HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Tri-Val Trans CouncilCITY CLERK
File # ❑[6d❑0 ❑ "D 0❑
/060-10
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 6, 2009
SUBJECT: Adoption Of Amendments To The Tri- Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement (JEPA) And Revisions
To The Tri - Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee
Report Prepared by: daimee Bourgeois, Sr Civil Engineer (Traffic)
ATTACHMENTS: (1) City of Dublin Resolution 62 -09
(2) Tri- Valley Transportation Council Resolution 2009 -02,
without Exhibit "A"
(3) Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor To
Execute Addendum II To The Joint Exercise Of Powers
Agreement Pertaining To The Tri - Valley Transportation
Development Fees For Traffic Mitigation, together with
Exhibit "A," Addendum II To Joint Exercise Of Powers
Agreement Pertaining To The Tri - Valley Transportation
Development Fees For Traffic Mitigation
(4) Resolution Amending The Fee Schedule For The Tri- Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee, together with
Exhibit "A," Tri - Valley Combined Study /Technical Report:
Status And Funding Of High Priority Projects
RECOMMENDATION:,-, (1) Adopt the Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor
To Execute Addendum II To The Joint Exercise Of Powers
Agreement Pertaining To The Tri- Valley Transportation
Development Fees For Traffic Mitigation;
(2) Adopt the Resolution Amending The Fee Schedule For The
Tri - Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The proposed exemption of affordable housing from the TVTD Fee
will result in a reduction of revenues for the program. The increase in
the fee for the "Other Uses" land use category will result in an
increase of revenues for the program. There is no impact to the City's
General Fund.
COPY TO:
Page 1 of 4
ITEM NO. 7
G: \TRANSPORTATION\Regional\TVTC \Staff Reports \agst_TVTC_ JEPA_AddendumII.doc //+
l l
DESCRIPTION: The Tri- Valley area consists of several communities in southern
Contra Costa County and eastern Alameda County which experience many inter - related transportation
problems. In 1995, the TVTC adopted the "Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan" for Routes of
Regional Significance to address some of the more congested elements of the Tri - Valley transportation
network. The 1995 Action Plan listed 11 transportation projects as "high priority" for the region.
In 1998, the TVTC member jurisdictions of Dublin, San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville and the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) to
establish the TVTD Fee as a mechanism to partially fund the $763 million cost of these 11 high priority
proj ects.
Since its inception, the collected TVTD Fees have been used to help complete several of these high priority
projects. However, the majority of these projects remain under- funded due to escalating construction costs
and insufficient matching funds from the State and Federal governments. The remaining original 11
projects, which will hereinafter be referred to as "List A" projects, currently have an estimated unfunded
balance of $369 million.
In recognition of these significant funding shortfalls, the TVTC authorized an update to its original Fee
Nexus Study to determine the funding levels necessary to complete the remaining original "List A" projects
and to help fund 11 new transportation improvements that have emerged from various Tri - Valley
transportation planning efforts over the last decade, referred to as "List B" projects. The new "List B"
projects currently have an estimated unfunded balance of $1.1 billion. Projects on both lists are termed
collectively the "TVTC Projects" and have a total estimated unfunded amount of $1.469 billion.
In 2008, the TVTC proposed a phased fee increase to address the funding shortfalls for priority
transportation projects in the Tri- Valley. Fee increases require an amendment to the JEPA, an action which
requires a unanimous vote of the TVTC, and adoption of the fee increase by each of the seven member
jurisdictions. The City of Dublin approved the fee increase on October 7, 2008. After much effort, only
five of the remaining six jurisdictions approved the fee increase. While the one dissenting jurisdiction, the
City of Pleasanton, has expressed support for the fee increase, it voted to defer implementation of the fee
adjustment until such time as an updated Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) can be developed that provides
assurance that "List A" projects have priority over "List B" projects.
As a result, the TVTC has since elected to defer adoption of a revised fee program until such time as the
updated SEP is complete. To date, the TVTC has retained the consulting services of Kimley Horn and
Associates (KHA), and has formed a sub - committee structure to expedite completion of the SEP update.
In the meantime, the TVTC is requesting that its member jurisdictions approve four non - controversial
amendments to the JEPA.
JEPA Amendment Process
An amendment to the TVTC JEPA requires unanimous approval of all seven member jurisdictions, and any
amendments that require adjustment to the TVTD Fee involves a three -step process:
Step 1 - Local Support: In this first step, all member jurisdictions are asked to support the proposed
amendment and authorize their representative to endorse the proposal at an upcoming TVTC
meeting.
Page 2 of 4
Step 2 - TVTC Approval: Next, the TVTC will take formal action on the proposed amendment(s)
at a noticed public hearing.
Step 3 - Local Adoption: Lastly, the JEPA amendments must be approved by each member
jurisdiction, and any TVTD Fee adjustments require local implementation.
Action taken by the City Council at its May 19, 2009, meeting completed the first of this three -step process.
At that meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 62 -09, Supporting Amendments To The Tri- Valley
Transportation Council Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement And Authorizing The Dublin Representative
To Endorse Said Amendments At The Tri - Valley Transportation Council Public Hearing (Attachment 1).
Step 2 was completed on July 20, 2009, when the TVTC approved the amendments after holding a public
hearing (Attachment 2).
The action being considered by the City Council at its October 6, 2009, meeting is the third of this three -
step process: approval of the proposed JEPA amendments and implementation of the TVTD Fee
adjustment. At the writing of this report, both the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore have completed Step
3 and approved the proposed JEPA amendments and TVTD Fee adjustment. The four other member
agencies are scheduled to review the item over the next couple of weeks.
Addendum II to the JEPA
On May 19, 2009, the City Council reviewed the proposed changes in a redline format to the original
JEPA. For final approval, the changes have been included in a standalone document, referred to as
Addendum II to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining To The Tri - Valley Transportation
Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation.
The four JEPA changes documented in Addendum II remain as previously reviewed by the Council, with
some minor modifications to the language to address further legal review that has taken place since May
19, 2009. The minor modifications are described below:
• The JEPA changes are documented in a separate Addendum as required by Section 13 of the JEPA.
• Affordable Housing Exemption: This amendment, as previously drafted, provides for a TVTD
Fee exemption for all very low, low, and moderate income affordable housing units meeting the
applicable State of California Health and Safety Code section requirements and having a minimum
affordability term of 55 years (for multi - family) and 45 years (for single - family). After further
research, it was identified that several member agencies, including the City of Dublin, have existing
definitions for affordable housing that are inconsistent with the specific terms that were
previously drafted. It is impractical to require an agency to apply different definitions of affordable
housing for different impact fee programs to a single project. The JEPA language has thus been
revised to allow each agency to define the relevant affordability terminology.
• Correction of the "Other Uses" Fee Category: This amendment provides a correction to how this
fee category is calculated in the TVTD Fee schedule, to be consistent with its original intent to be
collected at the same rate as the "Single Family" category. This amendment will result in an
increase of the fee amount for this category. Similar to the previously reviewed language, an
updated fee table is included in the Addendum. In the fee table included in the Addendum,
however, the fee for "Other Uses" has been corrected (from $2,254 to $2,181) from what was
Page 3 of 4
reviewed by the City Council on May 19, 2009. It is now correctly identical to the fee for "Single
Family Residential," consistent with the intentions of the TVTC when the fee program was first
adopted. In this table, the fees for the "Office" and "Industrial" land use categories have also been
corrected to reflect the current fees. There are no proposed changes associated with these two fee
categories.
• Administration: This amendment provides a mechanism to fund administrative services, allowing
for the one -half of one - percent of TVTD Fees collected to be used towards the provision of
administrative staffing services. The other one -half of one percent would continue to be used for
the provision of Treasurer services. The Addendum does not change the language previously
reviewed.
• Fee Deferral: This amendment incorporates a reference to the new state legislation relating to
deferring the collection of fees for residential developments until building occupancy. The
language associated with this amendment remains the same as previously reviewed, and provides
that member jurisdictions may defer collection of the TVTD Fee imposed on residential
developments if they choose to do so. The amended JEPA would not require any member
jurisdiction to do so. It has, however, been moved from Section 5 (Collection of TVTD Fees) to
Section 12 (Time of Payment).
Other than the minor modifications described above, the language in Addendum II is consistent with the
language previously reviewed by the TVTC and each member jurisdiction. The above described revisions
were approved by the TVTC on July 20, 2009. A draft Resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to
execute Addendum II is included as Attachment 3.
TVTD Fee Changes
Approval of the amendment to the City of Dublin's fee schedule for the Tri- Valley Transportation
Development (TVTD) Fee program will result in the following changes. First, an exemption will be
applied for all affordable housing for all very low, low and moderate income affordable housing.
Currently, the JEPA exempts only affordable housing facilities developed by public agencies, limited
dividend housing corporations, and non - profit corporations. Addendum II extends the exemption to all
affordable housing constructed pursuant to Inclusionary Zoning Regulations contained in Chapter 8.68 of
the Dublin Municipal Code. Second, the fee for the "Other Uses" category will be adjusted.
In order to ensure compliance with state law relating to fees, and to ensure that Dublin's fee increase does
not take effect before the fee increases in the other TVTC jurisdictions take effect, the fee amendment
Resolution (Attachment 4) is drafted to become effective in sixty days, or when the similar fees adopted by
the other Jurisdictions become effective, whichever is later.
As required by Government Code 66016 prior to increasing an existing fee, notices were mailed 14 days in
advance of this meeting to all interested parties, data was made available 10 days in advance of the
meeting, and this item is being discussed as part of an open public meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council (1) adopt the Resolution
approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute Addendum II to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Pertaining To The Tri - Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation; and (2) adopt the
Resolution amending the fee schedule for the Tri - Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee.
Page 4 of 4
I �b L,
RESOLUTION.NO. 62 -09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING THE DUBLIN REPRESENTATIVE TO
ENDORSE SAID AMMENDMENTS AT THE
TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has joined with other Tri- Valley jurisdictions to form the
Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), and cooperatively participated in the development and
adoption of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP /AP) for Routes of Regional
Significance; and
WHEREAS, the TVTP /AP identified 11 high priority transportation improvements to the regional
transportation system necessary to accommodate traffic growth from ongoing development in the
Tri- Valley area and elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin entered into a Joint Exercise Powers of Agreement ( "JEPA ") in
1998 with other Tri- Valley jurisdictions to implement a Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee
(TVTD Fee) to fund all or part of the $763 million 'cost of these 11 original high priority projects in the
TVTP /AP; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, the TVTD Fees collected have been used to help complete
several of these 11 high priority projects, which are now referred to as "List A" projects, and which now
have an unfunded balance of $369 million (in 2008 dollars); and
WHEREAS, in recognition of this shortfall, the TVTC authorized an update of its original Fee
Nexus Study to determine the funding levels necessary to complete the remaining original "List A"
projects and to help fund 11 new transportation improvements that have emerged from various Tri- Valley
transportation planning efforts, referred to as "List B" projects; and
WHEREAS, projects from both "List A" and "List B" have a collective unfunded balance of $1.4
billion, and the TVTC proposed a phased increase to partially address this significant shortfall in 2008;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed phased fee increase did not receive the unanimous support necessary to
amend the TVTC JEPA required to implement the fee increase; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC elected to defer the adoption of the proposed fee increase until such time
as a Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) can be completed to prioritize "List A" and "List B" projects; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC agreed to adopt non- controversial amendments to the JEPA in advance of
adopting an updated SEP, which include:
Page 1 of 2 10°-- &,- 0,11 1. f
ATTACHMENT �.
