.5221,975 49, 96,775I $50,516.55 Dublin Boulevard - Segment 11 $0.522 9,500 4911465,5°° $242,991.00 Freeway Interchange - Segment 12 I $0.5221 I I 0 I $0,00 Hacienda-Segment 13 150.5221 1525 Completed Hacienda - Segment 14I 150.522 2640 12 I 31,680 I $16,536.96 Freeway Interchange - Segment 15 t $0.5221 I Completed I Arnold Drive- Segment 16 (all TIF) I $0'5221 2640 I 28 I 73,920 I $38,586.24 Central Parkway - Segment 16A $0.522 1400 25 I 35,000 $18,270.00 Central Parkway- Segment 17 $0,522 4575 25I 114,375 $59,703.75 Central Parkway - Segment 18 $0.522 3640 Completed Central. Parkway - Segment 18A $0.522 1430 25 t 35,750 $18,661.50 Gleason - Segment 19 $0.522 1600 Completed Gleason - Segment 19A $0.522 4650 Completed Gl.eason - Segment 20 $0.522 4800 Completed $0.00 Scarlet Drive - Segment 21 I $0.5221 I - I 40,000 I' $20,880.00 Tassajara Road - Segment 22 $0.522 5660 49 277,340 $144,771.48 Tassajara Road - Segment 22A $0.522 5000 49 245,000 $127,890.00 Tassajara Road - Segment 23 $0:522 2470 25 61,750 . $32,233.50 Tassajara Road, Segment 24 $0.522 800 12 9,600 $5;011.20 Tassajara Road - Segment 25 $0.522 0 0 $0.00 Fallon Road - Segment 26 $0.522 8080 25 202,000 $105,444.00 Fallon Road - Segment 26A $0.522 4840 49 237,160 $123,797.52~ Fallon Road Segment 27 $0.522 680 49 33,320 $17,393.04 Fallon Road & 1-580 Freeway Interch. W/ Signals - Segment 28 $0.522 ~ 208,955 $109,074.73 Tassajara Creek Bike Path- Segment 29 I $0.5221 7100 I 12 I 85,200 I $44,474.40 Park & Ride I $0.5221 I ' t 40,000 I $20,880.00 TOTAL $1,518,861.01 6/9/2004 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 FeeslAttachment 5 - Zone 7 Fees Attachment 6 25-May-04 Summary of Outstanding Credits Developer Date Section I Section II ACSPA Assumption of Short-Term Bart Advance (5%) 314/2004 .. $ 2,196,012.00 Interest on Advance, 8 years 3/19/2004 $ 495,586.82 Bart Advance (2.4%) 3/4/2004 $ 2,032,636;89 interest on Advance, 8. years 3/19/2004~ $ 181,301.81 City of Pleasanton Advance (7.75%) 3/4/2004 $ 3,031,653.00 interest on Advance, 8 years 3/19/2004 $ 1,197,042.17 ACSPA, Emerald Point/Opus 11110/2003 $ 3,603,314.32 ACSPA, Tassajara Meadows II 11/10/2003 $ 3,777,893.47 ACSPA, Toll Brothers 11/10/2003 $ 11,754,439.21 ACSPA, Koll Park and Ride 3/4/2004 $ 358,818.00 ACSPA, Park and Ride tl/10/2003 $ 867,188.14 ACSPA, Hacienda Drive Interchange 11/10/2003 $ 1,6/'f,025.00 ACSPA, Tassajara Road Interchange 11/10/2003 $ 4,543,128.00 ACSPA, Sybase Traffic Signals 11/10/2003 $ 658,125.00 Subtotals ACSPA $ 31,468,626.31 $ 4,905,537.52 DR Acquisitions I 3/4/2004 $ 2,037,420.00 N/A DR Acquisitions II 3/4/2004 $ 5,463,417.'00 N/A Greenbriar 3/4/2004 $ 76,517.00 $ Lin Family 3/4/2004 $ 14,496,907.06 $ 421,663.15 Mission Peak 3/4/2004 $ 160,773.00 $ MSSH Development 3/4/2004 $ 1,625,728.00' $ Toll CA II 3/4/2004 $ 985,352.53 $ 114,704.29.1.i Toll Dublin. LLC 3/4/2004 $ (502,776.67) $ 316,805.38 Toll Dublin LLC (Pending Signed Agreement) 3/10/2004 $ 462,747.00 Lin Family, Falton Rd. i/C (Pending Signed Agreement) 3/10/2004 $ 210,559.00, Subtotal Miscellaneous $ 24,806,084.92 $ 1,063,731.82... Adjustment for Residential Improvements $ (2,981,334.00) Excess Tass.Rd. I/C Developer Contribution to be Refunded $ (1,700,000.00) Total Credits (Existing Credit Agreement) $ 51,593,377.23 $ 5,969,269.34 Pending Credits Quarry Lane School Contribution (No Agreement) $ 409,500.00 Lin Family, GIeason Drive, Segment 20 (" ") $ 4,688,254.00 Lin Family, Fallon Road, Segment-26 (" ") $ 238,612.00 Lin Family, Fallon Road,. Segment 26A (" ") $ 361,119.00 Lin Family, Central Pkwy., Fairway Ranch, Segment 18A (" ") $ 1,009,226.00 .... Lin Family, Dublin Blvd., Fairway Ranch, Segment 10 (" ") $ 1,369,155.00 Total Credits $ 59,669,243.23 $ 5,969,269.34 .. Attachment 6a Eastern Dublin TIF Update May 25, 2004 Section I Residential Fee Adjustments The 1999 Update listed credits in the amount of $2,802,460 for the SectiOn I Residential surcharge. This included the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road Park and Ride Lots and portions of the Tassa,[ara Creek Regional Trail through the Greenbrier Homes Phase I project. Since .that time, Greenbrier Homes has completed an additional ~section o£the trail through the Phase II development. Credits are given for 1800 If of the 12' trail at 178,874. This amount needs to be added to the current credit amount, for a new credit amount of 2,981,334. The SectiOn I Residential surcharge is collected with the Section I fee, but has not been segregated from the balance of Section I fees. Credit should be given to the Surcharge account for the portion of fees collected to date. Attachment 7 May 25, 2004 Eastern Dublin TIF Credit/Fee Balance Summary TIF Category Section I Section II Section I Total Residential Section 1 Fee Account Balance $53,731.80 ................... , .... r ........... $53,731.80 Section 2 Fee Account Balance .................... $4,609,182.00 .................... $4,609,182.00 Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fee Account Balance $1,145,420.50 $1,145,420:50 $2,290,841.00 Remaining $6,736,730.00 $6,736,730.00 $13,473,460.00 Dougherty ($1,145,420.50) ($1,145,420.50) ($2,290,841.00) Valley Fees to be ($97,380.11) ($97,380.1 I) ($194,760.22) Collected (Total = = = Contra Costa $5,493,929.39 $5,493,929.39 $10,987,858.78 County +8.48% +8.48% +8.48% Contribution = = = Minus Fees Used $5,959,814.60 $5,959,814.60 $11,919,629.20 to Date and Current Account Balance) Account balances are of 2/29/04 Notes on Dougherty Valley Fees: Per agreement w/CC County, City will receive $13,473,460. Per Finance, City has transferred out $194,760.22 in funds received to date from CC County for the Willow Creek traffic signal project. There is currently $2,290,841.00 in unencumbered DV fees in the account for use on TIF projects. Subtracting these amounts from the $13,374,460 leaves $10,987,858.78 still to be collected, which is treated as revenue to the TIF. The remaining fees must be adjusted upward by 8.48%, to reflect the inflation factor used in the EDTIF. This increases the remaining fees to $11,919,629.20. Both the current fee balance and the remaining fees to be collected were split equally between the Section I and Section II projects. The fees are interchangeable between the two categories and could be assigned in different proportions. Attachment 8 May 25, 2004 Eastern Dublin TIF Residential Surcharge Balance Estimate The Section I fee includes a surcharge on residential development to pay for the cost of three park and ride lots and the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail. The 1996 update set the fee at $26/trip and the 1999 update set the fee at $44/trip. The surcharge is collected with residential building permits but has not been separately tracked. The amount of the surcharge collected to date can be estimated by the number of building permits issUed to date. Dates Applicable Fee Fee Estimate of Surcharge Update Trips Due to Collected Building Permits Issued June, 1996 to 1996 $26 11,775 $306,150 June, 1999 July, 1999 to 1999 $44 23,590 $1,03 7,960 August, 2003 Total 35,365 $1,344,110 The above amount can be applied as an existing balance for the Section I residential surcharge, resulting in a decrease of the remaining cost of the residential projects. Since these surcharge is being segregated from the total SectiOn I fees collected to date, this amount must be deducted from the overall Section I balance, resulting in an increase in the remaining cost of the Section I imprOvements. Attachment 12 May 25, 2004 Eastern Dublin TIF Update City of Pleasanton Loan Payoff The City of Dublin has obtained three loans or cash advan ~ces ffgm.0ther agencies for the construction of TIF improvements, which must be paid back through TIF fee revenues. The current value of these loans or debits (as of 3/29/04) is shown on Attachment 6, and is added to the total cost of existing credits. Also added is the estimated c05~ of interest that will accrue on the loans prior to full payment of the principal. The cost of the interest is based on an eight-year repayment of the loans. Loan/advance balances and estimated interest is shown below: Section Loan Balance Interest 8-Year Interest I City of Pleasanton $3,031,653 7.75% $1,197,042 II ACSPA ' $2,196,012 5.00% $495,587 j II BART $2,032,637 2.40% $181,302 The City currently requires that developers pay 3% of Section I fees in cash for use in paying off loans. Since the 1999 Update of the TIF, new development has resulted in an estimated 75,000 trips, or 20,000 trips per year. This generated roughly $7.8 Milhon in Section I fees, of which 3% or $230,000 was collected in cash to pay off the loan. Interest on the' loan at 7.75% is $234,953. The revenue is therefore able to pay only the interest and cannot reduce the principal. Under this situation, the interest payments will continue indefinitely. Further, the City will be unable to accrue Section I fees for use on TIF- related projects. A similar situation exists for the Section II loans. Therefore, the minimum cash payment will need to .be increased. The loan repayment plan is based on an estimate of funds that would be raised by increasing the minimum cash payment from 3% to 11% for Section I fees, and the minimum payment for Section II fees from 12.4% to 25%. The revenues are projected over the next eight years. The projections for the first five years are based on development projections from the Community Development Department, which estimate 79,843 trips from approved or pending projects that are expected to take out building permits over the next five years. The projections from the last three years are based on an estimated 15,000 new trips per year from development. Projects with an approved development that sets the minimum cash payment rate will pay the fee at the rate in the agreement (3-5% .for Section I and 12.4% for Section II). Certain projects not covered by a development agreement and without existing TIF credits will pay a higher proportion of the fee in cash (this is only for the purpose of estimating cash revenue; actual payment will be governed by the 11% and 25% minimum). The Section I 11% minimum payment would be an increase of 8% over the existing 3% cash payment, and would result in a cash payment of $47 per trip instead of $13 per trip if the 3% rate were continUed (using a fee of $425/trip for the update). The Section II 25% minimum payment would be an increase of 12.6% over the existing 12.4% cash payment, and would result in a cash payment of $31 per trip instead of $15 per trip if the 12.4% rate were continued (using a fee of $124/trip for the update). Many developments are Currently faced with the dilemma of installing TIF improvements that exceed available credits, resulting in the developers carrying excess credits. Increasing the minimum cash payment for Section I fees would likely result in a higher cash payment and greater excess credits for most developers. The cash Outlay .for a single-family house would increase roughly $34/trip (or $340) fOr Section I fees and 16/trip (or $160) for Section II fees, or a total of $500. Increasing the minimum payment to a.kigher percentage than the proposed rates in the update would accelerate loan payment and decrease the total interest paid on the loans. Increasing the minimum cash payment any higher than the proposed rates was not considered due to the hardship placed on existing developers who have advanced the construction of other improvements and are currently holding T~ credits. Requiring that a large portion of the fee be paid in cash would prevent the use of existing credits, in effect depriving the credit holders of a means of being reimbursed for prior cash advances. The prOposed minimum payments would not apply to the existing Section I Residential Surcharge and the proposed Section II Residential BART Parking Surcharge, as the credits for these categories do not bear interest. Credit holders for the Section I surcharge could utilize existing credits up to the full amount of the fee. The Section II~ sumharge fees would be paid 100% in cash, except for any potential residential development by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority outside of the Transit Center (ACSPA would be the only credit holder, having constructed the BART parking structure). Exhibit C EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Effective August 15, 2004 Residential (Within Transit Center) High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre) $3,564/unit Residential (Outside of Transit .Center) Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre) $6,950/unit Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre) $6,950/unit Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre) $4,865/unit High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre) $4,170/unit Non-Residential Development Other Than Residential $ 549/trip LAND USE ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE Non'Residential) TRIP GE NERATION RATE* HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING: 10/room OFFICE: Standard Commercial Office 20/1,000 sf RECREATION: Recreation Community Center 26/1,000 sf Health Club 40/1,000 sf Bowling Center 33/1,000 sf Golf Course 8/acre Tennis Courts 33/court Theaters: Movie 220/screen Live 0,.2/seat Video Arcade 96/1,000 sf EDUCATION (Private Schools): 1.5/student HOSPITAL: General 12/bed Convalescent/Nursing 3/bed Clinic 24/1,000 sf CHURCH: 9/1,000 sf INDUSTRIAL: Industrial (with retail) 16/1,000 sf Industrial (without retail) 8/1,000 sf Sources of information for Trip'Generation Rates: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). These trip generation rates are based on averages. Most retail uses are given a 35% pass-by reduction. Page 1 of 2 6117/2004 ,- ~}'" - ~ Exhibit C EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Effective August 15, 2004 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE LAND USE TRIP GENERATION RATE Non-Residential) (WITH PASS-BY) RESTAURANT: Quality (leisure) See appropriate Sl~opping Center Rate Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other*than fast food)~ See appropriate Shopping Center Rate Bar/Tavern See appropriate Shopping Center Rate Fast Food (with or without drive through) 465/1,000 sf AUTOMOTIVE: Car Wash: Automatic 585/site Self-Serve 70/wash stall Gas Station with or without food mart 97/pump Tire Store/Oil Change Store 28/service bay Auto Sales/Parts Store (no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf Auto Repair Center (no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf Truck Terminal (no pass-bys) 80/acre FINANCIAL: Bank/Savings and Loan See appropriate Shopping Center Rate COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: Super Regional Shopping Center 22/1,000 sf More than 600,000 SF; usually more than 60 acres, with usually 3+ major stores) Regional Shopping Center 33/1,000 sf 300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually 30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores) Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center 46/1,000 sf Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres w/usually 1 major store or grocery store and detached restaurant and/or drug store) Commercial Shops: Retail/Strip Commercial (no major store) 26/1,000 sf Supermarket 98/1,000 sf Convenience Market 325/1,000 sf Discount Store 46/1,000 sf Land uses marked in BOLD will always pay at the individual trip rate as these uses tend to generate destination trips. Commercial/retail and certain recreation uses will pay at the individual trip rate if the site is a stand-alone land use; if the land use is part of a larger shopping center, the appropriate shopping center trip rate will apply. Page 2 of 2 6/17/2004 g:~ED TIF UPDA TE~Exhibit C - Fee Rates_as adopted Exhibit D AREA OF BENEFIT MAdOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Cost of Roadway *Cost of Bridge Improvements Improvements Dublin Boulevard Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement.assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the $18,846,606.50 $ 1,620,000.00 DKS revised report form December 15, 1992 and. mitigation measure 3.3/10). Hacienda Drive Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin 445,353.92 $ - Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page I of the DKS revised report). Central Parkway Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of _ . Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road 10,273,457.90 $ 540,000.00 improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report). Gleason Drive Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page I of the DKS revised report). (The $ 460,968.30 $ project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road due to no development proposed in the future study area.) Tassajara Road Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6 lanes over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard 15,630,504.79 $ 4,820,000.00 to 1-580 from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of'the DKS revised report and mitigation measu re 3.3/14.0 Fallon Road Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes over a.6- lane right-of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara road (from the $16,129,176.66 $ 1,604,625.00 EIR future road improvement assumptions on page I of the DKS revised report). Street Alignment Study A study is required to specify the exact street alignments $ 100,000.00 in the Eastern Dublin area. Right-of-Way Contingency Funds are required to acquire land in the event that right- of-way must be obtained through condemnation and 0 value of land is greater than the appraised value. Total $ 61,886,068.07 $ 8,584,625.00 The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 68,257 related trips for residential and 228,579 trips for non- residential is $2,080/unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-t4 units per acre), $1,456 for Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,248 for High Density Residential (more than 25 units); and $208/trip for non-residential. The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density Residential is $290/unit, for Medium/High Density Residential is $203/unit, and for High Density Residential is $174/unit, and non-residential is $29/trip. The eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 3,916 Low Density units; 4,863 Medium Density units; 2,680 Medium/High f~-~-ity units;and 3,952 High Density units. These cost estimates do not include credits due for construction of portions of these major thoroughfares and bridges, in the event that the Area of Benefit Fee becomes effective, the appropriate credit amounts will be calculated and the Area of General•> ilan Eastern Extended Planning Are2 l~ 1ND USE MAP t_ egend COt+ 1MERGIALP\ J, M. EOA Ne( ghbahood Commercial f~^ r - 4 ~ General Commercial Campus Ofrr, e S .~ /-- t. ~ r ~ 7 Industrial Park 1 -~ r RESIDENTIAL flflA ~_--~ ~----~ ~M -) H' gh Densty 25• du~ac f--..~ __-__ -- ----~, r- M-H--~ Med' urmHgh Density 14-25 d,, rac E u y MH` L flAA ~ ~ . ~ t Medium Density 6-, 4 ddac I ~ ~ C~ Low Density 06d/ ac jury.'. _"~ ~ ; RHA Rural ResidentiaUAgriculture, cWt00 ac MH MH ?lleLiC/ SEMf•PUBLIC70PENf, / M ~ flflA ' FUTURE STUDY AREA ~ PubGc/ 5emi•Pubtc FaciGly flaA -' ~~' ~?•?.~ Elementary School I ' ® ,lunior t4igh School ra - I I ® Hgh School i ~. `~1 _~ f A G R f C U LTUR E ~ ~ PubGC/ Semi-Pubk r;: L ~ ,~~ / - ~ J ) I ~ Parks S Recreal'anx. 1.4 1 - / L ---- r--~ © Ciry Park I ~ - 1 , ~ ® Community Park 1 _ - 1 _ - > ""A~ 2743. 9 Acres ` ®Neighbamood Park Neighborhood Square 1 _- - i 1 - I ' ~ OPen SPace 1 - . _ ` - - __ f ~ ~ Stream Corridorr 1 ~;`~` • ,r, i CIRCULATION s. - - . -~ -- ~_ -_-- v \T~ .. .. .-- f~. ' {~ ...~... ArlerlaiStreet 1 `.">~~ ~~ i; i ~ I 1 ~----- GolectorStreet ri'- -•~•- ~~ ~T =,, .- I ..~ f SOI Boundary 1-= „ • ~ r • N ~ 1 ~ .., ~ r I .+-_..--- General Plan Amendment Swdy Mea I 1 1 e.• ~ ~ - I•` . I.. ...•. Specific Plan SNdYAA' reaI ,~STERIV May ,o, 1993 t lr_ r'' .. . 1 ~. - - i ~ . - . t. ; - - ' . ~ • - - L t.~ 14 Acres l ----------= r.~_.. RR hh'' 1----`°-__--_ -` -- 1°•--° -----~- -- ---- -- - - ,_- _,~ ,~~~~ WalaceRoberts~ Todd Figrre2S w a General Commercial may be permitted Dy a nlanne$ vet' 913' yP~? n! fPfJf19 °i26gss (seN text {or complete discussbn } ~~!11 iG3r ~ Wit canven ,o Future Study Area/ Agriculnrre where determined inconsistent with APA fsee text for complete discussion) tats - - Transportation Consultants MEMO January 4, 1996 (Revised) To: Mehran Sepehri, City of Dublin From: Vinton Bacon Cazl Springer Project No.: 157-001 Task 7 Subject: 1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Revised January 4,.1996) TJKM has completed the update of the Eastern Dublin TIF for 1995. This memorandum explains the new information that was used to revise the previous technical report which was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. in November 1994 (hereafter referred to as the original report). The. majority of the information, methodologies, assumptions and findings of the original report were retained in developing the updated fee structure. Only the changes to that report are identified below. . Changes to the 1994 TIF Report 1. New Cost Estimates - As more studies have been completed for the planned infrastructure to support Eastern Dublin and the surrounding region, better cost estimates have become available for use in the TIF calculation. New cost estimates for the improvements applied to the TIF were provided by Santina & Thompson. The total fees covered by the TIF rose by approximately $20 million from $101,444,240 to $121,995,379. 2. New Residential Trip Categories -The TIF rate structure used in the original report combined all residential uses into 'two categories -- single-family and multi- family. This update recognized that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan shows four categories of residential development based on ranges of unit density per acre. By adding two residential categories, the accompanying calculation for residential trips was adjusted based on standard trip generation data. The selected trip generation rates were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers .Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, the San Diego Association of Governments October 1993 Traffic Generation Rates and engineering judgement Table 2.1 shows the rates used for each of the four residential use categories. The only change made from the original report is for high-density residentiai development The Iower rate more accurately reflects the propensity for a Iower number of residents and incomes per household in apartment units as compared to townhome or condominium units. The change in trip generation rate from 7 per unit to 6 per unit for high density uses results in a decrease in the total number of residential trips from 123,679 to 121,232. 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214, Pleasanton, CA 94588-2754, (510) 463-0 ~ Pl~santon Frasrw .Santa Rosa Mehran Sepehri Page 2 Table 2-1 Trip Generation Rates Residential Trip Generation Rate -Trip Generation Rate - Land Use Type Density (DU/Acre)Original Report 1995 Update Daily Trips/Unit)Daily Trips/Unit) Low Density 1~10 10 Medium Density 7-14 10 10 Medium~High Density 15-25 7 7 High Density 25 7 6 3. Re-Assessment of the Percent Responsibility for the I-580/I-b80 Interchange Project -The original report calculated the responsibility for funding the I-580/I- 680 interchange project based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model during the p.m. peak hour of travel. These percentages were changed based on data obtained from the Alameda County Traffic Authority dated November 1995. The new data (shown in Section 3 Fees, Table 2-4) indicate a higher share for Eastern Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon, and a much lower share for Central Dublin. The percentage contribution for East Dublin changed from 12 percent to 24 percent. 4. Residential Development Improvement Responsibilities -The original report `v.~'' added the cost of park-and-ride lots to the exclusive responsibility of residential development. AIl other fees were proportionately divided among all land uses based on the relative share of trip generation. This update also added the Tassajara Creek Bicycle Trail to the exclusive responsibility of residential development. This was previously lumped into the Section 1 fees for all land uses. Updated TIF Cost Structure The TIF calculations were revised based on the above changes. As in the original report, the T1F costs were tiered for varying azeas of responsibilities which were described as Section 1 (East Dublin Only), Section 2 (Sub-Regional) and Section 3 ('liri-Valley) as depicted in'Tables 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 in the 1994 report. These same tables were reprinted with the above changes incorporated see attachments). Two new tables were created to present important summary information. Table 2-5 is a summary table which shows the total costs, and cost per trip for each of the three sections. Finally, Table 2-6 presents the recalculated the cost of residential development based on the new assumptions. The cost per trip for non-residential trips increased from $293 to $354. The cost per trip for residential units increased from $335.50 io $418.25. Atrachmenu 157-0O1.T7 Table 2-2 Section ~ Fees: Eastern Dublin Res onsibiti '100 Percent Se ment/lm rovement Cost Estimate Duhlin Boulevard $34,711,870 Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard Hacienda Drive 4,059,603 Gleason to Dublin (four lanes} Dublin to I-580 (six lanes} Hacienda Driven-5801mprovements 4,146,000 Transit Spine and Arnold Drive 10,724,892 Dublin w!o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes) Gleason Drive 5,197,353 w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes} Tassa}ara Road 8,861,039 Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four laneslsix lanes right-of-way) Dublin Boulevard tot-580 (six lanes/eight lanes right of way) Tassajata!(-5801nterchange 9,402,921 Fallon Raad 7,486,636 1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right-of-way) Project Study Reports - El CharrolFalloNt-580 Improvements 220,000 Traffic Impact Fee Study 90,000 Street Au nment 5tua 451,000 Subtofat of Costs $ 85,351,314 Total Number of Oaily Trips 344,fl78 Cost er Tri ~ $ 248 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fes Update Page 3 Table 2- 3 Section 2 Fees: Eastern Dublin/ Dublin/Contra Costa Count Develo er Res onsibilit Percent Responsibility due to New Development Cost by Juridiction ($1, 000s) Contra Se ment/ Im rovement Eastern Costa Cost Dublin Dublin Coun lwarrmore Pleasanton Estimate Eastern Contra Costa Dublin Dublin Coun Livermore Pleasanon Dublin Boulevard 96% 4% 0% 0% 0%9, 169 8, 802 $367 $0 $0 $0VillageParkwaytoSouthernPacific Right- of-Way Scarlett Drive 96% 4% 0% 0% 0%8, 314 7, 981 $333 $0 $0 $0DublineoutevardlbDougherty Road (4 lanes) Dougherty Road 31%3% 66% 0% 0% $8, 871 $2, 750 $266 $5, 855 $0 $0ContraCostaCountytoi- 580 I- 580 Fallon Road/ EI Charro 39% 0% 5% 43% 12%12, 425 4, 846 0 621 5 343 1 491Interchange I- 580/Airway Boulevard i~% 0% 1% 84% 0%7, 942 1, 191 0 79 6 67t 0Interchange subtotal of Costa (St, ooos)46, 721.25, 570 965 6, 556 12, 014 1, 491 Total Daily Tripa 344, 078 Coat per Trip 74 East )ublin Traffic Impact Fee Update age 4 t Table 2- 4 Section 3 Fees; Tri- Vatiey Jurisd( ct(on Responsibility Percent Responslbllity due to New Development Se rnent/9 Easlem contra Costa Improvement Dubnn Dublin County livertnore Pleasanton San Ramon Danville i- 580/ 1- 680 Interchange I Project'24%11% 2%13%28% 15%3%I I- 580 Auxiliary Lanes 13%6% 2%65%14% t)%0% I State Route i 84 8%4% 1%76%11% 0°(°0% Improve Transit Service 26%1 % 19%35%17% ' 1 %1 Subtotal of costa ($1, 000x) Cost by Jurldlctlon (S1, 000s) Contra Cosl Easlem Costa aimate Dublin Dublin _County ~Ivermore Pleasanton San Ramon DanvlUe 5, 548 $ 1, 332 $595 $138 $704 :$1, 563 $805 5172 37, 000 $ 4, 810 $ 2, 220 $740 $24, 050 $ 5, 180 SO SO 9, 000 $720 $360 $90 $6, 840 5990 SO 50 yio, cw y4, Yl"L ~ttiC $3, U1t3 $ 5, 87U $ 2, 754 $162 $162 SR7 7dp S11 NA M' a97 QA AAA MY NeA f, n .ems tnr~ .~~. w, w~ ~ Y, v~e~ ~or, eu~t ~w, yor ~yU/ JJJ4 Total belly Trips ~ 344, 078 Cost per Trip S32 Notes: `i- 580/ 1- 880 responsibility based on data from Alameda County Traffic Authority (11/ 95). Percentages do not total 100 percent since Alameda County responsibility Is not listed. Alameda County' s share is $241, 900. Easlem Dublin Tratf~ Impact Fee Update Page 5 Table 2-5 Summa of Tees for all i nree sections Total Cost of Cost per Non- Im rovements Residential Tri Section 1 Fees 85,351,314 248 Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent Section 2 Fees 25,570,473 74 Eastern DubliNDubliNContra Costa County/ Developer Responsibility Section 3 Fees 11,073,592 32 Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility Total Applied to A[I Uses 121,995,379 354 Other Improvements (Residential Uses Only) Park-and-Ride Lots $1,716,OOD Tassa'ara Creek Bic cle Path $1,397,760 The Traffic Impact Fee per residential trip is shown on Table 2-6. Non-residential development is responsible for 60.99 percent of the total applied to all uses (0.6099 X $121,995,379}. R Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Page 6 Tabte 2-fi Catcutation of T{F Cost per Residential Unit A Residential Share of Total Trips = Residential + Parfc + School Trips / Total Trips 134,227 / 344,078 = 39.01 B Residential Share of Cost for Sections 1, 2, and 3 = (A X Cost for Sections 1, 2, and 3} 39.01 % X $121,998,379= $47,591,168 Cost of Improvements Funded Exclusively by Residential Development =Park-and- Ride Lots +Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path 1,716,000+ $1,397,760 = $3,113,760 Total Funded by Residential Development = B + C 3,113,760 + $47,591,168 = $50,704,928 Cost per Residential Trip = D /Residential Trips 50,744,928 / 121,232 = $418.25 Cost per Low Density (1-6 DUTAcre) Dwelling Unit = $418.25 X 10 = $4,182 Cost per Medium Density (7-14 DU/Acre) Dwelling Unit = $418.25 X 10 = $4,182 Cost per Medium/High Density (15-25 Du/Acre) Dwelling Unit = $418.25 X 7 = $2,928 Cost per High Density (> 25 DU/Acre) Dwelling Unit = $418.25 X 6 = $2,509 R Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Page 7 SANTIN~ T11O~PS~IV,INC. Muniapal Engineering Surveying Railroad Engineering Planning January 3 , 1996 (revised ) Mr. Mehran Sepehri CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL Dear Mehran: As requested, we have attached cost estimates and supporting documentation for the development of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) cost estimates present a cost per lineal foot for 100 percent of the improvement work for each roadway segment. The TIF portion of the cost was frequently not 100 percent of the improvement cost. A portion of the funding for some segments will be provided by future developers as their contribution for .frontage improvements. We derived the percentages for each FUNDING TYPE, (i.e., traffic impact funding or developer funding for frontage improvements) by allocating each cost estimate item to a funding source and then summing the cast estimate items to fmd an overall percentage allocation for each roadway segment. The resulting allocation was very close to what would be obtained by merely taking the total cross sectional width and then ratioing by the cross sectional lengths for each funding type shown on the attached cross sections. For simplicity, we did ~ not include documentation regarding the allocation percentage. The supporting documents are presented in three sections. The first section contains the TIF cost estimates for each roadway segment. The second section contains cross sections for each segment of the roadways as well as the cut off line for each funding type. 1355 Willow Way, Suite 280 510-827-3200 Concord, California ~ ' '' ~{ Fax 510-687-1011 ~ • Mr. Mehran Sepehri January 3, 1996 r..r~'Page Two The third section contains a cost breakdown for each roadway segment. The cost breakdown presents the cost for each item of work as well as a cost per lineal foot for each item. The cost per lineal foot is presented for comparison purposes. The cost breakdown was reduced to a total cost per lineal foot for each roadway segment and then rounded up or down for an ultimate cost per lineal foot. Until a plan line is established for the roadway network, the approximate cost per lineal foot represents an appropriate cost to be used for these initial level estimates. The cost per lineal foot number was used in combination with the funding allocation percentage and the length of roadway to obtain the dollar .amount that is presented in section one of this report. Supporting documents for the cast estimates for land values have not been included in this report, but are on file in the City of Dublin. Contra Costa County developers may he required to contribute money to the TIF program as a result of their traffic impacts to the roadway network. The City of Dublin is currently. negotiating with Contra Costa County regarding this issue. The TIF program amounts may require adjustment as a result of these negotiations. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. ,, Sincerely, i ~ l Paul E. Hardy Principal phlduht960I04 SANTINA~ THOMPSONINC. Dougherty Road -Segment 1 4300 feet, 118 Right-of-Way City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening) 1!2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend Totals for T{F Share Civil Improvements at 5540 per LF @ 100%52,322,000 Intersection Improvements w! right of way J Amador Valley, 3 legs; Willow, 3 legs (Civil improvements are minor}5400,000 Right-of-Way ( None SO City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% J 5544,400 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) j 53,538,600 Dougherty Road -Segment 2 4,250 feet, 118 Right-of-Way Amador Va{ley to Houston Place (Widening) 1/2 {mprovements Exist. Sawcut and Extend J Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 5540 per LF @ 100% ~52,295,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way J None, see segment 21 ~SO Right-o~-Way @ 100% ' 8 x 710 x 518, Southern Pacific Right-of--Way ~5102,240 500 x 38 x 518, near Houston Place J 5342,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~5547,848 Tota! with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) j 53,561,Oi2 Dougherty Road -Segment 3 Right Hand Turn Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900`) Right Turn Pocket Oniy; All Other Improvements Are Done Totals for Tlr Share Civil Improvements, 900' at 5150 per LF @ 100°I° j 5135,000 Right-of-Way, 140 x 8 x 518 @ 100% ~520,160 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way, see segment 6 j SO City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% j 531,032 Total with 10% Continoency (0 on Admin.) j 5201,708 0231E.XLS Pa°e 1 Dougherty Road- Segment 4 520 feet Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp Widen Roadway Totals €orTIF Share Civil Improvements, Lump Sum @ 100%5207,480 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way, see segment 6 Sp Right-of--Way, Lump Sum; Including Demo 51,000,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5241,496 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.}51,569,724 Dougherty Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange}58,871,044 Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of Dougherty Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road) Dubtin Boulevard- Segment 5 2,200 feet, 108 Right-of-Way, 6 Lanes East of Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening) As Submitted to Caltrans Totals for T1F Shs Civil Improvements at 440 per Linear Foot @ 1 DO% ~5968,DG. lntersection Improvements w/ right of way ~ Clark Modification ~5120,000 Sien-a Ct Modification 5120,000 Bridge Widening ~5400,D00 Right-of--Way and Demo; have 100, need 108, 518 @ 100% ~5316,800 City Administration, Design, Construction Manaoem~nt, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~5384,860 Total with 10°~ Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~52,502,240 51 Million Credit for 1STLA Contribution ~ ~51,000,000} Net Total for this Segment ~51,502,240 rr~' 0231 B.XLS Page 2 Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6 2,030 feet, 108 Right-of-Way, 6 Lanes Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening) Future Improvements Witl Be Similar to Segment 5 Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot @ 100%609,000 Intersection Improvements w! right of way Sierra Ct, Civic -Modification 5130,000 Dublin Court -Modification 130,000 Dougherty with Civil Improvements 5758,080 Right-of-Way, 8.518+100K demo @ 100%5392,320 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5403,880 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.}52,625,220 Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 7 2,000 feet, 8~ Lanes Dougherty to Southern Pacific R'sght-af-Way Totals for TIF Share Civil improvements of 5510 per Linear Foot @ 50% ~ 5510,000 Right-of-Way, 50%'126'2000'57, (Developer to receive R of W credit) ~ 5882,000 BART Loan of 52.938M, to be repaid with T1F funds ( 52,938,000 Signals with Other Street, see Segments 6 & 21 ~ 50 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%; 0% on Loan ~ 5278,400 Total with 10% Contingency, including loan (0 on Admin.) ~ 55,041,400 Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific Right-of--Way) ~ 59,168,860 Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 8 2100 feet, 6 Lanes From Southern Pacific Right-of--Way to East BART Access 40 feet of roadway section exists) R J Totals for TIF Share Civil improvements at 650 per lineal foot @75%, Camp Panics wil( not contribute ~S1,D23,750 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way East and West Bart Access, 7 Pegs +5783,818 Amold Road Intersection, New, 4 legs ~5442,058 Right-of-Way, 128`57 @ 75%, (City does not own R of W} ~51,389,150 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~5727,755 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~54,730,408 X231 B.XLS Page 3 Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 8A 2700 feet, 6 Lanes East BART Access to Hacienda Drive A1I new Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @50%51,080,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way Hacienda, New, Major, 4 legs 5442,058 Right-of--Way, 126'57 @ 50%+ 100% of 200K demo, incl. pavement.j 51,390,700 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5582,552 j Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.}j 53,786,585 Dubtin Boulevard -Segment 9 4,600 feet, 6 Lanes Hacienda to Tassajara Road 40 feet of roadway section exists} j Totals forTlF Share Civil Improvements at 5510 per lineal foot @ 50% j 51,173,000 intersection Improvements w/ right of way ( Tassajara New, Major, 4 legs j 5442,058 Bridge, 580'60W'100L, 1/2 bridge exists; TIF=100% at ACFC channel ~5480,OC~^ Right-of-Way, 126'57 @ 50%+ Ok demo, (City does not own R of W) j 52,028,6L City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% (5824,732 Total with 10% Continoency (0 on Admin.) ~55,360,755 J Dubtin Boulevard -Segment 10 6,200 feet, 6 Lanes Tassajara Road to Fallon All New Roadway Included j Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @ 50% '~ J S2,480,000 intersection Improvements w/ right of way _ J Fallon -New, Major, 4 legs J 5442,058 Right-of--Way, 126"57 @ 50% + Ok demo {52,734,200 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% j S1,131,252 Tota! with 10% Continoency (0 on Admin.) J 57,353,135 023~B.XLS Page 4 ri~ Dublin Boulevard Extension -Segment 11 9,350 feet, 6 Lanes Fallon Road to Airway All New Roadway Included Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @ 50%53,740,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way Airway Boulevard, Major, 4 legs 5442,058 Bridge, S80`120W`100L J 5960,000 Right-of-Way, 126`57 @ 50% + Ok demo 54,123,350 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%51,853,082 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) J 512,045,030 Dublin Boulevard Extension Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) ~533,275,915 The City of Dublin received 5573,000 from State of California (SB3D0 funds) and 5400,000 from the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the Southern Pacific R of W to Tassajara Rd.)973,000 The City of Dublin borrowed 52,408,955 from the City of Pleasanton to build the 40 ft. width of Dublin Blvd Extension from SPRW to Tassajara Road; This loan must be repaid.)2,408,955 Subtotal is therefore I 534,711,870 Freeway Interchange - Segment '12 Dublin Boulevard Extension with I-580 - (Airway Boulevard) Totals for T!F Share Civil Improvements, New 3 lane Bridge & Ramps ~55,372,744 Signal Modifications J 5200,000 Right-of--Way (5100,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% (51,134,549 Total wi#h 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.} - J 57,941,842 Hacienda -Segment 73 I600 feet, 6 Lanes 1-580 (Not including interchange} to Dublin Boulevard Extension 60 feet of roadway section exists) Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 640 per linear foot @ 40% ~5409,600 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way ~50 Right-of-Way, 126`57.00 @ 5D% + Ok demo ~5705,600 City Administration, Desian, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~5223,040 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~51,449,760 0231B.XLS Page 5 Hacienda -.Segment 14 3100 feet, 4 Lanes Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension All New Roadway Included Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 38%5765,700 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way Transit Spine, Major 5392,574 Gleason, Major 5366,720 Right-of-Way, 102 ft.(1700 ft @ 53 8~ 1400 ft @ 54.55)+100k demo, all at 38% (5482,577 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5401,514 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)52,609,843 Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchange)54,059,603 Freeway Interchange -Segment 15 Hacienda Road with 1-580 Widen Offramp and Modify Signal (Loan amount built prior) Totals for TIF 5ha~ Civi! Improvements, Ramps Signal and intersection Improvements ~ 5170,6,; 5150,OL.. Alameda County 53.762 M Loan (Including Interest) f 53,762,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%; (0% on Loan) ~564,000 Total with no Contingency. ~54,146,000 Arnold Drive -Segment 1 f 3,100 feet, 4 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Camp Parks is on one side of Roadway) Improved on each side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL) Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 69% ~51,390,350 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way ~ Gleason & Transit Spine, 3 legs each ~5567,316 Right-of-Way, 102 ft.(1700 ft @ 53 & 1400 ft @ 54.55) at 69% + 100k demo @ 100% ~5907,259 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% (5572,985 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)53,724,402 0231B.XLS Page 6 i Transit Spine -Segment 16A 1,600 feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Arnold Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 655 per linear foot @ 38%5398,240 intersection Improvements w/ right of way Future Road, 4 legs 5392,574 Right-of-Way, 106`54.55 + 100k demo, all at 38%5331,238 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5224,410 Total with 10% Contingency (0 an Admin.}51,458,668 Transit Spine -Segment 17 4,500 feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassajara All New Roadway Totals for T1F Share Civil Improvements at 655 per linear foot @ 38%51,120,050 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way 50 Bridge, 580*96W 100E 5768,000 Right-of-Way, 106`54.55 + 5100k demo, all at 38%5862,733 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5550,357 Total with 10% Gontingency (0 on Admin.)i 53,576,018 Transit Spine -Segment 18 3,200 feet, 4 Lanes Tassajara to Fallon (Western Portion) All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civillmprovements at'655 per linear foot (i ft grading) @ 38% ~ (5796,480 Intersection lmprovements w/ right of way ~50 Right-of--Way, 106 ff. @ 54.55+100k demo, all at 38% ~5624,477 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~5284,191 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~51,847,244 Page 7 i Transit- Spine -Segment 18A 3,200 feet, 4 Lanes Tassajara to Fallon (Eastern Portion) A1I New Roadway Totals for T1F Share Civil Improvements at 730 per linear foot (6 ft grading} @ 38%5887,680 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way SO Right-of--Way, 106 !f. @ 54.55+100k demo, all at 38%5624,477 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5302,431 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)51,965,804 Transit Spine and Arnold Drive Subtotal 510,724,892 Gleason -Segment 19 1,600 feet, 4 Lanes Arnold Rd. to Hacienda 1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 425 per linear foot~@ 30%5204,00 Intersection Improvements w! right of way Right-of--Way, 102'53 @ 38%5186,048 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%578,010 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)5507,062 Gleason -Segment 19A 4,60Q feet, 4 Lanes Hacienda to Tassajara 112 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 425 per linear foot @ 30%5586,500 Intersection improvements w/ right of way SO Bridge.580'S5W 100E 5440,000 Right-of--Way, 102'53 @ 38% ~5534,888 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5312,278 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)52,029,804 023'1 B.XLS Page 8 7 i Gleason -Segment 20 5,100 feet, 4 Lanes Tassajara to t=anon All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements of 750 per linear foot @ 38%51,453,500 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way 50 Right-of--Way, 102'53 @ 38%5593,028 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5409,306 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.