Z- cSj�;.
a. Adoption of an affordable housing exemption;
b. Correction on the method in which the "Other Uses" fee category is calculated to be
equivalently reflective of the true cost per trip;
C. Amendment of the administrative fee language to provide a mechanism to fund
administrative services; and
d. Incorporation of a reference to the new state legislation that allows local jurisdictions to
defer the collection of fees until Building Occupancy.
WHEREAS, an amendment of the JEPA requires unanimous support of all seven member
jurisdictions, and the grant of authorization for each member agency's representative to endorse the JEPA
amendment at an upcoming noticed public hearing of the TVTC is the first of a three -step process; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC requests each member agency to authorize its representative on the TVTC
to endorse the amendments outlined in this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin:
1. Supports the JEPA amendments outlined in this resolution; and
2. Authorizes the Dublin representative to endorse the amendments outlined in this resolution at
an upcoming Tri- Valley Transportation Council public hearing.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None JLJ'
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reso No. 62 -09, Adopted 5- 19 -09, Item 7.1 Page 2 of 2
cTb`,..
TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE TRI - VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
APPOVING ADDENDUM II TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
WHEREAS, on or about April 22, 1998, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Pertaining to Tri -Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation
( "JEPA ") was entered into by and among the County of Contra Costa, the City of San
Ramon, the Town of Danville, the County of Alameda, the City of Dublin, the City of
Livermore, and the City of Pleasanton (the "Parties "); and
WHEREAS, Section 3 of the JEPA provides that one of the purposes of the JEPA is to
establish a framework -for the enactment by the Parties of a Tri -Valley Transportation
Development Fee (TVTD Fee); and
WHEREAS, Section 13 of the JEPA provides that the Parties "may agree to adjust the
TVTD Fee to reflect revisions in the project list in the Tri -Valley Transportation
Plan/ Action Plan, program revenue, increases in land values over the inflationary
increase or other factors. The amount of such adjustments shall be included in a written
addendum to this Agreement that shall be approved by each Party and in amendments
of each adopted fee resolution or ordinance;' and
WHEREAS, Section 16 of the JEPA provides that the JEPA "may be amended at any
time by an amendment mutually executed by the [Parties]. Such amendments shall be
approved by the governing board or council of each Party;" and
WHEREAS, on or about September 8, 1999, the Parties approved a reduction of the
TVTD Fee rate for developments in the "Other Uses" category; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 7, 2004, the Parties approved Addendum I to Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement, which amended the JEPA to adjust the TVTD Fee for
developments in the Multi- Family Residential, Office and Industrial categories; and
WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the JEPA to restore the TVTD Fee rate in
the "Other Uses" category to the rate that was supported by the original Fee Nexus
Study, prepared to support the enactment of the TVTD Fee and completed in 1995;
allow for fee exemptions for certain low income units; provide for fees to be collected
after building permit issuance under specified circumstances; and allow specified fee
revenues to be used to pay administrative staffing costs of the Tri - Valley Transportation
Council ( "TVTC ") to the extent permitted by law.
ATTACHMENT Z..,
L465 ('a�
S
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Parties agree to amend the JEPA by
approving Addendum II to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri- Valley
Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation (Exhibit A).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of July 20, 2009, by the
following votes:
AYES: Arnerich, Haggerty, Horner, Hudson, Piepho, Sbranti and Sullivan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tim Sbranti
Chair, Tri- Valley Transportation Council
ATTEST:
Jaimee Bourgeois, TVTC Staff
RESOLUTION NO. - 09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
ADDENDUM II TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO THE TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES
FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has joined with other Tri- Valley jurisdictions to form the
Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), and cooperatively participated in the development and
adoption of the Tri - Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP /AP) for Routes of Regional
Significance; and
WHEREAS, the TVTP /AP identified 11 high priority transportation improvements to the regional
transportation system necessary to accommodate traffic growth from ongoing development in the Tri-
Valley area and elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin entered into a Joint Exercise OF Powers Agreement ( "JEPA ") in
1998 with other Tri - Valley jurisdictions to implement a Tri - Valley Transportation Development Fee
(TVTD Fee) to fund all or part of the $763 million cost of these 11 original high priority projects in the
TVTP /AP; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, the TVTD Fees collected have been used to help complete
several of these 11 high priority projects, and the remaining projects now have an unfunded balance of
$369 million (in 2008 dollars); and
WHEREAS, the TVTC agreed to adopt non - controversial amendments to the JEPA in advance of
adopting an updated Strategic Expenditure Plan, which include:
a. Adoption of an affordable housing exemption;
b. Modification of the amount of the "Other Uses" fee;
C. Amendment of the administrative fee language to provide a mechanism to fund
administrative services; and
d. Incorporation of a reference to the new state legislation that allows local jurisdictions to
defer the collection of fees until Building Occupancy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin granted authorization on May 19, 2009, for
the City of Dublin's representative to endorse the JEPA amendment at an upcoming noticed public
hearing of the TVTC; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC on July 20, 2009, unanimously approved Addendum II to the JEPA at a
noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC requests each member agency to adopt Addendum II to the JEPA;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
ATTACHMENT
The City Council of the City of Dublin authorizes the Mayor to execute Addendum II to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to the Tri- Valley Transportation
Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation (Exhibit :A ").
2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\ TRANSPORTATION \Regional \TVTC \StaffReports\reso TVTC_JEPA_AddendumILdoc
2
ADDENDUM II
JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO
Tri- Valley Transportation Development
Fees for Traffic Mitigation
BY AND AMONG
The County of Alameda,
The County of Contra Costa,
The City of Dublin,
The City of Livermore,
The City of Pleasanton,
The City of San Ramon, And
The Town of Danville
EXHIBIT,
To the Resolution
ADDENDUM II TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO
TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR TRAFFIC
MITIGATION
This Second Addendum to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri- Valley
Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation ( "Addendum ") is entered into by and
among the County of Alameda, a political subdivision of the State of California ( "Alameda
County "); the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ( "Contra
Costa County "); the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California ( "Dublin "); the City of Livermore, a municipal corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ( "Livermore "); the City of
Pleasanton, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California ( "Pleasanton "); the City of San Ramon, a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California ( "San Ramon "); and the Town of Danville, a
municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
( "Danville "). Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San
Ramon and Danville may hereafter be referred to collectively as the "Parties" and individually as
a "Party." The effective date of this Addendum shall be the date the Addendum is approved and
signed by all Parties.
RECITALS
A. On or about April 22, 1998, the Parties entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement Pertaining to Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic
Mitigation ( "JEPA ").
B. Section 3 of the JEPA provides that one of the purposes of the JEPA is to establish a
framework for the enactment by the Parties of a Tri - Valley Transportation Development
Fee (TVTD Fee).
C. Section 13 of the JEPA provides that the Parties "may agree to adjust the TVTD Fee to
reflect revisions in the project list in the Tri - Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan,
program revenue, increases in land values over the inflationary increase or other factors.
The amount of such adjustments shall be included in a written addendum to this
Agreement that shall be approved by each Party and in amendments of each adopted fee
resolution or ordinance."
D. Section 16 of the JEPA provides that the JEPA "may be amended at any time by an
amendment mutually executed by the [Parties]. Such amendments shall be approved by
the governing board or council of each Party."
E. On or about September 8, 1999, the Parties approved a reduction of the TVTD Fee rate
for developments in the "Other Uses" category.
Addendum II Page 2 of 7
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
F. On or about September 7, 2004, the Parties approved Addendum I to Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, which amended the JEPA to adjust the TVTD Fee for developments
in the Multi- Family Residential, Office and Industrial categories.
G. The Parties now desire to amend the JEPA to restore the TVTD Fee rate in the "Other
Uses" category to the rate that was supported by the original Fee Nexus Study, completed
in 1995, and prepared to support the enactment of the TVTD Fee; allow for fee
exemptions for certain low income units; provide for fees to be collected after building
permit issuance under specified circumstances; and allow specified fee revenues to be
used to pay administrative staffing costs of the Tri- Valley Transportation Council
( "TVTC ") to the extent permitted by law.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the JEPA as follows:
ADDENDUM
Section 5 of the JEPA is amended by deleting Subsection 5.b. in its entirety and replacing
it with the following:
b. To require each project developer to pay the Tri - Valley Transportation
Development Fee for the project to the extent permitted by law according
to the terms of Section 12 of this Agreement.
2. Section 5 of the JEPA is amended by adding the following as Subsection 5.f-
f. To adopt standards for the approval of fee waivers for affordable and /or
inclusionary housing units, as such units may be defined by state or local
laws or regulations, with affordability terms as determined by each Party
in its sole discretion.
3. Section 9 of the JEPA is hereby deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the
following:
Section 9.
Tri - Valley Transportation Development Fee Amount
The Tri - Valley Transportation Development Fees shall be as follows:
Addendum II Page 3 of 7
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
IZ) oi�)L) y
FY 2009 -2010 TVTD Fee Schedule
Land Use Type Fee Per Unit
Single Family Residential $2,181 Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Residential $1,387 Dwelling Unit
Office $3.91 Square foot of gross floor area
Retail $1.46 Square foot of gross floor area
Industrial $2.65 Square foot of gross floor area
Other Uses $2,181 Average a.m. /p.m. peak hour trip*
Affordable Housing $0 Dwelling Unit
* Note: Peak -hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as
agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may provide in
their implementing ordinance or resolution that an applicant for a Land Use
Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the number of peak -hour trips, as calculated by
the Party, may appeal the determination to the Party's legislative body. If such an
appeal is granted by the Party, and the Party adjusts the number of peak -hour
trips, the Party shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC.
Absent such ratification, the Party shall pay the difference between the actual fee
imposed and the fee set forth in this Section 9 or the Party shall notify the applicant
that the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant.
4. Section 12 of the JEPA is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
Section 12
Time of Payment
Except as otherwise provided below, fees shall be collected prior to
issuance of building permit to the extent permitted by law. At the sole
discretion of the Party responsible for issuing building permits, fees may
be collected after building permit issuance pursuant to government Code
section 66007 provided that the Party and the project developer enter into
an agreement regarding payment of the fees. The agreement shall outline
the schedule for payment of fees and shall provide for escalation of
amount owed based on the increase in the Engineering News - Record
Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area from the date of
building permit issuance to the date of payment of the fees.
Addendum II Page 4 of 7
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
I C5
5. Section 14 of the JEPA is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
Section 14
Administrative Costs
To the extent permitted by law, up to one -half percent of the TVTD Fees
received may be used to pay the administrative costs of the Party acting as
the Treasurer and other costs associated with the TVTD Fee, and an
additional one -half percent of the TVTD Fees received may be used to pay
TVTC administrative staffing costs. Acceptable costs shall be specified in
the SEP. In the event of a conflict between this section and provisions in
the Joint Powers Agreement By and Among the County of Alameda,
County of Contra Costa, Town of Danville and Cities of Dublin,
Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon, dated March 1, 1991, concerning
development of the Tri- Valley Area, this section will control.
6. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts with the signature pages
attached to form a complete document.
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Its:
Attest: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
IC
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Dated:
Addendum II Page 5 of 7
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
TOWN OF DANVILLE
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
Town Clerk
CITY OF DUBLIN
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
CITY OF LIVERMORE
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
Addendum II
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Page 6 of 7
CITY OF PLEASANTON
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
CITY OF SAN RAMON
By:
Its:
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
Dated:
Dated:
Addendum II Page 7 of 7
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
RESOLUTION NO. - 09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRI- VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT (TVTD) FEE
WHEREAS, the Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) consists of one representative of
each of the following entities: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of
Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has joined with the other TVTC jurisdictions to participate in the
development and adoption of the Tri - Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP /AP) for Routes of
Regional Significance; and
WHEREAS, the TVTP /AP identified 11 high priority transportation improvements to the regional
transportation system necessary to accommodate traffic growth from ongoing development in the
Tri - Valley area and elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ( "JEPA ") in
1998 with other Tri - Valley jurisdictions to implement a Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee
(TVTD Fee) to fund all or part of the $763 million cost of these 11 original high priority projects in the
TVTP /AP; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the TVTC by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc., in a
document dated July 1995, entitled, "Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance" (hereafter "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the TVTC and Dowling Associates by CCS
Planning and Engineering, Inc., in a document dated December 6, 1996, entitled, "Tri- Valley Combined
Study /Technical Report: Status and Funding of High Priority Projects" (hereafter "Study "), which is
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A "; and
WHEREAS, the Study includes a 13 -page report entitled, "Tri- Valley Regional Transportation
Improvement Fee Program/Nexus Analysis" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of Livermore,
City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville are parties to an Agreement entitled, "Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri - Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic
Mitigation," dated April 22, 1998 ( "JEPA "); and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study set forth the relationship between future development in Dublin,
the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the City of Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 89 -98 approving and
adopting the Plan and Study, finding that future development in Dublin will generate the need for the
TVTD Fee, and adopting said TVTD Fee; and
ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City of Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 87 -03 revising the
TVTD Fee to address rising construction costs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin granted authorization on May 19, 2009, for
the City of Dublin's representative to endorse certain JEPA amendments, including a modification of the
fee schedule for the TVTD fee to modify the amount of the fee for the "Other Uses" category; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC member jurisdictions on July 20, 2009, agreed to the endorsed
modification of the fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, the modification of the fee schedule is consistent with the conclusions and
calculations contained in the original Study; and
WHEREAS, the Study was 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 Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee (hereafter "TVTD Fee ") is
to finance Transportation Improvement Projects needed to reduce the traffic- related impacts caused by
future development in the Tri - Valley Development Area, including Dublin. The Transportation
Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within the Tri - Valley
Development Area by the year 2010, including development within Dublin;
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Transportation
Improvement Projects;
C. After considering this Study, the Council finds that future development in Dublin will
generate the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the Transportation Improvement
Projects are consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan;
D. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Council finds
that the adoption of the TVTD fee is not a "project" under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). While
the TVTD fee is intended to offset development impacts on regional traffic facilities by funding
improvements to those facilities, the proceeds of the TVTD fee are not, at this time, being committed to
any specific project which "may result in a potentially significant physical impact oil the environment;"
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Transportation
Improvement Projects 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 non - residential -- will
generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects;
and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the TVTD Fee's use (to pay for the
construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects) and the type of development for which the
2
t Lo U }
TVTD Fee is charged in that all development in Dublin -- both residential and non - residential -- generates
or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects; and
3. That the cost estimates set forth in the Plan and Study are reasonable cost estimates
for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects, and the TVTD Fees expected to be generated
by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Transportation
Improvement Projects; and
4. The method of allocation of the TVTD Fee to a particular development bears a fair
and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Transportation
Improvement Projects to be funded by the TVTD Fee, in that the TVTD 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:
1. Resolution 87 -03 is hereby amended as follows to reflect the adjusted fee rate for the "Other Uses"
Land Use Type:
Land Use Type Fee Per Unit
Other Uses $2,181 Average a.m. /p.m. peak hour trip*
* Note: Peak -hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to
by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may provide in their implementing
ordinance or resolution that an applicant for a Land Use Entitlement who is dissatisfied
with the number of peak -hour trips, as calculated by the Party, may appeal the determination
to the Party's legislative body. If such an appeal is granted by the Party, and the Party
adjusts the number of peak -hour trips, the Party shall have such decision ratified by five
members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the Party shall pay the difference between
the actual fee imposed and the fee set forth in this Section 9 or the Party shall notify the
applicant that the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant.
2. This Resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days from the date it is adopted, provided that a
similar fee is adopted by the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the Cities of
Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore and the Town of Danville, and that said fees are also
effective at that time. If such jurisdictions have not all adopted a similar fee to be effective within
sixty (60) days from the date this Resolution is adopted, then this Resolution shall be effective
when the similar TVTD Fee becomes effective in all six jurisdictions.
i "7 u,5 (r, c-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\ TRANSPORTATION\ Regional\TVTC \Staff Reports\reso_TVTC_JEPA Fee Amendment.DOC
4
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects.
EXHIBIT A .
To the Resolution
1
0
TA►LE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS ................................ ............................... ..2
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .............................................................. ..............................2
PROJECT PRIORITIES ...........:.......................... .............................................................. 5
APPENDIX A: PROJECT SUMAL&RIES
1
I -580/1 -680 Direct Connector and Widening ....................................... ..............................7
2
SR 84 Corridor Improvements: I -580 to I- 680 .................................... ..............................8
2a
New I- 580/1sabel Avenue (Northside) Interchange with Four -Lane Isabel Parkway ........
9
2b
I -580 /Airway Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Two-Lane Isabel
Avenue Extension: Jack London Boulevard to Concannon Boulevard .........................10
2c
Two-Lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Concannon
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue ...... _ .................................................. .............................11
2d
Two -Lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Vineyard Avenue to Vallecitos Road ....................12
2e
Interim Two-Lane SR 84 on New Alignment from Vallecitos Road to I -680 ................13
2f
Four -Lane SR 84 on New Aignmment from Vallecitos Road to I- 680 .............. ................14
2g
SR 84: Widen to Four -Six Lanes from Vallecitos Road to I- 580 ....... .............................15
3
I -680 Auxiliary Lanes from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Boulevard ......................
16
4
West Dublin BART Station Access Improvements ............................ .............................17
5
I -580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to N. Livernore Avenue Interchange ................18
6
I -680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade ...................... .............................19
7
I- 580/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications .......................... .............................20
8
I- 680 /Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Widening of
San Ramon Valley Road Approaches ................................................ .............................21
9
.....................
Crow Carryon Road Safety Improvements ............. ............................... .....22
10
Vasco Road Safety Improvements ..................................................... .............................23
11
Express Bus Service ...................................... ............................... ..........................24
APPENDIX B: TVTC MODEL FORECASTS ................. ............................... ff
96044knictech.doc
TVTC Combined study 1 Project status Report
1 Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6. 1996
J
1
1
i
-4
-4
This report describes the eleven high priority projects identified in the 1995 Tri-Valley
Transportation Action Plan, presents their estimated costs and funding status, and discusses
priorities for completion of the projects.
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS
Table 1 on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and funding status of the eleven high
priority projects. The engineering and construction costs were obtained from available agencies
and were supplemented by the consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996. The costs are
presented in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vary 25 percent from the actual cost. The
actual cost cannot be determined until the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed
for each project.
Five major funding sources are shown in the table:
• Measure B - Funding from Alameda County's Measure B program based on the 1996 third
quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority. .
• Measure C - Funding from Contra Costa County's Measure C program based on the 1995
Strategic Plan and input from Paul Maxwell, Deputy Executive Director of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
• SLTPP - State Local Transportation Partnership Program matching fund from the State.
• Development fees and contributions (including Southern Contra Costa JEPA)
• Other funding sources such as local jurisdictions. _
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
In Appendix. A, the following information is presented for each of the eleven high priority projects:
• Project Title
• Lead Agency - Current or potential Iead agencies for the project
• Project Description - Summarizing the improvement items included in the project
• Total Engineering and Construction Cost - Mostly obtained from the various agencies.
Otherwise, the estimates reported in the 1995 Tri- Valley Transportation Action Plan were
used.
TVTC Combined Study 2
Phase III: Regional Traffic Imnact Fee
Project Status Report
i
t
Lf.
LL
L
C
cr
a
z
0
Z
LL
F-
r- U
W
m �
S] O
ca cr
i— n.
r.,
i;
0
O
0 O
r- N N N m r- CO W
LL. z
m r
r
O
Cn
0
0
0
LC
O
O
d
O
Ch
CO
O
O
C
C;
N
Ole
CV
Lr
.
N
CD
tD
1�
CC°V
oN0
C
r
m
O
.
CO
.-
I-
LD
. . . .
.
N
O
to
n
G
_
m
d
o
0
0
c=
C
r
�
0
CD
0
l0
LO
O
l0
c.3
C7
O
n
O^
O
N
H
�
m
>
O LL
m
N
O
O
N
th
H
m
J
Ln
O
y
w
=
m
it
=
m
m
C
L
I
(D
O
c
y
O
N
N
I
C
n
N
o
00
000000
0
oaoL°
0
0
o
N
C
d0'
M
N
N
00
°
d
d
d
N
CA
CO
N
m
M
t°
co
c
y
co
IO
w
W
'C
p
coo
m
Q
c
°
I
al
3
C
X
X
E
O
Y
m O
N v
m
C
y
w
m
m
L
ani C
a
m
m
p
`�
m
E
_
C
m
E
X
m
m
V
C
co
`
N
N
m$
n m
U C m
m U
J
L
m
m«
p`
O
O
E
c°
•O
m
m
m°
W
°�
°
Q° m>
>
O
n
c
c
c
m
c
m
Z
•-
C
m
m
m
U
>
r
m
y
C
h>
C>
�0
.- 7 m
S
m
0
0°
p7
°
C
7
..
m
A°
V C
m
•`�
E
o
m D. J C
m
o>
J
C
y
m
.°
�'
'O
C
V
�°
U
`m
D
u.
m
c y
c
m°
o
m
c 'm c
E
m
v
tC
E_;
E°
i
m=
i
CD
W
m
U m
o>
C
m
m
O j p
S
E
C>
•"
C
o
0
p
o
~
a
C=.7
.°. C
C
o
=°
m
O`
F' "' V"
y C O
..
U
�'
m
m
«m
1
0
E
"-
N
=
m
C
O
'O
N>
?v
CO
....
-O
}- m m U C
z
=
7
0
C
O>
m
N
r
y
y
m
O
V
e
N>
m
a7
°La
W
°
m
m
E
<t
°
p
°7
y m m c
¢ _ _ �v
o
«SU
m
b°
a
c
c
°�
m
c
y
=
V
J
o
mzs
C
d
...
m n ym ° >+
—
Ln
o
LL
J
L
m`
°
L
N>
°
.mi7
'a`�
a
°- E d
m
sf
°D
m
c
a
[t
°
c
m
to
w
E
y
m
a
m
Em°XQ.:
co3'
E
x•
mc'°'m�pUCmm=om
o
c°
O
>mmmw
c;
c
CO
LO
W W
—U
tt
d°
¢
a
CD G C
I""
W
Q
m
C
U
U
EO
L
•�
C
t
m
r
3
Q
3
In
�•
N
W
co
m
; .0
m
co
m
'O
p
m
D
X
7
C
W
CC
ui
m
Z
m
°7
m
N
m
ytAtnO�
2=
LC
c0
Q m=
ID E C ❑-
in
m
-
IL7
-
CO
-��U
u..
to
>LL
to
W
0.
CA
F- `
m
s
O
0
E
i
�
C
c
'
p1
>
C
O
O
O
q
m>
>>
W
m
l0
O
Q
16
m
7
m
O
m
0
m
L
00U
oo
UU
❑
rn
Q
Q
p
Z
�
N
m
N
�
N
V •q
N
N
m
N
N 14
"
C7
E
M
0
L
9
1
6
y
m
6 U
c
� m
Q
0 �
� V
O
I J
- II
i m
�O
7 Q
7 W
a �
� m
U
i m
7
c
7 O
U
7
Ln
7 [A
I C
v
I C
m
1 m
;LL
V
m
,a
i E
m
'n
.o
O
� II
y
m
CD
ILL
43
C
0
U
m
B
f-
N
J
X
N
U
r
N
[9
C
d
C
C
W
O
C
m
CF
c
c
c
IL
CO
U
U
C
c
c
w
c
W
co
C
C
C
CL
In
U
U
cn
J
X
N
U
F-
f0
p)
N
N
Ul
O
N
t0
m
l0
�
N
IL
m
l0
rn O
rn
_r_
m
_v
m
F
m
m m m
y
7
m
y
O
m
E
m
2
O
`
!2
m
C
O
V
O
m N
O
IL
L y
E Y
C,
c
_
O
y co I1
y
m
d C
—
E
E
m
m
m
c p o
c 'cn to
c
>
E
>
c
U
a
y
D
U
CD
7
O E �'
3
h
m
E
cmi 7
0
m
m
E m `� Q
m
y
y
W
m
.-
m p In w
p
= m
Id
�-
J
V
-
y
O
C O."
� M v
m
?
co
U
E
0 m
m
�i
m
a 0 U
@
H
co
d
m
C
W
m
p
p
— a
•^ a+ _
.m
T
c
O
7
o
In
N L
IA
CD
Q)
m
n
fn
c
c
- N O
m U
>
m
in c c
m
p
y
°'
o 2 E
'-
CT)
m m
vi
m
E
m
E o'
CD
c
m
p
X
W
c v m
`p L
"' c d
y O y
-
o
,.`.
m
X c p
O C c
-0
y
'
�/ O O
L U
m
a`7
m
—
O. D
N° m
y
0
-_� m
°
3
m m
91
o
.a
a W o
a E m
=
d
x
.� o f
CD
m
O
m
m
C y=
�
o
m
m
-0 ° H
�
my
m c°
o o d
d
_o
C
J
m m
m m
m o
N
°
> ID m y
m
C.
a
p
70
m
D.
m O
m m
7
C
U
m
m
O
CL
tm
C
>
w _0
_a c
E
m
°
a
m
N
in
S
tm
(n
n
U E
°
—Q
jc
O
v
m
3
G _ `
N
m
N
m
id
O
CD
C
2
m
m
�
Q
p
c
C
m
N
` m d
Ol O p
O f
N
m
Q
y mi
�
E
y
m
°
3
.�
a0
n
C
lW
y
W
7
Q 3 O)
°o
m
t
o
m m
m E 3 a
C m
rn c E
°-
Y
p
c
O
W
y y
.o
7
��
—
ov,ao- °
rn
°
-° o
N
c c
S
c
tL CD CO
co
m
m
7 O
>
U H m
o
LL
n
m
m
$ d U
x m
a`mi
U U
m a
E
>
4' 2 2
° m m
y co 40*
y i m
°
c
Sr- c
0
m 3 C
rn COL *Cc)
W
LLm
W O
2
E
y C O) O i
c
m O
E�
O
W .`
m>
W (7 E
_E e>i
•p
Q
m
>,
� c rn
3 m
co M �
Q
E �"
2
'^
CC L)
p y Ol
•o
H
�'
y s m
C r
m
y U
W
a m o
M
° `°
y
m
E m x
o� c CD
m°
E
m
T
m
y
m
•p
m
U
N U O
•7
E
m m
N
0
m E
°
O 2
E
a
y
m
W
O °
cc
o
p
o m rn IN p
O
m v
w
LL
N m
O°)
um
l
L
L
=
m
7
m m
w y
:3
0
m O
r 5
m
N
Um m
W
Cm C
Y1
>Uo
0
oi�
o
a`�in�
Um
m
ON
°
Id
m
N
N
N
L7
,a
^
fA
m
Id�
O
C
0
O
LL
C
c
c
w
c
W
co
C
C
C
CL
In
U
U
cn
J
X
N
U
F-
f0
p)
N
• Planning and Approval Status - Indicating whether the project is included in the MTC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans.
• Funding - Indicating available amounts and the associated funding sources for the project.
• Schedule - Indicating planned implementation schedule for the project
• Project Need - Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with
gateway constraints applied. TVTC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B.
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The Tri- Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) has selected the following top four projects to
be funded by the proposed regional traffic impact fee:
• Southbound 1 -580 to Eastbound I -680 Direct Connector (Project No. 1)
[� Two -Lane Route 84 Corridor Improvement between I -580 and 1 -680
(Project Nos. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e)
• HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Boulevard (Project No. 3)
• BART West Dublin Station (Project No. 4)
The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for
funding, as follows:
• I -580 is currently being widened from the interchange with I -680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rita
Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjunction with Project No.1 (I- 580 /680 direct
connector). Project No. 5 (1 -580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will
function as an extension of Project No. 1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the I-
580/N. Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No. 5 should have higher priority than the other
projects.
• Project No. 7 (I- 580/Foothill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to
accommodate Project No. 4 (BART West Dublin Station). Therefore, this project should be
given the same priority and be grouped with Project No. 4.
• The I -680 HOV lane project from Route 84 to Sunol Grade (Project No. 6) has been identified
as the extension of the Route 84 improvement (Project No. 2). Therefore, this project should
have the. same priority as Project No. 2. However, a bottleneck may occur at the Sunol Grade
unless the I -680 HOV lanes can be further extended to Santa Claza County.
TVTC Combined Study 5 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6. 1996
• Project No. 8 (I- 680 /Alcosta Boulevard interchange) g) is located between two of the top four
projects (Project No. 1: I- 680/580 Direct Connector and Project No. 3: I -680 Auxiliary Lane
between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road). It would be desirable to construct this
project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck in the intervening
segment between them.
• Project No. 9 Crow Canyon ( any Road Safety Improvement Program) and Project 10 (Vasco Road
Safety Improvement Program) are both safety improvement projects to the existing two -lane
winding roadway. They may be prioritized based on the accident rates and the existing and
2010 traffic demand Accident data for these two roadways are not available; therefore, it is
not possible to set priorities between these two projects.
TVTC Combined Study 6 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6. 1996
;?
1
PROJECT I -580!1 -680 DIRECT CONNECTOR & WIDENING
IN Lead Agencies Alameda County Transportation Authority (MB 310)
Caltrans (E. A_ 23 3 921)
14
Description
Reconstruction of the I -580/1 -680 interchange. The major work is building
a new two -lane flyover ramp from southbound I -680 to eastbound I -580 to
replace the existing Ioop ramp.
Total Eng.&
Approximately $121 million in 1996 dollars.
Consy. Cost
(Source: Alameda County Transportation Authority Measure B Capital
Projects, July- September, 1996 Quarterly Report)
Planning &
Adopted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the
Approval Status
. Regional Transportation Planning (RIP) for completion by 2005.
Funding
All but $10 million have been funded from various sources including
Alameda County Measure B, Federal and State Local Transportation
Partnership Program (SLTPP). See Table 1.
Schedule
This Project will be advertised in 1997 for construction to begin in early
1998 and be completed by March, 2002.
Project Need
Needed for capacity. Projected 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes on the direct connector from southbound I -680 to eastbound 1 -580
are 2,100 vehicles per hour (vph), which exceeds existing ramp capacity.
14
14
TVTC Combined Study 7 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee ve. Boa _ T*%__ ._,1__ c , nnz
14
A
tj 2
iq
TVTC Combined Study 8 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee RPVicr� _ Tom, -p ;--.< i ooc
PROJECT
STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR EUPROVEMENTS:
I -580 TO I -680
Lead
Agencies
Various, see Subproject descriptions on following pages.
g
V4Description
Currently, two lanes exist only from Livermore Municipal Airport to Jack
London Boulevard, and there is no I- 580/Isabel Avenue Interchange or
direct road connection between I -580 and SR 84. Project would ultimately
build 6
-Iane arterial from I -580 to Vineyard Avenue and four -Iane arterial
on new alignment from Vineyard Avenue to I -680. Total length of project
is about 10 miles.
Total Eng. &
$213 million. For details see Subprojects 2a through p .1 2g.
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Two -Lane Isabel Avenue from I -580 to SR 84 is in the RTP for 2005.
Approval Status
Funding
Projects 2b, 2c and 2d are largely fun
g y ded from Measure B, developer fees
and other sources. $177 million unfunded. For detail, see separate
Subprojects below.
Schedule
Subproject 2b is currently under design and is scheduled to begin
construction in 1997.
Project Need
Project would provide improved access to /from southwest portion of
Livermore,
including Ruby Hill development, and would also relieve traffic
congestion on portions of I -680 and I -580. Projected 2010 PM peak hour
volumes (one -way) range from 2,000 to 3,200 vph, which well exceeds the
capacity of the existing two -lane roadway.
iq
TVTC Combined Study 8 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee RPVicr� _ Tom, -p ;--.< i ooc
. 57' R
Ul
Planning &
Approval Status
Isabel Parkway from I -580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RI? for 2005.
Interchange would need FEIR/ EIS and to be found in conformity by MTC.
2a
Funding
Not currently funded.
PROJECT
NEW I- 580/ISABEL AVENUE (NORTHSIDE)
INTERCHANGE WITH FOUR-LANE ISABEL PARKWAY
Project Need
Project would relieve traffic congestion on Airway Boulevard and other
Lead Agencies
Caltrans and the City of Livermore.
Description
Construction of a new partial cloverleaf (Par -Clo) Interchange at I-
580 with the following access roadway improvements:
• 1.25 -mile (6,600 feet), four -lane Isabel Parkway from Jack
'-
London Boulevard to I -580
,r
TVTC Combined Study
0 0.51 -mile, two -lane extension of N. Canyons Parkway
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6, 1996
0 0.57 -mile (3,000 feet), two -lane Portola Avenue Extension to
N. Canyon Parkway
• 750 -foot re- alignment of Arroyo Las Positas
• Traffic signals & lighting at Jack London Boulevard, the
proposed interchange, and N. Canyons Parkway.