}52,660,486 Gleason Roadway Subtotal 55,197,353 Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road is not included because no development is proposed for Dooian Canyon as part of the Dublin General Plan Amendment) Scarlet Drive -Segment 21 2,600 feet, 4 Lanes Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension Ati New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil lmprovements at 650 per linear foot @ 100% (51,690,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way ~50 Dougherty, Major, 3 legs ~5450,458 Dublin, Major, 3 leas ~5328,138 Railroad Utilities, demo and/or relocation ~52,D00,000 Bridge, 580'90W'100L I 572D,OD0 Right-of--Way, 102'54.55 ~51,206,660 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~51,279,051 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) ~58,313,833 Tassajara Road -Segment 22 5,800 feet , 6 Lanes 5000 ft north of Gleason to Contra Costa Co. line A(1 New Roadway Totals forTlF Share Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot, (3 ft. grading) @25% (CCCo pays portion) S 51,160,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way ~5D Falcon, 3 leas ~5275,040 Two Bridges, 120W''100L'S80'2 ~Si,920,00D Right-of-Way, 126 Lf. @ 53 @ 25%+5500,OD0 for relocation of 2 houses ~51,048,100 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~588D,628 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) )55,724,082 02318.XLS Page 9 Tassajara Road -Segment 22A s 5,000 feet, 6 Lanes Gleason to 5000 ft. north of Gleason All New Roadway i r Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot, (3 ft. grading) @25% (CCCo pays portion) ~ 81,000,000 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way 80 Gleason ,see segment 23 ~ 80 Right-of-Way, TIF portion exists. 80 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% !f 8200,000 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~ 81,300,000 Tassajara Raad -Segment 23 2,600 feet, 6 Lanes Gleason to Dublin Boulevard A[I New Roadway Civil Improvements at 775 per linear 1 Intersection Improvements w/ right of Transit Soine. 4 leas Totals for TIF Share ft. grading) @25% (CCCo pays portion) ~ 5503,750 5C' 5392.574 Gleason ,Major, 4 legs ~5366,720 Right-of-Way, 126 ft.(1200 ft @ 83 & 1400 ft @ 54.55); TIF portion exists. ~50 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~8252,609 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~81,641,957 Tassajara Road -Segment 24 . 1000 feet, 8 Lanes Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; (not including Interchange) Portion of Existing Pavement Usable All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 150 per linear feet and 100% (cost to upgrade TIF portion) ~5150,OD0 Intersection Improvements w/ right of way ~80 Right-of-Way, 15D'S7; TIF portion exists ~SO City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ~530,OOD Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~5195,D00 Tassajara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange o ..~Page 10 i Tassajara Road -Segment 25 at Freeway Intersection Freeway Interchange 112 of interchange Exists Totals for T1F Share Civil Improvements, Including new 4 lane Bridge 56,416,372 Signalized intersection 5300,000 Right-of-Way gp City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%51,343,274 Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)59,402,921 Falcon Road -Segment 26 14,000 feet, 6 t_anes Tassajara to Dubtin Boulevard Extension All New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Civil Improvements at 900 per linear foot @ 25% (CCCo contributes)53,150,000 intersection improvements w/ right of way Gleason, 3 legs 5275,040 Transit Spine, 3 Pegs 5292,276 Right-of--Way, 126 ft (12,200 ft @ 53 & 1800 ft @ 54.55) @ 25%51,410,885 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%51,025,640 Total with 10% Contingency, (O on Admin.)56,666,669 Fallon Road -Segment 27 1,500 feet, 6 lanes Dubtin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 Afl New Roadway Totals for TIF Share Givi1 Improvements at~800 per linear foot @ 25% (CCCo contributes) ~.5300,000 Intersection Improvements wl right of way See Segment TM10 SO No Freeway interchange or Freeway Sionals SO Rioht-of-Way, 126'57 @ 25%5330,750 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5126,150 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 5819,975 Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) ~57,486,636 02316.XLS Page 11 a on - reeway n erc ange wi igna s - egmen Totals for TIF Share Freeway Interchange, new 6 lane Bridge 58,475,070 Signals ~54D0,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%51,775,014 Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ~512,425,098 Tassajara Creek Bike. Path -Segment 29 12,800 feet Dubiin Boulevard Extension to Contra Costa County Line Totals for TIF Share Bike path, 12 ft. @ 57/sf @ 100% ,51,075,200 Right of Way, none; included with Tassajara of Creek Improvements 5p City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%5215,040 Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) (51,397,760 Park 8~ Ride 40,000 s.f. for 150 cars Totals for TIF Sh; East of Tassajara, 40,000 s.f. @'(54 Improv. & 57 right of way) )5440,000 East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ (54 Improv. ~ 57 right of way) ~5440,000 East of Fallon, 40,000 @ (54 Improv. & 57 for right of way) ~5440,000 City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% ,5264,000 Total with 10% Contingency {0 on Admin.) ~ ~51,716,000 Precise Ptan Line Costs Totals for TIF Share Total Cast - ~5451,000 t Grand Total ~5134,875,751 rr~' o231B.XLS Page 12 o~ GI~. ER'~~ ~,OA~ SF~ GM~HT ROADWAY ESTI~ dA'PE CI' T'Y OF DUI3LIH EXISTING ~_,.,~ NEB TO REMAIN SEGMENT 3 DOUGHERTY ROAD HOUSTON PLACE TO DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT TURN POCKET' ONLY ROADWAY ESTIMATE CITY OF DUBLIN n~ G. DEMa. -. 12' NER l la~ x~ ~ T ~' G ~ G TO ~~ ROAD -RAC'4 ~ ~~ G . TO NORTH I- 5q0 ~~ SEGMENT DUI3LSN RL' VD ROAD'~ AY ES~~ ~Gay OF A,. S~ //~,/\~ fib/ ffj' 1 J `~t r~ i . .f / Q /:tr~ c i ~r' r. ra. Y.....,,,i f ,~, .,\ ..\ ~\ i t 4 2~" ~ ...,~ l t ;~ i. i ,`J sEC~ ExT 4 i DOUG~ I~RTY ROAD DUDLTN DLYD. TO NORTIi I- 5DO OFF- RA1iI' r_-~; rj.~:.. 7 ti t „t,. ~.. i: l\ t:` i ii % , ROAD'~ AY ES9' TMATE CI' T'Y OF DUDLIN t l FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY ES" 17MATE CI' I'V OF DUBLIN FRONTAGE ~' IMPROYEMEN' r DUBL~~ BLVD L, AGE pARK1fAY TO SIERRA ~' ~ E~ G SEGMENP 5 I~[ pROVk~ ' ROADWAY ESTndATE CTl' Y flF DUBLIN iV 1 B~ vD. ~ x~~ NS~o~Dt~ BLIN SEGI[ E Og ~g DUBLIN BLVD. s~ cx~' 13 HACIENDA ROADWAY ESTIMATE y OF DUHLZN a x ~ Ra~,~ Nr x ~ 8~~ N BL 1~ ~- ~ ~ sEG~ ~~' ~ ~~A~ 22 23 SEGId~ T ~' F.+ o~ ~°~ 6 ~~ F ~L ~ Y E~~~'gEGI~ ~ gOAD~ A UBI~GTr` j 0~ D G.~~-~--'""'"". SEGO` 1 EGMEL3' r ~~ ~t1~ ~~~~sC~~~~EG~~ ~ESTIMATE R ~ TyAOF pU~ 1,IN s= x X FRpg AGEV!UPI' FRAGE p~ pRDYEI~NT 4LD ~T~ . s~ G ~- RpADRAY D ~TEyOF l l FRONTAGE Tb~ IPROVE~NT 106' R/~ 12' 7' T 12' ALL I NEW TIF 12' ~,4' 0' 1 ix~ 1~ FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT 6a 17 18 S~ TRANSIT SPINE RCITY AOF DUBNE Rete~ d~ b/~/ R sEG?, d~'r ~-~ sT p~ xA~~ A To xA~~~~ 1500 9 GLEA~ ON5EGldEK'~ Rp~~ AY ~~ CITY ~F D 5Q' Rte 12g' ~C~ FG 12' 1~' ~ zo' ~ y_ I o fiIF GEFRO ,,.pgOV~~~o ~~ SEG~ E~ 0' s p~ AGERQ~~ ENT RO~~ AY ES~~ G' 1~`t a' ~~~ ii ii ii ii ii ii i i i j i ii ii i ii ii t r TYPICAL ROAD1fAY INTERSECTION CITY OF DUBLIN l na s~ 4 i b` ~fi Y-- l E ~~~'~'tt'' v~ M.. e. na~ v, v„' 4 wtf ~^. T. n.• 1<~~~ iSiT ~ ~ .... •. ~!"Y.~ i, l:.~~ "v~'~) Y,, Y,~.: h:» i:'.` Z+~~{ v.,::. l FFFF~~~~~"~~~~~ V~ ~ ~~~`~~~~~y~ ~~ 15 ~u t- CIEND~A sg$? ff i.x tf S t.fe R N~ 1 jj n, K e~;..~ r~;. .,... f. ..,. ... _m ... . k.,, yt n.,i 4`~ ti ..A t . S ie b.. ~#: i.~4 f i 2 ~: sF~ r ESTII~' I"~ DUBLIN N S: AfHi.... ................~- N ,n ir..u M`. N~.N^~ .... n~.~n•.....~ a F; I t.» ..............w............................................................w,... rs: L r....>m>it. ..tY.....<. <;SSi' h8........_.~~ szt:.... srr.,...µss>. w~~~^ _ - nom, 1~ j SEGMEN' P ~ 25 FWY INTERCHANGE t rASS~ rARA I; oAD 4 ~ 4~:~~n i~ v.~ iC`„.. ..... m: xsza;.:.,.. 1' ROADIYAY ESTIMATE CITY OF DUBLIN y...y, N9 DEMOLISH EXISTING 3 LANES BUILD 4 LANE INTO EXISTING 3 LANES. M. q~~ ~ ~. 9~~ z ~~~s¢ w $ g~~ DEMOLLSH EXISTING INSTALL 6 LANE IIVfiE' lZCHANGESEGMENT ~: A 28 FWY INTERCHANGE a ~~`~~ w~`: y~-~~~~ FALCON ROAD ~~* ~ ROAD1fAY ESTIMATE t' ! h CITY IUBLIN l _ ~ 5 4 ~~~7 .~ ~ ty i ~ ~' 1 / -~ ~~l v ~~~ \ ~ ~~' . I ' /~ ~.~ •t i' '' 1 22 ~ 3. 1.b < I l y..~ ~ • i San ot' r, r , I ' I8~ 1 (. ~~ ~ s. oo . Vilt ~ ~~• ~ 4 A•, P Ip g ~ r~/ ~ I r k ..~ . ~ _ ~..1~ 6 ~ /i . _. O • .. \ ;t / L~ . 1 ~~ n 111\ I~ ~. _ n , _. ,r .!.8~ • L t „® 18. 2 . ,i . • I- ,~ ` 16 ~ ~~ j L g~~' `~1~" 8I. ~ ~ ~~ u- q ~= ° i I~ r ~ '! `~~- t`° 1, 2 •• '°~.~ 21 r I t4 ~ 9 y 23 ~ ~ ~. ~.~ ~6 0 ~ , !1 , 5 ; ~ 7 ' I d 10 DUBLIN ~ ''C• _ . ! ~ .> /I_': Y' ;G 7 .. H 13 I ~ 24 BLVD. / r8u 271 - X11 4 ~ N ... ~ ~ ~ •. >a - ~ ... t /.. a cnxt -..r O I r ~~ Q ' i JL ~i Ii ,..~ (.~' I ~ t.... . tt -'~ sJ 1IM@. .,,_ ._.... IlM1ULUl, ra G• W I - p ~c I a o `~ S A :N T A' R I T_; A; . N~~R•.•~ I I v :'M10k1, -•° LEGEND `,..a.,~~,,.~....°....°.~ ....~....~ . j~ _~~. 3 A ~ I T. ~(, -` / ~ 12 SEGMENT N0. _ - '. t ~' ~ • . k~ / w.n 3. 00 E~ Av_ L~ 5T/$. 7=Na ep :I T T. r ,..I y~ ~ :L~~~)~r Lil'' . y.` ~'' ! . ~"~~ I ~ / "~ , : ~ ~ " TRA C 9l6NAL, QEtJO7E. 3 9. LF.~ . .. ~~' / i:, Dougherty Road, Segment 1; 4300 ft and 118 ft right of way filename=segD1 length= 4300 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 15.00 64500.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 64500.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 64500.00 00 Sawcut 2.00 8600.00 Grind 3.00 12900.00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 Fu[l Pavmt 180.00 774000.00 c~G 1s.oo 64soo.oo 5u 24.75 106425.00 MC 20.00 86000.00 DO Overlay 63.00 270900.00 00 Earthwork 12.00 51600.00 00 CBBSDMN 4.65 20000.00 SD pipe SO.DO 215000.00 00 Strp&mkings 16.00 68800.OD signs 2.00.8600.00 00 Electrl 9.77 42000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 64500.00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 '. L&I 70.00 301000.00 OD Survey 7.44 32000.00 GRAND TOTAL 2320325.OD COST PER LF 539.61 USE 540/Lf TIF = 100X Dougherty Road, Segment 2; 4250 fL and 778 ft right of way filename=seg02 length= 4250 treated 9/23/94 Price pcr Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 75.00 63750.00 traffic Ctl 15.00 b3750.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 63750.00 00 Savcu:2.00 8500.00 Grind 3.00 12750.00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 Ful[ Pavmt 180.00 7b5000.00 C&G 75.00 63750.00 Su 24.75 105187.50 rc 20.00 a5ooo.00 oo Avertay 63.00 267750.00 OD Earthwork 12.00.57000.00 OD C~85DHH 4.24 18000.00 SD pipe 50.00 212500.00 00 ` Strpbmkings 1b.DD 68000.00 signs 2.00 8500.00 DO Elec:rl 8.47 36000.00 _ Sig Inter 15.00 b~75D.D0 keu, u:l 00 ~ xis: u:[00 DO LbI 70.00 297500.00 00 Survey b.54 28000.00 GRAI:D 70TAL 2262437.50 C057 PAR LF 537.0E USA 540/LF 71 F = i DO:: r Dougherty Raad, Segment 3; 900 ft; Rt Hand Turn,lloust Pl to Dub. Blvd filename=seg03 length= 900 Greeted 9/23/96 Description Unit price Total- riobiliiation 70 9000.00 Traffic CLl 5 4500.00 Clear 8 Grb 5 4500.00 5aucvt 00 Curb 8 Gutter 15 13500.00 Full Pavmt, 14 ft 4 50400.00 Import 8 Grading 5 4500.00 CB 8 SD Pipe 50 45000.00 StrpBmkings S 4500.00 signs 1 900.00 Survey 2 7800.00 GRAND 70TAL 138600.00 COST PcR LF 754.00 US_f's 150/LF TIF = 100X Dougherty Raad, Segment 4; Dublin Blvd. to North of 1-580 tilename=5eg04 ltngth= 520 created 12/01/95 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Hobili:ation 20.00 10000.00 Traffic Ctl 9.00 4680.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 7800.00 OD Sawcut 3.00 1560.D0 Grind 3.00 1560.00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 ' Full Pavmt 9b.00 49420.00 CSG 24.00 12480.00 5u 37.50 195D0.00 MC 20.00 70400.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 24.OD 12480.00 DO C3&SDHH 10.00 5200,00 SD rips 50.00 2b000,00 00 Strpt~mkings 10.00 5200.00 signs 2.50 1300.00 ' QO Eiectrl 20.00 7D400.00 Sig Inter 00 00 New utl 00 EXISt L'tI OO OD LSI"5D.00 26000.00 '. 00 Survey 5.00 260D.00 GRAND TOTAL 207480.00 CO57 PcR LF 399.00 U5_ LUHP SUY.20748D.00 TJF = 100:: Dublin Boulevard, Segment 5;.2200 ft end 108 ft right of uay filename=seg05 length= 2200 created 9/Z3/4G o utilities (nev or relocated), sidewalk, maintenance overlay L&I, electroliers, intcrconnect Price per Description Lin Foot Total Hobilization 25.00 55000.00 Traffic C:l 20.00 44000.00 Clear S Grb 15.00 33000.00 Remove & Relocate DO Exist. Util.5.00 11000.00 Remove trees,BStop 8.00 17600.00 Earthwork, grding 35.00 77000.00 Grind 3.DD 6600.00 Full Pavmt 50.00 110000.00 C8G 24.00 52800.00 SU E 48.00 105600.00 HC 10.00 22000.00 Sawcut 1.50 3300.00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 00 DO CoSSDHH 18.00•39600.00 SD pip-36_DO 74200.00 00 StrpBmkings E.00 17600.00 signs 2.00 LL00.00 00 _ ELectrl S.DD i1000.OD Sig Inter 15.00 33000.00 e New utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 LEI, incl exist 70.00 150000.00 00 Survey 4.90 10780.00 GRAI:D 707AL 8E7L80.00 CCST P_R LF 403.40 LSE.G40/L r' TIF = 100X Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6; 2030 ft and 108 ft right of way filename=seg06 length= 2030 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 25.00 50750.00 Traffic Ctl 20.00 40600.00 Clear S Grb 14.00 28420.00 Savcut 1.55 3146.50 Grind 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 Full Pavrrt 50.00 101500.00 GSG 24.00 68720.00 Su 48.00 97440.00 KC 10.00 20300.00 00 Overlay 00 00 OD Earthwork, grc~g 25.00 50To0.00 00 CnBSDF'.H 10.00 20300.00 SD pipe 30.00 60900.00 OD Strp8mlcings E.OD 16240.00 signs 2.00 4060.00 00 Electrl 5.00 10150.00 Sig Inter OD Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 DO L&I, incl exist 40.00 E1200.00 00 Survey 4.93 10000.00 GRAND 70iA1 6~LG76.50 COS7 PER LF 317.48 USE 3DO/LF TIF = lOC~ Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 7; 2000 ft and 125 ft right of -+ay filename=segOT Length= 2000 created 9/23!94 Price pcr Description Lin Foos Total Mobilization 15.00 30000.00 Traffic Ctl 9.00 18000.00 Clear S Grb 7.50 15000.00 Saucut 1.00 2000.00 Grind 1.50 3000.00 Rm ez pavmt 7.14 14285.71 00 Full Pavrt;t 212.50 425000.00 C&G 12.00 24000.00 SU 24,00 48000.00 MC 20.00 40000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 oa Earthwork 20.00 40000.00 00 Cn85DMH 4.29 7E571.43 SJ pips 50.00 100000.00 00 StrpFankings 19.29 3E571.43 signs 2.41 4820.00 00 E{ectrl 20.00 40000.00 - Sig Inter 15.00 30000.00 New•u:l 00 '. Exist u:l DO 00 L&I, incl exist 50.00 100000.00 00 Survey 5.00 10000.00 GRAhO TOTAL 1001248.57 COST PER LF 500.62 LS=_510/LF TIF = 5~x North = CX South = 50X Dublin Boulevard Ext., Segment 8; 3000 ft and 126 ft ri filename=seg08 length= 3006 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 25.D0 75000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 45000.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 45000.00 00 Sawcut 2.00 6000.00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 DO Full Pavmt 272.00 816000.00 C&G 24.00 72000.00 Su 49.50 148500.00 MC 20,00 60000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 20.00 60000.00 00 CB85DMH 10.11 30315.79 SD pipe 50.00 150000.00 00 Strp&mkings 12.00 36000.00 - - signs 2.00 6000.00 00 Electrl 20.00 60000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 45000.00 New utl 00 - Exist utl 00 i 00 '. L&I 70.00 210000.00 00 Survey 5.00 15000.00 GRAND TOTAL i 1879815.79 ! s COST PER LF 626.61 j USE Sb50/LF fl TIF = 75X FRONTAGE = 25X I Dublin Boulevard Ext., Segment 8A; 1b00 ft and 126 ft r filename=seg08a length= 1600 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mcbilization 25.00 40000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 24000.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 24000.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 9.33 14932.21 00 full Pavmt 340.00 544000.00 C&G 24.00 38400.00 SN 49.50 79200.00 MC 20.00 32000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 50.00 80000.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.11 16168.42 SD pipe 100.00 160000.00 DO StrpBmkings 16.00 25600.00 signs.2.00 3200.00 00 Electrl 20.00 32000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 24000.00 New utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 L&I 70.00 R 112000.00 00 Survey 8.42 13473.68 GRAND TOTAL 1262974.32 COST PER LF 789.36 USE 5800/LF TIF = 75X FRONTAGE = 25X Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 9; 4600 ft and 126 ft right of way filename=seg09 length= 4600 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 92000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 55200.00 Clear & Grb 10.00 46000.00 00 SaWCUt 2.00 9200.00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 240.00 1104000.00 C&G 24.00 110400.00 Su 45.00 207000.00 MC 20.00 92000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 Earthwork 20.00 92000.00 00 CBBSDMH 10.00 46000.00 SD pipe 30.00 138000.00 00 Strp8~mkings 12.00 55200.00 signs 1.79 8214.29 00 Electrl 10.00 46000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 69000.00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 _ 00 L81 50.00 230000.00 00 Survey 5:00 23000.00 GRAND TOTAL 2423214.29 COST PER LF 526.79 USE 5510/LF TIf = 50X frontage = 25X / 25X t Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 10; 6200 ft and 126 ft right of ua filename=segl0 length= 6200 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 25.00 155000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 93000.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 93D00.00 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 340.00 2108000.00 C&G 24.00 14$800.00 Su 49.50 306900.00 MC 20.00 124000.00 00 Overlay 00 QO 00 Earthwork 50.00 310000.00 oo C8&SDMH 10.00 62000.00 SD pipe 100.00 620000.00 00 StrpBdnkings 16.00 94200.00 signs 2.00 12400.00 ` 00. ELectrt 20.00 124000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 93000.00 Neu utl 00 __ Exist utl 00 00 ~ L&I 75.D0 465000.00 00 Survey 6.61 41000.00 GRAND TOTAL 4855300.00 COST PER LF 783.11 US'c 5800/LF TIF = SOX FRONTAGE = 25X / 25X Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 11; 9350 ft arxi 126 ft right of way filename=segll Length= 9350 ~ created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Tota! Mobilization 25.00 233750.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 140250.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 140250.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 oa Full Pavmt 340.00 3179000.00 C&G 24.00 224400.00 Su 49.50 462825.00 MC 20.00 187000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 72.00 673200.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.00 93500.00 SD pipe 100.00 935000.00 00 Strp&mkings 16.00 149600.00 signs 2.00 18700.00 00 Electrl 20.00 187000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 140250.00 - New utl 00 Exist uti 00 ~. 00 L&I 70.00 654500.00 00 Survey 6.75 63112.50 GRAND TOTAL 7482337.50 COST PER LF 800.25 USE 5800/LF 7IF = 50ti FRONTAGE = 25X / 25X i 1 u/~r Interchange, Airway/I-580 filename=seg121 length= 1800 crtated Price per Description Lin Foot Total riobilization 120.D0 215000.60 Traffic Ctl 120.00 216000.00 Clear & Grb 60.00 108000.00 00 Sawcut 2.DO zoo.oo Grind 10.00 1000.00 Rm eX pavmt 00 Bridge & Clover 55D0.00 2950000.00 full Pavmt 120.00 215600.00 C&G 15.00 108000.OD RAMP 250.00 50000.00 HC 2D.00 36000.00 PAVc'R 8».00 15I200.OD Overlay 00 00 EarthWk, taro 100.00 180000.00 Earthwork 2D0.00 359650.00 OD CnBSDHH 4.65 16744.19 50 pipe 25.00 67500.00 DO Strp€dnkings 12.00 32400.00 signs 2.00 36DD.D0 OD Electrl 20.00 72000.00 Sig Inter OD 00 Nesr,utl 00 ~ Exist u:l 00 ' DO L8I 60.00 108000.D0 00 Survey 20.00 72000.00 GRhND T07AL 5353894.19 C057 PER LF L'SE 531 764.00 TIF = 500 Hacienda, Segment 73; 1600 ft and 12b ft right of way t.ilename=segl3 length= 1b00 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 25.00 40000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 24000.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 24000.00 00 Sawcut 2.00 3200.00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 full Pavmt 272.00 435200.00 C&G 24.00 38400.00 su 49.50 79200.00 MC 20.00 32000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 20.00 320D0.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.00 16000.00 5D pipe 45.00 72000.00 00 StrpBmkings 16.00 25600.00 signs 2.00 3200.00 00 Etectrl 20.00 32000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 24000.00 Hew utl 00 - Exist utt 00 00 ~ L&I 75.00 120000.00 00 Survey 6.75 10800.00 GRAND TOTAL 1011600.00 COST PER LF 632.25 USE Y640/LF TIF = 50X FRONTAGE = 25% / 25% Hacienda, Segment 14; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of uay filename=segl4 length= 3200 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin foot Total Mobilization 20.00 64000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 38400.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 38400.00 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 244.00 780800.00 C&G 24.00 76800.00 Su 49.50 158400.00 MC 20.00 64000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 19.00 60800.00 00 ca&SDMH 10.00 32000.00 SD pipe 100.00 320000.00 00 Strp&nkings 16.00 51200.00 signs 2.00 6400.00 ` 00 Electrl 20.00 64000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 48000.00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 ~ L8~1 70.00 224000.00 00 Survey 7.00 22400.00 GRAND TOTAL 2049600.00 COST PER LF 640.50 USE Sb50/LF TIF = 38~ FRONTAGE = 31X / 37X Interchange, Hacienda-1-580 filename=seg151 length= Ramps 2L00 created Price per Description Lin Foo:Total Mobilization L,DO 9600.00 Traffic Ctl 2.50 6000.00 Clear & Grb 2.00 L800.00 00 SaVCU:1.00 2400.00 Grind 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 lliden Pavm:, Rarb L8.00 115200.00 Rotted curb 8.00 19200.00 SU 00 OD MC OD 00 00 Overlay 00 DO QO Earthwork 6.40 74400.OD 00 Gn&SDMH 1.20 2880.00 SO pipe 1.00 2L00.00 00 StrpBmkings 2.OD 4800.00 signs OD 00 E[ectr[00 Sig Inter 00 00 Neu utl 00 Exis: u:l 00 '. 00 L8I pp QO Survey 2.00 L800.D0 GRAND TOTAL 18b=.80.00 COST PER LF US_= LS 170000.00 TIF = 10CX Arnold Drive, Segment 16; 3100 ft and 102 ft right of u filename=seglb length= 3100 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 62000.00 Traffic Ctt 12.00 37200.00 Clear 8~ Grb 12.00 37200.00 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 10.00 31000.00 00 Full Pavmt 244.00 756400.00 C&G 24.00 74400.00 SU 49.50 153450.00 MC 20.00 62000.00 00 Overlay E .00 00 00 Earthwork 21.00 65100.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.00 31000.00 SD pipe 100.00 310000.00 00 Strp&mkings 16.00 49600.00 signs 2.00 6200.00 - 00 Elecirl 20.00 62000.00 Sig Infer 00 00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 R L&I 70.00-217000.00 00 Survey 7.00 21700.00 GRAND TOTAL 1976250.00 COST PER LF 637.50 USE 5650/LF T1F = 69X FRONTAGE = OX / 31X Transit Spine, Segment 16a; 1600 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=segl6a length= 1b00 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin foot Total Mobilization 20.00 32000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 19200.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 19200.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Fuil Pavmt 254.00 406400.00 C8G 24.00 38400.00 Su 49.00 78400.00 MC 20.00 32000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 21.00 33600.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.00 16000.00 SD pipe 100.00 160000.00 00 StrpBmkings 15.00 24000.00 . signs 2.00 3200.00 00 Electrl 20.00 32000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 24000.00 New utl 00 Exist utl 00 - 00 L&I 70.00 112000.00 R. 00 Survey 7.00 11200.00 GRAND TOTAL 1041600.00 COST PER LF 651.00 USE 5655/LF TIF = 38X FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X r~° Transit Spine, Segment 17; 4500 ft .and 102 ft right of way filename=segl7 length= 4500 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin foot Total Mobilization 20.00 90000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 54000.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 54000.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 254.00 1143000.00 C8G 24.00 108000.00 Su 49.00 220500.00 MC 20.00 90000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 21.00 94500.00 00 CB~SDMH 10.00 45000.00 SD pipe 100.00 450000.00 00 StrpBmkings -15.00 67500.00 signs 2.00 4000.00 00 Electrl 20.00 90000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 67500.00 New utl 00 - Exist utl 00 00 '. L&I 70.00 315000.00 00 Survey 7.00 31500.00 GRAND TOTAL 2929500.00 COST PER LF 651.00 USE 5655/LF 7IF = 38X FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X Transit Spine, Segment 18; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of uay filename=segl8 length= 3200 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foat Total Mobilization 20.00 64000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 38400.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 38400.00 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 254.00 812800.00 C&G 24.00 76800.00 Su 49.00 156800.00 MC 20.00 64000.00 00 overlay 00 00 00 Earths~ork, 1' C/F 21.00 67200.00 00 CB$SDMH 10.00 32000.00 SO pipe 100.00 320000.00 00 Strp&mkings 15.00 48000.00 signs 2.00 6400.00 00 Electrl 20.00 64000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 48000.00 New utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 L8I 70.00 224000.00 e 00 Survey 7.00 22400.00 GRAND TOTAL 2083200.00 COST PER LF 651.00 USE 5655/LF T I F = 38X FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X Transit Spine, Segment 18A; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=segl8A length= 3200 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 64000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 38400.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 38400.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 254.00 812800.00 C&G 24.00 76800.00 Su 49.00 156800.00 MC 20.00 64000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork, 6' C/F 98.00 313600.00 00 CB&SDMH 10.00 32000.00 SD pipe 100.00 320000.00 00 Strp&mkings 15.00 48000.00 signs 2.00 6400.00 00 Electrl 20.00 64000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 48000.00 New utl 00 Exist utl 00 _ 00 L8I 70.00 224000.00 ~, 00 Survey 7.00 22400.00 GRAND TOTAL 2329600.00 COST PER LF 728.00 USE 730/LF TIF = 38~ FRONTAGE = 31X / 31Y. Gleason, Segment 19; 4600 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=segl9 length= 4600 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 92000.00 Traffic Ctt 12.00 55200.00 Clear & Grb 12.00 55200.00 00 Sawcut 1.00 4600.00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 4.75 21850.00 00 Full Pavmt 134.00 616400.00 C&G 24.00 110400.00 Su 25.00 115000.00 MC 20.00 92000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 19.00 87400.00 00 CBBSDMH 4.00 18400.00 SD pipe 50.00 230000.00 00 Strp&mkings 15.00 69000.00 signs 2.00 9200.00 00 Electrl 00 00 Sig Inter 15.00 69000.00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 L8I 65.00 299000.00 ` 00 Survey 5.00 23000.00 GRAND TOTAL 1967650.00 COST PER LF 427,75 USE 5425 TIF = 30X FRONTAGE 9X / 61X Gleason, Segment 19a; 1600 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=segl9a length= 1600 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 32000,00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 19200,00 Clear & Grb 12.00 19200,00 00 Sawcut 1.00 1600,00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 4.75 7600.00 00 Full Pavmt 134.00 214400,00 C8G 24.00 38400,00 Stl 25.00 40000.00 MC 20.00 32000,00 DO Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 14.00 30400.00 00 CB&SDMH 4.00 6400,00 SD pipe 50.00 80000.00 00 StrpBmkings 15.00 24000,00 signs 2.00 3200,00 00 Etectrt 00 00 Sig Inter 15.00.24000.00 New utl 00 Exist utl 00 00 e L&I 65.00 104000.00 00 Survey 5.00 8000.00 GRAND TOTAL 664400,00 COST PER LF 427.75 USE 5425 TIF = 30X FRONTAGE = 4X / 61X Gleason, Segment 20; 5100 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=seg20 length= 5100 created 9/Z3/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Totai Nobilixation 20.00 1020DO.OD Traffic Ctl 12.00 61240.00 Ctear S Grb 12.00 612D0.00 ' 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind 40 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 DO 00 Futl PavmL 2~4.D0 1244400.00 C&G 24.00 122400.00 Su 49.50 252450.00 rc zo.oo 102040.00 DD Overlay 00 00 oo Ear;huork 113.D0 576300.00 00 Ca'&SDHH 9.68 44354.5: SD pipe i0D.00 510000.00 00 Strptsnkings 15.00 76500.00 siSns 2.00 10240.00 00 ectrl 19.35 98709.b8 SiS Inter 15.00 76500.00 - Neu u.[00 Exis; utl 00 '. 04 LSI 70.00 357000.00 OD Survey 7.OD 35700.D0 GRA-ID TOTAL 3735914.52 CAST PER LF 732.53 QSc 575G/LF 7IF = 38X FROAiAG. = 31x / 3i: Scarlett Drive, Segment 21; 2600 ft and 102 ft right of way filename=seg21 length= 2600 created 9/23/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 20.00 52000.00 Traffic Ctl 12.00 31200.00 Clear 8 Grb 12.00 31200,00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 244.00 634400.00 C&G 24.00 62400,00 SW 49.50 128700,00. MC 20.00 52000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 00 Earthwork 21.00 54600.00 00 CS&SDMN 10.00 26000.00 50 pipe 90.00 234000.00 00 Strp&mkings 14.00 36400.00 signs 2.00 5200.00 00 Electrl 20.00 52000.00 Sig Inter.15.00 39000.00 New uti 00 Exist utl 00 00 L8I 75.00 195000.00 00 Survey 8.00 20800.00 GRAND TOTAL 1654900.00 COST PER LF 636.50 USE 5650/LF TIF = 100X 7assajara Road, Segment 22; 580D ft and 126 ft right of way filename=segZ2 lengths 5800 created 9/Z3/94 Price per Description Lin Foot iotat Mobilization 25.00 145000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 87D06.D0 Clear 8 Gr6 15.00 87000.00 DO Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Ful ! Par„it 340.00 1472000.00 CSG 24.00 134200.00 Su 49.50 287100.00 MC 20.00 116000.00 00 Overizy 00 00 00 Earthwork 72.00 417500..00 QO C38SDMH 10.00 58000.00 SD pipe 100.D0 58DOOD.00 QO StrpBmkings 16.00 4280fl.00~ signs 2.DD 11500.00 00 Elec:rl 20.00 11600D.00 Sig Inter 15.00 57D00.00 _ Neu utl DO XISt utL DD R OD L8I 70.D0 4D6000.00 OD Survey 6.75 34150.00 GRAND TOTAL 46:1450.D0 GOS7 PER LF 800.25 USE 5800/LF 7IF 50X FROFTAG~ = 2SX / 25: Tassajara Road, Segment 22a; 5000 ft and 126 ft right of way filcname=seg22a length= 5000 created 9/23/94 Pricc pcr Description Lin Foot Total F:obiliiation 25.00 125000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 75000.00 Clear S Grb 15.00 T 000.00 00 Saucut 00 00 Grind OD OD Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 340.00 1700000.00 G&G 24,00 120000.00 Su.49.50 247500.00 HL 20.00 10D000.00 00 Overizy 00 00 00 Earthwork 72.OD 360000.00 00 Cii85DriH 10.00 SDDOD_00 SD pipe i0D,00 50000D.D0 00 Str,~mkin5s 16.D0 80000.00 signs 2.00 10000.00 00 Electrt ZD.00 ~100000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 5000.00 Neu utl 00 Exist utl 00 ~ oo l8I 7D.oo 35ooao.oo oo Survey 5.T 33750.00 GRAND TOTAL 4001250.00 CAST PAR LF 800.25 USE 5800/LF TiF 5DX FRONTAGE = 25~ / 25X Tassajara Road, Scgment 23; 2600 ft and 126 ft right of way filename=seg23 length= 2600 created 9/Z3/94 Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilisation 25.00 65000.00 Traffic Ctl 15.00 39000.00 Clear S Grb 15.00 39000.00 00 Sawcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 00 Full Pavmt 340.00 884000.00 C8G 24.00 62400.00 Su 49.50 728700.00 HC 20.00 52000.00 00 Overlay 00 DO 00 Earthwork 24.00 62400.00 DO C'o&SOHH 10.00 26000.00 SD pipe 100.00 260000.00 00 StrpBrnkincs 16.00 41600.00 ' signs 2.00 5200.00 00 Electrl ZD_00 52000.00 Sig Inter 15.00 39000.00 _ New utl 00 Exist utl 00 R 00 L&I 70.00 162000.00 00 Survey b.T 17550.00 GRAND TOTAL 1955E50.00 COST PER LF T 2.25 USE S7T/ l f 71F = 50~ FRONTAGE = 25~ / 25~ I :. lassajara Road, Segment 2<; 7000 ft and 150 ft right of way filename=seg2C length= 1000 created 9!2':94 OhLT Tlf PORTION IS ESTIMATED Price per Description Lin Foot Total Mobilization 25x.30 7500.00 Traffic C:l 20x.30 6000.00 Clear L Grb 15x.30 4500.00 00 Sawcut 4x1.00 4000.00 Grind 00 Rm ex pavmt 14x1.20 16800.00 00 Full Pavmt 6x4.00 24000.00 C8G 00 Stt 00 MC 20x1 20000.00 00 Overlay 00 00 Earthwork 2fix.05 1680.00 00 C385AMH 10x.20 2004.00 SD pipe 100x.75 15000.00 00 Strp&mkings 16x.34 4800.00 signs 2x.30 600.00 00 Etectri 75x.30 4500.00 Sig Inter 15x30 4504.04 New utl 00 Exis- Ott 00 00 LSI 70x.50 35D00.00 00 Survey 10x.3D 3000.00 GRAND TOTAL 153880.00 CC57 P'cR LF 153.88 USE 5150/LF Interchange, 7assajara/7-580 filename=seg25J length= 1800 created 2/22/96 Price per Description Lin Foot Totti Mobilization 150.00 270000.00 Traffic Ctl 150.00 270000.00 Clear & Grb 60.00 108000.00 00 Sawcut 50.09 90000.00 Grind 10.00 18000.00 Rm ex pavmt 00 IDLE 6500.00 3900000.00 FuEI Pavmt 225.00 270000.00 C&G 15.00 27000.00 Pavmt Ramp 160.00 216040.00 HC 50.00 90000.00 PAVER SC.00 151200.00 Overlay 00 00 Earthwork, Rarer 130.00 173500.00 Earthuark 250.00 500000.00 00 C'nESDY,H 5.00 9000.00 SD pipe 25.00 45000.00 DO + Strp~nkings 16.00 28500.00 signs 4.00 7200.00 00 Electrl 20.00 36000.00 Sig Inter 00 00 Neu utl 00 EXiSt Utl OD OD L&I 70.00 126000.00 00 Survey 20.00 63000.00 GRAND TOTAL 6:.00700.00 COST PER LF USE 6L 16372.00 7IF = 1DC~ Felton Road, Segment 26; 14000 4t and 12b ft right of ~sy filename=5eg26 length= 140D0 created 9/23/94 Price per Description tin Foo;Total Yobiliza;ion 25.00 350000.00 Trattic Ctl 15.00 210000.00 Ciear & Grb 15.00 210000.00 00 Savcut 00 00 Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavm;00 OD 00 Full Pavnt 340.00 4760000.00 C&G 24.00 336000.D0 SU 49.50 693000.OD HC 20.00 280000.00 00 Overlay 00 OD 00 Ear;hvcrk 144.00 201b000.OD 00 C88SDHH 10.OQ i4D000.00 ' SD pipe 100.00 1400000.00 DO - S;raSankin;s 16.00 2240D0.00: signs Z.00 2$000.00 DO Elec;rl 20.D0.280000.OD Sig Inter 15.00 210DDO.OD Nev u;l 00 -- EXls; u;l OD t OD L&I 70.00 980000.00 00 Survey 6.00 SCOOD,00 GnA1iD TDTAL i22Gi0DD.00 COST P.R LF 871.50 USc S9DD/LF TIF = 50~ FROFTAG~ = Z5~ / 25X i Fallon Raad, segmcnt 27; 1500 tt and 126 ft right of way filename=seg27 length= 1500 crcatcd 9/23/9L Price per Description Lin Foo;Total nobitiza;ion 25.00 37500.00 Tratfic Ctl 15.00 225DD.00 Clear & Grb 15.00 22500.00 00 Sawcut 00 OD Grind 00 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 00 QO Fuli Pavm;340.00 510000.00 C8G 24.OD 36000.00 S4 49.50 74250.00 Y.C 2D.OD 30000.00 00 pverlay 00 OD DO Earthwork 24:00 3600D.00 DO C88SDH!?70.00 15000.00 SD pipe 100.00 15000D.00 00 ` strpd~mkings 1b.00 24000.00 signs 2.00 300D.00 QO Elec;rl 20.00 30000.00 _ Sig Inter 15.00 22500.00 kew u;l OD ~ Exist u;t DO DO LEI 70.00 1050DO.OD 00 survey 6_DO 9000.00 GRARD TOTAL 1127250.00 CD57 PER LF 751.50 USE 5800/LF TSF = 50:: FRDHTAGE = 25~ / 25~ Interchange, Fallon rd/I.580 filename=seg28l length= 2400 created Price ptr Description Lin foot Total riobilization 120.00 288000.00 Tra',tic Ctl 100.00 240000.00 Clear & Grb 60.00 144000.00 00 Savcut 00 Grind 00 Rm ex pavmt 00 6R10G~10000.00 6000000.00 Full Pavmt 300.00 540000.00 C&G 24.00 57600.00 Pavmt Rasrn 128.00 23D4O0.00 NC 20.00 48000.00 PAV'eR 60.00 144000.00 Overlay 00 00 earthwork, Rarn~80.00 144000.00 arthxork 180.00 324000.00 00 CSfiSDuH 5.00 i200C.00 sD pipe 20.00 48000.00 Do StrD~ilfkings 16.00 38400.00 signs 2.D0 4800.00 00 Electrl 20.00 48000.00 Sig Inter 00 00 Ne+t utl 00 - Exist utl 00 oo ~. LSI 50.OD 1i440D.00 00 Survey 12.00 45000.00 GRAND TOTAL SGT 600.00 CAST P.R LF L'S.bGT 070.00 TI r' = 10GX Park S Ride; <0,000 sf for 150 cars filename=seg park area s.f. <0000 created 9/23/9< Description Uniz price Total Mobilization 15 6000.00 Traffic C:l 05 2000.00 Clear 8 Grb 1 000.00 Sauce:00 Curb Z 8000.00 Full Pavm:2.5 100000.00 Import S Grading 25 10000.00 CS S SD Pip-5 20000.00 Strp&mkings 15 6000.00 signs O5 2000.00 Survey 05 2000.00 GRAND T07AL 160000.00 per site COST PAR SF 00 L'S.4/S F TIr = 100 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Property O~i~ners Only 986-2-1-2 986-2-1-1/986-2-2-1 986-2-2-2 Anne G~~gi East Bay Regional Park District Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams X865 Tassajara Rd.29.50 Peralta Oaks Ct.5379 Tassajara Rd. Pleasanton, CA 94588 Oakland, CA 94605 Pleasanton, CA 94588 986-2-3 986-1-1-8/986-1-1-9/985-3-3-3 946-4-1 Clyde C. Casterson City of Pleasanton James G. & Sue Tipper 5020 Tassajara Rd.City Clerk 7440 Tassajara Rd. Pleasanton. CA 94588 200 Bernal Ave.Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94566 946-4-2-1 946-4-2-3 946-4-3 lose L. R .'ioletta Vargas Thomas A. R; Helene L. Fredrick Elvera I. Bragg & Claire Silva 7020 Tassajara Rd.6960 Tassajara Rd.646 Donner Dr. Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Sonoma, CA 95476 446-4-5-1/95-3-2/955-3-1-2/985-3-3 ~905-1-4-4 985-1-2 Chaney Properties Robert D. & Shirley M. Branaugh Redgwick Construction Company c/o Chang S., Hong.Y., & Hor.~ L. Lin 1881 Collier Cannon Rd.25599 Huntwood Ave. Owens Dr.Livermore, CA 94550 Hayward, CA 94544 nton, CA 94585 985-2-1 985-4-1-2!985-4-1-3 985-2-~-1/985-2-5-2 Mission Peaks Home Inc.john DiManto Michael H. Kobold Qe Road245SinclairFronta Dublin Land Company 815 Diablo Rd. Milpitas CA 95035 1991 Leigh Ann Place Danville, CA 94526 San Jose, CA 95125 985-2-6-1 985-2-7-1 985-2-8-2 Rodman Scott & Claudine T. Azevedo Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight Ann H. Silveria 6363 Tassajara Rd.6833 Tassajara Rd.6615 Tassajara Rd. Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - R Pleasanton, CA 94588 985-2-9 985-5-1/985-5-2 985-5-3-1 Robert J. Nieison Jr., Michelle Olds, & Lany R.Paoyeh 8: Bihyu Lin V~rilliam L. & May K. Devany R~illiamson c/o Kenny Wan 215 Tim Court P.O. Box 1667 Allwin Development Danville, CA 94526 Lafayette, CA 94549 9657 E. Las Tunas Dr. Temple City, CA 91780 985-6-4 985-6-5 985-6-6-2 Dublin Ltd.William L. & Jean S. Maynard Levins Metals Corporation c/o Teachers Management Inc.350 Tideway Dr.1800 Monterey Hwy Dennis B. SchmuckerJ my Alameda, CA 94501 San Jose, CA 95112 1 ~ ~ 0 Second Ave., # 1421 go, CA 92101 6 12/20/95 ~~~`" t~~r ~ g:~nailin¢s\e.dublinkplistdoc _ .. .._._ ._. Eactcrn Dublin Gcncral Plan Amendment Arca Future Stud~• .4rea Propcrt~• O~i'ners Onh' 905-I-:--'_!905-1-1-? 905-I ~-2 90>-8-1-6 Bank of tl~c 1~'est Livermore Valley Joint Unified School Disvict Anita S. R Ram S. \'ij, and i:hanna Tcjbir clo Harry Crosby 685 E. Jack London Blvd. 1066 Cross Strings Cord P.O. Box 1121 Livermore, CA 94550 San Jose, CA 95120 San 3ose. C.A 95105 905-5-1-3 905-8-1-7/905-S-I -1 I /905- i- I -I Cit`• of Livermore Irving $. ~ Betty J. Bloom 1052 So. Livermore Ave. 141 \'ia Serena Livermore, CA 94550 Alamo, CA 94507 90>-2-4/90 ~-3-x!905-= -4 905-7-1-~ Dooian East Associates Don R Pavicia Flanigan clo Ted Fairfield 4589 Donlan Rd. , P.O. Box 1148 Livermore, CA 94550 Pleasanton, CA 9;566 90: v-9-2 905-3-3 Jo .4. Shane Trevor J. R Cassandra M. Patterson 5210 Donlan Rd. 5661 Donlan Rd. Livermore. CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550 905-3-12 905-3-10-2 ' H. 8 Ruth G. MuehJhauscr James 1\. & I~'adine Pestana 1434 Ardmore Dr. 5385 Donlan Rd. San Leandro, CA 94577 Livermore, CA 94550 905-7-2-3 905-3-]4-2/905-3-14-3 Donlan East Associate Donlan VY'est Associates P.O. Box 1 14S P.O. Box I I48 Pleasanton. CA 94566 Pleasanton, CA 94566 905-4-1 Charlotte A. R R_A., $ Aldine J. Bailey 520'Arlinston Ave. Berkeley, CA 94707 R 905-S-I -5 City of Livermore c/o Thomas Cum• 22320 Foothill Blvd. Ha~•v~•ard, CA 94541 905-3-6!905-3-7/905-3-5 Robert & Darlene Steffen 5033 Donlan Rd. Livermore, CA 94550 905v-10-I Charles S. &: Barbara M. Foscalina 5260 Donlan Rd. Livermore, CA 94550 905-3-11 Clarence C. Sih•a 10000 Stillwater Rd. Fallon, NV 59406 985-7-7 Donlan \~i'est Associates c/o Harold Moller P.O. Box 1145 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment increment Area Property' O«•ners Only 9S5-1-1 Robena S. Moller 6561 Tassaiara Rd. Pleasanton, CA 945SS 9s5-7-?-I4 Fallon Enterprises Inc. 57SJ Fallon Rd. Livermore, CA 94550 905-2-3 David P. Mandeville 4037 Croak Rd. Pleasanton, CA 945SS 905-3-]-I'905-2-2 Francis P. Croak 1362 Gabriel Ct. San l.eandm CA 9477 EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Residential Low Density Dwelling fup to 6 units per acre) Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre) Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre) High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre) Non-Residential Development Other Than Residential LAND USE Non-Residential) HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING: OFFICE: Standard Commercial Office Medica{/Dental RECREATION: Recreation Community Center Health Club Bowling Center Golf Course Tennis Courts Theaters: Movie Live Video Arcade EDUCATION (Private Schools): HOSPITAL: General Convalescent/Nursing Clinic CHURCH: INDUSTRIAL: Industrial (with retail) Industrial (without retaiq 54,182/unit S4,182/unit 52,928/unit S2,509/unit S 354/trip ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RATE* 10/room 20/1,000 sf 34/1,000 sf 26/1,000 sf 40/1,000 sf 33/1,000 sf 8/acre 33/court 220/screen 0.2/seat 96!1,000 sf 1.5/student 12/bed 3/bed 24/1,000 sf 9/1,000 sf R 16/1,000 sf 8/1,000 sf Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip Generation Rates. These trip generation rates are based on averages... Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction. Page 1 Of 2 g: forms/edubtifx/s Fia~.~ ~~ b Bi~~ • ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE LAND USE TRIP GENERATION RATE Non-Residential) [WITH PASS-BYS1 RESTAURANT: Quality (leisure) 63/1,000 sf Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food) 133/1,000 sf Fast Food (with or without drive through) 511/1,000 sf Bar/Tavern 100/1,000 sf AUTOMOBILE: Car Wash: Automatic 585/site Self-Serve 70/wash stall Gas Station with or without food mart 97/pump Tire Store/Oil Change Store 28/service bay Auto Sales/Parts Store no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf Auto Repair Center no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf Truck Terminal no pass-bys) 80/acre FINANCIAL: Bank (Walk-In Only) 91/1,000 sf Savings and Loan {Walk-In Only} 40/1,000 sf Drive-Through/ATM (Add to Bank or Savings & Loan) 65/lane or machine COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: Super Regional Shopping Center 22/1,000 sf More than 600,000 SF; usually more than 60 acres, with usually 3 + major stores) Regional Shopping Center 33/1,000 sf 300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually ' 30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores/ Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center 46/1,000 sf Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres w/usually 1 major store or grocery store and detached restaurant and/or drug store) Commercial Shops: Retail/Strip Commercial 26/1,000 sf Commercial with unknown tenant 33/1,000 sf Supermarket 98/1,000 sf Convenience Market 325/1,000 sf Discount Store 46/1,000 sf Lumber Store/Building Materials 20/1,000 sf Garden Nursery 23/1,000 sf Cemetery no pass-bys) 4/acre Page 2 Of 2 g: Vo~ms{edubtiLxfs AREA OF BENEFIT MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Dublin Blvd.. Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Bfvd. (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10) Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from I-580 to Dublin Blvd. (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report) Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin Bivd. west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report) Gleason Drive. Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the ElR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report) (The Project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road due to no development proposed in the future study area) Tassajara Road. Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way from Dublin Blvd. to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6 l-'~~nes over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Bivd. to I-580 rom the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/14.0) Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way from I-580 to Tassajara Road from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report) Street Alignment Study. A study is required to specify the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area Cost of Roadway Cost of Bridge Improvements Improvements 32,839,870 $ 1,872,000 4,059,603 -0- 11,523,736 $ 998,400 4,625,353 $ 572,000 6,365,039 $ 2,496,000 7,486,636 -0- 451.000 -0- 67.351.237 8 5.938.400 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $ 73,289,637 The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 134,227 related trips for residential and 209,718 trips for non-residential is $1,957/unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7- 14 units per acre), $1,370 for Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,174 for High Density Residential (more than 25 units); and $196/trip for non-residential. The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density residential is $173/unit, for Medium/High Density .Residential is $1211unit, and for High Density Residential is $104/unit; and non- residential is $17/trip. ie proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 3,916 Low Density units; 4,863 Medium Density units; 2,680 Medium/High Density units; and 2,447 High Density units. RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECITALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public facilities within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan ("GP") and Specific Plans SPs"), including but not limited to, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the GP outlines future land uses within the City's sphere of influence including new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments; and WHEREAS, the SPs provide more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs within the GP areas; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015, by Resolution No. 72-15; and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level of environmental review for the 2015 update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and on May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2015) by Resolution 71-15; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several individual park master plans including the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan, Fallon Sports Park Master Plan, Dublin Historic Park Master Plan, and the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan ("Park Master Plans"); and WHEREAS, the City approved a Library Planning Task Force Report, dated April 1993, and a subsequent Library Planning Task Force Report dated September 1998 ("Library Reports"); and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document dated November 1986, and subsequent Civic Center Programming Documents dated from 2007 and September 2010 ("Civic Center Reports"); and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ("Senior Center Study"), dated February 4, 2002; and Page 1 of 9 WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center Study, and SP, describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the GP and SP, including completion of City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities; and WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Fee Program assumes that certain municipal public facilities will be constructed and that development within the City of Dublin pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation measures to assure that development within Eastern Dublin pays its proportionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center Study, GP, and SPs describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities within the City of Dublin, and contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public facilities required by future development within the Dublin community; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a "Public Facilities Fee" for development within the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of Dublin by Recht, Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (hereafter "Study"); and WHEREAS, in 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60-99 revising the "Public Facilities Fee" to reflect changes since the adoption of Resolution No. 32-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 60-99 superseded Resolution No. 32-96 and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Hausrath Economics Group, dated February 1999 and entitled "Public Facilities Fee 1998 Update" (hereafter "1998 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 214-02 revising the "Public Facilities Fee" to reflect changes since the adoption of Resolution No. 60-99; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 214-02 superseded Resolution No. 60-99 and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by MuniFinancial, dated October 14, 2002 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update" (hereafter "2002 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 214-02 provides that the City will periodically review the Public Facilities Fee and make revisions as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Willdan Financial Services to assist the City in reviewing and updating the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the City retained Associated Right of Way which in August 2013 completed an appraisal of land values for parkland acquisition in the area; and Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services prepared a report dated July 7, 2015 and entitled City of Dublin Development Impact Fee Update" (hereafter "2015 Study Update"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 214-02, 60-99 and 32-96, in reliance on the 2002 Study Update, 1998 Study Update, and the Study, set forth the relationship between future development in the City of Dublin, the needed public facilities and improvements, and the estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Study Update relies on previous studies and demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Public Facilities Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to update cost information for parkland acquisition, (2) to update cost information for parkland development; (3) to update cost information for community buildings, such as the library building, civic center expansion, and cultural and recreational centers; and (4) and to update the cost information for aquatic facilities; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Study Update was available for public inspection and review for ten days prior to this public hearing; and FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments within the City of Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the following: completion of Civic Center administrative office space and police services wing; build-out and expansion of the Library; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including cultural centers, community and recreational centers, and aquatic facilities). The public facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities". B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities. C. After considering the Study, the 2015 Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, the SPs, and all correspondence received (hereafter "record") the Council approves and adopts the 2015 Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the future development in the City of Dublin will generate the need for the Facilities and the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic Center Report, and the various Specific Plans including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is within the scope of its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and Page 3 of 9 alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at this stage, as they will be implemented through build-out of the community and specific details as to their timing, construction, and often precise location are not all presently known. E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library system currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to maintain current service levels; and that any existing deficiency costs are not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the City is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution. G. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin—both residential and nonresidential—will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the Facilities; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development within the City of Dublin—both residential and nonresidential— generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which development within the City of Dublin contributes to the need for the Facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the 2015 Study Update, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force Report, and the Park Master Plans, are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Facilities; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to, and is roughly proportional to, each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular development will generate. Page 4 of 9 H. The 2015 Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by development in the City of Dublin, the existing deficiencies, if any, and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and any deficiencies. ADOPTION OF FEE NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: 1. Definitions. A. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase and sale of commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities and services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and improvement centers; hotel/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters. B. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition of any building or structure within the City of Dublin. C. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the Study, the 2002 Study Update, and the 2015 Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force Report, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines: (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within the City of Dublin and the need for the alternative facilities; (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Study Update; and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative facilities. D. "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy commercial uses. E. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical and professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and development and travel agencies. Page 5 of 9 2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed. A. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each residential unit within the City of Dublin when the Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued, provided that the Fee shall be, payable when the building permit is issued from and after the date on which the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Facilities. B. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within the City of Dublin when the building permit is issued for construction of such building or structure. C. A fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential development for any addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. D. Any use of land that is not included in the definition of "Commercial, "Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Community Development Director to one of the three categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definitions of such terms. 3. Amount of Fee. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee. 4. Exemptions From Fee. A. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following: 1. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential unit; 2. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more. 3. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and there is no change in the land use designation of the property (as between Commercial, Office and Industrial). 4. Any non-residential building or structure constructed on property on which a building or structure was demolished for which the Fee had been paid within the prior ten year period, provided the exemption shall be in the amount of the previously-paid Fee only and the applicant shall pay any additional amount based on the then-current Fee. B. The Neighborhood Park Land and Improvement portions of the Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following: Page 6 of 9 1. The portion of Fee otherwise imposed on a project that is attributable to an affordable unit, as defined in Dublin Municipal Code section 8.68.020.A, where the project applicant provides evidence to the City Manager demonstrating that, prior to October 15, 2015, it obtained or submitted to obtain public-agency financing to build the affordable units. This exemption shall not be available after December 31, 2016. 5. Use of Fee Revenues. A. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes: 1. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition and construction of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities. 3. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and 4. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee program. B. Fees in the Capital Project Fund accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 6. Standards. The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, the GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda. 7. Periodic Review. A. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of Fees in each account. B. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. Page 7 of 9 8. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee. The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GP, SPs, Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior Center Study and General Plan, as well as increases due to changes in construction costs and land values. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years. 9. Automatic Adjustment in Fee. The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 8 above. The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2016 and each July 1 thereafter, as follows: A. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Table 3.3 for Civic Center expansion; Table 4.3 for library facilities; Table 5.3 for parks; Table 6.3 for community/recreation facilities; Table 7.3 for aquatic facilities in the 2015 Study Update shall be increased by the annual percentage increase in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the month of April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. B. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 5.3 for Neighborhood and Community Parks in the 2015 Study Update shall be increased/decreased annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land appraisal prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, in 2000, the cost per square foot of neighborhood parkland was $15.38/square foot, and in 2013, it was $50/square foot, which results in an annual compounded growth increase of 9%. This results in a yearly increase in land valuation of 9%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 8 above. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars. 10. Administrative Guidelines. The Council has, by resolution, adopted administrative guidelines to provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects of the Fee. Such guidelines shall include procedures for construction of designated Facilities by developers. The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by payment of the Fee. Page 8 of 9 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective on October 15, 2015. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective October 15, 2015 and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 214-02. 12. Severability. Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Pro Tem Gupta NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Haubert ABSTAIN: None Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: 64„.vio pry City Clerk Reso No. 134-15, Adopted 7-21-15, Item 6.1 Page 9 of 9 CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY UPDATE WWI LLDAN Financial Services Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA www.willdan.com City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Parkland Unit Costs 25 Improved Parkland Equivalent 25 Existing Park Facility Standards 26 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 26 Parks Cost per Capita 28 Use of Fee Revenue 28 Fee Schedule 28 6. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERS 30 Service Population 30 Facility Inventories & Standards 31 Cost per Capita Standard 31 Fee Schedule 32 Use of Fee Revenue 33 7. AQUATIC FACILITIES 34 Service Population 34 Facility Inventories & Standards 35 Cost per Capita Standard 35 Fee Schedule 36 Use of Fee Revenue 36 8. IMPLEMENTATION 38 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 38 Inflation Adjustment 38 Reporting Requirements 38 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 38 9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 39 Purpose of Fee 39 Use of Fee Revenues 39 Benefit Relationship 39 Burden Relationship 39 Proportionality 40 WILLDAN Financial Services Executive This report summarizes an analysis of public facilities fees needed to support future development in The City of Dublin through build out. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below: Civic Center Facilities Park Facilities Library Facilities Community Recreation Centers Aquatic Facilities Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act(the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Facility Standards and Costs There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements. The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. For example, if the remaining facility needs to build out represent a facility standard that is less than the existing standard, then the entire cost of planned facilities can be allocated to new development. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. WI LLDAN 3hlrncaS.'ry ce. City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The system plan approach is based on a master facilities plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is not used in this report. Use of Fee Revenues Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment. Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary Civic Community Center Library Recreation Aquatic Land Use Facilities Facilities Parks Centers Facilities Total Residential-per Dwelling Unit $ 892 $ 977 $18,646 $ 3,433 $ 496 $24,444 Nonresidential-per 1,000 Square Feet Commercial 237 $ 212 $ 2,832 $ 148 $21 $ 3,450 Office 319 285 3,806 199 28 4,637 Industrial 118 105 1,410 74 10 1,717 Sources:Tables 3.5,4.5,5.8,6.4 and 7.4. Other Funding Needed Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Dublin. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. Based on the methodology utilized to calculate the fees in this analysis, no other funding is needed to fully fund the facilities in each fee category. Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances This analysis incorporates the existing impact fee fund balances, by fee category, into the fee calculations. For categories calculated using the planned facilities standard, the fund balance is subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities allocated to new development prior to calculating the cost per capita. For the library facilities category, negative fund balances represent facility costs to new development. Those costs are added to the cost of planned WI LLDAN Financai Services 4 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facilities and included in the fee analysis. See Chapter 4 for an in-depth discussion regarding the negative library fee fund balances. Table E.2 summarizes the existing impact fee fund balances. Table E.2: Impact Fee Fund Balances Fund Balance Category: 6/30/14 Neighborhod Parks - Land 7,671,690 Neighborhod Parks - Improvements 3,068,320 Community Parks - Land 5,126,816 Community Parks - Improvements 1,337,513 Community Nature Parks - Land Community Nature Parks - Improvements Aquatic Center 2,760,819) Community Buildings2 15,555,039) Library3 1,880,252) Civic Center 453,312 Total 2,538,459) Adjusted for cost of pool in aquatic complex. 2 Adjusted for cost of recreation and aquatic complex buildings. 3 Negative fund balance was spent of facilities to serve new development. Source: City Of Dublin,California,Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For The Year Ended June 30,2014 WWILLDAN F(nanciaf Services I 5 Introduction This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Dublin. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections: Public Facilities Financing in California; Study Objectives; City of Dublin Impact Fee Program; Fee Program Maintenance; Study Methodology; and Organization of the Report. Public Facilities Financing in California The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report. Dublin is forecast to experience continued growth through build out. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Dublin has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development. WWI LLDAN 6Fin.inc,ai Serv.ces City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Program Dublin currently charges a variety of impact fees to fund the construction and expansion of public facilities to serve new development. The Dublin Public Facilities Fee (PFF) has been in place since 1996. The PFF funds civic center, parks, libraries, and community and recreational facilities. A comprehensive update of the fee was last carried out in 1998 and adopted in 1999. In 2002, MuniFinancial (now Willdan Financial Services) updated the fee for changes in facility costs. Since that time, the fees have been updated for inflation on a regular basis. Fee programs must be regularly adjusted for inflation, as not doing so can result in impact fees that do not generate sufficient revenues to fully fund facilities to serve new development through the planning horizon. This report provides a comprehensive update of the fees based on the City's current facility plans, current facility cost estimates, and current population and employment projections for the City of Dublin. Fee Program Maintenance Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 8. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. In this case, it has been 13 years since the City last comprehensively updated its fee program. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8. Study Methodology Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include: 1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; 2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; 3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; 4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development; 5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and 6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects. WI LLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. An example of a facility standard is park acres per 1,000 residents. Using such a standard, the analysis can estimate the amount of parkland needed to serve the increase in population. Facility standards are identified for each facility category included in this analysis. An in-depth discussion of facility standards is included below. Types of Facility Standards There are three separate components of facility standards: Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day. New Development Facility Needs and Costs A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below: Existing Inventory Method The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows: Current Value of Existing Facilities Existing Development Demand unit of demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new WILLDAN Financial Ser c,s 8 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the community recreation facilities and aquatic facilities fees in this report. Planned Facilities Method The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows: Cost of Planned Facilities New Development Demand = $/ unit of demand This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used to calculate the civic center facilities, library facilities and park facilities fees in this report. System Plan Method This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development: Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand unit of demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is not used in this study. Organization of the report The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories: Civic Center Facilities Park Facilities Library Facilities Community Recreation Centers Aquatic Facilities Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018. WILLDAN 9FinancialServices City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9. WWI LLDAN Financlaf Serv1ces 10 2. Growth Forecasts Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2015 base year and a planning horizon of build out. Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows: The estimate of existing development in 2015 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. The estimate of total development at build out is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. Estimates of growth from 2015 through build out are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues. The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities. The service populations for all facilities included in this study include a varying weighted amount of workers, by category, to reflect varying levels of demand for facilities. Land Use Types To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. Residential: All residential dwelling units including detached and attached one- unit dwelling and attached multi-family dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use development with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. Existing and Future Development Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, workers, and building square feet in Dublin, both in 2015 and at build out. These estimates are used to calculate the fees for all fee categories. The current population estimate for the Dublin comes from the California Department of Finance DOF). The population projection for build out is consistent with the City's General Plan. Current WI LLDAW IIFinancialSerNacos City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update estimates of dwelling units in Dublin also come from the DOE. Total dwelling units at build out is informed by data from the General Plan, based on a growth increment of 8,787. Base year workers were estimated based on data provided by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The projected increase in employment is based on the increase in building square feet, multiplied by the employment density factors identified below in Table 2.2. Estimates of base year and build out nonresidential square footage were derived from the City's General Plan. Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates Growth (2015- 2015 Build out Build out) Residential Residents' 51,784 75,000 23,216 Dwelling Units'19,551 28,338 8,787 Building Square Feet (000s)2 Commercial 3,800 10,165 6,365 Office 2,640 4,220 1,580 Industrial 1,730 3,140 1,410 Total 8,170 17,525 9,355 Employment 3 Commercial 9,045 23,875 14,830 Office 5,937 10,882 4,945 Industrial 3,498 5,134 1,636 Total 18,480 39,891 21,411 1 Base year population and dwelling units from CA Department of Finance,Table E-5. Excludes group quarters. Build out estimate consistent with General Ran. 2 Existing and projected building square feet based on data from the City's General Plan. 3 Base year employment from CA EDD. Excludes local government employees. Build out estimated by multiplying the increase in square footage, by land use category,by the corresponding employee density factors in Table 2.2 below. Sources:City of Dublin General Plan;California Department of Finance,Table E-5, 2015;(CA DOF)California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter, 2014(CA EDD);Willdan Financial Services. Occupant Densities All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot or hotel room) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density or impervious surface (for storm drain fees) of the development. WILLDA1 Finztnciaf Services 12 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor of 2.7 residents per dwelling unit was identified in the Table 2.1 of the City's General Plan. The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Dublin, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study. Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions Residential Dwelling Unit 2.70 Persons per dwelling unit Nonresidential Commercial 2.33 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Sources:Table 2.1 of the City of Dublin General Ran;The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report,Table 6,p. 16-23, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,October 31,2001;Willdan Financial WILLDAN 13FinancialServices 3., Civic Center Facilities The purpose of the civic center impact fee is to fund the civic center facilities needed to serve new development. The existing civic center currently houses City administration and police services. Service Population Civic center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic center facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic center facilities. Table 3.1: Civic Center Impact Fee Service Population A B AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout)23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Work ers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.31 5,700 New Development (2015-Buildout)21,411 0.31 6,600 Total (Buildout) 39,891 12,300 Combined Existing (2015) 57,500 New Development (2015-Buildout) 29,800 Total (Buildout) 87,300 Note:Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-w ork hours in a week(401128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Sources:Table 2.1;Wlldan Financial Services. WI LLDAN 14FinancialServices City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories and Standards This section describes the City's civic center facility inventory and facility standards. Existing Inventory Table 3.2 shows the existing building and land inventory. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is assumed to be $2,178,000 per acre based on the "medium density residential" valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 3.2: Existing Civic Center Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value Civic Center Land'4.84 acres $ 2,178,000 $ 10,542,000 Civic Center Building2 Police Services 20,054 sq. ft. $ 730 $ 14,639,420 City Administration 32,633 sq. ft.730 23,822,090 Subtotal-Civic Center/Police Building 52,687 sq. ft. 38,461,510 Total Value-Civic Center 49,003,510 Land values identified in:Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013. 2 Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center,excluding pool costs. Sources: Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013;Wlldan Financial Services. Planned Facilities The City of Dublin has two expansions planned for the civic center. One project aims to expand the police wing of the civic center and the other will expand the administrative wing of the facility. The total cost of the facilities attributable to new development is $10.2 million. Table 3.3 presents the planned civic center facilities and cost estimates. Table 3.3: Planned Civic Center Facilities Total Cost Administrative and Police Wing Expansion 10,193,720 Total Cost- Planned Civic Center Facilities 10,193,720 Source: 2010 Building Study Prepared by RDC September 2010. LLDAN ! 4 Financial Servicee 1.5 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Cost Allocation Table 3.4 the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing cost of net cost of planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Note that the net value of planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 3.4: Civic Center Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities 10.193,720 Less Existing Fund Balance) 453,312) Net Value of Planned Facilities 9,740,408 Service Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 29,800 Cost per Capita 327 Facility Standard per Resident 327 Facility Standard per Worker' 101 1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3;Willdan Financial Services. Use of Fee Revenue The City can use civic center facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of civic center facilities serving new development. Fee Schedule Table 3.5 shows the proposed civic center facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WWI LLDAN 1GFinancialSE?rv,ces City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 3.5: Civic Center Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge1'2 Total Feel Sq. Ft. Residential Dwelling Unit $ 327 2.70 $ 883 $ 9 $ 892 Nonresidential Commercial 101 2.33 $ 235 $ 2 $ 237 $ 0.24 Office 101 3.13 316 3 319 0.32 Industrial 101 1.16 117 1 118 0.12 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 3.4;Willdan Financial Services WWI LLDAN Financial Services 17 40 Library w t es The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of library facilities in the City of Dublin to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Service Population Library facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities. The 0.25-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 4.1: Library Service Population A 8 AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.25 4,600 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.25 5,400 Total (Buildout) 39,891 10,000 Combined Existing (2015) 56,400 New Development (2015-Buildout) 28,600 Total (Buildout) 85,000 Demand per worker is weighted at 0.25 of demand per resident based on the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Sources:Table 2.1.Willdan Financial Services. Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards Table 4.2 shows the existing inventory of library facilities in the City of Dublin. The replacement cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. The value of land is $2,178,000 per acre based on the WWILLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update medium density residential" valuation from an August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities Inventory Amount Unit Cost Total Cost Existing Land 3.75 acres 2,178,000 $ 8,167,500 Building' 38,215 sq. ft. 730 27,896,950 Collections 145,700 items 36 5,245,000 Total Value of Existing Facilities 41,309,450 City has constructed 38,215 square foot library building to date,but only furnished 30,000 square feet of the building.Building replacement cost is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center,excluding pool costs. Source:City of Dublin;Dublin Building Detail Report,2012; Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,August 2013;Bow ker Annual Library and Trade Book Almanac;Wlldan Financial Services. Planned Facilities Table 4.3 displays the planned library facilities. The City plans to expand the currently library space in three phases. The first two expansion projects improve the building interior so that the existing building shell can be used. The final phase adds 9,000 square feet of building space to the existing building. The total cost of planned library facilities is approximately$8.4 million. Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities Total Cost Building Improvements Phase I - Small Space 222,456 Phase II - Large Space 1,564,999 Final Phase-9,000 sq. ft. expansion 6,570,000 Total Cost - Planned Library Facilities 8,357,455 Source: City of Dublin,CA,Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2014-2019. Cost Allocation Table 4.4 displays the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is calculated by dividing the net cost of the planned facilities by the increase in service population. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.25 to determine the value per worker. WWILLDAN 19FinancialServices City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update In this case, the negative impact fee fund balance is also included as a planned facilities cost. The fund balance was loaned from the General Fund to the library impact fee fund and was spent on facilities to serve new development, ahead of that development. In total, $10.2 million of planned facilities will be funded through the impact fee. Note that the value of the planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee. Table 4.4: Library Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Value of Planned Facilities 8,357,455 Less Existing Fund Balance)1 1,880,252) Net Value of Planned Facilities 10,237,707 Service Population Growth (2015 to Buildout) 28,600 Cost per Capita 358 Facility Standard per Resident 358 Facility Standard per Worker2 90 1 Library fund is currently at a deficit. Fee revenue was used to construct facilities in anticipation of demand from new development. Costs incurred were needed as a result of future demand and are legitimate to include in this fee calculation. 2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.25. Sources: Tables 4.1,and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 4.5 shows the proposed library fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection; revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee is a reasonable approximation of the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WWI 20FinancialServicesi City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 4.5: Library Facilities Fee -Planned Facilities Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Feel Charge''2 Total Feel Sq. Ft. Residential Dwelling Unit 358 2.70 $ 967 $10 $ 977 Nonresidential Commercial 90 2.33 $ 210 $ 2 $ 212 $ 0.21 Office 90 3.13 282 3 285 0.29 Industrial 90 1.16 104 1 105 0.11 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 4.4;Willdan Financial Services. Vie(WILLDAN IFinancialServices ( 7/ 5. Park Facilities The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The impact fee is based on maintaining the City's existing parkland standards. Service Population Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park acres per 1,000 residents. As residents are considered to be the primary users of parks in Dublin, demand for parks and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population, rather than a combined resident- worker service population. However, when allocating costs for community parks, a share of demand is allocated to workers. The 0.23-weighting factor for worker demand for community parks is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City's current and projected park service population. Table 5.1: Parks Service Population A B AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout) 23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.23 4,300 New Development (2015-Buildout) 21,411 0.23 4,900 Total (Buildout) 39,891 9,200 Combined Existing (2015) 56,100 New Development (2015-Buildout) 28,100 Total (Buildout) 84,200 Worker demand is weighted at 0.23 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Source:Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study. 1998 Update. Hausrath Economics Group;City of Dublin;Wlldan Financial Services. WWILLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories and Standards This section describes the City's park facility inventory, facility standards, and park facility costs. Existing Inventory The City of Dublin maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 5.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. WILLDAN Financial Services ( 3 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.2: Existing Parkland Inventory Acres in Primary Acresin Ax=s\n Planning Eastern Schaefer Name Area Dublin Ranch Total Improved Parkland (acres) Community& Parks Dublin Chic Center/Library Grounds 11.42 11.42 Dublin Historic Park and Museums 7.78 7.78 Dublin Senior Center 2.00 2.00 Dublin Sports Grounds 22.77 Dublin Swim Center 3.60 Emerald Glen Park 42.25 Emerald Glen Park (unhnpm\eu) 6.89 Fallon Sports Park 2720 Fallon Sports Park ceUecuom to:unimpm u) 32.86 32.86 Shannon Park 9.67 9.67 Subtotal 57.24 10920 166.44 Community Parks Nature Based Iron Horse Nature Park (purchased: unimproved) 12.13 12.13 Subtotal 12.13 12.13 Neighborhood Parks Alamo Creek Park 526 5.26 Bray 4 78 4.78Commnn Devany Square 1.91 1.91 Dolan Park 4.85 4.85 Dougherty Hills Dog Park 1.43 1.43 Jordan Ranch NP (deeded/credits:unimproved) 4.99 4.98 Jordan Ranch NS (deeded/uredhs:unimprov d) 2.00 2.00 Kolb Park 4.86 4.86 Mape Memorial Park 2.68 2.68 Passatempo Park 5.01 5.01 Piazza Sorrento 2.00 200 Positano Hills Park 4.60 4.60 Sean Diamunm (decuediured|ts:un|mproveU) 5.03 5.03 Schafer Ranch Park 10.55 10.55 Stagecoach 0.82 0.82 Ted Fairfield O g7 _ o7 Subtotal 24.91 32z8 10.55 67.74 School Parks Dublin Elementary School 8.80 8.80 Dublin High School 5.40 5.40 Frederiksen Elementary School 7.80 7,80 Murray Elementary School 8.50 8.60 Nielsen Elementary School 5.4U 5.40 Wells Middle School 7.60 7.60 Subtotal 43.68 43.60 Total Improved Park Acreage 125.75 89.71 10.55 226.01 Total Unimproved Park Acreage 12.13 5177 63.90 Source Cy of DiSri WWILLDAN Financial Serace5 4 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Parkland Unit Costs Table 5.3 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition, standard park improvements, including construction and soft costs. The facility development cost per acre, by park type, is added to the standard land acquisition costs of $2,178,000 used throughout this report, to determine the total cost to develop an acre of neighborhood, community, or nature-based community parkland within the City. Nature-based community parkland is assumed to cost$10 per square foot. Table 5.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs Community Neighborhood Community Parks- Item Parks Parks Nature Based Improvement Cost per Acre 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Acquisition per Acre2 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Total - Land and Improvements Cost per Acre $ 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 1 Improvement costs estimated based on recent park construction cost estimates for community parks,open space parks,and actual data from Fallon Sports Park and parks within the surrounding communities. 2 Assumes$2,178,000 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from August 2013 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services,prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. $10 per square foot assumed for nature based community parkland based on the same study. Sources: City of Dublin:Willdan Financial Services. Improved Parkland Equivalent Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. Table 5.4 details this conversion. The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only land), by park type. WWILLDAN Financial Services 15 City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.4: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent Community Community Neighborhood Parks- Parks- Nature Type Parks Programmed Based Total Parkland Improved 2,673,948 $ 2,898,000 $ 990,846 Undeveloped Land 2,178,000 2,178,000 435,600 Undeveloped Land Costs 81.45% 75.16% 43.96% Percentage of Parkland costs Undeveloped Acres 12.02 39.75 12.13 c 63.90 Equivalent Improved Acres 9.79 29.88 5.33 ' 45.00 Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;Willdan Financial Services. Existing Park Facility Standards Table 5.5 shows the existing parkland standard based on the parkland acreage shown in Table 5.2, the improved equivalent acres calculated in Table 5.4 and the existing residential population shown in Table 5.1. The City has an existing standard of 5.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City's current policy standard shown in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The standard is segmented between park types. Table 5.5: Existing Parkland Standards Community Parks- Neighborhood Community Nature Parks Parks Based Total Existing Developed Acres 99.32 126.69 226.01 Equivalent Unimproved 9.79 29.88 5.33 45.00 Total 109.11 156.57 5.33 Existing Population 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800 Existing Standard 2.11 3.02 0.10 5.23 1 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Community parks service population based on residents plus a weighted amount of employees. Sources: Tables 5.1:5.2;Willdan Financial Services. Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development Table 5.6 calculates the value of the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the City's policy standards, segmented by park type. Because the City has an existing standard WWILLDAN City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update above the policy standard, it can charge fees to new development at a lower standard and still meet the policy standard by build out. Reductions in parkland needs are also made for developer dedication credits and the existing fund balances. The total amount of parkland acreage needed at build out is determined using the parkland standards and the total projected residential population. Existing improved acres, by type, are then subtracted from the total acreage needs to determine the remaining parkland acreage needed to serve new development. For improvement needs, expected developer parkland dedications are subtracted from the acreage needed to serve new development to determine the net parkland needs. For land needs, expected developer parkland dedications and the existing amount of unimproved acreage are subtracted to determine the net amount of land needed to serve new development. The net improvement needs, and net land needs are then multiplied by the cost of improvements and land to determine the total cost of parkland facilities to serve new development. Existing fund balances, by category, are subtracted from the costs to determine the parkland and improvement costs remaining to achieve the policy standards by the planning horizon. In total, $184.3 million in parkland and improvements are needed to serve new development through the planning horizon. Table 5.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total Policy Standard A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00 Population at Buildout B 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Acres Needed at Buildout C=A x(8/1000) 127.50 225.00 22.50 375.00 Existing Improved Acreage D 99.32 126.69 226.01 Improvements Improvements to Buildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 Less CFD Dublin Crossings) F 21.30 21.30 Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) G 0.48 0.48 Net Improvement Needs H=E-F-G 27.70 77.01 22.50 127.21 Land Land-Acres to Buildout E=C-D 28.18 98.31 22.50 148.99 Less Existing Unimproved Acres) i 12.02 39.75 12.13 63.90 Less Neighborhood Park Dedication Credits) J 0.48 0.48 Less CFD Dublin Crossings) K 21.30 21.30 Net Land Needs L=E-I-J-K 15.68 37.26 10.37 63.31 Improvements Per Acre M $ 495,948 $ 720,000 $ 555,246 Land Per Acre N 2.178,000 2.178,000 435,600 Total 0=M+N $ 2,673,948 $ 2.898,000 $ 990,846 Improvements to Serve New Development P=I-Ix M $ 13,737,760 $ 55,449,360 $ 12,493,035 $ 81,680,155 Less Existing Fund Balances) Q 3,068.320) (1,337,5131 4,405,8331 Subtotal R=P-Q $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77.274,322 Land to Serve New Development S=Lx N $ 34,151,040 $ 81,152,280 $ 4,517,608 $ 119,820,928 Less Existing Fund Balances) T 7,671,6901 (5,126,816) 12,798,506) Subtotal U=S-T $ 26,479,350 $ 76,025,464 $ 4,517,608 $ 107,022,422 Park Facilities To Serve New Development v=R+U $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Sources. Tables 5.1,5.2;Wlidan Financial Services. WILLDAN I Financial Services 1 7? City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Parks Cost per Capita Table 5.7 calculates the cost per capita necessary to achieve the parkland policy standards by the planning horizon. The net cost of land and improvements identified in Table 5.6 are divided by the increase in service population to determine the cost per capita. The service population for neighborhood parks only includes residents. The service population for community parks and nature-based community parks includes residents and a weighted amount of workers. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements and for each type of park facility. Table 5.7: Cost per Capita Parkland Standards Community Neighborhood Community Parks-Nature Calculation Parks Parks Based Total New Development Net Facility Needs Improvements A $ 10,669,440 $ 54,111,847 $ 12,493,035 $ 77,274,322 Land B 26,479,350 76,025,464 4,517,608 107,022,422 Total C=A+8 $ 37,148,790 $ 130,137,311 $ 17,010,643 $ 184,296,743 Growth in Service Population 13 23,200 28,100 28,100 Cost per Capita Improvements E=A/D $ 460 $1,926 $ 445 $2,830 Land F=B/D 1,141 2,706 161 4,008 Total Cost per Resident G=E+F $1,601 $ 4,631 $ 605 $ 6,838 Cost per Worker H=G x 0.23 1,065 139 1,204 Service population for neighborhood parks is based on residents. Community parks service population based on residents plus a weighted Sources: Tables 5.1,5.6;Willdan Financial Services. Use of Fee Revenue The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. Fee Schedule Table 5.8 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the costs per capita shown in Table 5.7. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as shown in Table 2.2. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. WILLDAN 2g Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 5.8: Park Facilities Impact Fee A B C=AxB D E=C+D Cost Per Resident/ Admin Land Use Worker Density Base Fee Charge Total Fee Residential Neighborhood Parkland 1,141 2.70 $ 3,082 $ 31 $ 3,113 Community Parkland 2,706 2.70 7,305 73 7,378 Community Parkland-Nature Based 161 2.70 434 4 438 Neighborhood Park Improvements 460 2.70 1,242 12 1,254 Community Park Improvements 1,926 2.70 5,199 52 5,251 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 445 2.70 1,200 12 1,212 Total 6,838 18,462 $ 184 $ 18,646 Nonresidential Commercial Neighborhood Parkland 2.33 $ Community Parkland 622 2,33 1,449 14 1,463 Community Parkland-Nature Based 37 2.33 86 1 87 Neighborhood Park Improvements 2.33 Community Park Improvements 443 2.33 1,032 10 1,042 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 2.33 238 2 240 Total 1,204 2,805 $ 27 $ 2,832 Office Neighborhood Parkland 3.13 $ Community Parkland 622 3.13 1,947 19 1,966 Community Parkland-Nature Based 37 3.13 116 1 117 Neighborhood Park Improvements 3.13 Community Park Improvements 443 3.13 1,387 14 1,401 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 3.13 319 3 322 Total 1,204 3,769 $ 37 $ 3,806 Industrial Neighborhood Parkland 1.16 $ Community Parkland 622 1.16 722 7 729 Community Parkland-Nature Based 37 1.16 43 43 Neighborhood Park Improvements 1.16 Community Park Improvements 443 1.16 514 5 519 Nature Based Community Park Improvements 102 1.16 118 1 119 Total 1,204 1,397 $ 13 $ 1,410 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1.000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting.and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 5.7;Willdan Financial Services. WILLDAN Financial Services 29 6. Community Recreation Centers The purpose of the community recreation centers impact fee is to fund the community recreation centers needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of community recreation centers per capita. Service Population Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for community recreation centers. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand fortheseservicesislessforoneworkercomparedtooneresident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers isbasedonanalysiscontainedinthePublicFacilitiesFeeStudyupdatecompletedin1998by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 6.1: Community Recreation Centers Service Population A g AxB=c Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1,00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout)23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0,05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout)21,411 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Econorrics Group. Source:Table 2.1:Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group;City of Dublin;Wlldan Financial Services. WWILLDAN 30 Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories & Standards Table 6.2 shows the inventory of existing community recreation centers. Note that a share of the Stager Community Gymnasium is allocated to City use based on the City's proportion contribution to the construction of the facility. Table 6.2: Existing Community and Recreational Facilities City of Square Feet Cost per Square Dublin Allocated to Square Feet Share City Use Foot Total Value Existing Facilities Stager Community Gymnasium 6,002 69% 4,141 $730 $ 3,023,200 Senior Center 15,500 100%15,500 730 11,315,000 Shannon Community Center 20,088 100% 20,088 730 14,664,200 Swim Center Building 9,800 100% 9,800 730 7.154,000 Rec/Aquatic Complex -Phase I 30,480 100% 30;480 730 22,250,400 Heritage Center Heritage Center and Bell Tower 2,482 100% 2,482 $730 $ 1,811,900 Old St. Raymond's Church/Visitor Centel 1,550 100% 1,550 730 1,131,500 Main House 2,304 100% 2,304 730 1,681,900 Old House Restroom 1,650 100% 1.650 730 1.204,500 Sunday School Barn 2,900 100% 2,900 730 2,117,000 Total Existing Facilities 92,756 90.895 66,353,600 Albcation of Stager Corm-unity Gyrmasium square footage and facility value to Coy of Dublin based on the City's contribution of$1 million to funding the construction of the facility. $1 million represents 69%of the total facility costs,based on information provided by the City. 2 Cost to construct new recreation centers based on recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, excluding pool costs. Sources.Dublin Building Detail Report,2012;Willdan Financial Services. Cost per Capita Standard Table 6.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 6.1 to determine the cost per worker. WILLDAN 31FinancialServices City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 6.3: Community Recreation Centers Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities 66,353,600 Existing Service Population 52,700 Cost per Capita 1,259 Facility Standard per Resident 1,259 Facility Standard per Worker' 63 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2;Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 6.4 shows the proposed community recreation centers fee schedule. The existing cost per capita from Table 6.3 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately coversthecostoffeeprogramadministration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates toensurethatrevenuegeneratedfromthechargesufficientlycovers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 6.4: Community Recreation Centers Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1.000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge''' Total Fee' Sq. Ft. Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,259 2.70 $ 3,399 $34 $ 3,433 Nonresidential Commercial 63 2.33 $ 147 $ 1 $ 148 $ 0.15 Office 63 3.13 197 2 199 0.20 Industrial 63 1.16 73 1 74 0.07 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1.000 square feet(nonresidential). 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 6,6:Willdan Financial Services WWILLDAN 3? Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Use of Fee Revenue The City can use community recreation centers impact fee revenue for the construction or purchase of buildings, land and equipment that are part of the system of community recreation facilities serving new development. Table 6.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the community recreation centers impact fee. Table 6.5: Revenue Projection -Community Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 1,259 Growth in Service Population (2015- Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue 30,593,700 Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.4. AIVWiLLDAN I 33FinancialServices 7. Aquatic Fad t es The purpose of the aquatic facilities impact fee is to fund the aquatic facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of aquatic facilities per capita. Service Population Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demandforservicesandassociatedfacilitiesarebasedontheCity's service population including residents and workers. Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for aquatic facilities. Whilespecificdataisnotavailabletoestimatetheactualratioofdemandperresidenttodemandby businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers isbasedonanalysiscontainedinthePublicFacilitiesFeeStudyupdatecompletedin1998by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. This analysis uses the same factor to maintain consistency. Table 7.1: Aquatic Facilities Service Population A g AxB=C Weighting Service Persons Factor Population Residents Existing (2015) 51,784 1.00 51,800 New Development (2015-Buildout)23,216 1.00 23,200 Total (Buildout) 75,000 75,000 Workers Existing (2015) 18,480 0.05 900 New Development (2015-Buildout)21,411 0.05 1,100 Total (Buildout) 39,891 2,000 Combined Existing (2015) 52,700 New Development (2015-Buildout) 24,300 Total (Buildout) 77,000 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Source:Table 2.1;Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group,City of Dublin:Wiildan Financial Services. WWILLDAN 34 Financial Serv,cee City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facility Inventories & Standards Table 7.2 shows the inventory of existing aquatic facilities. The value of the existing aquatic facilities, $356 per square foot, is based on a recent cost estimate for the Emerald Glen Aquatic Center. Note that the costs only include the pool facilities themselves; buildings and site work are not included in the cost estimate. Table 7.2: Existing Aquatic Facilities Cost per Surface Area Square Foot' Total Cost Existing Facilities Dublin Swim Center Main Pool 8,987 $ 356 $ 3,199,400 Dublin Swim Center Play Pool 1,010 356 359,600 Emerald Glen Indoor Pool 6,270 356 2,232,100 Emerald Glen Competitive Pool 6,174 356 2,197,900 Emerald Glen Play Pool 4,538 356 1,615,500 Total Existing Facilities 26,979 9,604,500 Note: Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred. 1 Represents cost of pools only,excluding building and site work. Source: City of Dublin,Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, Dahlin Group,CD Cost Estimate, 19 July 2014. Cost per Capita Standard Table 7.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to aquatic facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology results in no existing deficiencies. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the worker-weighting factor identified in Table 7.1 to determine the cost per worker. Table 7.3: Aquatic Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities 9,604,500 Existing Service Population 52,700 Cost per Capita 182 Facility Standard per Resident 182 Facility Standard per Workers 9 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05. Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2;Willdan Financial Services. WWILLDAN ! 3FinancialServicesi City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Fee Schedule Table 7.4 shows the proposed aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately coversthecostoffeeprogramadministration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates toensurethatrevenuegeneratedfromthechargesufficientlycovers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 7.4: Aquatic Facilities - Existing Standard A B C=Ax B D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1.000 Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Feet Charge''2 Total Feel Sq. Ft. Residential Dwelling Unit 182 2.70 $ 491 $ 5 $ 496 Nonresidential 21 $ 0.02 Commercial 9 2.33 $ 21 $ Office 9 3.13 28 28 0.03 Industrial 9 1.16 10 10 0.01 Fee per dwelling unit(residential) or per 1,000 square feet(nonresidential). 2Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for(1) legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 7.3;Willdan Financial Services Use of Fee Revenue The City can use aquatic facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of aquaticfacilitiesthatarepartofthesystemofaquaticfacilitiesservingnewdevelopment. Table 7.5 shows the projected fee revenue that would be generated by the aquatic facilities impact fee. NIVWILLDAN 36 Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Table 7.5: Revenue Projection -Aquatic Cost per Capita 182 Growth in Service Population (2015- Buildout) 24,300 Projected Fee Revenue 4,422,600 Sources:Tables 7.1,and 7.3. NIVWILLDAN Financ,al Services 37 B. implementation Impact Fee Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available atleast10dayspriortothepublichearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. Inflation Adjustment The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully funditsshareofneededfacilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation: Buildings—Engineering News-Record's Building Cost Index(BC!) Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers CPI-U) The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation. With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation,as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that the localized indices are subject to. Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that capturesfluctuationsinlandvalues. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update. While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Reporting Requirements The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP The City maintains a five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructureneeds. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. WWILLDAN 38 Pinancial vIce: 9. Mitigation Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five Mitigation Fee Act findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act. Purpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee(§66001(a)(1) of the Act). Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in§65403 or§66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged(§66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: civic center, library, aquatic facilities, parks and community recreation centers. Benefit Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees'use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(3) of the Act). The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. Burden Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(4) of the Act). WILLDAN Financial Services City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship tothetypeofdevelopment. For most facility categories, service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter. Proportionality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed(§66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the feesensureareasonablerelationshipbetweenaspecificnewdevelopmentprojectandthecostofthe facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors aredeterminedfordifferenttypesoflanduses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. WILLDAN 40 Financial Service I a) CU e 2 C 1 0 c =a o m e co co / 7 t G o 1- » co ft EaEaT- m U. I f ƒG ¥ & n c e « \ 2 , , 9 ,- / & % CO .,- © o 69mmmmm 4. Ea 7 e CO ^ o o q ¥ /L c E , 7 3 \ # & # r E Ela 49- g69gmEa2k2/k 3 v 12 a a in To CO / / 5 c - e co ¥ m t Cr) & ? $ \ ƒ 2eada69EaEa 2 m a) £ _ E ( \ / 2 /_ 9 f \ R E\ .-E COIE0)CO / m @ -- ct .Y « 2 = & I I % e m g .5 o -o Ekoo7 / . \c o o = _ _ = 0 = _ E E E E = E b° o. E E E E § E Ei .g 5 CT) -Cr) o 0 0 0 = o ± .5 9 Q Z Z 0 0 0 O < O 2_o R RESOLUTION N0.45-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE TO INCLUDE SECOND UNITS AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR SECOND UNITS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Resolution No. 32-96 establishing a Public Facilities Fee, which Resolution was subsequently amended by City Council Resolution Nos. 60- 99 and 214-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin wishes to revise Resolution No. 214-02 to add a new definition for second units and to revise the fee schedule for the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council does find as follows: A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future development in the City. Resolution No. 214-02, including all attachments thereto, established the reasoning and methodology for the imposition of the fee, and is incorporated herein as if set forth in fixll_ The November 19, 2002 City Council Agenda Statement contained the factual basis for the findings included in Resolution 214-02 and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. B. The Community Development Director of the City of Dublin estimates that approximately 50 second units could be constructed within Eastern Dublin, approximately 10 second units could be constructed in Schaefer Ranch in Western Dublin, and approximately 10 second units could be constructed in the Downtown Dublin area, for a total of 70 second units which would be subject to the Fee. The Community Development Director of the City of Dublin further estimates that second units will have two occupants each; as such, this category would be required to account for the impact on the City's public facilities of 140 new residents. Depending on the facility type in question, and upon the area of the City requiring new facilities, the 2002 Fee study anticipated a service population build-out growth of about 34,360 residents citywide. Because 140 residents represents only 0.00407% of the total anticipated increase in residents, the impact of adding the second units as a separate category is de minimus, and does not trigger the need for new facilities nor a need to recalculate the amount of the Fee for all categories as a result of this amendment. C. The purpose of the Fee is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing services areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library System currently provide library services; that the Fee will be used to maintain current services levels; and that second units are not currently included in the Fee as a separate residential use. As such, neither the Resolution nor the Fee as it relates to development within the City is a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). Page 1 of 2 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: Anew Definition is added to Section 1 of Resolution 214-02 to read as follows: Second Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin that is issued a building permit as a second unit pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Second Unit Regulations) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2. The current Public Facilities Fee Schedule, attached to Resolution No. 214-02 as Exhibit C is hereby deleted, and a new Public Facilities Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby added. 3. Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Public Facilities Fee Schedule added. by Section 2 of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution and shall supersede the Fee Schedule contained in established by Resolution No. 214-02 sixty 60) days from the effective date of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers, Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: C~U City Jerk Mayor Reso No. 45-09, Adopted, 4-21-09, Item 6.1 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF DUBLIN EXHIBIT C PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Fee by Land Use Type and Area AREA Citywide Community Parks, Land Community Parks, Improvements Community Buildings Libraries Civic Center Citywide Total Fee Eastern Dub/in RESIDENTIAL per Dwe/ling Unit) SINGLE MULTI- SECOND FAMILY FAMILY UNIT COMM'L NON-RESIDENTIAL per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) OFFICE INDUSTR'L 58,073 5,045 55,045 51,149 5.2,230 4,381 2,739 2,739 623 1,211 2,880 1,801 1,801 90 173 1,134 709 709 175 341 346 215 215 52 99 516,814 10,509 510,509 52,089 54,054 5985 533 76 151 44 51,789 Neighborhood Parks, Land 54,562 52,851 52,851 50 50 50 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,899 1,187 1,187 -0 0 0 Aquatic Center 488 304 304 12 23 10 Subtotal 56,949 54,342 54,342 512 S23 510 Citywide Costs 516,814 510,509 510,509 52,089 54,054 51,789 Eastern Dublin Costs 6,949 4,342 4,342 15 30 12 Eastern Dublin Total Fee 523,763 514,851 514,851 52,104 54,084 51,801 Western Dub/in Neighborhood Parks, Land S4,562 52,851 52,851 50 50 50 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,899 1,187 1,187 0 0 0 Subtotal 56,461 54,038 54,038 50 50 50 Citywide Costs 516,814 510,509 510,509 52,089 54,054 51,262 Western Dublin Costs 6,461 4,038 4,038 0 0 0 Western Dublin Total Fee 523,275 514,547 514,547 52,089 54,054 51,262 G~CGtt~~f l RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXPRESSING THE CITY'S INTENT TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE THAT IS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7.78 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has established a Public Facilities Fee to pay for certain municipal improvements to offset certain impacts of new development (see Chapter 7.78 of the Dublin Municipal Code); and WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code section 7.78.020 specifies that amount of the fee is to be set forth in a City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the initial Public Facilities Fee resolution (Resolution No. 32-96) was adopted on March 26, 1996, and the amount of the Public Facilities Fee has been updated from time to time by resolution since then with the most recent update being Resolution No. 214-02; and WHEREAS, under Resolution No. 214-02, and its predecessors, the amount of the Public Facilities Fee has been automatically increased to reflect inflationary adjustments to the estimated costs constructing and acquiring land for the improvements funded by the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Fee funds, among other things, the Civic Center, which includes the City's administrative offices and the Police Services wing; and WHEREAS, the City's professional staff and consultants have advised the City Council that the space available at the Civic Center is inadequate for the City's future needs; and WHEREAS, City staff is also in the midst of updating the development projections and cost estimates upon which the amount of the Public Facilities Fee is based, which development projections and cost estimates are set forth in the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update, dated October 14,2002 and prepared by MuniFinancial; and WHEREAS, the City intends in the near future to update the amount of the Public Facilities Fee to reflect the expansion ofthe Civic Center, and the update of the development projections and cost estimates; and WHEREAS, to determine the amount of the Public Facilities Fee and to provide evidence to support a resolution setting forth the amount of the Public Facilities Fee, the City has prepared and will prepare various reports, which reports include or will include estimates of the costs of the improvements; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to express the City Council's intent to increase the amount of the Public Facilities Fee and to provide reasonable notice to the development community of the nature and extent ofthe increase to the Public Facilities Fee. Reso No. 41-07, Adopted 4/3/07, Item 8.5 Page 1 of2 NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that: 1. The City intends, as soon as reasonably possible consistent with applicable law, to update the amount of the Public Facilities Fee established by Chapter 7.78 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The update of the fee will be based on the following revisions to the Public Facilities Fee program: a. The City intends to expand the Civic Center beyond the size contemplated in existing Public Facilities Fee program. The 2002 Fee Study indicated that the total cost of the Civic Center expansion project attributable to new development was $3,524,608. The City commissioned MKThink to prepare a study, entitled Dublin Civic Center, Workspace Programming Study Summary Report, which set forth several alternatives for dealing with the City's staffing and building space needs through 2026. At its March 20, 2007 meeting, the City Council reviewed the study and approved the study's recommended alternative to accommodate growth, which involves an expansion to the Civic Center that is preliminarily estimated to cost (in 2006 dollars) $10,205,455. It is anticipated that most if not all of the costs of the Civic Center expansion will be attributable to new development. b. In accordance with section 9 of Resolution 214-02, the City also intends to revise the fee to reflect changes, since the study supporting the Public Facilities Fee was last updated in 2002, in construction costs, land values, and development projections. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Ll. City lerk Reso No. 41-07, Adopted 4/3/07, Item 8.5 Page 2 of2 RESOLUTION NO. 214 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITmN THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECITALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin); and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development; and WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are depicted on the Land Use Map contained in the General Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP SCHNo. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10,1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the Council on July 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 77-94, and the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on June 16, 1998 ("Park Master Plans"); WHEREAS, the City approved a Library Planning Task Force Report, dated April 1993, and a subsequent Library Planning Task Force Report dated September 1998 ("Library Reports"); and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document ("Civic Center Report") dated November 1986; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ("Senior Center Study"), dated February 4, 2002; and 1 WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Report, Senior Center Study, SP, EIR and Addenda describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the GPA and SP, including completion of City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities; WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public facilities would be constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation measures to assure that development within Eastern Dublin pays its proportionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Report, Senior Center Study, GPA, SP, EIR and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public facilities required by future development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a Public Facilities Fee" for development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of Dublin by Recht Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (hereafter "Study"); and WHEREAS, in 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60-99 revising the Public Facilities Fee" to reflect changes since the adoption of resolution No. 32-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 60-99 superceded Resolution No. 32-96 and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Hausrath Economics Group, dated October 14, 2002 and entitled "Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update" (hereafter "1998 Study Update"); and WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 60-99 provides that the City will periodically review the Public Facilities Fee and make revisions as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City has retained MuniFinancial to assist the City in again reviewing and updating the Public Facilities Fee; and WHEREAS, MuniFinancial prepared a report dated October 14, 2002 and entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update" (hereafter "Study Update"), which is attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 32-96 and 60-99, in reliance on the Study and the 1998 Study Update, set forth the relationship between future development in Dublin and Eastern Dublin, the needed public facilities and improvements, and the estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and 2 WHEREAS, the Study Update relies on previous studies and demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Public Facilities Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to update cost information for parkland acquisition, (2) to update cost information for parkland development; and (3) to update cost information for community buildings, such as the aquatic center, library building, and civic center expansion; and WHEREAS, the Study Update was available for public inspection and review for ten days prior to this public hearing; and FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the following: completion of the Civic Center office space; construction of a new library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including a community theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center). The public facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities". B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities. C. After considering the Study, the Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic Center Report, the Senior Center Study, the GPA, the SP, the EIR and Addenda, and all correspondence received (hereafter "record") the Council approves and adopts the Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Facilities and the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Park Master Plans, the Library Reports, the Civic Center Report, the Senior Center Study, the GPA and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern Dublin is within the scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at this stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 30-year period and specific details as to their timing, construction and precise location are not presently known. E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin (excluding Eastern Dublin) is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community park services, community and recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library 3 System currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to maintain current service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the City (excluding Eastern Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution. G. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential- will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the Facilities; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential- generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Facilities; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study Update, the September 1998 Library Planning Task Force Report, the Park Master Plans, and the Senior Center Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Facilities; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to, and is roughly proportional to, each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular development will generate. H. The Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies. 4 uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and development and travel agencies. h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units (whether attached or detached) per acre. i. "Western Dublin" shall mean only the property within the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment area. 2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed. a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Single Family and Multiple Family residential unit within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued, provided that the Fee shall be payable when the building permit is issued for any such unit from and after the date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Facilities. b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin when the building permit is issued for construction of such building or structure. c. A fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential development for any addition to an exiting building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. d. Any use of land which is not included in the definition of "Commercial," Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Community Development Director to one of the three categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definitions of such terms. 3. Amount of Fee. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. Each component ofthe Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee. 4. Exemptions From Fee. a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following: 1 ) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential unit; 2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more. 6 11. Administrative Guidelines. The Council shall, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects ofthe Fee. Such guidelines shall include procedures for construction of designated Facilities by developers. The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by payment ofthe Fee. 12. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date ofthe resolution and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 60-99 sixty (60) days from the effective date ofthis resolution. 13. Severability. Each component ofthe Fee and all portions ofthis resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision ofthis resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATIEST: ~~ ic!cCITCRK K2/G/11-19-02/reso-fee-pubfac.doc (Item 6.2) 9 CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY UPDATE OCTOBER 14,· 2002 Oakland Office 1736 Franklin Street Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax. (510) 832-0898 Temecula, CA Industry, CA Jacksonville, FL Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA www.muni.com EXHIBIT B Phoenix,AZ San Diego, CA Seattle, WA Washington, DC TABLEOF CONTENTS Introduction...:.....I....I. .............. ... ...... ............................. .............. 2 Neighborhood and Community Parks........................................ 3 Parkland Acquisition and Development Costs Per Acre .................................3 Cost Allocation .. ................... ... ...... .... ... ....... ..... ....................... .... .................. ..3 Total Cost of Expanding Parks...... ..;........... ......... ........ ....... ............ ........ ........4 Community and Recreation Facilities ........................................ 6 Facility Standards and Needs. ...... ....... ...................... ......... ... ....... .............. ....6 Cost Allocation ..... ..... ........ ... ...... ... ..... ................. ... ...... ........... ................ ........6 Li braries ............. ...................................... ............ I.~.... ............ ....... 8 Facility Standards and New Development Needs ...........................................8 Cost Allocation .. ... ..... ...... ..... ............ ....... .... ........ ............ ..... ........... ........ ........ 8 C·ivic Center... I........... '... ..... ...... 1.....-............ ............. ..... ..... I... .....1.. 1 0 Cost Allocation..... .... ...................... ... ..................... ...................... ....... ..........10 Calculations of Fees and Program Implementation................ 11 Summary of Costs. ........... ..... ....... .... ... ........... ....... ...... ........... ...... .... ........ ....11 Costs by Land Use Type...... ....... ......... ...... ................... ............. ... ............... .12 Relationship Between Park Facilities Fee Program and Quimby Ordinance 13 MuniFinancial Page i INTRODUCTION MuniFinancial was retained by the City of Dublin to complete an update of the City's public facilities fees. This report is an update of Public Facilities Fee Study 1998 Update, completed by HausrathEconomics Group in March 1999 and adopted by City Council. It reflects changes in cost information since the previous analysis was completed. The imposition of development impact fees typically requires updates to cost information on an annual basis. This enables the fee to be adjusted for the effects of inflation so that fee revenue is sufficient to cover the costs of expanding facilities to serve new development. This report includes updated cost information provided by the City based on recent data for: Parkland acquisition cost per acre; Parkland development cost per acre; Community building costs; Aquatic Center costs; Library building costs; and Civic Center expansion costs. MuniFinancial reconstructed the impact fee model used to develop the previous update by Hausrath Economics Group to reflect the new information. Only those tables that changed from the previous analysis are shown within this report. Please refer to the Hausrath Economics Group report for additional information. The current report does not substantively affect the findings made in the Hausrath report and required by state law to justify the imposition of the public facility fees. Updated costs are provided by fee type in the sections that follow. Tables are numbered to correspond with the Hausrath report. The final section of the report presents the updated fee schedule. MuniFinancial Page 2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS This section presents the updated cost data for the neighborhood and community parks fee. The Public Facilities Fee Ordinance states that land cost per acre shall be increased or decreased annually by the percentage difference of the most recent land appraisal. The most recent appraisals were done in July 1998 and December 2000. The resulting annual mcrease applied to the value adopted July 1,2001 by the City Council is eight percent for community parkland and six percent for neighborhood parkland. Table 3.4 presents the updated land and development costs for neighborhood and community parks. Table 3.4: Parkland Acquisition and Development Cost Land Cost, per Devel. Cost, Parkland Type Acre 1 Per Acre2 Neighborhood Community 670,000 $ 538,000 316,000 370,200 1 Land costs based on most recent land appraisal prepared for the purpose of adjusting the fee. Appraisals were done In July 1998 and December 2000, resulting in an annualized increase of eight percent for community parkland and six percent for neighborhood parkland. These inflation factors were applied to 2001 land values in the existing fee program. 2 Park development costs based on recent experience with construction of Emerald Glen Park at $370,000 per acre. Neighborhood park costs based on a recent developer-funded project with a cost of $316.000 per acre. Sources: City of Dublin; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancial. Cost Allocation ' , Table 3.5 summarizes the updated park expansion cost per resident based on Table 3.4. Table 3.6 provides the equivalent cost per worker. MuniFinancial Page 3 Table 3.7: Cost to Expand Parks1 L Neighborhood E. Dublin W. Dublin Parks, Community Total N'hood Parks N'hood Parks Combined Parks Expansion Cost Land Acres Required 47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3 Land Cost Per Acre $ 670.000 $ 670.000 $ 670.000 $ 538.000 Total Land Costs $ 32,099,700 $ 1,527,600 $ 33,627,300 $ 64,699,880 $ 98,327,180 ImDrovements Acres Required 47.9 2.3 50.2 120.3 improvement Cost Per Acre 316.000 316.000 316.000 370.200 Total Improvement Cost $ 15,139,600 $ 720,500 $ 15,860,000 $ 44,520,300 $ 60,380,300 Total C'ost of Expansion $ 47,239,300 $ 2,248,100 $ 49,487,300 $ 109,220,180 $ 158,707,480 Assuming all land is puíchased. Land dedications will actually decrease the total cost to the CitY. but will not affect the calculated fee to be paid by developers who do not dedicate land. The fee schedule takes land dedication into account by discounting the fee for development that included parldand dedication. . Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.4; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancial. MuniFinancial Page 5 CIVIC CENTER The Civic Center public facilities fee has been updated to reflect actual project costs and the most recent estimates for the second phase of construction. Cost Allocation The first phase of the Civic Center expansion project was completed for a total cost of $2,149,988. Of the total cost, $1,746,858 was funded from public facility fee revenue. The second phase of the project is estimated at $1,777,750. The total cost of the Civic Center expansion amounts to $3,524,608. Table 6.3 present the Civic Center expansion cost per capita. Table 6.3: Civic Center Total Expansion Cost and Cost Per Capita Total Expansion Cost 1 New Development Service Population Cost Per Resident 3,524,608 40.900 86 Worker Equivalent Cost Per Worker 0.2421 1 The first phase on the Civic Center Expansion was completed with a cost of 1,746,858 allocated from fee revenues. The second phase is estimated at 1,777,750. ' Sources: Table 6.2; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinanciaJ. MuniFinancial Page 10 CALCULATIONS OF FEES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The following section presents the updated public facilities fees. Summa of Costs ' Table 7.1 summarizes the updated total cost of expanding facilities to serve growth, divided into three areas: citywide, Eastern Dublin, and Western Dublin. i I I I Cost Per Cost Per I Resident Worker I I I I I 64,699,880! $ 44,520,300 I 25,666,200 ¡ 11,646,100 ¡ 3.524.608 ¡ 150,057,088 ! $ I I Eastern Dublin ¡ Neighborhood Parks, Land $ 32,099,700 ¡ $ I Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 15,139,600 ¡ Aquatic Center 3.888.231 ¡ Total $ 51.127,531: $ I I I I I I I I I Western Dublin i Neighborhood Parks, Land $ 1,527,600: $ 1,005 $I Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 720.500 : 474 Total $ 2,248,1001$ 1,479 $ I I I i$ I I I i$I I Table 7.1: Total Expansion Cost to Serve Growth Total Expansion CostFacilityTypebyArea Citywide Community Parks, Land Community Parks, Improvements Community Buildings Libraries Civic Center Citywide Cost Per Capita Total Citywide Cost Per Capita Eastern Dublin Cost Per Capita Eastern Dublin Per Capita Total Citywide Cost Per Capita Western Dublin Cost Per Capita Western Dublin Per Capita Total 1,590 $ 1,094 719 283 86 3,771 $ 1 ,005 $ 474 122 1,601 3,771 $ 1.601 5,372 $ 3,771 $ 1.479 5,250 $ Sources: Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7,4.4,4.5,5.4,5.5. and 6.3; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancial. 366 252 36 71 21 744 66 744 6 750 744 744 MuniFinancial Page 11 Table 7.3: Impact Fee By Commercial. Office. and Industrial Land Use i Fee Per 1.000 SQuare FeetI I Cost Per I Facility Type by Area Worker ! Commercial Office Industrial I I Occupancy Density (sq. ft. per worker)* , 505 260 590I I Citywide · Community Parks, Land $ 366 $ 724 $ 1 ,406 $ 620 Community Parks, Improvements 252 498 968 426 Community Buildings 36 71 138 61 Libraries 71 140 272 120 Civic Center 21 41 79 35 Citywide Total Fee $ 744 $ 1,474 $ 2,863 $ 1,262 Eastern Dublin ¡ Neighborhood Parks, Land $ - ! $ - $ - $ Neighborhood Parks, Improvements Aquatic Center Subtotal 66 $1212 $2323 $1010 Citywide Costs Eastern Dublin Eastern Dublin Total Fee 744 $6 750 $1,474 $12 1 ,486 $2,863 $23 2,886 $1,26210 1,272 Western Dublin I Neighborhood Parks, Land $ - ! $ - $ - $ Neighborhood Parks, Improvemellts - ¡ Subtotal $ - ¡ $ I I 744 ¡ $ 744 ¡ $ I I ICitywide Cost Per Capita Western Dublin Cost Per Capita Western Dublin Total Fee 1,474 $2,863 $1,262 1,474 $'2,863 $1,262 Occupancy density expressed in square feet per worker. Sources: Tables 2.1 and 7.1; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancial. Relationship Between Park Facilities Fee Program and Quimb Ordinance . . Three examples are shown in Table 7.4 for a single-family residence that illustrate how impact fees, parkland dedications, and Quimby deductions would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees or dedicate land. MuniFinancial Page 13 Table 7.4: Park Impact Fee Per Single Family Residence Dedicate Pay In-Lieu Infill Parkland Fees Development Community Parkland* $ $ 5,087 $ 5,087 Community Park Improvements 3,500 3,500 3,500 Neighborhood Parkland* 3,216 NA Neighborhood Park Improvements 1.517 1.517 NA Total $ 5,017 $ 13,320 $ 8,587 NA = Fee no applicable to this area of the City. Assumes the amount of the Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the public facilities fee. Sources: Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancìal. Table 7.5 shows the updated sample fee calculations for single and multi-family residences in Eastern Dublin, Western Dublin, artd infill areas. Table 7.5: Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication E.Dublin E. Dublin W. Dublin W Dublin Infill Area Infill Area SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit SF Unit MF Unit Community Parks, Land $ 5,087 $ 3,179 $ 5,087 $ 3,179 $ 5,087 $ 3,179 Community Parks, Improvements 3,500 2,188 3,500 2,188 3,500 2,188 Community Buildings 2,301 1 ,438 2,301 1 ,438 2,301 1,438 Libraries 905 565 905 565 905 565 Civic Center 276 172 276 172 276 172 Neighborhood Parks, Land 3,216 2,010 3,216 2,010 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,517 948 1,517 948 Aquatic Center 390 243 Total $ 17,191 $ 10,744 $ 16,801 $ 10,501 $ 12,068 $ 7,543 Dedicatè Parkland Community Parks, Land $ (5,087) $ (3,179) $ (5,087) $ (3,179) $ (5,087) $ (3,179) Neighborhood Parks, Land 13.216) 12,010) 13.216) 12.010) Total Fees Due $ 8,888 $ 5,555 $ 8,498 $ 5,311 $ 6,981 $ 4,363 SF Unit = single family dwelling unit. MF Unit = multi family dwelling unit. Sources: Table 7.2; Hausrath Economics Group; MuniFinancial. MuniFinancial Page 14 CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC FACiliTIES FEE Fee by land Use Type and Area RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL per Dwelling Unit) (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) SINGLE MUL TI- Facility Type by Area FAMILY FAMILY COMM'L OFFICE INDUSTR'L Citywide Community Parks, Land $5,087 $3,179 $724 $1 ,406 $620 Community Parks, Improvements 3,500 2,188 498 968 426 Community Buildings 2,301 1 ,438 71 138 61 Libraries 905 565 140 272 120 Civic Center 276 172 41 79 35 Citywide Total Fee $12,069 $7,542 $1,474 $2,863 $1,262 Eastern Dublin Neighborhood Parks, Land $3,216 $2,010 $0 $0 $0 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,517 948 0 0 r Aquatic Center ¡390 243 12 23 1\.. Subtotal $5,123 $3,201 $12 $23 $10 Citywide Costs $12,069 $7,542 $1,474 $2,863 $1,262 Eastern Dublin Costs 5,123 3,201 12 23 10 Eastern Dublin Total Fee $17,192 $10,743 $1 ,486 $2,886 $1,272 Western Dublin Neighborhood Parks, Land $3,216 $2,010 $0 $0 $0 Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,517 948 0 0 0 Subtotal $4 ;733 $2,958 $0 $0 $0 Citywide Costs $12,069 $7,542 $1,474 $2,863 $1,262 Western Dublin Costs 4,733 2,958 0 0 0 Western Dublin Total Fee $16,802 $10,500 $1,474 $2,863 $1,262 EXHIBIT C TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUJ\1MAR Y SITUA TION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' ................................. IV DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " IV FACILITIES COST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V FEE LEVELS ....................................................... VI EXISTING DEFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " VI CH.AJ>TER I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- J Pl.JBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA ...................... 1-2 FEE DETERJ\.lINA TION ............................................. 1-3 CRAJ>TER II 1'.TEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-I DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT. . . . .. . . . " . . . .. .. .. . . . ... ., '" . . . . II-5 CRAJ>TER III NEIGHBORHOOD !~ND COMMUNITY PARKS EXISTING FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- J FACILITY ST.A]\.1])ARDS .A]\.1]) NEEDS ................................ III-3 P.AJU<. COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II-6 COST l\LLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9 CHAPTER IV COMMUNITY .-'\ND RECREATION FACILITIES EXISTINGAND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . IV-I FACILITIES STANDARDS.A.ND NEEDS. ... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V-2 COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V-5 CH.AJ>TER V LIBR.-\RIES EXISTING .AND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-I FACILITY ST M1DARDS .A.ND 1'.TEW DEVELOP!vIENT 1'.TEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 COST ALLOCATION. . . " . . . " . ...... . . . " .. ...... . . ... .. ... '" . . . " V-5 Recht Ha1fsrath & Associates 1/ EXECllTIVE StJl\1I\1AR Y WI! SITliA TION The City of Dublin is planning for extensive grovv.th in its Eastern Extended Planning area. Part of this planning involves provision of public facilities to assure an adequate level of public services. This report documents the capital expansions planned by the City of Dublin through its build-out around year 2025. It sets forth the basis for measuring facilities standards and applies the costs of the required expansions to determine the facilities impact associated with new development. Although the emphasis is on Eastern Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for additional d~\lelopment in the existing portions of the City, so that the fees may be applied city\\ride. It is anticipated that Dublin \vill rely primarily on the authority to levy fees specified in AB 1600, although park requirements could be established under the Quimby Act. Costs of new development are assigned to residential and commercial and industrial land uses according to occupant densities to arrive at fee levels by land use type. In situations where an existing ...,' deficiency exists in a particular facility, costs to cure the deficiencies are estimated as well. Existing deficiency costs are not included in the public facilities fee and will be funded separately by the City. Tables accompanying this summary are located at the end of the text. DEVELOPl\fENT PROJECTIONS Development in Eastern Dublin is expected to add J3,836 new dwelling units and 9.74 million square feet of commercial and industrial space through build-out. This excludes any expansions of County facilities. Existing areas of the City are expected to grow by a comparatively small amount, 103 dwelling units and 692,000 commercial and industrial square feet. Applying occupant densities, new development \",rill add 32,530 residents and 28,000 employees citywide. This represents a J 37 percent increase in the resident population and a 280 percent increase in employment over existing levels. Growth projections used in this study exclude any potential for unincorporated areas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. ......"" Recht Hausrath & Associates iv DlIhlill Fadli/it's Fee SlIlLZI'LxeclI/h'(! SlfI17I17Gl)' Residents and employees are llsed as the basis for facilities demand. Residents and employees are combined into a service population measurement, calculated as residents plus a fraction of employees. Sen'ice population is determined separately for each facility according to estimated employee use, and is Llsed to assign facilities COSl 10 new development by type of space. Table I, at the end of this summary, shows existing and proposed land uses. Population and employment are shown in Table 2. FACILITIES COST Costs of facilities to serve grov,'th are shown in Table 3. For the facilities covered under the fee program, cost of growth will total 5>848 million. The neighborhood and community parks requirements are based on the standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park dedication ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-lieu fee, depending on the circumstances of individual projects. Neighborhood park costs are included in the calculation of the fee for Eastern Dublin only because those parks would only benefit that area, not the citywide sen:ice population. Community and recreation facilities include several expansions located in Eastern Dublin. Proposed projects include a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center. For the senior center the costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building. Proposed library improvements include an expansion of the existing building plus a new branch in Eastern Dublin, including volumes. The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative offices and the police department. The building was designed to accommodate activity commensurate \\7ith an estimated resident service population of 40,000 in the year 2005. Eventually, growth will require finishing certain areas currently used as storage and renovation of portions of the Police wing. Recht Hallsralh & Assoc;ia/es v Dublin Facilities Fee Study E"ecurive SUmnWl}' FEE LEVELS Table 4 summarizes resulting impact fee levels by land use. Facilities costs of growth have been allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling unit and employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space. The majority of fees would be levied city\\1.de because they would fund facilities with cityvvide benefit. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for these facilities are applied to that area in Eastern Dublin only. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES For a public facilities fee program to be equitable, new development should not be charged fo1' a higher standard offacilities than is provided to other parts of the community. To do so would impose the burden of remedying existing deficiencies ontD new development. In the case of community parks, community buildings and libraries the facilities standard at build-out will exceed that presently available. The City of Dublin must therefore provide a portion of the funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees to recognize the benefit existing ....",,1 land uses will receive from an improve.d level of service. Table 5 shows the cost to remedy existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.754 million. Recht Hausrath & Associates vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION City facilities provide services for the benetit of city residents, businesses, and employees. As this service population increases, so does the demand for city facilities. As developers build new homes and commerciaJ/industrial buildings, the City must provide corresponding amounts of new facilities to serve this development, that is, unless existing residents are to experience a decline in the standard of facilities that they had previously enjoyed. Moreover, newer cities such as Dublin often have deficient standards for existing facilities. In this case, the City is choosing to expand its facilities above standards that currently exist. This policy will allow the City to accommodate both existing and ne\v development at the levels of service it desires. INTRODUCTION This report documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required (I) to serve new development through the year 2025 and, (2) to correct existing deficiencies. In....., addition, this repoI1 determines the public facilities fees, or impact fees, that new development should pay to fund its fair share of those facilities needs. The repoI1 documents the maximum justified level of those fees. This introductory chapter to the Public Facilities Fee Justification study summarizes the fee program under the following topics: Public Facilities Financing in California Fee Determination Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules Program Implementation The introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and methodology used to design public facilities fees. The second chapter sets forth projections of new development. Each succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis ofthe specific costs and assumptions involved in the calculation of the costs for a facility type, namely parks, community and recreational facilities, libraries, and civic center. The final chapter uses the facilities costs to Recht Halfsrath & Associates 1-1 DIIh/1/7 Faci/ilil's Fee: Sll/((r C 'hapler J determine fee levels Appendix A calculates the cost of existing deficiencies which the City must fund through means other than impact fees. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity ofIocal governments to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond initiatives, and severe reductions in federal and state assistance. Since Proposition 13, property taxes have been inadequate to fund capital needs, and for many cities have been insufficient for on-going operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of service. As a longer-term response, most cities and counties are shifting the burden of financing the capital costs of additional infrastructure to accommodate nev-.' development from tax revenues and general obligation bonds to that development. This shift has primarily been accomplished through the imposition of public facilities fees, also know as development impact fees. Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal fee programs are comprehensive, requiring developers to pay for all additions to municipal facilities needed to accommodate new development. The facilities which are the subject of this analysis are (1) parks, (2) community and recreational facilities, (3) libraries, and (4) the Civic Center. Financing of other facilities is addressed by the City separately. A..s a result of wide-spread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed AB 1600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for imposition and on-going administration of fees. The law, which became effective in January 1989, requires local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new development, the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The legal requirements restrict how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees. In general, the law requires that the fee amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth. It is imponant to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must conform to the conditions imposed by AB 1600 and case law, and are used exclusively to fund the capital costs of new facilities. As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they only require action by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes, on the other hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and most tax increases must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the documentation for any public Recht HOllsroth & Associates 1-2 lJlihlill FW:.:ililies Fee! SII"zr lwjJler J facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not greater than the cost of facilities to accommodate new development to avoid being challenged as a tax. This study serves that purpose. FEE DETERl\IINA TION The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a four-step process: (I) selecting a time period and projecting new development. (2) determining facility service areas, and identifying facilities to accommodate nev./ development, (3) estimating facilities costs, and (4) determining alternative funding sources, including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among new development. Tell' Development Projections Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required to serve growth. The Eastern f)71hli/l Ge/leral Plan Ame/ld111el1f and the Eastern Duhlin 5ipectfic Plan (Jan. 7, 1994) lists new development, residents and employees projected for the City's Eastern EA.-tended Planning Area. The City has provided additional information on growth in tbe ~ existing area oftbe City which also will be subject to impact fees. No growth for tbe City's Western Extended Planning Area is included at this time. Projections are for build-out of the City which is estimated to occur about 2025. Facilities RequiremeHts Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure. Standards are often stated in terms of a city's amount of facilities per capita (e.g., acres of park land per capita). The new facilities that development must fund are then calculated according to these standards and projected service population gro\vth, with residents used as a measure for the impacts of residential development and employees used as a measure for non-residential development. In the case of parks, the facilities requirement is determined by applying a park land standard consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling park land dedication by new development. The amoun~ of parks needed is therefore a function of the level of growth. For the remaining Rechr Hausrarh & Associales 1-3 J)lrhlill FocilitiL's FI!C! .\"l1rJr Chapter / facilities the City has proposed specific improvements to accommodate its build-out population. In these cases the facilities standards are calculated for the build-out year and are used as the basis to assign costs to the new and existing service populations. The City can adopt its ovm reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the present levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development cannot be held accountable for higher standards than the current population is willing to provide for itself. Thus, if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for fees, the City must use alternative funds to expand these facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an existing deficiency. Ne\v development cannot be asked to cure an existing deficiency. Facilities Costs The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the year 2025. '\\Ie gave careful reviev,l to the determination as to which facilities and costs were appropriately funded by a public facilities fee. Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and those \vhich provide additional capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that benefit each group. Facilities Cost Allocation llocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. This method is often used to determine impacts of residential and commerciallindustrialland uses, recognizing that both residents and businesses place demands on public facilities. Service population is calculated by adding to resident population a portion of employees. The weight assigned to employees is designed to reflect the proportion of employee relative to resident demand for a particular facility. Each facility considered in this study uses a different employee weight. Though facilities needs are allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost per employee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g., fee per dwelling unit or fee per square foot of building space. Thus, the final step distributes total facilities costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to accommodate a particular type of development. Recht Halfsrath & Associates 1-4 CHAPTER II NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents estimates of growth anticipated in the City of Dublin during the next 30 years, 1995 through 2025. The amount and cost of new public facilities bears a relationship to the number of new residents and employees resulting from new development because growth contributes to the demand for public services. In this manner, projections of growth provide a basis for estimates in subsequent chapters of the public facilities needed to accommodate that development. The projections presented here for Eastern Dublin are taken from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated January 7, 1994. The plan specified different land uses, expressed in terms of acres and numbers of dwelling units or square feet of commerciaIrmdustrial building space based on allowable development densities. Population and employment projections can then be derived from these estimates of dwelling units and building space. The City also has provided estimates of existing and potential development within the existing areas of Dublin. Although remaining opportunities for growth are limited, inclusion of existing Dublin permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide. Three additional issues must be considered in regard to the development projections: I The public facilities fee program is a financing plan for capital investments that has a life expectancy of at least several decades. This suggests that the time horizon for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City, which in this case is 30 years based on existing land use designations. Given the long time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review the facilities costs and standards, and revise the fee levels accordingly. The City's present intention is that certain areas contiguous to its current boundaries eventually will be assumed within its municipal jurisdiction through periodic annexations. This a normal process for a city in a growing region such as the Tri-Valley area. Eventually, all of the Eastern Dublin planning area will be Recht Hausrath & Associates 11-1 Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter II annexed to the City. The projections assume only that the areas specified on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213) excluding the future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is reviewed in the General Plan Amendmen.t, it is regarded as a future study area with no present plans for annexation. Development potential of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is excluded from the projections used in this report. Although projection of new development is a prerequisite for establishing a public facilities fee program, the exact timing and final amount of that development generally does not have a significant effect on the calculated fee. New and expanded facilities and fee revenues accrue in parallel with the pace of new development. For example, to the extent that these projections overestimate the actual amount of development, fewer public facilities than estimated here will be needed to accommodate that development. Fewer fee revenues will have accrued to the City to fund those facilities as well. Thus, the general relationship between new development and need for facilities remains relatively constant. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS The Tri-Valley region has been one of the fastest growing areas in northern California. One of the last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri- Valley region is a desirable location, particularly due to its position along two major interstate highways. Within the Tri-Valley region, extensive development is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, as this is the next large tract of developable land in the progression of growth eastward along 1-580. Table IT. 1 presents estimates of dwelling units and commerciaIrmdustrial building square feet for 1994, and projects growth to the year 2025. Existing and future development is shown for Eastern Dublin, the remainder of the City, and the two areas combined. The projections are disaggregated in this manner because certain elements of the facilities fee program may apply to only a portion of the City. Recht Hausrath & Associates 11-2 Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter II r-. residences shown in the table has been increased by 443 units to include the Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon projects. The Hansen Ranch project was approved under a development agreement and is not subject to the fee program. The Donlan Canyon project is anticipated to pull building pennits before the fee is effective but occupancy will be after the fee is effective. Residents of the recently approved homes will be users of existing facilities, and are accordingly included in the existing facilities service population. Existing units, including those in Eastern Dublin plus approved homes, brings the total to 8,195 units. The 1994 dwelling unit estimate is from the California Department of Finance. City records show that no significant development occurred during 1994, such that the 1994 figures can be still regarded as current. According to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern Dublin is projected to add 13,836 units. Over half of these are in the single family and medium density categories with average densities ranging from four to ten units per acre. Residences of other densities are planned as well, including 10 acre ranchettes, and high density (35 units per acre) multiple family complexes. Development in the remainder of the City will be limited to 103 units. This figure refers to units not approved as part of the Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon projects mentioned above. Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals 3,563,000 square feet, roughly half of which is retail. This figure is based on a commercial and industrial inventory prepared in 1994. A small amount of employee space associated with County facilities exists in Eastern Dublin, but is excluded for the purposes of the fee analysis The majority of commercial and industrial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9,737,000 square feet are proposed. In the remaining City 692,000 potential square feet remain unbuilt, but the predominant use will be commercial. Not shown in Table II. I are roughly 1.1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses proposed for Eastern Dublin. Most of this applies to proposed Alameda County facilities including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard and animal shelter. Public agencies are exempt from paying development impact fees, thus, the development and the corresponding employment is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement with the County of Alameda Recht Hausrath & Associates 11-4 Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter 11 dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses on property owned by the ~ County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if any of the property is used by governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be subject to the City's land use regulations, which would include the public facilities fee. In the event any such property is proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the City will include such uses and corresponding employment in the fee analysis. POPULATION AND EMPLOY1\iENT Cost of public facilities are allocated to new development on the basis of service population. Calculated separately for each fa~ility, service population is a measure combining residents and employees to recognize that both residential and commercial land uses contribute to the demand for public facilities. As a basis for the service population figures presented for each facility in later chapters, the employment and population projected for Dublin, and Eastern Dublin in particular, are calculated here. The amount of population and employment growth can be estimated using occupant density ....." factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment density is expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Both residential and commercialfmdustrial density factors are listed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are used here for consistency. Occupant densities are summarized in Table ll.2. The numbers shown represent averages across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and include vacanCIes. r Recht Hausrath & Associates 11- Dublin Facilities Fee Sludy Chapler 1J Table II.3 Summary of Resident and Employee Growth Dublin Facilities Fee Study I 1994 Gro~rth 2025 I RESIDENTS Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460 Rest of City 23 .500 2.N 23.730 City Total 23~660 32,530 56,190 EMPLOYEES Eastern Dublin 0 26;200 26;200 Rest of City 1 0.009 1.800 11 ;800 City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000 Source: . City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates DEFINITIONS AND TERMS As used herein. residential land uses are defined as follows: single family shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC); as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units per acre; multiple family shall mean a dwelling unit as defmed in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre. Commercial land uses are defined as those uses of land for facilities for the buying and selling of commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities and services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners;. drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers; hotels/motels; Recht Hausrarh & Associates 1-7 CHAPTER III NEIGHBORHOOD AND COl\1l\1UNITY PA_RKS EXISTING FACILITIES The City of Dublin owns I I parks totaling 165 acres. Of this amount, 79 acres are classified as active parkland, while the remaining 86 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is further categorized as neighborhood parks or community parks. Neighborhood parks are typically five to seven acres and are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation, play and informal recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units. The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood in \""hich it is located. Community parks are typically in excess offive acres and offer a variety of recreational opportunities that attract a \vide range of local age groups and interests. The park improvements are oriented toward facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups. Existing facilities are shown in Table III. I. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement with """'" the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playgrounds to increase the availability of park land. Although the City v,'ould prefer to develop more parks in existing areas, it is constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to achieve its desired standards. The availability of school sites during non-school hours adds another 36 acres to the park availability for a total of I 15 acres of active parkland. The City of Dublin recently completed its Parks and Recreation A1aster Plan to establish policies for parks and community facilites expansions to serve growth. Similarly, the Eastern Dublin Spectfic Plan and the Eastem Dublill General Plall Amendment (GPA) call for development of several parks. These range fi'om neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community parks upwards of 100 acres. Sizes and locations of the parks have been proposed within the GP A and currently total 258.5 acres. The exact amount of park acreage will be determined as Eastern Dublin develops. If less acreage is needed than anticipated, the community park in the northerly section of the planning area may be reduced in size. The land surrounding this park is designated for rural residential, such that a reduction in the park size would not translate into a measurable increase in urban development. Recht Hausrath & Associali.!s lII-J Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter III Table ID.I Existing Parks Dublin Facilities Fee Study jpark Acreage I Community Parks Dougherty Hills* 4.00 Dublin Sports Grounds / Civic Center 35.00 Dublin Swim Center 3.00 Heritage Center 5.00 Senior Center 0.25 Shannon Park 10.00 Total 57.25 Neighborhood Parks Alamo Creek 8.00 Dolan Park 5.00 Kolb Park 5.00 Mape Park 3.00 Stagecoach Park 0.75 Total 21.75 School/Park Facilities Dublin Elementary 9 Dublin High School 4 Fredriksen Elementary 4 Murray Elementary 7 Nielsen Elementary 6 Wells Middle School .Q Total 36 Total Existing Parks 115 Includes only developable acreage for active park use. Source: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Recht Hausrath & Associates 111-2 DlIb/jIJ Faci/hies Fee ,r..;'llUY Chapfer III FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated park land standard to be applied to new development. The City further regards the Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas. Compared with the existing population of 23,660 residents, including the 160 existing residents of Eastern Dublin, the existing park ratio is 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. (A.lthough the adopted standard is 5.0 acres per 1,000 population, the actual current ratio is slightly less due to two factors: (a) the discrepancy between actual numbers of residents and the projected numbers under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, Dlfblin1l1lfnh.:ipal Code ChapleT' Y.28, and (b) the inclusion of two projects, Donlan Canyon and Hansen Ranch, in the current population which have paid in-lieu fees rather than donating land.) Over time the City expects to acquire additional park land beyond what is necessary for new development to bring the inventory of parks associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Costs to resolve the existing deficiency are addressed in Appendix A. Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The overall 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City (?f Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Table IIL2 shows the new development demand for neighborhood and community parks. Only Eastern Dublin's projected population is applied to neighborhood parks, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the City. Given the local service area of neighborhood parks, the need is best considered by subarea, rather than on a citywide basis. For Eastern Dublin the neighborhood park demand is estimated at 48.5 acres. Community parks, on the other hand, serve the entire City due to their size and amenities. Accordingly, citywide growth indicates a total need of 113.9 community park acres. Fee calculations later in this report follow a similar division. The costs for neighborhood parks calculated in this report apply to Eastern Dublin only, but the community park fee may be charged citywide. For a further description of the facility standards for neighborhood and community parks, refer to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Resident population is used to determine the required park acreage, consistent with the standards legislated under the Quimby Act. The benefit of community parks, however, also extends to the employee population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of Recht Hausrath & Associates 111-3 I CHA.PTER 1\1 C01\1l\1UNIT\! AND RECREATION FA.CILITIES EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES The City of Dublin currently operates three community facilities: a community center, a senior center and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of the City. As the City grO\>./s in size, it plans to add five more facilities. These include another community center, a recreation center, a community theater. another aquatic center and a senior center to replace the existing Table IV.l Existing and Proposed Community and Recreation Facilities Dublin Facilities Fee Study I Building ISquareFeet Existing Facilities Community Center 12,178 Senior Center 6,600 Aquatic Center -NA- Total 1 8,778 Proposed Facilities Community Center 28,000 Recreation Center 35,000 Community Theater 16,000 Senior Center (] ) 5,400 Aquatic Center -NA- Total 84,400 Build-out Total 103,178 1 ) Existing senior center is to be replaced with the propllseJ new lilcility to!UJing 12.000 square leet. Space shown is net aJJilioll. Source: Cil\' of Duhlin I'ark and gecrelllio/1 Mas/a 1'/al1. Recht Hallsrath & Associates IV-] Dllh/in Foci/illt'S Fee .\'llldr hapler IV one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased surplus school building. Eventually the lease will be allov.'ed to e:-;pire, and the senior center will be moved to a nev,', larger '-...af building owned by the City. For a further description of these facilities, refer to the Parks and Recreation A1asler Flal1. Building space is summarized in the top ponion of Table IV. I. Together, the existing community and senior center buildings total 18,778 square feet of building space, excluding the aquatic center. Proposed facilities are shov-m in the bottom portion of the table. To reflect the replacement of the existing senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior center. The proposed senior center is planned to be 12,000 square feet in size, or 5,400 square feet more than the existing facility it is to replace. Excluding the aquatic centers, community buildings cityv.'ide are proposed to total J 03. J 78 square feet by build-out. FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS Cost calculations for community buildings and the aquatic center are handled separately. A citY\l,'ide perspective is taken for allocation of community buildings costs to new development. Activities taking place at a particular building can benefit residents and employees citY"v'ide, ~ regardless of the specific location of their place of residence or employment. On the other hand, like the neighborhood parks discussed in the previous chapter, the new aquatic center's area of benefit is assumed to be Eastern Dublin only. The service population for community centers is calculated to equal residents plus 5 percent of employees. Recht Hausrath & Associates has found in other cities that it is not uncommon for local businesses to make use of community buildings for business gathering as well as company recreation events. No local survey data was available to determine employee use by businesses, however. Accordingly, a conservative employee allocation is used here. Table IV2 shows service population for the existing city growth from new development and build-out. New development is further separated into Eastern Dublin and the remainder of the City. As noted, community buildings serve residents and employees citywide, whereas the new aquatic center will be of benefit to Eastern Dublin only. Recht HaTfsrath (\. Associales IV-2 DIIh/ill Foci/iliC!.\' Fcl.! .\'11/((1"hopler /1' Table IV.2 Community Centers Service Population Dublin Facilities Fee Study Service Residents Employees Population( I ) Existing 23,660 10,000 24,200 New Development Eastern Dublin 32,300 26,200 33,600 Remainder of City 230 1,800 300 Total 32,530 28,000 33,900 Build-out Total 56,190 38,000 58,1 00 1) Community Ce'nters seT\'i~e' populution e'quals resit.lo:nts plus 5%. of e'mplo~'e'e's. Source: Cit\, of Duhlin: R('cht Hausnnh & Associates Table IV.3 details the calculations of community buildings service standard and demand for facilities allocated to new development. For the purposes of cost calculations the community buildings are combined. Preliminary construction costs per square foot are projected to be the same for the theater, community, recreation, and senior centers. Therefore, facilities costs can be allocated to new development without considering the service standard for each facility type separately. Once the Parks and Recreal;oll lvfasler Nan is implemented, the City will have constructed community buildings totaling to 84.400 square feet, net of the existing senior center. Including existing buildings, community facilities will total 103,178 square feet as shown in the top half of Table IV.3. Compared with the cityvvide projected service population of 58, J 00 persons, the facility standard is estimated to be 1.78 square feet per person by build-out. Facility requirements to serve growth are shown in the bottom half of Table IV.3. Applying the build-out service standard to the 33,900- person service population growth indicates a demand for 60,300 square feet of community building space arising from new development. Recht Halfsrath & A.\:mc;;alCs IV-3 1 )lIh/iIJ Fuci!ll/es Fee Slilt/\'hap/a II' Table IV.4 Community and Recreation Facilities Costs to Serve Growth Dublin Facilities Fee Study Community Buildings Cost Requirement to Serve Gro\vth Cost per Square Foot Facilities Cost 60,3 00 100 12,060,000 Aquatic Center Cost 2, 100,000 Tot:ll F:lcilities Cost 14,160,000 I) Clll1l1111ll1ity C~nl~rs s~ryicl' pllpuhJlillll l.:l]uals rl.:SiUl.:llls plus 5'1.. or l.:l1lploYI::t:S. SOllrl'(': (,il\ of Dublin; Recht H;Jusrath & Associates COST ALLOCATION Table IV5 allocates the cost impacts for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and employees. The community buildings cost of $12.06 million allocated to new residents equals 356 per person, based on the citywide growth in service population. In calculating service population for community centers, residents are weighted at 100 percent and employees are weighted at 5 percent to reflect tbe use of community facilities by persons employed locally. The cost per employee i? $18. The aquatic center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total 2.1 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin service population growth of33,600, this equals a per resident cost of $63, and a per employee cost of $3. Recht Hallsrath & Ass{)(;ia/r.!s n'-5 CHAPTER '111 CALCULi\. TION OF FEES AND PROGRAl\1 Il\1PLEl\1ENT A TION Chapter III through Chapter VI described public facilities owned by the City of Dublin, the requirements to serve growth, and nev-.' facilities costs. Each chapter also established a service population measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and employees. Costs of facilities were then allocated to new development on the basis of service population. These costs, in turn, form the basis for the public facilities fees subject to adoption by the Dublin City Council. This chapter revie\\'s facilities costs to accommodate growth, summarizes per resident and per employee costs, and calculates the public facilities fees on new development necessary to fully fund those costs. SUl\fl\IARY OF COSTS Table VII. 1 summarizes the cost of facilities to serve grov..rth. The costs are further divided into two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks, community buildings, libraries and the civic center, are regarded as expansions of citywide systems which benefit both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be applied to new development, whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood parks and the Eastern Dublin aquatic center are designed to serve growth in that area only. Since these facilities have a local area of benefit, their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only. Costs allocated cityvvide are estimated to total $60.5 million. These amount to $1,666 per resident and $228 per employee. Specific to Eastern Dublin, neighborhood park and aquatic center costs total $24.3 million. Corresponding allocations are $751 per resident and $3 per employee, and would be added to the cityv..'ide costs. Employees are allocated only a small portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks, explaining the small per employee cost for Eastern Dublin only. Recht Hausrath & Associates JI7J - J Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter VII bring the fees to $7,735 and $4,834 for the respective unit types. New reside.ntial development in the existing City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations, though these would be done separately under the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of chapter). Commercial/industrial facilities fees would be proportional to occupant density, with industrial the lowest and office the highest. Cityvvide, facilities fees per 1,000 sqilllre feet range from $387 for industrial to $877 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a small portion of the proposed aquatic center, bringing the range of impacts for this part of the City to $392 to $889 per ltOOO square feet for commercial/industrial uses. The potential fee revenues from new development would total $84.901 million. Total facilities costs allocated to new development are $84.846 million. The small difference ($55,000) between the projected revenues and the costs Vlrill be used to offset the cost of the justification studies and the administrative guidelines, and staff time devoted to fee collection. Further, the exact amount of fees collected will depend on the exact amount of park land dedicated as opposed to acquired through dedication. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts, development 'trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing needs. TIle actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facmty costs and accounting for fee revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance regarding ongoing operation of the program. The guidelines would assist in maintaining consistent standards regardless of City personnel turnover or updates to the fee program. Recht Hausrath & Associates VII-3 Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapler VI! The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building pemlit issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential development. Once the. City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities ~ addressed, the fees \\i11 be collected at the time of building permit. Fees will only be collected on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow more intense use of the property than its land use designation at the time of payment of any previous fees. Fee revenues for each type of facility ,vill be collected in a separate trust account, and interest earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be transferred from that account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance the facilities required to serve new development. The City anticipates using its five-year capital improvement program to indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public facilities fees. For those funds unexpended or uncommitted after five years, the City should demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, otherwise the City shall return the fees to the current OVirn.ers at the time of refund (Government Code Section 60001 (4) (e)). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILmES FEE PROGRAM AND QUIl\1BY ORDINANCE As discussed in Chapter III (page m.6), the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28) based on the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding dedication of park land by new development. The ordinance's provisions are applicable only when land is subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land owner to either dedicate land for park services or pay an in-lieu fee instead. The amount of land dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population of the proposed development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population. The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with the existing Quimby Act ordinance. '\Vhile Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development process, when ~uilding permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been Recht Hausrath & Associates VJJ-4 DubJ;n Facilities Fee STudy ChapTer 1-71 charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to deduct the park land component fr6m the total public facilities fee shov.'Il in Table Vll-2. This deduction to the public fac,ilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see Table VII-2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the foroler and not the latter. For development of Eastern Dublin, the Quimby deduction would equal the sum of the community and neighborhood park land fees. In the remainder of the City, the deduction would equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhood park fee is not applied outside of Eastem Dublin. Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees Or dedicate land. Three scenarios are shovm Table VII.2 for a single family residence. The first two scenarios pertain to Eastern Dublin. In the first, the developer elects to dedicate land for all park acreage, and OnI)1 pays fees for the park development costs. In the second scenario, the developer does not dedicate land, but pays the in-lieu fee. The third scenario would apply to the existing portions of the City. Here, the City's Quimby Act ordinance would apply to the neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either dedicate land or pay the in-lieu fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only for community parks. Table Vll.3 shows sample fee calculations for single and multiple family residences in Easte11l Dublin and the infilI areas. 'When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are added together to arrive a.t the total charges. Ifland has been or will be dedicated, the value of the land dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that neighborhood parks in-lieu fees levied under the Quimby Act apply only to the infill areas. Thus, in calculating the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the neighborhood park component is excluded for infilI areas. Recht Hausrath & Associates T;71-S APPENDIX A EXISTING DEFICIENCIES INTRODlJCTION Calculation of public facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards. State statutes governing public facilities fees (Govemll7e/J1 CoJe Section 66000 et seq.) and related case law require that fees be based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facillities built benefit both. For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge nev-,/ development for a standard higher than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the same levels, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency. Otherwise, the City would effectively shift funding of an existing deficiency to new development paying the fees. This appendix identifies the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this report. Three areas offacilities will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings and library space. Library volumes per person is currently above the anticipated standard, and the civic center is adequate to support existing municipal activities with minor improvements. To maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies and fund these costs from sources other than exactions, including fees, imposed on new development. Typically, the share of facilities costs associated with erasing deficiencies are funded out of general revenues or other sources dedicated to capital improvements. Where large projects are concerned, these are often financed through revenue bonds or certificates of particiation. Recht Halfsrath & Associates A-I Attachment 2 WDTIF O'Ska la�yd Silver4ate Dr Complete Streets Improvements Intersection Improvements Dublin Blvd 0 Dublin Blvd & Amador Plaza Rd Amador Plaza Rd 0 Dublin Blvd & Golden Gate Dr Village Pkwy (}y Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd 0 Dublin Blvd 8& Village Pkwy 684 � adpe �ajte� 6�y`� 0 a O �yd w Roadway Extension 5t. Patrick Way WDTIF Area G. g� A� 4 �r U Attachment 3 cr r 7 4 D L8il Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Project Locations Attachment 4: Category Unit PM Pk Hr Trip Rate MXD+ Adjustmen t Pass-by Adjustment Adjusted PM Pk Hr Trip Rate Fee per PM Pk Hr Trip Fee per Unit Daily Trip Rate*Fee per Unit RESIDENTIAL: Single-Family Residential DU 1.00 -23%0 0.77 $5,154 $3,969 10 $2,668 Medium Density Residential DU 0.62 -23%0 0.48 $5,154 $2,461 7 $1,869 High Density Residential DU 0.52 -23%0 0.40 $5,154 $2,064 6 $1,600 HOTEL:Room 0.60 -23%0 0.46 $5,154 $2,381 10 $2,660 OFFICE: General Office KSF 1.49 -23%0 1.15 $5,154 $5,913 20 $5,320 RECREATION: Recreation Community Center KSF 2.74 -23%0 2.11 $5,154 $10,874 26 $6,916 Health Club KSF 3.53 -23%0 2.72 $5,154 $14,009 40 $10,640 Bowling Center KSF 1.71 -23%0 1.32 $5,154 $6,786 33 $8,778 Golf Course Acre 0.30 -23%0 0.23 $5,154 $1,191 8 $2,128 Tennis Courts Court 3.88 -23%0 2.99 $5,154 $15,399 33 $8,778 Movie Theater (multi-plex)Screen 13.64 -23%-35%6.83 $5,154 $35,186 220 $58,520 Theater, Live Seat 0.02 -23%0 0.02 $5,154 $79 0.2 $53 EDUCATION: Private School (K-8)Student 0.60 -23%0 0.46 $5,154 $2,381 1.5 $399 HOSPITAL: General Hospital Bed 1.42 -23%0 1.09 $5,154 $5,636 12 $3,192 Convalescent/Nursing Bed 0.22 -23%0 0.17 $5,154 $873 3 $798 CHURCH:KSF 0.55 -23%0 0.42 $5,154 $2,183 9 $2,394 INDUSTRIAL: Light Industrial KSF 0.97 -23%0 0.75 $5,154 $3,850 16 $4,256 RESTAURANT: Quality (leisure)KSF 7.49 -23%-35%3.75 $5,154 $19,322 65 $17,290 Sit-down, high-turnover KSF 9.85 -23%-35%4.93 $5,154 $25,410 104 $27,664 Fast food, no drive-through KSF 26.15 -23%-35%13.09 $5,154 $67,458 285 $75,810 Fast food, with drive-through KSF 32.65 -23%-35%16.34 $5,154 $84,226 465 $123,690 Coffee shop, with drive-through KSF 42.80 -23%-35%21.42 $5,154 $110,409 532 $141,512 AUTOMOTIVE: Car Wash (automatic)Site -23%-35%0.00 $5,154 $0 585 $155,610 Gas station Pump 13.87 -23%-35%6.94 $5,154 $35,780 97 $25,802 Auto sales/parts KSF 2.62 -23%-35%1.31 $5,154 $6,759 48 $12,768 Auto repair center KSF 3.11 -23%0 2.39 $5,154 $12,343 20 $5,320 FINANCIAL: Bank/savings and loan KSF 12.13 -23%0 9.34 $5,154 $48,140 130 $34,580 RETAIL: Community shopping center KSF 3.71 -23%-35%1.86 $5,154 $9,571 46 $12,236 Supermarket KSF 9.48 -23%-35%4.74 $5,154 $24,455 98 $26,068 Convenience market KSF 52.41 -23%-35%26.23 $5,154 $135,200 325 $86,450 Discount store KSF 4.98 -23%-35%2.49 $5,154 $12,847 46 $12,236 Pharmacy with Drive-Through KSF 9.91 -23%-35%4.96 $5,154 $25,564 63 $16,758 Updated DTIF Calculations Current DTIF Rates Example DTIF Fee Calculations by Land Use Category ATTACHMENT 5 Response to January 19, 2016 Letter from Bill Speir of the law firm Miller Starr Regalia opposing the Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF) This responds to various concerns raised in the January 19, 2016 letter from Bill Speir of the law firm Miller Starr Regalia to the City Council opposing the Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF). The letter indicates that “we” oppose the adoption of the proposed WDTIF and maintain that the fees do not comport with the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”) and federal and state constitutions. Mr. Speir’s letter does not identify a client that he or the firm is representing. It was accompanied by a letter from Stephen Abrams to Mr. Speir, dated January 18, 2016 (“the Abrams Report”), to which the City has prepared a separate response. The letter generally states that the WDTIF Fee Update does not meet the requirements of the Act because: (a) the City has failed to demonstrate the nexus or reasonable relationship between the fee’s use (i.e. public improvements identified in the study) and new development in the area; (b) the City has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the proposed public improvements and new development in the area; and (c) the fee amounts exceed the cost of new development’s proportionate share of the proposed improvements. The City’s review of the letter and the Abrams Report on which it relies reveals that the letter writer failed to account for various key analytical and technical features of the Fee Update. Background The Act authorizes public agencies to impose fees on development projects to defray some or all of the costs of public improvements related to those projects (Gov. Code § 66000 et seq.). The Act requires an agency imposing a development fee to make the following findings: (1) identify the purpose of the fee; (2) identify the use of the fee, meaning what use the fee will be put to, including what public improvements will be financed by the fee; (3) determine whether a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and (4) determine whether a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the use or public facility, and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed. (Gov. Code § 66001(a)(1).) An agency imposing a fee must also determine that a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee imposed and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (i.e. fee amount does not exceed the reasonable cost of the project’s proportionate share of the proposed facilities) (Gov. Code § 66001(b)). As noted in the Introduction of the WDTIF, the City has adopted a policy of creating a transportation system that “promotes transportation options, and independent mobility, minimizes impacts to climate change from vehicle emissions, and supports greater social interaction and community identity” over the past eleven years. This policy is evinced and implemented through various plans and projects such as the City’s General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), the City’s Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), and the Western Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Each of these contributes to the establishment of a multimodal transportation system in the City. A comprehensive transportation system that increases access and mobility for vehicles, public transit, bicycles and walking, requires the construction of transportation improvements to support all of these modes of travel. The capital improvement projects under this system differ from those of past transportation fee programs in that pedestrian and bicycle related improvements are equally prioritized with traditional roadway improvements. These new types of capital improvements are integral to accommodating and mitigating the various modes of traffic generated by new development. The improvements funded by the WDTIF are necessary to accommodate development in the WDTIF area. The DDSP and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan all acknowledge the need to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to accommodate all modes of travel as the DDSP area transition to a medium-density, mixed use downtown area (See General Plan section 5.2.2, policy A.6, section 5.2.5; DDSP, Sections 5.1, 5.2.). This need is created by additional vitality created by mixed- use development in the area that will surround a BART station. The following is the City’s response to the items raised in the letter. City’s Response to: “2. There is no demonstrated nexus or reasonable relationship between the need for these improvements and growth in Western Dublin.” The letter writer asserts that the improvements are predominantly bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements and related roadway beautification and have the effect of reducing the flow of traffic. The letter writer then asserts that the improvements are not made necessary by growth. The City’s General Plan, DDSP and BPMP, establish a reasonable relationship between the need for the proposed projects and the projected development and growth in Western Dublin. The City’s General Plan, DDSP and BPMP, establish development standards in the WDTIF area that support high-density, pedestrian-friendly, and transit- oriented development. The projected development necessitates the construction of improvements that create a comprehensive transportation system to accommodate all modes of transit, including bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit. As noted in the letter, these projects correspond with those previously identified in the BPMP. The BPMP establishes the City’s overall bicycle and pedestrian traffic network. The proposed projects in the BPMP included in the WDTIF are specifically tailored to create a bicycle and pedestrian traffic network in West Dublin that is consistent with new land uses thereby establishing a nexus between the proposed projects and the new development in the area. These projects also provide a consistent and complete bicycle and pedestrian network which is necessary in creating a safer biking and walking environment. BPMP has provided a detailed discussion in Chapter 5 (page 81) on how critical it is to maintain the network integrity. It also discusses one of the key criteria - Comfort and Level of Stress for the bicyclists of all ages – which is imperative in maintaining a safer bike network. DDSP went further to explain how the City is going beyond the practices and standards outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual’s (HDM) Chapter 1000 standards on bicycle infrastructure to maintain and enhance the safety for all users of the system. On page 81, DDSP discusses the creation of expanded classification of a bikeway called Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB), which did not exist in the Caltrans HDM. This type of bikeway provides increased safety for bicyclists riding in a bike lane. Additionally, the DDSP included Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines which are also a significant improvement on commonly used standards in other jurisdictions and/or the HDM’s standards for bicycle infrastructure. For example, the City has established a minimum recommended sidewalk width (page 4 to 39 - Design Guidelines) and turning radii at intersections, as well as a new type of crosswalk markings that are geared towards enhancing pedestrian safety. Similarly, the DDSP (Design Guidelines page 53) has recommended the bike lane width to be a minimum of 6 feet which is more than the HDM standard width of 5 feet on streets with gutter pan and 4 feet without a gutter pan. Contrary to the letter writer’s contention, the proposed St. Patrick Way Extension project is reasonably related to the projected land use growth in Western Dublin. The St. Patrick extension will serve as the alternate route to Dublin Blvd and will provide access to Regional Street and properties beyond up to San Ramon Road. Also, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies St. Patrick Way as the key link in the Downtown Connectivity Project’s regional east-west bicycle access, as it would provide Class IIA bicycle lanes that cannot be accommodated on Dublin Boulevard (See BPMP, p. 129). The projects in the “Downtown Connectivity” work in tandem to ensure connectivity and bicycle network integrity. City’s Response to: “3. The WDTIF Report is based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed.” The letter writer argues that the Fee Update fails to demonstrate that the proposed bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements are not necessary to serve existing development, as is required by Government Code section 66001(g). The letter writer is of course correct that development cannot be required to fund existing deficiencies. The Fee Update includes an analysis of the existing conditions using the most recent information regarding existing traffic conditions in Western Dublin. The analysis indicates that the most recently available data, from the 2011 DDSP EIR, indicates that all of the intersections are operating at LOS D. The Fee Update therefore concludes that “this level of operation met the City’s standards prior to the adoption of the DDSP, thus indicating that these locations were not deficient at the time the City changed its policy.” Contrary to what the commenter stated, the City used the most current LOS analysis; it is important to note that the 2014 DDSP amendment did not conduct an LOS analysis. The City has revised the Fee Update to better explain existing conditions relative to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The revisions note the conclusions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that the California Office of Traffic Safety data indicates that the City’s bicycle and pedestrian safety collision data is better than average within its cohort (p. 48). Therefore, the revised Fee Update concludes that the there is no indication that there are any existing deficiencies related to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The letter writer’s unsubstantiated assertion that the bicycle and pedestrian projects are identified in “other City reports” as “currently needed” is wrong. Presumably, the letter writer refers to the City General Plan, DDSP, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. These plans highlight the needs for future conditions, and none of them identify any of the improvements as being currently needed based on existing conditions. The letter writer also asserts in this section—with respect to the Amador Plaza Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements—that it is inappropriate to require new development to fund the replacement of street trees that have reached the end of their useful life. While the City would agree with that principle, it is not the case that the improvement will fund street tree replacement. The letter writer is correct that there are approximately 55 trees that the BPMP indicates “appear” to have reached their end of life. Nowhere, however, do either the BPMP or the Fee Update indicate that those improvements will include replacement of existing trees that have reached the end of their life. The improvements may necessitate the removal of such trees if necessary to accommodate the project. City’s Response to: “4. The proposed revisions to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Fee will not meet the City’s stated purpose of mitigating traffic impacts of new development.” This item once again ignores key technical and analytical features of the Fee Update which lead to the letter writer’s divergent understanding of the Fee Update. As stated above and in the response to the Abrams Report, the City’s comprehensive transportation system consists of various modes of transportation that create a multimodal network of options. This transportation system and the land uses in West Dublin will generally result in an overall decrease in the volume of vehicular trips generated by new development (i.e., lower impact on vehicular traffic), while likely increasing the use of alternative transportation modes (i.e., increased impact on public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic). The City’s stated purpose under the West Dublin TIF is to mitigate and accommodate the impacts of new development on transportation facilities which can be accomplished by a wide array of methods beyond those traditionally seen in vehicle-centric transportation systems that generally only focus on reducing vehicular congestion. City’s Response to: “5. The proposed new fee is grossly excessive.” The assertions in this section are addressed in the City’s response to the Abrams Report. Response to January 18, 2016 Abrams Associates Review of West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update This responds to various concerns raised about the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update (“the Fee Update”) raised in the letter from Stephen Abrams to Bill Speir, dated January 18, 2016, that was transmitted to the City on January 19, 2016. The response tracks the letter’s numbering and headings. “(1) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is grossly underestimated and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the [Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR)].” The commenter’s conclusion is incorrect. The discrepancy pointed out by the commenter reflects the fact that the City used different approaches to evaluating trip generation in the DDSP EIR and the Fee Update. Consistent with typical CEQA practice and in the interests of presenting a conservative analysis that would capture all potential significant impacts, the DDSP EIR applied typical ITE trip generation assumptions. By contrast, at pages 9-11, the Fee Update carefully explains its use of the MXD+ technique, which is used to more accurately estimate trip generation from mixed-use development like that in Downtown Dublin. As the Fee Update notes, the more typically used ITE trip generation standards are “primarily based on data collected at single-use, freestanding sites located in suburban areas with very little accessibility by transit, bicycling or walking.” The MXD+ technique is used to adjust for the fact that Downtown Dublin is transitioning to a medium-density, mixed use area with access to transit surrounding a BART station. The City believes that this technique, which is described in the Fee Update and is reflected in the fee schedule (see Exhibit H to the proposed Fee Resolution), accurately estimates impacts from anticipated development in the Western Dublin TIF area. Note that the fee schedule details the MXD+ adjustment and pass-by adjustment used for various types of land uses In any event, the ultimate conclusion of the commenter that the differences in trip generation rates results in an “overstated” fee is incorrect. The rates shown in the Fee Update will be used consistently throughout the fee program, both in the calculation of the “per trip fee” and in the application of that fee to individual development projects when they obtain building permits. To better understand the logic of this approach, consider the repercussions of an alternate scenario: Say that the per trip fee had been calculated using the typical ITE trip generation rates used in the DDSP EIR, without any accounting for the trip-reducing effects of having mixed-use development occurring in a transit-served area in proximity to a BART station. In that case, the total number of trips estimated to be generated in the WDTIF area would be larger, so the per-trip fee would be lower. Then, when a development project submits an application, the traffic study conducted as part of that application would almost certainly conclude that the project’s trip generation is lower than typical ITE rates would indicate, because the project is located in a pedestrian-friendly downtown area with good transit accessibility. If the City were to accept that conclusion, the fee paid by that project would be based on its reduced number of trips and thus would be lower than the nexus study anticipated for a project of that size. Over time the City would find itself in a situation where the fee revenue generated by the program would fall short of the nexus study’s projections. The only way to avoid this outcome is to ensure that the trip generation assumptions used in calculating the per-trip fee are consistent with those that will be used to calculate the actual fee charged to each individual development project. The Fee Update is set up in that way. “(2) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparable forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data.” As was noted in the previous response, the Fee Update uses the MXD+ technique to adjust for the specific type of mixed use development anticipated in the WDTIF area. The City agrees with the commenter that the trip generation analysis uses more site specific (i.e. Downtown) approach than simply applying ITE standards, and it explains in detail why the City has chosen to use a different trip generation analysis. The commenter has not offered any reasoning for why it believes that it is inappropriate to use the MXD+ under the specific circumstances in the WDTIF area. “(3) Based on a comparison to the ITE forecasts it appears that the WDTIF calculations erroneously assumed the future employment growth would consist entirely of office jobs with little or no retail employment growth.” The commenter concludes that the Fee Update assumed that all future employment growth would come from office jobs. The City is unclear of the logic that led to this conclusion, but it seems to be based on an erroneous assumption that a 35% pass-by reduction was applied to all traffic associated with employment growth. As the Fee Update shows in Table 7 and the fee schedule (Exhibit H to the Proposed Resolution) makes clear, the 35% pass-by trip reduction is to be applied only to those land uses where it is appropriate to do so (i.e., retail uses). “(4) Based on an analysis of the growth projections contained in the WDTIF Final Report approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.” The commenter has prepared his own analysis of the trip generation from within and without the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area to challenge the Fee Update’s conclusion that it is appropriate to apply the MXD+ reduction to the entire WDTIF area because “almost all” of the anticipated development is within the DDSP area. The commenter continues to make the erroneous assumptions that the pass-by reduction would be applied to all commercial land uses and that commercial development would consist entirely of office uses. More fundamentally, though, the commenter mistakenly inflated the trip generation assumed to occur outside the DDSP area by failing to include Transportation Analysis Zone 1502 in the DDSP category. Roughly half of the geographic area covered by TAZ 1502, including all of its development potential, is contained within the DDSP. So, even if one were to use the erroneous assumptions used by the commenter, the result would show that 89% of the new trips would be from inside the DDSP area. To address this topic more accurately than presented by the commenter, a row has been added to Table B-1 in the Fee Update to show the amount of growth occurring specifically in the DDSP area, which makes up over 90% of the total amount of growth throughout the entire WDTIF area. “(5) An evaluation of the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP EIR proves that the WDTIF Final Report used erroneous assumptions resulting in substantially lower forecasts of traffic growth than the DDSP EIR.” In this comment, the commenter is attempting to combine disparate information from two different sources. The commenter takes the forecasted traffic volumes at specific intersections from the DDSP EIR and applies the WDTIF responsibility percentages from Table 5 of the Fee Update to those volumes, and notes that the results exceed the total number of trips associated with WDTIF. Based on this, he asserts that the Fee Update overestimates WDTIF’s responsibility for various improvements. The WDTIF percentage responsibility shown in Table 5 is not intended to specify the number of vehicles at specific locations, but rather it is intended to show the relative proportions of vehicles coming from different geographic areas. In the case of this fee study (and as described on page 13 of the Fee Update), the question is what proportion of the usage of each project comes from within the WDTIF area, versus coming from outside the area. The WDTIF encompasses a large geographic area and most of the WDTIF projects are located near the center of that area, so it is not surprising that the majority of the project usage would come from travelers who live, work, shop, or otherwise accomplish some of their daily activities in the WDTIF area. As shown in Table 5, the WDTIF percent for the project on Village Parkway is the lowest of the group, while the percentages for Amador Plaza Road and St Patrick Way are much higher. Again, this makes sense given that Village Parkway leads directly into San Ramon and thus will have greater levels of usage by travelers from outside the WDTIF area, while Amador Plaza Road and St Patrick Way predominantly serve local travel inside the WDTIF area. Thus, the percentage responsibility shown in Table 5 is reasonable in light of the intended purpose of these figures. “(6) The WDTIF Report does not demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and developments on which the fee would be imposed.” The commenter argues that because of the elimination of the intersection level of service standard the City cannot demonstrate the new development creates the need for the improvements funded by the WDTIF. The General Plan, DDSP and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan all acknowledge the need to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity in order to accommodate all modes of travel to support the DDSP area’s transition to a medium-density, mixed use downtown area. (See General Plan section 5.2.2, policy A.6, section 5.2.5; DDSP, Sections 5.1, 5.2) The Fee Update has been revised to more clearly reflect the relationship between the City’s policies and plans and the WDTIF projects, as well as the relationships of these projects to improving multi-modal connectivity through the DDSP area. Contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, there are no existing traffic models that could be used to allocate project costs based on development’s bicycle and pedestrian demand. Finally, the author’s reference to the reduction in travel speeds during peak hours for transit is incorrect. The City applies transit priority at traffic signals and transit queue jump to allow buses to move through intersections more efficiently, which would not be reflected in the 2010 HCM arterial LOS methodology relied upon by the commenter. “(7) An evaluation of the future operations for several key WDTIF projects indicates there is no evidence that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved while there is extensive evidence that transit speeds could be significantly impacted by the implementation of the proposed WDTIF projects.” As noted above, the Fee Update has been revised to include a more detailed discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements arising from the proposed improvements. The topic of transit speeds is discussed in the response to comment (6) above; the City applies a variety of strategies (such as transit signal priority) to allow buses to move through intersections efficiently and those strategies are not reflected in the commenter’s analysis. The commenter’s evaluation of future operations is based on the DDSP EIR. The comments seem primarily focused on the impacts associated with delay and driver frustration accompanying it. The assertion that delay and driver frustration will endanger bicyclists and pedestrians is not supported by the data. Research has consistently demonstrated that as vehicle speeds increase, the frequency and severity of collisions also increase, and that reducing speeds through better integration of all modes of transportation access is a key element of improving safety outcomes. (An example of research on this topic can be found at: http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_a nd_car_occupants_richards.pdf) Even if the commenter’s analysis were true, it would not change the fact that the City has made a policy decision to eliminate the LOS standard within the DDSP area in order to encourage the move toward a medium- density, mixed use development centered around the BART station. This necessitates the creation of a transportation network that balances all modes of travel, rather than solely focusing on vehicle travel, in order to accommodate development in the DDSP. “(8) The inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements appears to violate the requirements of AB 1600. There is no reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area.” Contrary to what the commenter asserts, the City used the most current LOS analysis from the 2011 DDSP EIR. It is important to note that the 2014 DDSP did not conduct an LOS analysis, so the 2011 analysis is the most recent. As the commenter notes, the issues raised in this comment had been previously addressed. See response to comment (1) and comment (6). The commenter’s suggestion that California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records information demonstrates that there are existing deficiencies surrounding bicycle and pedestrian safety is incorrect. Significant additional analysis would be required to attribute the cause of any particular accident to specific deficiencies in the existing transportation network. In fact, as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan discusses at pages 45-48, the City ranks better than the statewide average for cities of similar sizes in terms of the number of pedestrian-auto and bicycle-auto collisions. Thus, the evaluation of existing conditions (which has been updated in the Fee Update) does not suggest that there are existing deficiencies in terms of bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety outcomes. “(9) Some of the projects selected for inclusion in the WDTIF, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would clearly serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily be required by adjacent developments.” The commenter is incorrect that St. Patrick Way will serve only the immediate surrounding area. The St. Patrick extension will serve as the alternate route to Dublin Blvd and will provide access to Regional Street and properties beyond up to San Ramon Road. Also, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies St. Patrick Way as the key link in the Downtown Connectivity Project’s regional east-west bicycle access, as it would provide Class IIA bicycle lanes that cannot be accommodated on Dublin Boulevard (See BPMP, p. 129). The projects in the “Downtown Connectivity” work in tandem to improve connectivity and integrity of the entire downtown bicycle network. MILLER 5TARR REGALIA February 16, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable David Flaubert, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 George B. Speir bill.speir @msrlegal.com Re: Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee February 16, 2016 City Council Agenda item 6.1 Dear Mayor Haubert and Members of the Council: T 925 935 9400 F 925 933 4126 www.msrlegal.com This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed update of the City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting as Agenda item 6.1. We have reviewed the staff report and proposed resolution prepared for the adoption for the proposed update and renaming of the fee the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee ( "WDTIF "). We have also reviewed the documents referenced in the proposed resolution, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update: Final Report, dated October, 2015 and a similar report dated February, 2016 ( "WDTIF Report"), prepared by the firm of Fehr & Peers. We have retained Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering to review the WDTIF Report, the related documents, and perform whatever additional analysis is necessary in order to comment on the proposed WDTIF. We submitted written objections to the proposed WDTIF based on the October 2015 WDTIF Report when it was on the Council's January 19, 2016 agenda. As a result of our comments, and the related comments by Abrams Associates, the hearing was postponed until February 16, 2016. Although minor changes have been made to the narrative portions of the WDTIF Report, none of the substantive flaws in the calculation of the fee have been addressed. As a result, the fee continues to fail to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq., sometimes called "AB 1600 "), and the due process, equal protection, and takings provisions of the United States and California Constitutions. Rather than repeat the critique of the proposed WDTIF submitted previously, we hereby incorporate our letter of January 19, 2016 and the Abrams Associates letter SRAH1530521992887.1 Offices: Walnut Creek ! San Francisco 1 Newport Beach The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 2 of January 18, 2016 objecting to this proposed fee. Copies of those letters are attached. The purpose of this letter, and the accompanying Abrams letter dated February 16, 2016 is to respond to comments made in response to our prior letters and the changes made to the WDTIF report, and identify continuing deficiencies in the City's analysis. As proposed, the City cannot validly make the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act, or under the United States and California Constitutions to justify the adoption and imposition of the fee. We therefore continue to object to the adoption of the proposed WDTIF, and request that the proposed Resolution updating and renaming the City's Downtown Traffic Impact Fee be rejected. 1. The WDTIF Report continues to be based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed. Government Code section 66001(g) provides: "A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities ..." This is the codification of the requirement that growth can be made to pay for growth, but may not be forced to subsidize public facilities or services already needed to serve existing residents. The proposed WDTIF seeks to charge the full fee to new growth. In order to justify charging new residents and businesses with the full cost of the bicycle, pedestrian and street beautification projects to be funded by the WDTIF, the WDTIF Report claims that there is no present need for the any of the projects to be funded. Although the proposed projects are not intended to reduce traffic congestion, the Report comes to that conclusion by assessing traffic congestion, i.e. the level of service ( "LOS "), at seven specific intersections, as summarized in Table 4 of the Report. The WDTIF Report states: "Table 4 shows that there are no existing deficiencies on the facilities included in this WDTIF program, indicating that the need for improvements is not caused by existing development. "' Table 4 of the WDTIF shows no such thing. First, it does not assess existing conditions so it could not determine if there are existing deficiencies. Table 4 shows the 2010 level of service traffic analysis of several intersections in the downtown area. The data is taken from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, which the ' WDTIF Report, p. 17, attempting to explain how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. 5RAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 3 WDTIF Report states is the "most recent study." No one could reasonably argue that a traffic study done six years ago, while the area was still suffering from the recession of 2007, is an accurate assessment of 2016 traffic conditions. In addition, the existing condition needs to consider not only traffic that exists today, but also traffic to be generated by development in the area which is already approved and in the process of being developed. Traffic to be generated from permitted projects which are under construction, for example, must be included in the baseline. Second, the level of service at intersections is not relevant to determining whether these improvements — bike lanes, cross walks, pedestrian upgrades and roadway beautification — are currently needed. The WDTIF Report specifically notes that it does not assess any of the proposed projects based on the impact of those projects on the level of service of existing roads and intersections, because the goal is not the "minimization of vehicular delay ", i.e. the goal is not to improve traffic. If LOS is not important, and these projects are being built because they improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and create a "more pedestrian friendly downtown" 2, then the determination of whether there is an existing need for these pedestrian, bicycle and beautification projects cannot be based on the vehicular level of service. The WDTIF Report fails for this non - sequitur alone. The WDTIF Report should have made an assessment of existing bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to determine whether there are deficiencies in the existing availability of bicycle and pedestrian safety facilities. Such an analysis could be and should have been made.3 In the February 2016 WDTIF Report, in response to our previous objection, an attempt is made to refer to at least some data on this issue. The Report refers to the City's 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ( "BPMP ") regarding bicycle and pedestrian collisions .4 That City -wide data, from 2006 — 2011 is neither current enough nor specific to the area of the WDTIF. To the extent that data does discuss the Downtown area, it contradicts the WDTIF Report's claims of no existing problems. The BPMP states: "Of the 14 reported pedestrian -auto collisions in the Downtown, half of the collisions occurred while a pedestrian crossing in a marked crosswalk at the intersection, with the other half occurring midblock." 5 Projects sought to be funded by the WDTIF include adding two midblock crosswalks to Amador Plaza Road to avoid the existing problem identified in the BPMP. Not coincidentally, this project is also identified as the top priority project in the Bicycle 2 WDTIF Report, page 4 3 See Abrams January 18, 2016 Report, section (8), and February 16, 2016 letter at response to comment 8. 4 February 2016 WDTIF Report, page 12 referencing BPMP pages 45 -48. 5 BPMP, page 48. SRAH\530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 4 and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPMP calls it a Tier 1 Priority Projects, and notes that it is needed to fulfill the existing community desire for a "park once" environment, add bicycle and pedestrian safety features, and replace street trees that are at the end of their life cycle. The cost of this project is detailed in Appendix A to the WDTIF Report, Project 4. The cost of street trees and other "aesthetic /architectural" features included in the new fee totals $1,612,316, to which the Report adds 50% for contingencies and related costs. The total cost of these aesthetics is therefore in excess of $2.4 million. The fee includes the full cost of 116 street trees, even though the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan notes that they have reached their useful life and need to be replaced now. The City's response to our January 19, 2016 letter addressing this point inexplicably claims that "it is not the case that the improvement will fund street tree replacement." If that is the case, the total $9 million to be funded by this fee should be reduced by over $2.4 million. Among the other project costs which the WDTIF Report claims are not currently needed, and are only needed as a result of new residents and businesses, is $150,000 plus contingencies for three new Downtown Gateway Monument signs. There is no legitimate basis to claim that these expenses are only needed to accommodate new development. The City's response to our January 19, 2016 letter ignores this point. We have no objection to the City wanting to replace its street trees, or put up monument signs, but to claim that there is no existing need for these facilities, and that they are only needed due to new development, is disingenuous. 2. The WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate that the projects to be funded are made necessary by growth. The corollary to the proposition that new residents and businesses cannot be forced to pay for existing deficiencies in public facilities, is the proposition that the proposed projects must be made necessary because of growth. The City has the obligation to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility, and the new residents and businesses on whom the fee is to be imposed. (See Government Code §66001(a)(4).) The WDTIF contains no analysis of how these projects are needed because of new growth. The WDTIF Report describes the expected growth in the Downtown area, and the expected new vehicle trips as a result of that growth, in Section 3, "Growth Projections." It then apportions the cost of the identified projects against the anticipated new PM Peak Hour Trips in Section 4, "Nexus Analysis." That section first claims that there is no existing need for these projects, as discussed above. It 6 BPMP, page 119, and Figures 6 -1 to 6 -4. SRAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Flaubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 5 then apportions that cost to the new residents and businesses expected in the WDTIF area. But the analysis skips a crucial step. There is no portion of the nexus analysis, or any part of the WDTIF Report, that establishes why these improvements are made necessary because of growth. In answering how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and new growth, the report concludes that: "The need for the facilities listed in Table 1 has been established through recent planning studies sponsored by the City over the last several years, as described in Section 2 of this report. ,7 The Report merely notes, accurately, that the City's vision for the Downtown area, as discussed in the DDSP, encourages bicycle and pedestrian access in the Downtown area. We have no criticism of the City's decisions in that regard. But the fact that the City has decided that it wants these new facilities is a far cry from showing that they are needed by the community because of growth. The City cannot make a new resident pay for a new project through an impact fee just because the City decides it wants it. There is no assessment in the WDTIF Report of why these projects are needed because of growth. The proposed WDTIF Fee therefore fails to satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act and other legal mandates. 