Total Eng & Approximately $40 million for full width right -of -way, one of the two
Const. Cost bridge structures over I -580, modification to the existing I- 580/Portola
Avenue interchange, relocation of an overhead electrical line and gas line,
as well as the above roadway improvements. (Note: the cost estimate
assumes the Chabot alignment)
$27.8 million
$ 3.2 million
$ 1.0 million
$ 8.0 million
$40.0 million
Initial Interchange as in the PSR (Oct. 3, 1995)
Portola Avenue Extension to N. Canyons Pkwy
Additional widening on Isabel Pkwy
25% Engineering
1-4
Planning &
Approval Status
Isabel Parkway from I -580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RI? for 2005.
Interchange would need FEIR/ EIS and to be found in conformity by MTC.
Funding
Not currently funded.
Schedule
Not scheduled, but assumed to be built in TVTC 2010 forecasts.
Project Need
Project would relieve traffic congestion on Airway Boulevard and other
existing routes in the vicinity. Six -lane Isabel Parkway south of I -580 is
projected to carry up to 3,200 vph in peak direction by 2010. Traffic
projections not available for four Iane alternative, but would be lower but
still anticipated to well exceed capacity of existing roadways and
'-
interchange.
TVTC Combined Study
9 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6, 1996
i
� 2b
PROJECT I- 580 /AIRWAY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS AND TWO -LANE ISABEL AVENUE
EXTENSION: JACK LONDON BOULEVARD TO
CONCANNON BOULEVARD
Lead Agency
City of Livermore
Description
Construction of a new Isabel Avenue extension, consisting of a two-lane
arterial with 70 foot landscape buffer from Jack London Boulevard to
Concannon Boulevard. To provide interim access to I -580 until Subproject
2a is built, modifications to the existing I -580 /Airway Boulevard
Interchange are also included in this Subproject, consisting of a new
northbound to westbound loop on -ramp. The project includes improvement
to the Jack London Boulevard intersection and an under - crossing (U /C) of
the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, with a `jug- handle' intersection
at Stanley Boulevard, southeast of the undercrossing. The new road would
have a minimum 70 -foot landscaped shoulder on west, with an earth
berm(s) adequate as a visual/sound barrier. A 10 -foot paved
pedestrian/bike path is also included for the new portion.
Total Eng. &
Total $31 million. (Isabel Extension SR 84 Project, Additional Studies
Constr. Cost
Report, July 1996)
Planning &' Isabel Avenue from I -580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RTP for 2005.
Approval Status
Funding A Measure B project up to $23.8 million, with an additional $1.2 million
proposed for SLTPP, $2.6 million from the City of Livermore, and $0.1
million from the Alameda County Flood Control (Zone 7). Project is
unfunded by $3.3 million.
Schedule EIR Addendum has been certified, and PR and PS&E are underway.
Construction scheduled for 1997 and has been assumed built in MTC RTP
by 2005 and in TVTC 2010 forecasts.
Project Need Needed for improved north -south access and capacity, and for interim
capacity improvement at I- 580 /Airway prior to completion of Subproject
2a. The TVTC model projects up to 2,900 vph (one -way) in 2010 for 6
lane Isabel Avenue extension. Projections for interim two lane Isabel
Avenue, not available from TVTC Model, would be lower but would still
likely exceed capacity of interim roadway.
TVTC Combined study 10 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6, 1996
w
w
Zc
PROJECT TWO -LANE ISABEL AVENUE UPGRADING:
CONCANNON BOULEVARD TO VINEYARD AVENUE
Lead(s)
City of Livermore
Description
A 0.6 mi. rehabilitation of Isabel Avenue; to upgrade this road to a two- .
lane undivided state highway between the end of Project 2b at Concannon
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
Total Eng. &
$1 million-
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Project is a condition to the Ruby Hill residential development
Approval Status
and is in the MTC RTP for 2005.
Funding
$0.5 million of developer contributions; another $0.5 million City of
Livermore funds.
Schedule
To be determined.
Project Need
Required as mitigation for Ruby Hill residential development. 2010 PM
peak hour projection is 2,000 vph in peak direction based on a four -lane
highway. Projections for interim two -lane upgrading, not available from
TVTC Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed capacity of the
two-lane roadway.
TVTC Combined Study I 1 Project Status Report
Pb- T1T• Q- ...., -1'r--4:9- - - - - -- -
r
r
r
r
e� fd
r
Imp b
2d
PROJECT TWO -LANE ISABEL AVENUE EXTENSION:
VINEYARD AVENUE TO VALLECITOS. ROAD
Lead Agency City of Livermore
Description Construction of a new two -lane undivided highway approximately 1.2
miles long, from the existing Isabel Avenue/Vineyard Avenue intersection
to a new intersection with SR 84.
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
$ 7 million.
Approved as condition to the Ruby Hill residential development.
Project is in the MTC 2005 RTP.
Fully funded by developer contributions.
Unknown.
Project Need Required for mitigation of Ruby Hill residential development and to
provide north -south outlet. TVTC's 2010 PM forecasts show a peak hour
demand of 2,000 vph in peak direction based on the ultimate four -lane
highway. Projections for a two-lane road, not available from TVTC
Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed the capacity of the
two-lane arterial road to be built by this project
TVTC Combined Study 12 Project Status Report
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Revised - December 6, 1996
t
w
i
:3Z_ �
2e
PROJECT INTERIM TWO -LANE SR 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM VALLECTTOS .ROAD TO I -680
Lead Agency Caltrans
Description Construction of a two-lane highway on a new alignment from
Vallecitos Road to I -680, a distance of approximately five
miles. This project is proposed as an interim stage of the
ultimate four -lane highway (Subproject 2f) pending availability
of sufficient funding for the ultimate project.
Existing two -lane roadway would continue to serve local access needs.
Caltrans previously approved a PSR for safety improvements to the
existing roadway (November 1985), but that project was put on hold due to
lack of funding, and is not included in the current project proposal.
Total Eng. & Approximately $25 million, based on comparison to Vasco Road
Const. Cost realignment project (Source: Bill van Gelder, City of Pleasanton, 11/27/96)
Pinning & Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Approval Status
Funding Not funded.
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour demand of
3,200 vph in the peak direction for the ultimate four -lane highway.
Projections for the interim two -lane project, not available from the TVTC
Model, would be lower. Adequacy of new facility will depend on how
much traffic uses the existing roadway.
TVTC Combined Study
13
Project Status Report
r
Id
P0
r
id
id
r
e�
Id
fd
Od
M.M
2f
PROJECT FOUR -LANE STATE ROUTE 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM VALLECTTOS ROAD TO I -680
Lead Agency Caltrans
Description Widening of the interim two -lane SR 84 on new alignment (Subproject 2e)
from Vallecitos Road to I -680, a distance of approximately five miles.
Total Eng. & Approximately $25 million (assuming prior completion of interim project)
Const. Cost
Planning & Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Approval Status
Funding Not funded.
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need Needed for traffic capacity. TVTC model's 2010 constrained traffic
forecasts show a peak hour demand of up to 3,200 vph in peak direction,
which exceeds the capacity of the existing two lnne roadway in conjunction
with a new parallel two -lane roadway (Subproject 2e).
T-VTC Combined. Study
14
Project Status Report
2
PROJECT STATE ROUTE 84: WIDEN TO 4-6 LANES FROM VALLECTTOS
ROAD TO I -580
Lead Agency-
Caltrans
Description
Widen and upgrade SR 84 to the ultimate project (6.8 miles) including:
0 Ultimate Interchange at I- 580/Isabel Avenue (Northside)
• Widening of Isabel Parkway from four to six lanes between I -580 and
Jack London Boulevard
• Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to six lanes from Jack London
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue
0 Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to four lanes from Vineyard
Avenue to Vallecitos Road
• Widening of Portola Avenue from two to four lanes over new bridge
Total Eng.&
$10 million Complete I -580 Interchange
Const. Cost
$10 million Isabel Parkway widening
Planning &
$22 million Jack London to Concannon
$13 million Concannon to Vineyard
$ 5 million Vineyard to Vallecitos
$60 million
However, $83 million is shown in Table 1 to provide contingency fund to
all Subprojects.
Approval Status Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Funding Not funded.
Schedule To be determined
Project Need TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a range of demand from
2,000 vph to 3,200 vph in the peak direction, requiring full capacity of a 4-
6 lane arterial.
TVTC Combined Study 15 n :- . c.., n.__—
F
P
3
PROJECT I -680 AUXILIARY LANES FROM DIABLO ROAD
TO BOLLINGER CANYON BOULEVARD
Lead Agency Caltrans, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Description Construction of one auxiliary lane between interchanges in each direction
of I -680 from the Diablo Road interchange to the Bollinger Canyon
Interchange. The centerline lengths of the auxiliary lanes in one direction
are about 2.8 miles.
Total Eng. & $40 million (estimated by CCTA)
Constr. Cost
Planning & In the adopted RTP by 2015.
Approval Status
Funding Allocation for the southwest area from Measure C funds in 1988 value is
$18.4 million. $12.2 million in 1988 value has been programmed in the
1995 Strategic Plan by CCTA. The remaining $6.2 million can be
escalated to approximately $7.9 million in 1996 value based on a 3 1.3 1 %
of escalation factor used by CCTA. The $7.9 million can be used for this
project TVTC should make such recommendation to CCTA to be
included in the forthcoming 1997 Strategic Plan.
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need Needed for additional capacity in 2010 and to facilitate on/offtraffic at
intervening interchanges. The highest 2010 PM peak hour mainline
demand (TVTC constrained model) occurs between Diablo Road and
Sycamore Avenue interchanges, with 8,800 vph in peak direction, which
exceeds existing capacity.
TVTC Combined Study
16 Project Status Report
}� TVTC Combined Study 17 Project Status Report
DL. - -- rrr. r-=- D-4-4 Inn-1
Planning &
In both MTC RTP for 2005 and the Alameda County Tier 1
4
Funding
FEIR recommends 29% of Laurel Creek Signal and 40% of new parallel
'
PROJECT
WEST DUBLIN BART STATION AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS.
'
Lead Agencies
BART
Description
Completion of W. Dublin BART station, access, parking, and mitigations
«..
Schedule
as identified in the FEIR including:
Project Need
]
• Additional parking facility
of
• Laurel Creek Way traffic signal
• Dublin Boulevard widening
• New parallel connector to Dublin Boulevard
} ,J
1
Total Eng. and
$43 million, including $33 million estimated in the 1996 BART Capital
`
Constr. Cost
Improvement Program for the stations, and $10 million for mitigation
measures.
}� TVTC Combined Study 17 Project Status Report
DL. - -- rrr. r-=- D-4-4 Inn-1
Planning &
In both MTC RTP for 2005 and the Alameda County Tier 1
Approval Status
Funding
FEIR recommends 29% of Laurel Creek Signal and 40% of new parallel
connector to Dublin Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard widening to be
contributed by BART. Since no funding is committed by BART at the
present time, no available funding is assumed in Table 1.
«..
Schedule
To be determined
Project Need
]
Construction of access safe parking and traffic improvements at the W.
� n', P g P
Dublin BART station are needed to ensure that this station is accessible
and convenient for riders, so that the ridership forecasts for this station can
be achieved. This project has been incorporated in the 2010 TVTC model.
If the ridership forecast for this BART station is not achieved, traffic
volumes could increase from forecast levels on the highway and streets of
`
the Tri-Valley Area.
}� TVTC Combined Study 17 Project Status Report
DL. - -- rrr. r-=- D-4-4 Inn-1
i
i
i
I
i
1
i
i
i
i
1
r
i
i
i
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. and
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
TVTC Combined Study
I -580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO
N. LIVERMORE AVENUE INTERCHANGE
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of HOV Ianes on I -580 from .
Tassajara Road to N. Livermore Avenue. After addition of these lanes, I-
580 would have a total of four mixed lanes and one HOV Iane in each
directi on in this segment. Widening of I -580 and additional right -of -way
may be required-
$40 million
This project is in the adopted MTC RTP for year 2015.
In the long range RTP, this project is not presently funded
Completion date to be determined, but prior to 2015.
Needed for overall person -trip capacity in the freeway corridor. TVTC's
2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a demand for travel on I -580 of up
to approximately 10,600 vph in the peak direction. This is the highest
directional volume on all the roadways in the RTIF project list, and exceeds
existing capacity. Added lanes would encourage HOV's, potentially
reducing SOV trips as well as increasing overall capacity. Added capacity
would also complement added capacity of direct ramp connectors at I-
580/I -680 interchange.
is Project Status Report
RPV1CPA _ T'k-crmher 6. 1996
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
1
0
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
I -680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF
SUNOL GRADE
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane - miles)of HOV
lanes on I -680 from the SR 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at Mission
Pass. After adding these lanes, I -680 would have three mixed lanes and
one HOV lane in each direction in this segment
Total Eng. & $14.4 million. This section of I -680 has been designed to accommodate the
Constr. Cost addition of HOV lanes. Construction cost is mainly for the pavement
widening.
Planning & This project is not in the adopted MTC RTP through the year 2015. Not
Approval Status currently approved.
Funding This project is not presently funded.
Schedule To be determined-
Project Need Needed for overall person -trip capacity in the corridor. TVTC's 2010
constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour, peak direction demand of
approximately 7,100 vph on I -680 between SR 84 and the top of Sunol
Grade, which exceeds existing capacity.
'NTC Combined Study
19 Project Status Report
■
7
PROJECT
I- 580/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS
iLead
Agency
Caltrans, BART
Description
To accommodate the W. Dublin BART station, the design of the I-
580/Foothill Road cloverleaf Interchange will be modified, replacing the
westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps.
Total Eng &
$2.0 million-
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Included in the BART Dublin/ Pleasanton Extension project as approved in
Approval Status
the MTC RTP for 2005.
Funding
BART FEIR requires that BART cover 32% of the costs of this project
However, no funding source was assumed for this project in this study.
Schedule
Same as W. Dublin Station
Project Need
Needed to ensure adequate access to /from W. Dublin BART station, and
as mitigation for the added traffic as a result of the station.
f
Tv-1'c combined Study T
Project Status Report
20 `P°
_.. r. _ _ R rviCP1I - December 6. 1996
i
1
i
i
1
r
r
r
8
PROJECT I- 680 /ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS AND WIDENING OF SAN RAMON
VALLEY ROAD APPROACHES
Lead Agencies Caltrans, San Ramon
Description Project in study phase. No design selected_ Reconstruct the southbound on
and off ramps at the I -680 Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve
operations at these ramps. This project includes closing the southbound off
ramp, building a new southbound on/off ramp to the north of Alcosta
Boulevard, and widening San Ramon Valley Drive from two to four lanes
in the vicinity of the interchange.
Total Eng. $9.6 million. (Estimated by City of San Ramon)
Constr. Cost
Planning & Not in MTC RTP. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan
Approval Status or program.
Funding $2.3 Million identified in Southern Contra Costa JEPA.
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need Needed to improve traffic operations and capacity at the interchange.
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts for all ramps are about 2, 800
VOL
TVrC Combined study
DL. - -_ Y". T _ - -_ __ _1 T _
21
Project Status Report
2-4C� n-
TVTC Combined Study 22 Project Status Report
1004
9
CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY II"ROVEMENTS
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Alameda County
Description
D p
Safety improvements on approximately 44 miles of Crow Canyon Road
Contra Costa County to one mule north of
'
from Bollinger Canyon Road in
Norris Canyon Road. Realign roadway for a 50 mph design speed and
widen shoulders, but no new lanes. Add climbing lanes on the two -lane
segments, and two -way left -turn lanes to provide adequate access to
residential properties
Total Eng. &
$18 million (Estimated by Alameda County Public Works Agency)
Constr. Cost
Ping &
None. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan or program.
Approval Status
Funding
$239,000 has been programmed for Crow Canyon Road in 2001 as shown
in the 1995 CCTA Strategic Plan. This fund can be used for safety
improvements. This leaves $17.8 million unfunded.
Schedule
To be determined.
Project Need
Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 PM peak hour volume
exceeds desirable capacity of existing and planned roadway two lane
roadway; however, project is not intended to address the potential capacity
deficiency.)
TVTC Combined Study 22 Project Status Report
1004
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
10
PROJECT VASCO ROAD SAFETY MPROVEMENTS
Lead Agency I Alameda County
Description From Livermore City limits to County Line; straighten, add shoulders, no
additional lanes from existing two -lane highway section.
Total Eng. & $25 million (Estimated by Alameda County)
Constr. Cost
Planning & Adopted in Alameda County Strategic Plan as a Tier two (unfunded)
Approval Status project.
Funding Unfunded.
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 volumes exceed
desirable capacity of existing and planned two lane roadway; however,
project is. not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency.
L4 3 1)5
11
PROJECT EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
Lead Agencies Various.
Description Provide capital equipment in order to provide new Express bus service for
the nine express bus routes as proposed in the 1995 Tri- Valley
Transportation Action Plan.
Total Eng. & $8 million assuming two buses per route based on $375,000 for each CNG
Constr. Cost bus. (Unit price provided by Maria Marinos, assistant to General Manager
of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District)
Planning & None.
Approval Status
Funding Unfunded
Schedule To be determined.
Project Need Needed to accommodate projected rideship increase due to residential and
employment growth in the area. In the absence of transit rideship growth,
traffic increases in the area would be greater than projected
TVTC Combined Study 24 Project Status Report
Prase M- RP.Oinnn1 T—f;i T,.,,,.rt T.m „__ _ i .—
-t s
iJ '`
---... ,
x
� �
�a •-
.. � ,� ,�,
�, '�
w�
r�b 6�,,5
O� �
• DOO
y O m W
Z CO
�
0 =s
a
° M
� C)
tD N
Cl) It
v IT
0 \\
Lo N
= — CU
t
o�
O
cu
tD
W
Z
j J L1
i I
0 v
m r- Lli
In .D
°se
`1p
s l
68
S£2l
B!!l SEd!
rn
c
8!!1
5
Et
o
Z
1
L
0
m
o o
C
W ti
0 1
�j
RR' S8 3�
S�
P
c
W
�y cn
1852
90Ld.
c
c
0
a
0
C-)
U
O:
.`
�Yy
LL M
Q
O °
9.0
I�
m
v
W J
Q1
fe
a
z W
166
5
m
z
434
0
W tL
W
O
N�
TCf)T
LL cL
m LUL)i
O
U
m cc
�m
5941
d0E
oE5
058 265
a
>61
!8 62
!
e2
D o
/ vm Jly'
o
s
s
—
N�
-100 N
a'
O L
E O
!9s
O '
01 = I
^
�x 1
Y N
A 0
> m' i
1 O_ i
u o
w .-
0
d
My
ao
ti
N CC
\ Q
W z
E 11J
� U
W Cn
1
EA
�G� 5
Tri- Valley Regional. Transportation
Improvement Fee Program
Nexus Analysis
■ Introduction
In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) adopted the Tri- Valley Action
Plan as its blueprint for transportation planning through the year 2010. The Plan
acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level
of service and identifying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and
transit facilities. As an integral component of the Plan's financial strategy, TVTC will
leverage over $162 million in federal, state, and local (i.e., Measure C and Measure B sales
tax funding) provided it can raise matching funds from other local sources.
The TVTC selected 11 improvements that will require over $534 million leaving
million of the plan currently unfunded. In order to fund this gap, The RTIF
undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RTIF).
would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes
. The purpose of this report is to document the technical analysis
of regional significance
necessary for the implementation of the RTIF traffic fee.
■ Methodology
An area -wide fee program must conform to the requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme
Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and 'court decisions provide general
guidelines, the design and implementation of multi - jurisdictional impact fees is not as
tightly circumscribed as other local revenue measures (e.g., assessment districts, local
sales tax measures, subdivision map /developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory
requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TVTC to follow a basic five step process
to design its regional fee:
1. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trips. ABAG's Projections
94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the Tri-Valley
area over the next 20 years. This projection of residential and employment growth in
each jurisdiction must be converted to a 13 year increment of new trip generation
(1997 to 2010). This increment must then be reduced by the number of trips
associated with exempt development. Exempt development has already received a
vesting tentative map or has a development agreement excluding assessment of
additional fees.
i
�;ambridge Systematics, Inc.
e y e T`iaicsportation Improvements N�ded to. -Growth.
--The -law- allows the _ - {
TVTC to require new development to mitigate its full impact on the Tri -VaIley routes
of regional significance [i.e.,
maintain current levels of service (LOS)]. The TVTC,
of limited the maximum cost to new development to the unfunded portion
Of the Action Plan's eleven projects, approximately $368 million. This is substantially
below the threshold of new development's full responsibility.
3. Evaluate the Relationship Between the Improvements, the Share of Funding from
New Development, and the Impact of New Trip Generation. The improvements
must provide benefits that are .in reasonable proportion to the amount of the impacts .
fees paid by new development Thus, if TVTC imposes a uniform fee, it must reach a
the T
consensus that new development in all parts of ri Valley area will receive
roughly proportional benefits from the improvements.
Allocate Costs Across Land Use Types.. Fee. amounts should be fairly distributed
among residential, retail, office, and industrial) development This distribution is
based on the trip generation characteristics 'of each land use type. Nevertheless, the
TVTC may reduce the fees for some types of land use if the foregone revenue is
replaced with some other funding source (e.g., federal and state) and the RT1F- funded
projects are eventually .built
S. Prepare. Fee Schedules and implementation Ordinances. Each local jurisdiction,
through their exercise of their police power„ must adopt an, ordinance imposing the
fee on development within their jurisdiction. The TVTC may adjust a uniform fee
i
schedule for specific land use conditions or Circumstances, including the effects
household income on trip generation, the land use's prox: y to transit stations, and
the effects of jobs-housing balance on travel behavior.