3. The proposed new fee is -grossly excessive. Even if the City could establish a nexus between new growth and the need to the identified projects, the proposed new WDTIF greatly exceeds the proportionate cost of the identified public facilities that could possibly be attributable to new development, in violation of Government Code section 66001(b). None of the flaws identified in our January 19, 2016 letter, or in Abrams Associates January 18, 2016 letter, have been corrected. We will not repeat that analysis here, and refer the Mayor and Council to our prior correspondence, attached. The fact remains that the author of the WDTIF Report has mixed and matched methodologies throughout the report in order to maximize the fee. For example, both the WDTIF Report and the Staff Report accompanying this agenda item acknowledge that the methodology used to calculate the fee is not appropriate for properties outside the Downtown Dublin area. For owners and developers of such properties, the fee is thus significantly overstated. The staff report states: 7 WDTIF Report, p. 17 SRAH\530521992887. i The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 6 "It should be noted that the neighborhoods outside of the DDSP area tend to be lower- density areas of predominantly residential land uses, and are somewhat removed from high- capacity transit options. For these reasons, application of the MXD+ technique would not be appropriate in those areas. However, the large majority of the projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area, so for purposes of the WDTIF calculations, the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied."" Using the MXD+ technique increases the fee, as we explained in our previous correspondence. Mr. Abrams calculated that approximately 27% of the new traffic will be generated outside of the downtown area. The City has countered that it is closer to 10 %." Either way, knowingly overcharging at least 10% of the property owners in the WDTIF area is unconscionable. If the properties outside the Downtown area are so insignificant that the City can't be bothered to correctly calculate the fee, then those properties should be removed from the WDTIF entirely. The City could easily make this change and avoid an obvious flaw. As explained in the accompanying Abrams Report, the proposed WDTIF continues to be replete with errors, inconsistent methodology, and false assumptions. If the fee is correctly updated, it appears likely that the current Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee would be reduced, and properties outside of the Downtown area would be removed from the fee area. At minimum, the City should go back to the drawing board, and reassess any update to this fee. The calculation of the proposed WDTIF is flawed, and results in a grossly excessive fee. If not corrected, the fee cannot pass legal muster. We request that the WDTIF Report and the proposed Resolution increasing and renaming the WDTIF fee be rejected. Very truly yours, f�R STARR REGALIA GBS:mlj Enclosures B February 16, 2016 Staff Report from Christopher L Foss re agenda item 6.1. 9 Response to January 18, 2016 Abrams Associates letter, at page 7. SRAH15305M92887.1 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING INC. February 16, 2016 George Speir Miller Starr Regalia 1331 N. California Blvd, Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re. Additional Review of the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Dear Mr. Speir, The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments made in response to my prior letter and the most recent changes that were made to the WDTIF report. We continue to find deficiencies in the analysis the City has conducted for the proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update ( WDTIF).' Please note the comments also reference the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and its supporting EIRz, the DDSP 2014 Specific Plan Amendment and EIR Addendum, and other documents discussed in the WDTIF Final Report. To rectify the numerous deficiencies and inadequacies in the WDTIF Report we continue to recommend that the issues identified be carefully studied and addressed in a revised report. Below is additional information provided based on the City's response to the comments contained in our January 18"'. 2016 letter. (1) Response to Comment V. The City's response does not address the points raised in our initial letter - that the cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated in the WDTIF area is grossly understated, and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the DDSP EIR. The fact that an MXD+ adjustment could be applicable is not the issue and its use was not challenged. The comment was clear - even with the MXD+ adjustment forecasts clearly must include some additional reductions or questionable assumptions which the report does not to disclose. The response that the report "carefully explains" the MXD+ technique is irrelevant as the report and response provide no evidence at all that the calculations were done correctly. The only way to prove the trip generation (and MXD+ technique) was accurately ' Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update: Final Report, Fehr and Peers, Walnut Creek, CA, February, 2016, 2 Downtown Dublin Snecific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, RBF Consulting, Walnut Creek, CA, September, 2010. 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment FEIR Addendum and Initial Study, RBF Consulting, Walnut Creek, CA, February 24, 2014. 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.0201 • Fax: 925.945.7966 West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 2 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. applied would be to disclose the actual assumptions used in the WDTIF trip generation calculations. This would be needed to explain why the WDTIF trip generation results are more than 70% less than comparable forecasts presented in Attachment B of the DDSP Addendum. Since the result was a 70% reduction the fact that the MXD+ adjustment is identified as being 23% in the WDTIF Fee Schedule is a strong indication there are significant errors in the calculations. The WDTIF report also goes to great lengths to explain that the DDSP LIR and WDTIF report used ' di�feretat approaches" when there appear to be only two main differences: I) the DDSP Addendum applied a 15°1 transit reduction to commercial trips and a 25% reduction to residential trips while the WDTIF report apparently instead applied a uniform 23% MXD I . reduction and 2) the DDSP addendum appropriately applied the transit reductions only to the transit oriented district while the WDTIF apparently not only applied the MXD+ reduction to the entire DDSP area, it also applied it to all forecast growth in western Dublin. This includes planned development located as much as three miles from the nearest BART station. In other words, the WDTIF report 1) fails to disclose that the DDSP Addendum trip calculations already accounted for goad transit accessibility and 2) it fails to prove (i.e. disclose) how application of the MXD -+- technique could result in a 70% reduction to the City's latest published trip generation forecasts for the area. The claim that the MXD+ technique has been "appropriately applied" to the entire WDTIF area does not account for such a large discrepancy. Based on Table B -1 of the DDSP Addendum, the application of the MXD -+- reduction to the remainder of the WDTIF area should only reduce the trip generation by about 10 %. The City's reply does not address the point of our original comment. The purported application of the MXD -- technique cannot explain justify how the WDTIF forecasts arc 70% less than the previous trip generation forecasts for the DDSP area. The sample calculations provided with our previous letter clearly indicate there arc serious errors in whatever trip rates were applied to the forecast job growth and perhaps some additional reductions included. Since the report does not provide the details of what trip rates were actually used and what MXD reductions were actually applied in the WDTIF calculations, it remains impossible to verify the results. For example, the underlying assumptions would need to be provided for anyone confirm that the MXD+ adjustments to the trip generation forecasts were actually consistent with the 23% MXD+ reduction and the various trip rates identified in the new WDTIF fee schedule. All evidence currently available (including the exhibits we provided with our previous letter) indicates these assumptions may have been replaced with a completely different set of trip West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Itcvicw Abrams Associates P` T' TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 3 rates, transit reductions, and /or internal trip reductions to generate the substantially lower WDTIF trip forecasts. (2) Real)onse to Cominertt #2. We stated in our January 18, 2016 letter that the cumulative traffic growth stated in the WDTIF Report to be generated within the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparable forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data. The point of our comment is not that application of the MXD+ is inappropriate, the point is that application of the MXD+ technique described cannot explain or justify such a massive reduction to the previous trip generation forecasts. This indicates there were most likely significant errors somewhere in the WDTIF calculations. Even if the application of the MXD+ technique is appropriate, the resulting forecasts indicate it may not have been applied correctly. For example, another plausible explanation for the reduction could be that the MXD+ technique resulted in an estimate of only the eatei-nal trips generated by the WDTIF area. Using only the external trips to calculate the WDTIF fees would clearly be inaccurate as these proposed projects are all located within the DDSP area. In other words, until we can review the MXD+ assumptions regarding internal trips we can only assume that internal trips may have been erroneously removed froth the calculations. This is one of the few factors that could potentially explain why the WDTIF trip generation results were 70% less than the City's previous DDSP Addendum trip generation forecasts, which were published less than two years ago. (3) Respollse to Comment M. We commented that there appear to be errors in the trip rates and reductions applied to the forecast job growth. The City's response does not address the comment. Our calculations show that it's entirely possible the WDTIF calculations used incorrect trip rates that were inconsistent with those presented in Table 7 of the report and the proposed fee schedule (Exhibit 1-I to the Proposed Resolution). The response states that the proposed fee schedule makes it clear that the pass -by reduction will only be applied to retail land uses where it is appropriate to do so. However, this would only apply to future fee calculations and does not in any way prove (i.e. disclose) what was actually assumed in the WDTIF forecasts. For example, perhaps the MXD -r reduction wasn't the cause of the reduction and perhaps it was because the forecasts erroneously assumed future job growth wouldn't include any retail jobs. The only way to prove the calculations are accurate (in the face of such extensive evidence to the contrary) would be to disclose the input assumptions, including what proportion of the future job growth was assumed. to be retail jobs versus office jobs. This would West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 4 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. include disclosing the base (unadjusted) trip rates that were applied to each category in the calculations. Our calculations demonstrate that a 70% reduction to the trip generation forecasts definitely cannot be justified with the referenced MXD+ and pass -by reductions alone. (4) Resl)onse to Comment #4. Based on the City's response we acknowledge that all of the development potential in TAZ 1502 would apparently take place within the DDSP area. It is therefore agreed that only about 10% of the growth would be forecast to occur outside the DDSP area. However, the response apparently acknowledges that the trip generation frorn the 10% of growth outside of the DDSP did include MXD+ reductions even though the WDTIF report specifically notes the this reduction "would not he appropriate firr those areas." As discussed previously, without the details of the calculations our review indicated one possibility was that the job growth may have been assumed to be all office jobs. Other than the previously mentioned issue of internal trip reductions, the trip generation assumptions for job growth appear to be one of the only things that could potentially explain how the WDTIF trip generation results came out 70 % less than the DDSP Addendum trip generation forecasts. In any case, based on a review of the calculations presented in Table 6 of the WDTIF report, just the use of erroneous assumptions for growth outside the DDSP alone could have increased the fee calculations in Table 6 by over $1,000 per trip. (5) Resl)onse to Comment #5. We noted that the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP EIR are inconsistent with the analysis in the WDTIF Report. This comment is not intended to combine disparate information. It is intended to highlight that either the DDSP EIR is in error or the WDTIF calculations are in error. Based on the comparison of the future volume forecasts in the DDSP EIR to the WDTIF forecasts, by definition, only one can be accurate. For example, if the WDTIF forecast for 1,718 new PM peak hour trips is accurate, then the DDSP EIR transportation analysis would have to be considered completely invalid. The analysis of future transportation conditions that was apparently used to establish the need for improvements for the WDTIF was based on the assumption that the DDSP area would generate over 7,000 PMpeak hour vehicle trips. Obviously if the DDSP EIR analysis were revised to assume only 25% of the previous forecasts (as per the WDTIF assumptions) then the analysis of future transportation conditions could be very different and should be reevaluated. If the DDSP EIR had assumed only 25% of the traffic growth, then whatever facilities the City had identified as deficient would theoretically need to be reevaluated (and it could be determined the deficiencies no longer exist). On the other hand, West Dublin Traffic hn �tct Fee U date Review Abrams Associates r r TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 5 if the previous DDSP traffic forecasts are accurate, then obviously the trip generation used in the latest WDTIF was significantly understated, which would dramatically increase the fee calculations. (6) Resl;onse to Comment #6. We still maintain that the WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and the developments oil which the fee would be imposed. The point of this comment was not that there are other methodologies to determine the fair share percentages, the point was that there are indeed other methodologies available to evaluate the connection (i.e. nexus) of the forecast traffic growth and the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The WDTIF report is not clear about what methodology was used to evaluate the area for any transportation deficiencies. We believe this was an oversight as some commonly accepted bicycle and pedestrian LOS analysis methodologies already allow the user to analyze the impacts of future increases in traffic on bicycle and pedestrian conditions. However, the City has apparently not adopted any thresholds of'significance for pedestrian and bicycle impacts and the WDTIF report fails to properly identify (or analyze) exactly what transportation deficiencies (LOS F ?) would be caused by future development in the at-ea. For a nexus report to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, we would suggest that policy language should not be accepted as a substitute for the evidence normally provided to prove that transportation deficiencies would be caused by future development. It is also important to note that our analysis of the reduction in transit speeds is indeed accurate and would definitely not be affected by the transit priority features that were referenced in the response. First of all, these features would exist regardless of whether or not the proposed WDTIF program is implemented (i.e. the features apply to both scenarios) and therefore would not significantly affect the comparison. But most importantly, the transit signal priority and queue jump features would make little or no difference without an exclusive bus lane to allow buses to bypass the forecast queues (please note it is our understanding that an exclusive bus lane is not being proposed). Without an exclusive bus lane, the buses would still be caught up in the exact same queues that are forecast to extend back through adjacent signalized intersections. For example, with the implementation of the WDTIF project proposed for Dublin Boulevard at Amador Plaza Road the traffic on westbound Dublin Boulevard (a major bus route) would be forecast to regularly extend back beyond the Village Parkway intersection. If the far side of the intersection is forecast to be backed up West Dublin Traffic Impact Fcc Update Rcvic�� Abrams Associates i TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INIC Page 6 from the downstream intersection, then bus priority signals and queue jump features will offer little or no benefits. Obviously getting priority at a traffic signal doesn't help a bus at all if there isn't enough room on the other side of the intersection for the bus to proceed without blocking the intersection. (7) Resj)onse to Comment V. Our evaluation of the future operations of the WDTIF projects indicates that there is no evidence provided that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved, but there is extensive evidence that transit speeds will be significantly impacted. The City's response to this comment supports our point. It includes a reference to research that contradicts the contention that safety will be improved as a result of reduced speeds in the Downtown area. What the response fails to note is that the NACTO study provided clearly shows the relationship between speed and the risk of fatal injury doesn't indicate a statistically significant increase in risk until travel speeds are well over 20 n1ph. The DDSP LOS analysis clearly indicates travel speeds on Dublin Boulevard could be as low as 10 MPI-I even without implementation of the WDTIF projects. In other words, the traffic congestion and travel speeds are already forecast to be so low that the referenced study indicates there would be no significant difference in the risk to pedestrians and bicyclists since the conditions are forecast to be congested either way and travel speeds are already forecast to be low. For example, the research indicates there would essentially be no change at all to the risk of fatal injuries with travel speeds dropping from the forecast 10 mph to 5 mph. (8) Resj)onse to Comment ##8. We stated in our January 18, 2016 letter that there is no reasonable relationship shown between the need for these WDTIF projects and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area. The evaluation of existing conditions referred to in this response was apparently based on a cil)�ivide evaluation of accident rates which make no sense since detailed data on the accidents for each of the specific facilities included in the WDTIF program are readily available. For example, stating that "the 00; ranks Keller than the .statewide average" as a way to claim there are no existing safety deficiencies on a roadway such as Dublin Boulevard is clearly misleading given there is extensive evidence to the contrary included in documents such as the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The citywide data being referenced clearly averages in data from many quiet residential areas throughout the City that have completely different transportation conditions than the downtown area where the deficiencies in question are located. What should really be evaluated when reviewing for existing safety deficiencies is how many pedestrian and bicycle accidents have West Dublili TrafFic Impact Fee Update Re%,iew Page 7 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. actually occurred on the facilities n'here the improvements arcs pt °oposecl. Eight of the nine projects involve some improvements to Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, to evaluate whether or not there is an existing safety deficiency, the report should clearly examine whether or not the facilities in question (such as Dublin Boulevard) rank better than the statewide average for pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Whether or not the entire City ranks below the statewide average is irrelevant. Dismissing WDTIF deficiencies based on a citywide average would be no different than claiming there are no deficiencies on various California streets and highways because the accident rate in California is lower than the national average. The only thin,) that should be relevant is whether or not the facilities ill question have existing safety problems. As per my previous comments, the available accident data for Dublin Boulevard itself certainly appears to indicate the roadway has an above average number of bicycle and pedestrian accidents when compared to the statewide averages. (9) Response to Comment #9, We noted that some of the proposed projects, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily be required by adjacent developments. The City's response seems to ignore the fact that two developments with a total of 380 residential units and 17,000 square feet of retail space are approved right next to the proposed extension. These; two projects are approved but have not yet been constructed so they would not count as future development or participate in the fee program. Given their location there is absolutely no question that these two projects will generate some portion of the future traffic growth on the St. Patrick Way Extension. Therefore, it is ,simply rant po.s.sihle that,faititre cleveloptiletit ivotild be respotzsihle for I(X)% of the future traffic on this extension. This indicates there are significant problems with how the percentage responsibility is being calculated and /or the underlying assumptions used to calculate the percentages in Table 5 of the WDTI% report. It should also be noted that the fact that St. Patrick Way has been identified as a key link for hike access that could include Class IIA bike lanes is irrelevant as a full roadway extension is clearly not required to provide bicycle access through this area. There is no evidence provided that building a full roadway extension would address any specific transportation deficiency. In fact, it appears that construction of a Class I multi -use path instead would be much more consistent with the City's stated goals for this part of the DDSP at-ea. West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 8 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENCINEERINC, INC. In summary, there are clearly still numerous errors and inconsistencies associated with the February 2016 Final Report for the WDT1F and missing information, just as there were with the October 2016 version. The latest report adds to the narrative, but fails to address the fundamental flaws in the analysis. The report should be revised to address the significant problems that have been identified and then recirculated for public review and comment. Sincerely, L� Stephen C. Abrams President Abrams Associates T.E. License No. 1852 M I LLER STARR REGALIA January 19, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 1339 N. California Blvd, Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 George B, 5peir bill.speir @msrlegal.com Re: Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee January 19, 2016 City Council Agenda item 6.1 Dear Mayor Haubert and Members of the Council : T 925 935 9400 F 925 933 4126 www.msrlegal.com This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed update of the City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting as Agenda item 6.1. We have reviewed the staff report and proposed resolution prepared for the adoption for the proposed update and renaming of the fee the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee ( "WDTIF "). We have also reviewed the documents referenced in the proposed resolution, including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ( "DDSP ") as amended, the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update: Final Report ( "WDTIF Report"), dated October, 2015 and prepared by the firm of Fehr & Peers. We have retained Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering to review the WDTIF Report, the related documents, and perform whatever additional analysis is necessary in order to comment on the proposed WDTIF. The Abrams Report, dated January 18, 2016, accompanies this letter and is incorporated herein. As set forth below, and in the accompanying Abrams Report, the City of Dublin has not established, and cannot establish the necessary relationship between the services and facilities to be funded by the proposed WDTIF and the impacts resulting from future development in Western Dublin, and therefore the proposed WDTIF fails to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code section 66000, et seq. (sometimes called "AB 1600 "), and the due process, equal protection, and takings provisions of the United States and California Constitutions. The purpose of this letter, and the accompanying Abrams report, is to identify deficiencies in the City's analysis and to object to the adoption of the proposed WDTIF unless these deficiencies are corrected. As proposed, the City cannot validly make the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act, or under the United States and California Constitutions to justify the adoption and imposition of the fee. Offices: Walnut Creek 1 San Francisco I Newport Beach The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 2 We therefore oppose the adoption of the proposed WDTIF, and request that the proposed Resolution updating and renaming the City's Downtown Traffic Impact Fee be rejected. 1. The WDTIF Report does not satisfy the basic requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The legal requirements for the enactment of development impact fees are set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act and were established by the Legislature specifically "in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects." (Barratt American, Inc. v, City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 685, 691.) By statute, a development impact fee "shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan." (Gov. Code § 66001(g).) To ensure that a proposed fee is related to the impact created by development and does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the public service, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency imposing a development fee establish a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and 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 development on which the fee is imposed. (Id. § 66001.) If a development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development or exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the public service made necessary by the development, it may be declared a special tax, subject to approval by two - thirds of the electorate. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4; Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208.) Well established federal and state law also require that fees ultimately imposed on development not be disproportionate to its impacts. (E.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District (2093) 933 S, Ct. 2586, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 CalAth 854.) The essence of the law is to permit local agencies to require growth to pay for itself, but ensure that new residents and businesses are not compelled to pay for problems or community shortcomings which are not of their making. Development impact fees on new housing form a part of the cost of the residence, and those costs are passed on to the homebuyer. The City cannot make new residents pay to improve the community for the benefit of existing residents. New owners have to pay their share of the cost of needed public facilities, and existing residents need to pay their share of the cost through taxes or other available funding sources. For The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 3 example, the fact that a new bike lane, cross walk or street landscaping is needed is not a basis for requiring the buyer of a new home to pay the entire cost of facilities intended to benefit all local citizens. Here, as summarized below and described in the Abrams Report, the WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate that the proposed new WDTIF satisfies the constitutional mandate, or the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, 2. There is no demonstrated nexus or reasonable relationship between the need for these improvements and growth in western Dublin. The projects identified in the WDTIF Report are predominately bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, and related roadway beautification. They are not traffic improvements, and in fact, they will reduce the flow of traffic throughout the downtown area.' They have been selected, not because of any demonstrated relationship between the need for the project and the anticipated growth in the community, but because these projects have already been identified in other City planning documents and projects the City wants. For example, eight of the nine proposed projects are identified in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ( "BPMP ") as being priority projects. They add cross walks, bike lanes, bike paths, improve sidewalks to be more decorative, and add street trees and aesthetic improvements. These are not projects made necessary by growth — they are projects already on the City's wish list. By this amended and increased development impact fee, the City seeks to have new residents and businesses pay the full cost of these improvements for the benefit of existing residents who would object to a tax to pay for the projects, or to paying the cost from City general funds. At least one of the projects, the St. Patrick Way extension, benefits only the residents of specific properties, and is not appropriate for inclusion here. It is a local circulation project, only needed to sere the adjacent properties upon the development of those parcels.2 There is nothing in the WDTIF Report that demonstrates how there is a reasonable relationship between this project and all of the properties which will be subject to the fee. Similarly, there is nothing in the WDTIF to demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the impacts each assessed property will have on the perceived problem that the project seeks to address. Simply saying that these projects are part of the BPMP or the DDSP is not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional and statutory limits on imposing the cost of these projects on new development. ' See Abrams Report, sections (6) — (8). 2 See Abrams Report, section (9). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 4 3. The WDTIF Report is based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed. Government Code section 66001(g) provides: "A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities ..." This is the codification of the requirement that growth can be made to pay for growth, but may not be forced to subsidize public facilities or services already needed to serve existing residents. In order to justify charging new residents and businesses with the full cost of the projects to be funded by the WDTIF, the WDTIF Report comes to the puzzling and totally unsupported conclusion that there are no existing deficiencies in the public safety and community beautification projects to be funded, and therefore these projects would not be needed or presumably implemented but for growth in the community. It comes to that conclusion by assessing traffic congestion, i.e. the level of service ("LOS"), at 7 specific intersections, as summarized in Table 4 of the Report. The WDTIF Report states: "Table 4 shows that there are no existing deficiencies on the facilities included in this WDTIF program, indicating that the need for improvements is not caused by existing development. "3 Table 4 of the WDTIF shows no such thing. First, it does not assess existing conditions so it could not determine if there are existing deficiencies. Table 4 shows the 2010 level of service traffic analysis of several intersections in the downtown area. The data is taken from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, which the WDTIF Report states is the "most recent study ". No one could reasonably argue that a traffic study done six years ago, while the area was still suffering from the recession of 2007, is an accurate assessment of 2016 traffic conditions. In addition, the existing condition needs to consider not only traffic that exists today, but also traffic to be generated by development in the area which is already approved and in the process of being developed. Traffic to be generated from permitted projects which are under construction, for example, must be included in the baseline. Second, the level of service at intersections is not relevant to determining whether these improvements — bike lanes, cross walks, pedestrian upgrades and roadway beautification — are made necessary by new development. The WDTIF Report specifically notes that it does not assess any of the proposed projects based on the 3 WDTIF Report, p. 17, attempting to explain how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 5 impact those projects would have on the level of service of existing roads and intersections. The Report states: "One of the most significant policy changes of the DDSP was the elimination of vehicle Level of Service (LOS) as a transportation system performance standard within the Specific Plan area.... With this policy change ... the City is clearly expressing the community's values and vision for the downtown area, articulating a future in which the minimization of vehicular delay is not the primary objective ... "4 In other words, LOS is not important in assessing these fees, because the goal is not to improve traffic. If LOS is not important, and these projects are being built because they improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and create a "more pedestrian friendly downtown "5, how is it that the only determination of whether there is an existing need for these pedestrian, bicycle and beautification projects is based on the vehicular level of service? The WDTIF Report should have made an assessment of existing bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to determine whether there are deficiencies in the existing availability of bicycle and pedestrian safety facilities. Such an analysis could be and should have been made.6 In addition, each of these projects is identified in other City reports as currently needed. Table 1 of the WDTIF Report identifies the City planning document which is the source of each project. For example, WDTIF project #4, the Amador Plaza Road bicycle and pedestrian improvements, is also identified as the top priority project in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPMP calls it a Tier 1 Priority Project , and notes that it is needed to fulfill the existing community desire for a "park once" environment, add bicycle and pedestrian safety features, and replace street trees that are at the end of their life cycle. The cost of this project is detailed in Appendix A to the WDTIF Report, Project 4. The cost of street trees and other "aesthetic/ architectural" features included in the new fee totals $1,612,316, to which the Report adds 50% for contingencies and related costs. The total cost of these aesthetics is therefore in the $2.4 million range. The fee includes the full cost of 116 street trees, even though the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan notes that they have reached their useful life and need to be replaced now. Among the other project costs which the WDTIF Report claims are not currently needed, and are only needed as a result of new residents and businesses, is $150,000 plus contingencies for three new A WDTIF Report, page 4, emphasis added. 5 WDTIF Report, page 4. 6 See Abrams Report, section (8). Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, page 119, and Figures 6 -1 to 6 -4. The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 6 Downtown Gateway Monument signs. There is no legitimate basis to claim that these expenses are only needed to accommodate new development. We have no objection to the City wanting to replace its street trees, or put up monument signs, but to claim that they are only needed due to new development, and then foist the cost on new residents and businesses fails to satisfy applicable legal requirements. 4. The proposed revisions to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Fee will not meet the City's stated purpose of mitigating traffic impacts of new development. The WDTIF Report asserts, in summarizing why the fee purportedly satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act, that "the purpose of the WDTIF program is to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development within the designated WDTIF area... ",a The truth is, these projects will make traffic worse.9 They will slow traffic and public transit times. They are not designed to allow the streets to accommodate additional traffic generated by new residents and businesses in the area; to the contrary, they are designed to satisfy the City's requirements to implement Complete Streets projects, comply with the Bicycle Transportation Act, and other planning obligations imposed on the City. The City has chosen to implement these guidelines through, among other things, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. While the City may certainly choose to adopt and implement these plans, it may not claim that it would not do so if not for new development in order to compel new residents and businesses to fully fund these bike paths, landscaping plans, cross walks, "traffic calming" devices, and other measures, based on the claim that it is doing so to mitigate traffic impacts. Contrary to the conclusion of the WDTIF Report, the purpose of the WDTIF is not to mitigate traffic problems. The Report acknowledges this elsewhere by stating that "the minimization of vehicular delay is not the primary objective ". The purpose of reducing turning radii at intersections and eliminating lanes is to slow traffic. But if the stated purpose of the fee is to mitigate traffic impacts downtown, there is no reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, in violation of Government Code section 66001(a) and (d)(1). 5. The proposed new fee is grossly excessive. The proposed new WDTIF greatly exceeds the proportionate cost of the identified public facilities attributable to new development, in violation of Government Code section 66001(b). a WDTIF Report, p. 17, describing the purpose of the fee for AB 1600 purposes. e See Abrams Report, sections (6), (7). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 7 In essence, the calculation of the WDTIF is a fraction.10 The numerator is the cost of the various projects attributable to new development; the denominator is the number of new afternoon rush hour trips generated by new development. If inappropriate costs included in the fee are removed, the fee will go down. Similarly, if more trips will be generated, the denominator goes up and the fee goes down. Here, the fee must be reduced by eliminating inappropriate costs, including costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, as discussed above. In addition, the percentage responsibility of future development for WDTIF projects is far too high." The WDTIF report fails to provide any explanation of how these calculations have been made.12 For example, did the model used considers current traffic or extrapolate from outdated 2010 traffic studies? Did it consider traffic from approved projects as traffic related to future development in the WDTIF area? Did it consider changes in housing and employment in Pleasanton, San Ramon and other nearby communities which would impact the volume of through traffic? It is the City's obligation to demonstrate that the fee meets the legal requirements. The documents provided with this report do not allow it to meet that burden. The total cost of the projects considered in the fee, i.e, the numerator of the fraction, is too high. Similarly, the total number of rush hour trips to be added by new development, i.e. the denominator of the fraction, is too low. The WDTIF Report dramatically underestimates the new traffic which will result from the new growth, and thereby artificially raises the fee. Table 6 of the WDTIF Report contains this calculation. It uses 1,718 new PM peak hour trips as the denominator of the fraction that concludes that $5,234 is the maximum fee that could be charged. But the use of 1,718 new trips as the denominator of the fraction is wrong. In Table 3, the WDTIF Report considers 3 different models for determining potential new afternoon rush hour trips, none of which are consistent with the City's analysis of expected traffic in the 2014 update to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The WDTIF Report states that the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers ( "ITE ") Trip Generation Manual results in a calculation of 2.478 new trips. The WDTIF Report acknowledges that the standard approach is appropriate for all areas covered by the WDTIF outside of downtown. The Report notes that the technique used to calculate 1,718 new trips "...would not be appropriate in those areas [outside of downtown]. However, almost all projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP 10 WDTIF Report, Table 6. 11 WDTIF Report, Table 5. 12 See Abrams Report, sections (1) — (5). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 8 area, so for purposes of the WDTIF calculations, the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied. 03 In fact, approximately 27% of the new traffic will be generated outside of the downtown area, so the assertion that "almost all" of the growth is in downtown is an exaggeration, at best. 14 And the apparent position of the author of the Report that it is acceptable to overcharge some property owners, as long as there are not too many, is not consistent with law. If the ITE trip generation results from Table 3 of the WDTIF Final Report are used, the maximum fee would already be reduced from $5,234 to $3,628 before any other corrections are made. Then, if the corrected ITE assumptions are used, the maximum fee would be reduced from $5,234 to $1,750 per trip.15 Finally, using the trip generation estimates from the City's 2014 amendment to the DDSP the new PM peak hour traffic from the downtown area alone is forecast to be 5,854 trips.' Applying the City's DDSP estimate would result in the maximum fee being reduced from $5,234 to $1,535. Table 3 of the WDTIF Report notes that 2,398 PM peak hour trips would be generated based on the Dublin Travel Model, but dismisses it in favor of using the MXD+ model forecasts. The Dublin Travel Model is apparently the same model used later in the WDTIF Report to allocate project cost responsibility, but apparently was not appropriate to use here, where the result would have been to significantly lower the fee. As explained in the accompanying Abrams Report, the proposed WDTIF is replete with errors, inconsistent methodology, and false assumptions. If the fee is correctly updated, it appears likely that the current Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee would be reduced, not increased. At minimum, the City should go back to the drawing board, and reassess any update to this fee. The calculation of the proposed WDTIF is flawed, and results in a grossly excessive fee. If not corrected, the fee cannot pass legal muster. We request that the WDTIF 13 WDTIF Report, p. 10. 14 WDTIF Report, Appendix B, and Abrams Report, section (4). 15 See Abrams Report, section (2),. 16 See Abrams Report, sections (1) and (2), The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 9 Report and the proposed Resolution increasing and renaming the WDTIF fee be rejected. Very truly yours, rr .. GBS:mlj Enclosures / Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. January 18, 2016 George Speir Miller Starr Regalia 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Review of the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Dear Mr. Speir, The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of my overall review and traffic analysis conducted on the proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update (WDTIF). Please note that our review also included the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and its supporting EIR` and also the DDSP 2014 Specific Plan Amendment3, and other documents discussed in the WDTIF Final Report. By way of background, I am a licensed professional traffic engineer. I have had my professional engineering license for over 20 years. I am also president and owner of Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering and I have provided traffic analysis for hundreds of projects in the area. Within the City of Dublin I have provided traffic studies for projects such as a new high school and a major recycled water pipeline. I also previously served for five years as the contract City Traffic Engineer for the City of El Cerrito. As a result of my review of the proposed WDTIF, I have concluded that the proposed fees have been significantly overestimated and that numerous transportation and circulation issues associated with the proposed projects have not been properly or adequately addressed. In general, the problems with the WDTIF Final Report are so numerous and significant that it is not possible to properly review or verify the analysis or justify the resulting conclusions. Based on our review it is my conclusion that problems with the technical analysis have resulted in significant errors in both the conclusions about the nexus for the fee as well as the resulting effects that its approval would have on transportation and safety. ' Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update: Final Report, Fehr and Peers, Walnut Creek, CA, October, 2015. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, RBF Consulting, Walnut Creek, CA, September, 2010. ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, RBF Consulting, Walnut Creek, CA, February 24, 2014. 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.0201 • Fax: 925,945.7966 West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 2 Abrams Associates TRAFHC ENGINEERING, INC. Without additional study to address the City's inadequate analysis of traffic and circulation it is not possible to conclude that the projects proposed to be funded by the amended fees are attributable to future development. To rectify the numerous deficiencies and inadequacies in the WDTIF Final Report, the issues identified in this letter should be carefully studied and addressed in a revised report. Review of the WDTIF Final Report (1) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is grossly underestimated and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the DDSP EIR. Table 6 of the WDTIF Final Report calculates the base fee by dividing net eligible project costs by the number of new afternoon rush hour trips attributable to growth in Western Dublin. It specifies that 1,718 New PM peak hour trips would be generated by new development in the Western Dublin TIF area. This is totally inconsistent with the DDSP EIR forecasts. Tables 3.7 -8 and 3.7 -9 of the DDSP EIR specify that 1,917 trips would be generated under the Base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and that 7,078 trips would be generated under the Maximum FAR Project. Please note that the Base FAR in the DDSP EIR assumes a constrained scenario with 867,320 square feet of new commercial space and 799 new residential units which is roughly one third of the development allowable under the DDSP. However, the constrained Base FAR scenario, which only covers the Downtown Specific Plan Area, still had trip generation forecasts that were higher than the WDTIF forecasts, even though the WDTIF forecasts supposedly include growth from the entire Western Dublin TIF area. In Attachment B to the 2014 DDSP Amendment the trip generation for the DDSP area (only) is presented in Table B -1. This table indicates that with approval of the 2014 amendments the DDSP area alone is forecast to generate 5,854 PM peak hour trips. This is clearly inconsistent with the WDTIF Finale Report which forecasts that only 1,718 PM peak hour trips would be generated by the entire WDTIF area. The result of understating new PM peak hour trips is that the fee is dramatically increased. It is also important to note that the DDSP EIR assumed a 25% pass -by reduction while Table 7 of the WDTIF Final Report appears to indicate that a 35% pass -by reduction was applied to retail uses. Please note this rate is actually higher than the rate recommended by ITE for general retail uses (ITE Land Use Code 820) and combined with the 23% MXD reduction would result in an unsupportable 58% reduction to the traffic from all commercial growth. This reduction was also apparently applied to office uses when it should only be applied to retail uses. Unfortunately, the WDTIF Final Report did not disclose the assumptions that were used to calculate the trip generation forecasts for the WDTIF area. Without West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 3 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. this information it is not possible to conclude with any certainty what portion of the WDTIF costs would be attributable to future development, and therefore we cannot determine the full extent to which the proposed amended fee is overstated as a result of this error. Additional evidence indicating the presence of serious errors in the WDTIF trip generation forecasts is provided below. (2) The cumulative traffic growth stated to he generated by the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparahle forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data Independent trip generation forecasts for the future development forecast for the WDTIF area were developed using standard traffic engineering procedures based on the commonly accepted data and guidelines provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Exhibit 1 presents the resulting cumulative traffic growth forecast to be generated in the WDTIF area compared to the growth estimated in the WDTIF Final Report. As seen in this exhibit, using the correct ITE assumptions combined with the WDTIF development assumptions results in estimated traffic growth of 5,137 PM peak hour trips for the WDTIF area. This is about three times more than the 1,718 PM peak hour trips that were used to calculate the maximum fee in Table 6 of the WDTIF Final Report. It is important to also note that the forecasts using the ITE procedures in Exhibit I are also consistent with the forecasts contained in Table 13-1 of the 2014 amendment to the DDSP (5,854 trips). This provides additional evidence that the traffic growth forecasts utilized in the WDTIF Final Report are inaccurate. (3) Based on a comparison to the ITE forecasts it appears that the WDTIF calculations erroneously assumed the future employment growth would consist entirely of office jobs with little or no retail employment growth. Although the assumptions used in the WDTIF forecasts are not disclosed, Exhibit 2 presents an attempt to recreate the WTDIF trip generation calculations using the limited information available within the text of the WDTIF report. For these calculations the 23% Mixed Use Development (MXD) reduction was applied to all development within the DDSP area and a 35% pass -by reduction was applied to the traffic forecast from employment growth (as referenced in Table 7 of the WDTIF Final Report). It should be noted that in addition to being unusually high (as noted above) the pass -by reduction would not apply to office uses. This is a concern since the DDSP EIR specifies that approximately 75% of the employment growth is forecast to come from offices. As shown in Exhibit 2, if the above assumptions from the WDTIF Final Report are used the resulting traffic growth matches the comparison calculations as long as all of the future traffic growth from new employment is assumed to be from offices. If this is, in fact, what the WDTIF calculations assume then this would be an incorrect assumption that West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 4 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. needs to be corrected. Based on all evidence available, it appears the WDTIF Final Report applied the lower office trip generation rates to future retail growth resulting in a significant underestimation of the future trips that would be generated by planned growth in the WDTIF area. (4) Based on an analysis of the growth projections contained in the WDTIF Final Report approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Appendix B of the WDTIF Final Report includes growth projections for each of the traffic analysis zones within the WDTIF area. As shown in Exhibit 3, based on this data (and ITE procedures) it is forecast that approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. This is a significant factor which then indicates the need to verify that the 23% MXD reduction was not applied to traffic generated outside the DDSP area. The WDTIF is somewhat misleading in stating that "almost all projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area" when, in fact, the data contained in Appendix B indicates up to 27% of the traffic growth would occur outside the DDSP area, The WDTIF goes on to state that '!for the purposes of the WDTIF calculations the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied". This is an incorrect statement given that up to 27% of the forecast traffic would be generated outside the DDSP area. As a result, the application of an unwarranted 23% MXD reduction to this substantial component of the future traffic growth would result in a significant underestimation of the WDTIF traffic growth and would not be appropriate. (5) An evaluation of the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP EIR proves that that the WDTIF Final Report used erroneous assumptions resulting in substantially lower forecasts of traffic growth than the DDSP EIR. A detailed evaluation of the future traffic growth forecasts used to determine the WDTIF percent responsibility (Table 5) was conducted at several key roadways and intersections. As shown in Exhibit 4, The DDSP EIR forecast an increase of 5,568 peak hour trips at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. At this same intersection the WDTIF Final Report concluded that development in the WDTIF area would be responsible for 61 % of the future traffic growth which equates to 3,396 PM peak hour trips, which is about twice the amount of trips the WDTIF report concludes will be generated by the entire WDTIF area. Obviously one intersection would not receive 100% of all the peak hour traffic generated in the entire WDTIF area. Even by conservative estimates it seems unlikely that any one intersection or roadway would receive more than about one -third of the future traffic forecast for the entire WDTIF area, Therefore, all evidence indicates the WDTIF percent responsibilities (in Table 5) West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 5 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. have been significantly overestimated. The result of this error is that the fee is significantly overstated. Exhibits 5 through 8 provide additional information on the forecast traffic growth for other key WDTIF projects, as per the data presented in the DDSP EIR. Please note the WDTIF Final Report states the DDSP EIR is "the most recent study that comprehensively addressed the downtown area ". Again, as seen in all of these exhibits, the traffic growth forecasts for these locations in the DDSP EIR are substantially higher than the traffic forecasts in the WDTIF Final Report. In fact, in two cases (WDTIF Projects 1 and 6) the DDSP EIR traffic growth added at a single intersection was found to be more than three times the growth forecast to be generated by the entire western Dublin area according to the WDTIF Final Report. (6) The WDTIFReport does not demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and developments on which the fee would be unposed. According to the California's Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), it is required that there be a reasonable relationship between the use of the proposed fee and the developments on which the fee is being unposed. One relevant factor is the fact that the DDSP eliminated intersection level of service (LOS) standard. As noted on Page 4 of the WDTIF Final Report: `'the DDSP explicitly removed the LDS Standard for any intersection in the Downtown Dublin area'. The fact that future traffic operations are expected to be worsened by some of the proposed WDTIF project (as described in the following section) does not constitute a reason to require the proposed improvements. The WDTIF Final Report makes no secret that the City goal is not to mitigate any specific traffic or safety impacts from planned development but instead to facilitate projects the City desires as identified in various planning documents such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). Page 3 of the WDTIF Final Report states the "WDTIF projects have been identified in order to implement the City's General Plan, Downton Specific Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ". Although it is possible the proposed WDTIF projects will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, there is no evidence presented in the WDTIF Final Report to prove this. The report fails to address any of the numerous commonly accepted methodologies for analyzing pedestrian and bicycle level of service and evaluating potential impacts on safety. These conditions (with and without the proposed WDTIF projects) should be analyzed using one of several commonly accepted practices such as the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS methodologies. There was also no analysis provided on the potential for impacts to transit speeds. This is typically analyzed by evaluating arterial travel speeds using the 2010 HCM arterial LOS methodology. Some Cities (such as the City of Alameda) have West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 6 Abrams Associates TRAFF}C ENGINEERING, INC. adopted criteria defining a significant impact to transit travel speeds as being a decrease of 10% or more. In the following section evidence is provided that one of the proposed WDTIF projects if actually forecast to result in a 50% reduction in PM peak hour transit travel speeds (from 10 mph to 5 mph) for the numerous buses that travel on westbound Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of Village Parkway. (7) An evaluation of the future operations for several key WDTIF projects indicates there is no evidence that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved while there is extensive evidence that transit speeds could be significantly impacted by implementation of the proposers WDTIFprojects. The circulation element of the Dublin General Plan (Section 5,22) includes policy A.6 which states that intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan "may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized." In the case of the WDTIF there has been no evidence provided that the proposed WDTIF projects will help maintain pedestrian and bicycle safety and/or minimize impacts to transit travel speeds. To provide an evaluation of potential impacts on transit travel speeds a detailed evaluation of future LOS conditions was prepared for two key intersections and also one critical (and directly related) segment of Dublin Boulevard that is used by multiple bus routes. Exhibit 9 presents the results of the LOS analysis of an analysis of cumulative traffic operations at Golden Gate Drive and Dublin Boulevard based on data contained in the DDSP EIR. The resulting LOS is presented for both the previous 2004 TIF project and also the currently proposed WDTIF project at this intersection. As seen in the exhibit the proposed WDTIF project is forecast to result in substantially increased delays when compared to the previous 2004 TIF project. The LOS calculations indicate the average delay for all vehicles during the PM peak hour would increase by well over a minute (74 seconds per vehicle) which would equate to over a 60% increase in overall delay at the intersection. Obviously significant increases in delay such as this have the potential to not only reduce transit speeds but also to reduce pedestrian and bicycle safety as a result of increased motorist frustration. Exhibit 10 presents the results of the LOS analysis of an analysis of cumulative traffic operations at Amador Plaza Drive and Dublin Boulevard, also based on the volumes and assumptions contained in the DDSP EIR. The resulting LOS is presented for both the previous 2004 TIF project and also the currently proposed WDTIF project. As seen in the exhibit the proposed WDTIF project is forecast to result in substantially increased delays at this intersection also when compared to West Dublin Traffic Im act Fee U date Review Abrams Associates p p TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 7 the previous 2004 TIF project. The LOS calculations indicate the average delay for all vehicles during the PM peak hour would increase by well over a minute and a half (about 100 seconds per vehicle) which would equate to over a 34% increase in delay. It should be noted that the increased delay at this intersection also stems from the proposed Amador Plaza Complete Streets project. By narrowing southbound Amador Plaza Road from two lanes to one (between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way) this project effectively precludes implementation of the previous 2004 TIF project at this intersection that would have provided for two westbound left turn lanes from westbound Dublin Boulevard onto southbound Amador Plaza Road. Our analysis indicates that eliminating this additional left turn lane will result in a significant reduction to transit speeds. Exhibit 11 presents a 2010 HCM analysis of the resulting change in arterial travel speeds (i.e. transit speeds) on Dublin Boulevard between the 2004 TIF project and the proposed WDTIF project. As shown by the HCM results, the elimination of the dual left turn lane is forecast to cause transit speeds on westbound Dublin Boulevard (east of Amador Plaza Road) to deteriorate from about 10 mph to 5 mph. In many jurisdictions this level of reduction to transit speeds would be considered a significant impact. Given the analysis of potential impacts to transit speeds presented in Exhibits 8 through I0 along with the City's adopted policies regarding impacts to transit speeds, it appears that additional evidence would be required to properly verify that the proposed WDTIF project would not result in significant impacts to transit operations, particularly along Dublin Boulevard. (8) The inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements appears to violate the requirements of AB 1600. There is no reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area. As mentioned above, even though there are numerous methodologies that could have been used, no evidence or analysis has been provided that could prove a link between the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements and forecast development expected to occur throughout the WDTIF area. The extent of the review for existing deficiencies apparently just consisted of a review of some existing LOS calculations prepared for the DDSP EIR well over five years ago. These calculations were clearly based on outdated traffic counts almost six years old and they also utilized outdated 2000 HCM methodology. Also, please note that Table 4 of the WDTIF Final Report erroneously identifies the methodology used to determine the existing LOS as being the 2010 HCM. In fact, a review of the accident data for the facilities in question indicates there is sufficient evidence to prove there is an existing need for safety improvements (i.e. West Dublin Traffic impact Fee Update Review Page 8 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. an existing deficiency) at certain WDTIF project locations. For example, a review of the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data indicates that just on Dublin Boulevard itself there have apparently been 26 automobile accidents that involved bicycles and pedestrians in the period from 2006 to 2014. During this time there were four pedestrian -auto collisions at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road and also four bicycle -auto collisions at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway. (9) Some of the projects selected for inclusion in the WDTIF, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would clearly serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily be required by adjacent developments. As mentioned above, California's Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the use of the WDTIF fee and the developments which the fee is being imposed. In the case of St. Patrick Way Extension it is clear the project would not benefit developments that are not located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed roadway. In fact, this is supported by statements on page 114 of the DDSP which states that "This extension will be necessary to move vehicular traffic through the Transit- Oriented District upon completion of the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART station and new development projects on adjacent properties ". The DDSP then goes on to state that: "Construction of the Saint Patrick Way extension would occur concurrent with (adjacent) development of the Essex and AMB Parcels ". Unlike other major arterials in the area, such as Dublin Boulevard, St. Patrick Way is designated as a collector street and there is no evidence that the extension would ever serve anything other than traffic from adjacent developments since it is located in an area with very little through traffic. The reason there is very little through traffic is because it is essentially land - locked with no through traffic access on three sides due to the I -680 and 1 -580 freeways and also the Foothill Road /San Ramon Road interchange ramps. Our review indicates that adjacent developments could potentially be required to fund the costs of this extension. The main factor that needs to be accounted for is this: new development throughout most of the WDTIF area will not add a substantial amount of trips to the future peak hour traffic on this roadway. The fact that the select zone model analysis resulted in an estimate that 100% of this project would be attributable to growth in the WDTIF area is a strong indication that the use of this methodology may be resulting in errors. Although the underlying model assumptions used to calculate the percentages were not provided, all evidence indicates that the calculations used a completely West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Page 9 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENONEERINC;. INC. different set of model assumptions than the model that was used to estimate traffic growth in the WDTIF Final Report. The apparent use of different model assumptions to develop the factors in the WDTIF fee calculations is particularly a concern because none of the underlying assumptions are provided. As a result, it is not possible to properly review how the WDTIF percentages were arrived at. (See WDTIF Final Report, Table 5.) At a minimum the percentage calculation for St. Patrick Way Extension should be reduced to account for the fact that there are two developments with a total of 380 residential units and 17,000 square feet of retail space approved right next to the proposed extension .4 These developments will clearly contribute to the future traffic growth but would not be subject to the fee. In general, it is recommended that a different analysis methodology be utilized to calculate the percent responsibility attributable to future development occurring throughout the entire WDTIF area. In summary, there are clearly numerous errors and inconsistencies associated with the Final Report for the WDTIF. The report should be revised to address the significant problems that have been identified and then recirculated for public review and comment. Please call me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, 45�,LA,., Stephen C. Abrams President Abrams Associates T.E. License No. 1852 4 City of Dublin Commercial and Residential Project List, City of Dublin, Dublin, CA, 11/10/15 ■ � e U @ 0 LL L.L � 0 � ■ � � t � � o c � x CL ' LLI W � � % � c 2 � 0 c 0 ■ CL E 0 U E 2 � 5 � m \ / \ \ k Q a 0 k 7 #\ 72 CL c 0 ) % ƒ a 0 cu 3 C ) 2 ® . =4 #may LO Lu i / j =2 _ ®\ 2 / 0 \ § « \ 0 = a k k mu § � o \CL ° © »a kje Eo aj (k = » a ; \ \ \ E \ = o \ CL \ = L 7 = / § J ` 5 £ & \ ° S 0 0 ® 7 0 e aj \ d } / t o § 0 0 \ k $ u E E \ CL 0 k 0 - m G a ® ° § \ { \ k / / # » \� ® » 4 # o \ = - / \ \ _ _ ® 0 c = g Ln Z 2 0 = a \ $ 2 E % § \ 0/ CL/ �qa{ \ E a ® - E t 2 \ \ / \ /k\ \\\ 0 x a N CL CL CL \ \ \ 2 $ 7 E / 2 \ $ \ c C § o ƒ f u _� # / t \ 0 \ 2 m§ e e° e > 2))29§% k e \ § L j } .. M e \ e \ / / 2 \ G _ S / 7 c ® \ cc % f � « 3 0 z { ] $ \ § E C = 2 § a \ G < LU LL / \ § \ \ \ \ E \ \ \ \ m } \ E / / ? LU / ® / � / LO > $ $ ° ® \ ® / \ \ e # 8 \ & q R / r- r4 3 a & \ E 2 � 5 � m \ / \ \ k Q a 0 k 7 #\ 72 CL c 0 ) % ƒ a 0 cu 3 C ) 2 ® . =4 #may LO Lu i / j =2 _ ®\ 2 / 0 \ § « \ 0 = a k k mu § � o \CL ° © »a kje Eo aj (k = » a ; \ \ \ E \ = o \ CL \ = L 7 = / § J ` 5 £ & \ ° S 0 0 ® 7 0 e aj \ d } / t o § 0 0 \ k $ u E E \ CL 0 k 0 - m G a ® ° § \ { \ k / / # » \� ® » 4 # o \ = - / \ \ _ _ ® 0 c = g Ln Z 2 0 = a \ $ 2 E % § \ 0/ CL/ �qa{ \ E a ® - E t 2 \ \ / \ /k\ \\\ 0 x a N CL CL CL \ \ \ 2 $ 7 E / 2 \ $ \ c C § o ƒ f u _� # / t \ 0 \ 2 m§ e e° e > 2))29§% k e \ § L j } .. M e \ e \ / / \ \ _ / / \ c \ e a Q a » 0 z { ] $ \ ( E C = 2 < a \ \ LU 2 / \ § \ \ \ } / / / ® / LO > $ $ ° ® \ ® / e \ E 2 � 5 � m \ / \ \ k Q a 0 k 7 #\ 72 CL c 0 ) % ƒ a 0 cu 3 C ) 2 ® . =4 #may LO Lu i / j =2 _ ®\ 2 / 0 \ § « \ 0 = a k k mu § � o \CL ° © »a kje Eo aj (k = » a ; \ \ \ E \ = o \ CL \ = L 7 = / § J ` 5 £ & \ ° S 0 0 ® 7 0 e aj \ d } / t o § 0 0 \ k $ u E E \ CL 0 k 0 - m G a ® ° § \ { \ k / / # » \� ® » 4 # o \ = - / \ \ _ _ ® 0 c = g Ln Z 2 0 = a \ $ 2 E % § \ 0/ CL/ �qa{ \ E a ® - E t 2 \ \ / \ /k\ \\\ 0 x a N CL CL CL \ \ \ 2 $ 7 E / 2 \ $ \ c C § o ƒ f u _� # / t \ 0 \ 2 m§ e e° e > 2))29§% k e \ § L j } .. M e \ e \ / / _ / c \ j I 0 z { ] $ \ E C = 2 % a \ \ LU q E 2 � 5 � m \ / \ \ k Q a 0 k 7 #\ 72 CL c 0 ) % ƒ a 0 cu 3 C ) 2 ® . =4 #may LO Lu i / j =2 _ ®\ 2 / 0 \ § « \ 0 = a k k mu § � o \CL ° © »a kje Eo aj (k = » a ; \ \ \ E \ = o \ CL \ = L 7 = / § J ` 5 £ & \ ° S 0 0 ® 7 0 e aj \ d } / t o § 0 0 \ k $ u E E \ CL 0 k 0 - m G a ® ° § \ { \ k / / # » \� ® » 4 # o \ = - / \ \ _ _ ® 0 c = g Ln Z 2 0 = a \ $ 2 E % § \ 0/ CL/ �qa{ \ E a ® - E t 2 \ \ / \ /k\ \\\ 0 x a N CL CL CL \ \ \ 2 $ 7 E / 2 \ $ \ c C § o ƒ f u _� # / t \ 0 \ 2 m§ e e° e > 2))29§% k e \ § L j } .. M e \ e \ / / N m rc W N e� v O LL O m C ,Q r LL Q) t H L O LyyL ,i V 4) t 0 W O v Q O w M N n rn ti cD O �-I NO Q � o � m C a� m 00 ra O O 1- �O N + N —1 .� N C ... ro OD co -p a L GO o a Qj lO Ln O a V rq EF +' C L1 Qr � "O N O LL a CLO C 3 U (I- ( (A O ro 00 -23, N N Q7 (A Q N N N Q Yn C a N 0 N d Ln O a1 C a. N O rI C L 0 p .W a1 n z u w `a LL N CU � a c a O � a o pN T 7 LO L7 m o Ly a O LO m ro c OO Z aD O SO L •X L vL- a M N n rn ti cD O �-I NO Q � o � m C a� m 00 � LU N L r O m Lr H N —1 .� C ... ro co -p a L GO o a Qj LL. Ln O a m o EF +' C ran � "O N ? CLO C 3 o ( O r � LL al Q7 (A G Q Yn C a N 0 N d Ln O a1 M a. N O rI C L p .W a1 ( z u M N n rn ti cD O �-I m N � S � nr ti ti a a a G v m cn FO O w m 0 C o � u !1ti CL d m r0 rn m L NO Q � o � m C a� C u O � a) cc aci a (D x n r R H LU N L r H m N � S � nr ti ti a a a G v m cn FO O w m 0 C o � u !1ti CL d m r0 rn m L QJ C r .� C •N .7 -p L GO Qj +' C "O ? Q � al Q7 (A G L Yn C a -p 0 rz► 5 a1 a. f\ O Q p .W a1 ( u L `a Z) CU O a c a O h tLo o T 7 Ly a H U ro N ro L OO Z aD O SO 0 •X L vL- a W > U_ a Q O " c o c a ± v ++ ro E O +� a3 0 Q o O U N w Q a o 30 v a o a. td 4- ++ L N O U a 0 0 O O N •al a, L Ql ? n a a _ a c O _0 ro O C `: LF c, a (3) L U ro O_ O- ° O a.. a CL w c O C 4Q Q <U �' A d o Q) 0 E a a c L !O co D V 0 .1C a--+ O �' O u 3 ri v -C CL r>c 3 '0 0 " +. a r C r0 -p L } ° o c LM O` u .° O Z LM a U fu L E 7 m U O a u v L � Q +L a C7 C f0 d 5 xv-0 ? o Q a a) w N co f6 d m O t C E d CL a D a 3 O O ~ u 41 a1 G +� c O CO X 0 `� E o ° cz n L a1 Z 4 a m N N 0 0 rn m ^ v m W 1-1 Li') Ln Lf% Go n m m ri Llml 0t ti co d M' 1.0 00 00 N —t 1 ti O O 0) -1 N co h N N N m m v a N N r-I c-i h h n Q7 0) m .1 -1 .a O �+ n -C L C O c u G 3 ro O � G 'O O O C � v al X C O v U n u1 G v C. = E H ca CL o 0 0 LU ~ N L_ LU m a 3 o E F W ro h h t+ O m O -0 r ul co co U Q1 O Cll No` a V C Ln a Q O N � to L L. O Q N N Ga -o LL r ^^ MI 5 E y �a O a w W v LL G1 a L � Q N m vi N] a N N LL C C rl cy L M p i � � Q H ° m LA x � G N � W p LL cc H N p 0 � :3 O a O LL Q 0 Q 3 a tn -1 N d m L Af 0 0 rn m ^ v m W 1-1 Li') Ln Lf% Go n m m ri Llml 0t ti co d M' 1.0 00 00 N —t 1 ti O O 0) -1 N co h N N N m m v a N N r-I c-i h h n Q7 0) m .1 -1 .a O �+ n v (3) C O c u � O � G 'O O Z v al X C U G v C. L H CL Z LU ~ N L_ LU 3 Ir O ri N O � � p O a ai t a � O L(y N L.L 11 L � Q al i O (u 3 7 C_ - m 10 E r C N 3 L7 L L p L L 0 a T L 0) r 6 3 �? o o n v E c as ai a v 0' L Y 41 a v O_ W L G o T N Q fu CL U') v E Li O G 7 Q u qj '-° CL N n N Y C 2 O c p p 45 LO, -0 C_ L N 0 C o_ p U (U O p E tx0 N v u O a) r- � O Co E al G n 0 a) Qi n _ N a [6 O ro C C L O ro U al V L -6 CO u 0 L1 6 � Q ro m'�t- o a o v o c M, m ° v bb a v O +' _ o a v ° ro E - O L Q N t C N E L v U O aJ U5 CL -0 h 3 C. .Q u O 0 c L O 3) O x ai a X C C_ O D a L o E � o Q o L m a; U, � - A t0 Q1 -O O E ro c Q v o, C N T N v ro L v N -0 H +�O 41 3 N X d a) O N E a O ~ CL O ~ Q v5 z ,� �; y N m m EXHIBIT 4 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of San Ramon Road & Dublin Boulevard Existinq PM Peak 87 505 115 253 �► 342 t 575 1030 Hour Volumes 198 163 243 803 882 Total Traffic = 5,196 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 156 705 688 j 1 t. 163 1 741 546 •.► 549 458 2077 803 13/x39 2539 Total Traffic = 10,764 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,568 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WD TIF Area = 61 Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 31396 EXHIBIT 5 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of Golden Gate Drive & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 61 5 62 120 ` 40 998 r 844 56 r 53 121 6 103 Total Traffic = 2,479 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 203 5 241 J 292 -- ` 165 2469 2068 637 s.. 245 t 708 16 478 Total Traffic = 7,527 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,048 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 71 Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 31584 EXHIBIT 6 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection of Amador Plaza Road & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 94 117 185 4 174 ' i 173 857 -ft- .0— 747 144 �. 310 146 188 287 Total Traffic = 3,422 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 227 371 321 363 ' ` 234 1887 1456 963 �. 867 t r 845 434 1040 Total Traffic = 9,008 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,586 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 75 Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 4, 190 EXHIBIT 7 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of Village Parkway & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 223 78 296 � l � 336 1 L 325 776 .0— 923 215 .� If— 201 t f 66 28 8 Total Traffic = 3,475 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 540 85 527 t 751 463 1901 .0— 1934 595 .,� If— 251 * 1 �r 1 66 28 8 Total Traffic = 7,149 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection .= 3, 6 74 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 79 Future Traffic Growth TheoreticallyAttributable to the WDTIFArea = 2,609 EXHIBIT B Forecast Increase In Traffic On Dublin Boulevard On The Segment West of Amador Plaza Road Existina PM Peak Hour Volumes CD Dublin Boulevard r, Co ar -0� 987 N CD 1175 ENEW `o o 0 E Total Traffic = 2,162 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes � J Dublin Boulevard a D � a� -46� 2528 1p a M 3213 0=0-� o o M E Total Traffic = 5,741 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIFArea = Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WD TIF Area 3,579 70 21505 EXHIBIT 9 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 --* "r 4\ i Lane Group _ EBL EBT, EBR WaL _ VVBT _ NBL N87 _ NBR SBL SBT _ Lane Group Flow (vph) 317 2684 692 266 2427 770 272 265 262 226 v/c Ratio 1.06 1.10 0.74 1.12 1.08 1.10 0.75 0.74 0.91 0.76 Control Delay 123.3 86.8 20.2 149.0 82.9 1143 27.1 25.2 92.9 28.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.3 86.8 20.2 149.0 91.1 114.3 27.1 25.2 92.9 28.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) -311 -998 261 ^275 -890 -402 47 41 236 20 Queue Length 95th (ft) #553 #1217 486 #497 #1104 #588 154 144 #441 108 internal Link Dist (ft) 1202 560 557 808 Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 230 130 130 Base Capacity(vph) 300 2443 937 237 2244 703 440 437 287 379 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.06 1.10 0.74 1.12 1.23 1.10 0.62 0.61 0.91 C.60 �ntermedw Summary Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue maybe longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 JsrltNteltlBME . IrBL EST E$R Wry, W81 ta' 8R. NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r Vi tti ' Volume (vehlh) 292 2469 637 245 2068 165 708 16 478 241 5 203 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 317 2684 692 266 2248 179 770 0 531 262 5 221 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 284 2305 718 225 2019 159 686 0 507 272 4 186 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.19 000 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, vehth 1774 5085 1583 1774 4808 379 3548 0 3167 1774 35 1553 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 317 2684 692 266 1578 849 770 0 531 262 0 226 Grp Sat Row(s),vehlhlln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1796 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1589 0 Serve(g_s), s 24.0 6B.0 633 19.0 63.0 63.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 22.0 0.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 68.0 63.7 19.0 63.0 63.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 22.0 0.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 284 2305 718 225 1424 754 686 0 507 272 0 191 VIC Ratio(X) 1.12 1.16 0.96 1.18 1.11 113 1.12 0.00 1.05 0.96 0.00 1.19 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 284 2305 718 225 1424 754 686 0 507 272 0 191 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 63.0 41.0 39.8 65.5 43.5 43.5 60.5 0.0 63.0 63.1 0.0 66.0 incr Delay (d2), s /veh 88.5 79.1 25.0 118.6 59.3 73.2 73.2 0.0 53.1 44.4 0.0 124.1 Initial 0 Delay(0),s /veh 0.0 0A 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50 %),vehlln 18.7 48.7 32.7 16.7 41.2 46.5 21.2 0.0 14.2 14.1 0.0 14.5 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 151.5 120.1 64.8 184.1 102.8 116.7 133.7 0.0 116.1 107.4 0.0 1901 LnGrp LOS F F E F F F F F F F Approach Vol, vehlh 3693 2693 1301 488 Approach Delay, slveh 112.4 115.2 126.6 145.7 Approach LOS F F F F jiim _ 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G +Y +Rc), s 27.0 28,0 23.0 72.0 33.0 22.0 28.0 67.0 Change Period (Y +Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 24.0 19.0 68.0 29.0 18.0 24.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c +11), s 24.0 26.0 21.0 70.0 31.0 20.0 26.0 65.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 HerseoDn Summary HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 117.6 HCM 2010 LOS F User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 ---* --M- f- 4 fi W"G -- EBl_ _ tiU VOL WaT ILL WRT Ni3R_ SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 317 3376 266 2427 770 17 520 262 226 vlc Ratio 1.07 1.39 1.33 1.11 1.40 0.05 1.18 1.31 0.57 Control Delay 130.9 209.8 227.1 96.6 236.2 51.6 136.7 219.9 14.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 130.9 209.8 227.1 97.0 236.2 51.6 136.7 219.9 14.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) -344 1604 - -336 -991 -518 14 -451 -328 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) #541 #1667 #521 #1078 #648 38 #685 #513 91 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1202 560 557 819 Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 230 130 130 Base Capacity(vph) 295 2428 200 2185 549 335 439 200 399 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.07 1.39 1.33 1 A 1.40 0.05 1.15 1.31 0.57 Intersection Summary -- Volume exceeds capacity.. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Proposed WDTiF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 3/17/2016 Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 2_ 3. 4 S 8 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 Mower erti _ _ _ EBL _ EBT, ERR INBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I t +T+ 4.0 4.0 t4T+ 4.0 4.0 t r I T 27.0 Volume (vehlh) 292 2469 637 245 2068 165 708 16 478 241 5 203 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial 0 (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate. vehlh 317 2684 692 266 2248 179 770 17 520 262 5 221 Adj No. cf Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 296 1997 476 201 2083 164 551 335 285 201 5 207 Arrive On Green 0,17 0.49 0.49 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 4103 977 1774 4808 379 3442 1863 1583 1774 35 1553 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 317 2179 1197 266 1578 849 770 17 520 262 0 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1695 1690 1774 1695 1796 1721 1863 1583 1774 0 1589 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 73.0 73.0 17.0 65,0 65.0 24,0 11 27.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 73.0 710 17.0 65.0 65.0 24.0 1.1 27.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.98 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh /h 296 1650 823 201 1469 778 551 335 285 201 0 212 VIC Ratio(X) 1.07 1.32 1,46 1.32 1.07 1.09 1.40 0.05 1.82 1.30 0.00 1.07 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 296 1650 823 201 1469 778 551 335 285 201 0 212 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 62.5 38.5 38.5 66,5 42.5 42,5 63.0 50.9 61.5 66.5 0.0 65.0 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 72.8 148.6 211.7 1757 46.1 60.0 190.1 01 384.5 1677 0.0 80.7 Initiai Q Delay(d3),s /veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Me 8ackOfQ(50 %),vehlln 18.2 68.2 82.4 18.1 39.8 45.2 25.9 0.6 42.2 17.7 0.0 13.5 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 135.3 1871 250.2 242.2 88.6 102.5 253.1 51.0 446.0 234.2 0.0 145.7 LnGrp LOS F F F F F F F D F F F Approach VoI, vehlh 3693 2693 1307 488 Approach Delay, slveh 203.1 108.2 327.2 193.2 Approach LOS F F F F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 2_ 3. 4 S 8 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G +Y +Rc), s 21.0 31.0 21,0 77.0 28.0 24.0 29.0 69.0 Change Period (Y +Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 27.0 17.0 73.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 65,0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c +I1), s 19.0 29,0 19,0 75.0 26.0 22.0 27.0 67.0 Green Ext Time (p_c): s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 191 1 HCM 2010 LOS F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 EXHIBIT 10 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1117/2096 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 300 100 - L SBF SBR Base Capacity (vph) 230 1389 801 537 1508 513 714 Lane Group Flow(vph) 370 1926 983 885 1725 862 443 1061 328 379 232 We Ratio 1.61 1.39 1.23 1.65 1.14 1.68 0.62 1.34 1.51 1.30 0.57 Control Delay 332.5 218.9 135.5 337.5 119,2 347.9 421 187,1 296.7 2063 18.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 332.5 218.9 135.5 337.5 119.2 347,9 43.8 187.3 296.7 206.7 18.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) -517 -914 -803 -644 -717 --1228 349 1159 -229 -473 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) #726 #1008 #1068 #777 #815 #1486 471 #1426 4332 #682 124 Internal Link Dist (ft) 560 1105 566 1527 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 300 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) 230 1389 801 537 1508 513 714 794 217 291 409 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 22 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.61 1.39 1.23 1.65 1.14 1.68 0.77 1.37 1.51 1.30 0.57 Hemedon Summary - -- Volume exceeds capacity queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 111712016 Mmement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I TTT r )) tfiT t + r Volume (vehlh) 363 1887 963 867 1456 234 845 434 1040 321 371 227 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Cb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 370 1926 983 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Adj No, of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 231 1390 433 539 1326 213 514 714 607 218 292 248 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 5085 1583 3442 4418 709 1774 1863 1583 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 370 1926 983 885 1140 585 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhb 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1738 1774 1863 1583 1721 1863 1583 0 Serve(g_s), s 19.5 41.0 41.0 23.5 45.0 45.0 43.5 28.9 57.5 9.5 23.5 21.7 Cycle Q Ciear(g_c), s 19.5 41.0 41,0 23.5 45.0 45.0 43.5 28.9 57.5 9.5 23.5 21.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 231 1390 433 539 1017 521 514 714 607 218 292 248 V/C Ratio(X) 1.60 1.39 2.27 1.64 1.12 1.12 1.68 0.62 1.75 1.50 1.30 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 231 1390 433 539 1017 521 514 714 607 218 292 248 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 65.3 54.5 54.5 63.3 52.5 52.5 53,2 37.4 46.3 70.3 63.2 62.5 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 291.3 178.1 579.5 296.9 67.5 77.8 312.4 1.7 343.4 249.6 1573 39.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50 %),vehlln 28.2 42.1 87.6 33.4 30.6 32.8 65.9 151 82.9 12.1 24.8 12.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 356.5 232.6 634.0 360.2 120.0 130.3 365.7 39.1 389.7 319.8 220.6 102.3 LnGrp LOS F F F F F F F D F F F F Approach Vol, vehlh 3279 2610 2366 939 Approach Delay. slveh 366.9 203.7 315.3 226.0 Approach LOS F F F F ti i - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G +Y +Rc), s 28.0 46.0 48.0 28.0 24.0 50.0 14.0 62.0 Change Period (Y +Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 41.0 43.5 23.5 19.5 45.0 9.5 57,5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c +11), s 25.5 43.0 45.5 25.5 21.5 47.0 11.5 59.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Surnmary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 292.9 HCM 2010 LOS F 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1117/2016 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 370 2909 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Lane Group Flow (vph) vlc Ratio 1.04 1.89 231 0.91 0.36 2.32 0.78 1,41 1.92 1.42 0.60 Control Delay 115.9 431.2 623.7 57.5 71 629.6 58.9 216.9 468.4 253.6 20.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 OA 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 115.9 431.2 623.7 57.5 7.1 629.6 60.1 216.9 468.4 253.6 20.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) -390 -1579 -1406 510 10 -1372 398 -1111 -253 --498 38 Queue Length 95th (ft) #599 #1655 #1666 576 76 #1629 537 #1378 #356 #707 130 Internal Link Dist (ft) 560 1105 566 1527 Turn Say Length (ft) 200 300 350 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) 355 1540 383 1640 662 371 565 753 171 267 388 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.04 1.89 2.31 0,91 0.36 2.32 0.82 3.41 1,92 1,42 0.60 )nterseclion Summary -� Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1117!2016 [RW -- . - -- - - I--- ..__2.._ . . - $- - - 4, '- 6 7 ? Assigned Phs I. 1 4/ MUy�ament_ _ ��L EBT EBR _WBL tiVi3T 4NgR NSL N8T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Change Period (Y +Rc), s W+ 5.0 ) +tt r ' t r ' t r Volume Ivehlh) 363 1887 963 867 1456 234 845 434 1040 321 371 227 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0 (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A -pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 370 1926 963 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Adj No. of Lares 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 356 1062 467 384 1641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.31 0,31 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3463 1521 1774 5085 1583 1774 1863 1583 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 370 1879 1030 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlin 1774 1695 1594 1774 1695 1583 1774 1863 1583 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 30.1 46.0 46.0 32.5 41.9 18.1 31.5 32.6 45.5 7.5 21.5 21.5 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 30.1 46.0 46.0 32.5 41.9 18.1 31.5 32.6 45.5 7.5 21.5 21.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 356 1040 489 384 1641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 VIC Ratio(X) 1.04 1.81 2.11 2.30 0.91 0.47 2.31 078 2.21 1.91 1.42 1.02 Avail Cap(c-a), vehlh 356 1040 489 384 1641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 HCM Piatoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 60.0 52.0 52.0 58.8 48.6 40.5 59.3 47.8 52.3 71.3 64.3 64.3 Incr Delay (d2), s /veh 58.3 367.1 505.0 594.3 7.6 07 599.6 7.1 550.9 428.7 209.4 65.6 lnitial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 %ile BackOfQ(50 %),vehlln 20.5 74,5 88.8 79.4 20.8 8.0 77.5 17.9 93.4 13.8 26.6 13.6 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 118.2 419 1 557.0 653.0 56.2 41.2 658.8 54.9 603.1 499.9 273.6 130.0 LnGrp LOS F F F F E D F D F F F F Approach Vol, vehlh 3279 2610 2366 939 Approach Delay, slveh 428.5 257.2 520,8 317.2 Approach LOS F F F F [RW -- . - -- - - I--- ..__2.._ . . - $- - - 4, 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G +Y +Rc), s 37.0 51.0 36.0 26.0 34.6 53.4 12.0 50.0 Change Period (Y +Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 46.0 31.5 21.5 30.1 48.4 7.5 45.5 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c +11), s 34.5 48.0 33.5 23.5 321 43.9 9.5 47.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 intersection Sum_ mary 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 392.2 HCM 2010 LOS F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 EXHIBIT 11 Arterial Level of Service Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 111712016 Arterial Level of Service: EB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy 111 35 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Total III 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy 111 35 27.1 49.5 76.6 0.23 10.6 E Total III 27.1 49.5 76.6 0.23 10.6 E 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 Arterial Level of Service Cumulative + MaxPAR PM 111712016 Arterial Level of Service: EB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy ill 35 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Total III 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy Ill 35 27.1 118.3 145.4 0.23 5,6 F Total III 27.1 118.3 145.4 0.23 5.6 F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1