The rc�ma?nder of this report explains the calculations and presents the results of each o Of
the five steps described above. Supporting documentation regardinb transp
.analysis and computer modeling is available from TVTC.
1[ New Development and Incremental Trip Generation
From 1997 through 2010, new development in the Tri. Voey area will generate 36,907
additional a.m_ peak hour trips on the area's routes of regional significance, a 40 percent
increase over the next 14 years. The following sections explain the oribains of this increase.
population, employment, and Land Use Growth
Tne fee is based on the .projected growth in Tri.-Valleyahous�ot�dby strbhtliz�ie
forecast by ABAG (ProjecH=s 94). The figures for 199
intArpolatio=i between the years 1990 and 2000: Households, which are occupied duelling
units, are used as a proxy for dwelling units and acijusted for an area-wide vacancy rate
Table 1 presents the population and employment projections.
Table 1. ABAG Forecast of Tri- Valley Households
As shown in Table 1, residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over
two- thirds of the area's residential development. Dougherty Valley,
the area's fastest
growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the areas new residents.
Dublin and the unincorporated area of Alameda County are the new two most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will account for 26 percent of the growth.
Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accommodate more
than three- quarters of the Tri -Valle ver 57p1 erc1entt with total jobs m the Contra Costa
region is expected to increase by o p
County increasing by more than 42 percent and in Alameda County by 64 percent
Table 2. ABAG Forecast of Tri - Valley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2010
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
2,072 2,272 200 0.30' 9.7%
Alamo /Blackhawk ,960 7, 266 0.3% 3.8 0 0
Danville 6226
765 5,365 4,600 6.0% 601.3/0
Dougherty 31 32 1 0.0% 3.2
Tassajara 32,397 45,204 12,807 16.7°% 39.5%
San Ramon 91 92 1 0.0% 1.1%
Other Contra Costa Co. 60,191 17,876 23.4% 42.2%
Total Contra Costa Co. 42,315
18,004 23.5% 53.2%
Livermore 33,811 51,815 , 53.2%
40,137 61,476 2 1339 27.9%
Pleasanton 19,164 25.0% 113.890
Dublin 16,836 36,000 79 19 2°0
1 943 152 0.29'°
Other Alameda Co. 58,658 76.6 % 64.1%
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150,234
Total Tri- Valley 133,891 210,425
76,534 100.0% 57.2%
3
1997
2010
Increment
Shares
Growth
Jurisdiction
7,906
758
1.7%
10.6%
Alamo /Blackhawk
7,148
12,943
14,790
1,847
4.0%
14.3%
Danville
2,224
10,356
8,132
17.890
365.6%
Dougherty
168
280
112
0.2%
67.1/o
Tassajara
15,077
18,411
3,334
7.3%
22.1%
San Ramon
697
845
148
0.3%
21.3 %
Other Contra Costa Co.
38 256
52,588
14,332
31.3%
37.5%
Total Contra Costa Co.
24,291
34,997
10,706
23.4 °0
44.1%
Livermore
21,277
30,151
8,874
19.4%
41.7%
Pleasanton
9,372
20,880
11,508
25.2%
122.8%
Dublin
240
549
309
0.7%
129.1°0
Other Alameda Co.
55,180
86,577
31,397
68.7%
56.9%
Total AIameda Co.
93,436
139,165
45,729
100.0%
48.9 i0
TotalTri- Valley
As shown in Table 1, residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over
two- thirds of the area's residential development. Dougherty Valley,
the area's fastest
growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the areas new residents.
Dublin and the unincorporated area of Alameda County are the new two most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will account for 26 percent of the growth.
Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accommodate more
than three- quarters of the Tri -Valle ver 57p1 erc1entt with total jobs m the Contra Costa
region is expected to increase by o p
County increasing by more than 42 percent and in Alameda County by 64 percent
Table 2. ABAG Forecast of Tri - Valley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2010
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
2,072 2,272 200 0.30' 9.7%
Alamo /Blackhawk ,960 7, 266 0.3% 3.8 0 0
Danville 6226
765 5,365 4,600 6.0% 601.3/0
Dougherty 31 32 1 0.0% 3.2
Tassajara 32,397 45,204 12,807 16.7°% 39.5%
San Ramon 91 92 1 0.0% 1.1%
Other Contra Costa Co. 60,191 17,876 23.4% 42.2%
Total Contra Costa Co. 42,315
18,004 23.5% 53.2%
Livermore 33,811 51,815 , 53.2%
40,137 61,476 2 1339 27.9%
Pleasanton 19,164 25.0% 113.890
Dublin 16,836 36,000 79 19 2°0
1 943 152 0.29'°
Other Alameda Co. 58,658 76.6 % 64.1%
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150,234
Total Tri- Valley 133,891 210,425
76,534 100.0% 57.2%
3
Population and employment growth will generate and atuact new trips on the area's
regional roaa�n-a �s: Zile soao= econorruc prolectibns slzoKrii in Tabled "and ? afe used Ln a -- -
transportation demand forecasting model developed specifically for the Tri- Valley area to
forecast the increase in travel. The results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.
Trip Generation
Table 3. presents the a.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the years 1997, 2010, and the
growth K -id-dn the 14 year increment The projections assume all 11 Action PIan projects
are built.
Table 3. Growth in AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From, 1997 to 2010
1.997 2010 Increment Share Growth
Alamo /Blackhaw *k
6,857
7,609
733
13°0
11.0°0
Danville
15,518
16,471
953
1.7°0
6.1 00
Dougherty
3,572
11,683
8,111
14.300
"?7.1°0
Tassajara
160
233
i 3
O.I V
45.40110'
San Ramon
_73,336
25,179
1,843
3?%
7.9°0
Other Contra Costa CVanty
519
695
176
03 m
34.0 0%
Total Contra Cos' ta County_
49,962
61,670
111908
20.90'
23.8
Livermore
37,874
52,917
15,043
26.40/0
.39.7°0
Pleasanton
36,369
49,684
13,315
3.4°0
36.6°.0
Dublin
18,877
35,145
16,323
25.70%
86.70/0
Other -Alameda County
3To
893
318
0.60%
533°0
Total Alameda County
93,640.
139,639
44,999
x.1°0
48.1 %0
Total Tri -Valley
14- 3,602
200,509
56,907
100.00/0
39.6
The total increment of 56,907 new trips encompass all trips that either originate or
terminate in the Tri-Valley area. In addition, the area will accommodate roug111 37 5,530
new through trip ends .(ext=al - external), or roughly 10 percent of the total increase.
Exempt Development
The total increment of new trip generation (from 1997 to 2010) includes trips from new
development that will be exempt from paying a fee. Their exemption is due to either one
of two legal criteria applying to a development project that has (1) been issued a vested
tentative map or (2) completed a development agreement that explicitly excludes assess-
ment of any additional fees? If either of these criteria apply to a development project as
of the official date that. the jurisdiction's council or board adopts the RTIF, the developer
may pull the proscribed number of building permits without paying a fee.
1 If for any reason the vesting tentative map or development •agreement of an exempt development
exvires or must be re- negotiated, the jurisdiction may impose the fee.
While the transportation impacts tefTVTC cannot impose a fee and therefor cannot collect
from non - exempt development,
fee revenues for the proposed projects.
nt from the total increment of new trips. The result is the
generated by exempt developm
net amount of new trips over which we can allocated the unfunded cost of the selected
improvements.
Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri -Valley area.
Table 4. Exempt Development By Jurisdiction
Total Tri -V alley '
The exempt development shown in Table 4 �e ubtracted from the total 1997 to
of new development for Tno
increment of new development in Tn-Valley. y projection
Valley is a rough estimate based
est households oAdwelling eunits• Average density factors
vacancy rates are used to convert feet of retail, office and industrial space. The
are used to covert employees to squar
results are shown in Table 5.
5
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Residential Retail Square
Office Square
Square Industrial
Dwelhn Units Feet
Feet
Jurisdiction
Alamo/ Blackhawk
-
-
Danville
Dougherty
-
TVPOA
650 -
2,123,600
-
San Ramon
-
-
Other Tri - Valley CC County
2,123,600
-
Total Contra Costa Co-
650 -
-
4,961,000
1,414
Livermore
2,790
-
_
Pleasanton
172
Dublin
-
-
_
Other Tri - Valley Alameda County
-
4,961,000
Total Alameda Co.
4376 -
,
2,123,600
4,961,000
5 026 -
Total Tri -V alley '
The exempt development shown in Table 4 �e ubtracted from the total 1997 to
of new development for Tno
increment of new development in Tn-Valley. y projection
Valley is a rough estimate based
est households oAdwelling eunits• Average density factors
vacancy rates are used to convert feet of retail, office and industrial space. The
are used to covert employees to squar
results are shown in Table 5.
5
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Tabie -S.__- _Estimates of New Development for Tri -Valley (1997` 2010)
1997 - 2010
Land Use Categories increment—
Single Family Dwelling, Units 34,597
Multi Family Dwelling Units 61105
Small Retail Square Feet (200,000 sq. ft-) 8,848,040
Large Retail Square Feet (> 200,000 sq. ft) 2,449,347
Office Square Feet 9,152-200
Industrial Square Feet 5,396,500
For each category of land use exempt development was converted into trips and the
amou-nrt deducted from the total number of trips for that land use. For example, a vested
project u*ith twenty dwelling units of single family residential would. generate 0.74 a-m-
peak hour trips per unit or a total of 14.8 .am-L peak hour trips: The results of this
adjustment process are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Total, Exempt, and Net AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
Total Trip Ends Exempt Trip Ends Net Trip Ends f.
Alamo /Blackhawl,
753
0
753
Danville
953
0
953
Dougherty
8,111
0
8,111
Tassajara
73
0
73
San Ramon
1,843
689
1,14
Other Contra Costa Co.
176
0
176
Livermore & North Livermore
15,043
3,757
11,286
Pleasanton
13,315
2,093
Dublin & East Dublin
16,33
122
16,201
Other Alameda Co.
318
.0
31S
Total
56,907
6,661
50,246
The appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt development in order to
estimate the number of new trips that must be deducted from the total increment-2 The
total number of trips from exempt residential development equals roughly 3,500 a.m.
peak LLips, or about 50' percent of the total 6,661 exempt trips. Non - residential develop -
ment will generate the remaining 441 percent. These estimates are deducted from the total
= The trip generation rates are determined from the Trip Gennrato. -s, 5th Edition, Institute of Traffic
Engineers (TIE) and modified according to special Tri- Valley conditions as determined from the
updated traffic model. i nse rates are shown in Table 11.
- . r ______i.__ t__ - 6
■
increment of 56,907 new trips, producing roughly 50,246 net trips that may be assigned a
share of the cost of improvements.
Transportation Improvements
In July of 1995, TVTC adopted the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance (Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve
the best level of service within the Tri -Valley given financial constraints, physical bh -dta-
tions within corridors, and development patterns. The Plan integrates enhancements to
roadway capacity, increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and
TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided (see The
Action PIan, pages 117 to 123).
Table 7 identifies the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri -
Valley. The TVTC selected this set of actions - as well as other programs and measures
described in the Plan - to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service
Objectives. These results assume that future traffic will be constrained by the limited
capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see The Action Plan,
Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints ").
Table 7. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Pro' ect Total Cost Available Amount
I- 580 /I -680 Interchange
$121.2
$213.0
$111.1
$36.1
$10.1
$176.9
Route 84 (includes interchanges at I -580 and Stanley)
$23.6
I -680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
$40.0
$16.4
BART Extension: West Dublin station
$43.0
$4.0
$43.0
I -580 Tassajara to N. Livermore: HOV Lanes.
$40.0
$0.0
$40.0
1 -680 Rte 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes
$14.4
$0.0
$14.4
1- 580 /Foothill Interchange modifications for W. Dublin BART
$2.0
$0.0
$2.0
I- 680 /Alcosta Interchange modifications
$9.6
$2.3
$7.3
Crow Canyon Rd Safety Improvement
$18.0
$0.2
$17.8
$25.0
$0.0
$25.0
Vasco Road Realignment
$8.0
$0.0
$8.0
Express Bus Service
$534.2
$166.1
$368.1
Plan
Total Action
The unfunded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly $368 million in 1997 dol-
lars, or about 70 percent of the total cost.
After considerable technical analysis and careful consideration, the TVTC has determined
that a fee program designed to fund the full $368 million shortfall would place an
excessive financial burden on new development. This burden would be most severe on
low- income housing and commercial development. For example, -heavy fees on
7
MINIM
development^- would have-tl3.e probable--r---and- - counterproduttii�e
consequence of driving some job- creating development outside the Tri- Valley, thus
exacerbating the region's jobs /housing imbalance.
Given these objectives, the TVTC ranked the 11 projects according to their affect of con-
gestion and the amount of. state and federal funding that could be leveraged using fee
revenues as a local match. In order to facilitate this ranking, Route S4 was divided into six
separate projects. Each was then evaluated on.its own merits and compared to the other
10 Action Plan projects. Table 8 presents the six highest ranked projects.
Table S. Selected. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 million in
cost of which roughly $145.05 million - or about half - is unfunded. Thus, this short list
represents a 65 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the
impact fee.
Existing Local.Impact Fees for Action Plan
Some Tr-Valley jurisdictions require new development to mitia to their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects.
Developers either pay local impact fees, dedicate right -of -way, or construct transportation
facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their
local fee programs: In these cases, the TVTC will work Frith local jurisdictions to reduce
a
the local fee by the mount of the regional component and new development will pay the
full regional fee. Thus, the total amount being funded by the RTIF fee must be increased
by the amount of funding from local fees.
Table 9 presents an initial inventory of each jurisdiction's locally funded (or required)
improvements to the six highest-ranked projects.
Funding
Unfunded
Project
Total Cost
Available
Amount
I -580 /I -680 Interchange
$171.2
S111.1
510.1
Rte 84: I- 580 /IsabelExt: new I/ C; Isabel at 4lanes
$40.0
$0.0
540.0.
Rte 84 /Isabel Ext.: J. London to Concannon d. I -580 /Airway
$32.0
$28.1
S3.9
Rte 84:1-580 to Vineyard.: widen to 4 lanes
$25.0
S0.0
S25.0
I -680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
$40.0
516.4
S23.6.
BART Extension: West Dublin station
543.0
S0.0
S43.0.
Total For All Six Projects
5309?
5I63.6
S1a -? -6
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 million in
cost of which roughly $145.05 million - or about half - is unfunded. Thus, this short list
represents a 65 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the
impact fee.
Existing Local.Impact Fees for Action Plan
Some Tr-Valley jurisdictions require new development to mitia to their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects.
Developers either pay local impact fees, dedicate right -of -way, or construct transportation
facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their
local fee programs: In these cases, the TVTC will work Frith local jurisdictions to reduce
a
the local fee by the mount of the regional component and new development will pay the
full regional fee. Thus, the total amount being funded by the RTIF fee must be increased
by the amount of funding from local fees.
Table 9 presents an initial inventory of each jurisdiction's locally funded (or required)
improvements to the six highest-ranked projects.
Table 9. Local Funding for Selected Projects
Millions of 1997
Jurisdiction Dollars
Alamo /Blackhawk $0.7
Danville (estimate)
(estimate) $ 6.2
Dougherty -
Tassajara $1.4
San Ramon (estimate)
(estimate) $ 0.1
Other TV Contra Costa County $8.5
Total Contra Costa Co.
$7.5
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Other TV Alameda County
$ 7.5
Total Alameda Co.
$16.0
Total Tri- Valley
The amounts shown in Table 9 for the four jurisdictions in Contra Costa County are
estimates of the Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assume
roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated from each jurisdiction. As noted
above, the $16 million total in local fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in
unfunded cost. The total amount to be funded with the RTIF, therefore, equals $161.6
million.
■ Nexus Analysis
The impact of new Tri- Valley development on regional transportation facilities is based
on an update of the Tri -Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tri- Va1Iey Re-
Validation Report, June 1997). This computer model simulates current and future traffic
flows on the roadway network under a wide range of user - specified conditions. The
model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway
levels -of- service. In particular, the model estimates new development's fair share of the
Action Plan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of
existing development, through (external - external) trips, and existing deficiencies.
This analysis indicated that this development will cause levels -of- service to decline
despite all of the improvements proposed in MTC's short and long range improvement
plan. Nor will the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Plan prevent
degradation's in levels -of- service.
As part of its Action Plan, the TVTC has evaluated the impact of new development on its
subregional system and identifie0d nw�i]Ierutcreaserthe area's capacity for vehicle miles of
were completed by the year 201
9
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
almost 21 ercent. New development -will increase Ene number of VhV
using }}tic capacity 9 perc
>;y.4S percent, thus absorbing almost °ent of tie new capacit<: ""
%IMT from through trips (Le., t-ips travel through the area but not stopping) will increase
16 percent Of the total 254,2S1 increase in VMT, new development will account for 90
percent'of the increase: Table 10 presents the results of the VMT analysis in more detail.
Table 10. V MT Analysis from 1997 to 2010
The results shown in Table 10 would justify the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action
Plan's total cost - roughly S535 million - to new development in the Tri - Valley area. For-
tunately, TI TC has secured S166 million (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving. 5368 million still unfunded. While the TVTC could require new development to
fund, the entire unfluIded balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These projects, however, will not prevent some deg adation in the regional network's
level of service.
9 Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four steps:
• Step 1-- :AIlocation of Costs: Determine if the total share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new development in the Tri -Valley area, regardless of juris-
diction, or if a the fees must be determined on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
• Step 2 - Cost per Peak hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip amounts and three
fee schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the 5368 million unfunded
balance for all 11 Action Plan Projects and the S161.6 million for the selected projects.
• Step 3 - Preliminary Fee Schedules: AP ply the three costs per peal: hour trip end to
the trip generation characteT�stics of different types of land use to create three pre -
li.minary fee schedules.
• Step 4 - renal Fee Schedule: As an alternative to the three fee schedules in Step 3, cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule winch reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the full, unfunded amount.
r
in
1997
2010
Increment
Chan--e
VMT for AD Tri- Valley
632,75 6
887,037
254?51
40? 0/0'
VMT for Through Trips
151,987
176,167
24,180
15.9°6
VMT for Internal Tri- Valley
480,769
710,870
230,101
47.9 °6
VMT Capacity
1,117,059
1,350,559
233,500
20.9°6
The results shown in Table 10 would justify the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action
Plan's total cost - roughly S535 million - to new development in the Tri - Valley area. For-
tunately, TI TC has secured S166 million (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving. 5368 million still unfunded. While the TVTC could require new development to
fund, the entire unfluIded balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These projects, however, will not prevent some deg adation in the regional network's
level of service.
9 Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four steps:
• Step 1-- :AIlocation of Costs: Determine if the total share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new development in the Tri -Valley area, regardless of juris-
diction, or if a the fees must be determined on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
• Step 2 - Cost per Peak hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip amounts and three
fee schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the 5368 million unfunded
balance for all 11 Action Plan Projects and the S161.6 million for the selected projects.
• Step 3 - Preliminary Fee Schedules: AP ply the three costs per peal: hour trip end to
the trip generation characteT�stics of different types of land use to create three pre -
li.minary fee schedules.
• Step 4 - renal Fee Schedule: As an alternative to the three fee schedules in Step 3, cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule winch reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the full, unfunded amount.
r
in
Allocation of Costs
The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits
each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. This balance, however, is
difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel patterns in the Tri- Valley. As an alter-
native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom-
mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to all
jurisdictions. Given the extensive experience of the TAC's membership, this qualitative
approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation
model (i.e., select -link analysis of all proposed projects3). Thus, TVTC has decided to
apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC jurisdictions.
Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End
A uniform cost per peak hour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,246
new a.m. peak hour trip ends by the three revenue targets: $368 million for all 11 Action
Plan Projects and $161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs
per peak hour trip end.
Table 11. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak
Hour Trip End.
Revenue Targets
Per Peak Hour Share of
($1,000,000's)
Trip End Action Plan
Full Action Plan (11 Projects) $368.1
$7,362
Selected Projects $161.6
$3,216 44%
Preliminary Fee Schedules
The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. For purposes of efficiency and
consistency, TVTC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development
(i.e., single and multi- family dwelling units) and four types of commercial space (large
and small retail, office, and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers
trip generation rates for each of these land use. In addition, it shows the adjustments for
average trip length, trip diversion, and the final adjusted trip length.
3 For each segment of regional roadway that will be improved using fee revenues, select li?tk analysis
shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Thus, the results help allocate the benefit of the
improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. I1
Table 12_._4.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments
Trip. diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are
part of a longer trip but divert less than two nvles out of the way to stop at the land use.
Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home -based work trips. The rates shown in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the three preliminary
fee schedules shown below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules (1.997- 2010)
Full.Action PIan
Trip Diversion
Trip Length
Adjusted A.M
Land Use Categories
-Base Elates
Adiustment.Factor
Adjustment Factor
Peak Hour Trip Rate
Single Family Residential
0.74
1.00
1.00
0.74
- Multi Family Residential
0.47
1.00
1.00 -
0.47
Retail per sq. ft ( <200 ksE
1.60
0.20
0.30
0.16
Retail per sq. ft ( >200 ksf)
0.90
0.43
0.50
0.15
Office per sq. ft
1.33
1.00
1.00
1.33
Industrial per sq. ft.
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.90
Trip. diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are
part of a longer trip but divert less than two nvles out of the way to stop at the land use.
Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home -based work trips. The rates shown in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the three preliminary
fee schedules shown below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules (1.997- 2010)
12
Full.Action PIan
Selected
Land Use Categori es
(11- Projects)
Projects
SinDie Family Residential
$5,421
S2,380
Multi Family Residential
53,443
S1,512
Retail per square foot ( <200 Isf)
51.17
S0.31
Retail per square foot (>2'-)O Isf)
51.32
SO.SS
Office per square foot
59.74
�s
Industrial per square foot.
$6.59
S2.89
Total Revenues ($1,000,000)
5366.1
5161.6
12