The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.2 AlaCntyTransp Reauth of Tax CITY CLERK File # [Z][Q][(;J[Q]-~0 4t AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE: April 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Presentation by Representative of Alameda County Transportation Authority Regarding Reauthorization of the Half-Cent Sales Tax Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Christine Monsen, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA), together with presentation slides RECOMMENDATION: ~~ 1) 2) Hear presentation Provide comments on project list to strengthen voter support FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The proposed reauthorization of the Half-Cent Sales Tax would provide $162 million dollars in Eastern Alameda County for regional transportation projects. . DESCRIPTION: The existing Half-Cent Sales Tax Transportation Program has provided several hundred millions of dollars to improve the regional transportation system in Alameda Count)'. This tax will expire March 31, 2002, unless an extension ofthe tax is approved by voters. .t\n extension of the program past Year 2002 was presented on the ballot to voters in June of 1998. Although a majority of the voters (58.5%) voted in favor ofthe measure, it failed to achieve the two-thirds approval required for special taxes. The precincts located in the City of Dublin actually supported the measure to a greater degree than the County-wide vote. Dublin results indicated 61.11 % voting Yes. ACTA is proposing to again put this measure before the voters with a revised Expenditure Plan. ACTA is soliciting input from the various agencies that will benefit from the Expenditure Program in order to provide an expenditure plan that will gamer more support from the electorate. Staff believes that the proposed projects in the Tri-Valley area are still valid and are the highest priority, with one minor provision: The trail portion of the Iron Horse Trail Transportation Corridor Program has now been funded, and the trail monies could be directed to supplement the Tri-Valley Transportation Fee program priority list, or some other project as deemed appropriate. The existing Clean Air Grant for the Iron Horse Trail is $432,000. .--------------------------------------------------------------- ... COPIES TO: Christine Monsen, ACTA ITEM NO. ;~2 G: \agenmisc\measureB .doc 1401 Lakeside Drive Suite 600 Oakland, California 94612-4305 Telephone 510/893-3347 Facsimile 510/893-6489 E-Mail ACT/>2002@aol.com \ Vebpage "'",""'.ACTA2001.com .lark Green Chairman ~layor, Union City Scott Haggerty Fiee-Chairman Supervisor Jerry Brown ~la:'or, Oakland Keith Carson Supervisor Wilma Chan Supervisor Roberta Cooper Mayor, Hayward Mary Y. King Supervisor Gail Steele Supervisor Shelia Young Mayor, San Leandro Christine Monsen Executive Director ~~ . .. '( -:::';'.'EC ll:' F _ A ~t""~'~~ ~."'tr\. ~', i ';" -;;\~ March 30, 1999 ~ ,-..... '." ~ ~ I.' --, :- 0:;.; ~ i ~-' \: v ....' :-, i, :::' The Honorable Mayor Houston Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mayor and City Manager: The Alameda County Transportation Authority is in the process of revising the 1998 Expenditure Plan for a continued transportation sales tax. As you are aware, 58.5% of the voters last June supported this Plan, and the ~ cent sales tax to fund it. However, special taxes require 2/3rds voter support, so the tax is scheduled to end March 31, 2002, unless another attempt to ex"tend the tax is successful. We anticipate that a measure could be placed before voters as early as March 2000, although the time frame for approaching voters has not been set yet. In order to revise the Expenditure Plan, we are requesting input from the City of Dublin. We understand that your Council is meeting April 6, 1999, and that the agenda includes a presentation from ACTA. Our goal is to develop a Plan that you aggressively support when it comes before voters. Specifically, we are interested in the following information: What changes would strengthen voter support for the Plan in Dublin? What weakened voter support for the 1998 Plan in Dublin? Recognizing that this is a zero sum game, if you want to increase funding for something in the Plan, what would you eliminate from the plan in East County? Does the Plan contain any "fatal flaws" that would cause you to oppose the Plan? We are requesting similar input from other Cities in the county, the Board of Supervisors, the Public Transit Operators, and Special Interest Groups. We plan to collect this input, and to use it in developing a recommended Draft Plan this summer. This Revised Plan will be circulated back for your review and comment. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ F------ Christine Monsen Executive Director cc: Steve Castleberry, DeputyDirector " :.,', , Lee 1:'hdmp-son, Public Warks Director ACTA means Action Measure B Half-Cent Sales Tax Extension Preparing an Expenditure Plan for Voter Support . Presentation to City of Dublin Alameda County Transportation Authority . . . . 1998 Expenditure Plan · Developed by ACTA over the last several years with assistance from a 40 member committee representing environmental groups, business, transit, and neighborhoods · Extended existing half-cent sales tax for 15 years, starting in April 2002 · Endorsed by every City in Alameda , County and numerous special interest r~J groups 1~!~Wf ~"-l,m! I1j~ 1I!l.'!.}jl < ~. ;~, fj i': ~':. ~2! .,..-"!. ...~t'.f Ie tv.J~~ ~ L _,_ -!-;/.....;:. .r~,.;.. ; ACTA Since 1998, needs for transportation funding have increased · Storm-driven street maintenance and . repairs · Suburban transit demands , · Questions about the economy . . ACjA . . . 1998 Plan Expenditure Summary - Dublin Current Under New Plan Loss if Measure Measure (annual) not. (annual) Reauthorized Local $155,000 to $200,000 to -$200,000 per Transportation Dublin Dublin year Transit $0 to E. Co. $1,141,000 to E. n/a Operations Co. Paratransit $1,212,000 $6,964,000 -$1,212,000 per countywide countywide year Enhancements $0 $235,000 to E. n/a Co. ACTA East County Capital Projects -Isabel 84/580 Interchange - $20 mil -Route 84 Expressway - $70 mil -Iron Horse Trail - $5 mil -1-580 Auxiliary Lane - $10 mil -ACE Captial and Operating - $10 mil + $20 mil -1-680 Carpool Lane - $26 mil -680/880 Connector Study - $1 mil ACTA . . . . . . June 1998 Election Results yes no Pleasanton Township 63.900/0 36.100/0 Emeryville 63.350/0 36.650/0 Piedmont 63.000/0 37.000/0 Pleasanton 62.530/0 37.470/0 Albany 61.270/0 38.730/0 Unapportioned City 61.200/0 38.800/0 Dublin 61.110/0 38.890/0 Fremont 60.600/0 39.400/0 Alameda 59.380/0 40.620/0 Livermore 59.020/0 40.980/0 Oakland 58.590/0 41.410/0 Eden Township 57.510/0 42.490/0 Berkeley 57.300/0 42.700/0 Union City 56.830/0 43.170/0 San Leandro 56.260/0 43.740/0 Newark 55.430/0 44.570/0 Hayward 54.160/0 45.840/0 Murray Township 52.030/0 47.970/0 Total 58.580/0 41.420/0 1986 Measure 8 56.50/0 43.50/0 ACTA Direction from Expenditure .. Plan Development Steering Committee · Go back to the voters in 2000 · I nvestigate A + B · No call for new capital projects · Revise the Expenditure Plan as needed . . ACTA . . . . .. Process for Revising Expenditure Plan 1999 2000 Jan Am July Oct Jan AQI Fact Finding xxxxxxxx Revisions to Expenditure Plan xxx Draft Revised Plan to Cities xxxxxxxx Present Draft Plan xx Prepare Revised Plan xx Formal Approval of Plan xx Election xx ACTA 1998 Expenditure Plan Features · Developed at grass roots level · Focused on "return to source" · Provided different solutions to different parts of the County · Balanced transit and highway improvements, operations and capital improvements · Key component of Countywide Plan . . '. ACTA . . Risks if extension not approved • Decreases in funds for street maintenance • Decreased mobility for seniors and people with disabilities • Decreased transit funds , cuts in fixed route services, and inability to expand or restore service levels • Inability to fund key capital projects that will address congestion throughout 179 Alameda County : ---�~ ACTA . . ACTA · . . . Q) L.. ::J C I. -- 0-0 -r: c CO Q) E c.. L.. >< oW t:CX)c m CO COma.. c ' o C) -r: c -- -- -0-0 -0 L.. <(~ Q) 0:: . 1998 Expenditure Plan Spending Projects - Tier 1 450/0 . Local Transportation 230/0 111 ~'~;.r Enhancement" Paratransit Projects Trans portation 9%) 2%) Enhancements 20/0 . Transit Operations 190/0 ACTA . . . _ Types o r in Expenditure PI n Project Type Amou nt % of % of Capital Total Projects Transit Related $272 mil 52% 23% Capital Alternatives to $23 mil 5% 2% SOV/Enhancement Projects Highway Safety & $71 mil 13% 6% Access Highway Widening $ 157 mil 30% 14% _�,�� , . .�c: v ,,1 Revised 2/19/99, 3/9/99 . s All ACT A .. . ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED DUBLIN KINDERCARE FACILITY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA April 1, 1999 . . . Prepared for: Carol Cirelli City of Dublin City Offices 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Prepared by: Richard R. lllingworth, PE ILLINGWORTH & RODKlN, INC. Acoustics' Air Quality 85 Bolinas Road, Suite 11 Fairfax, CA 94930 (415) 459-5507 ~ ~~, ~ : - 4~ ' ~~ ~~, 1I - h C' ~ .'\':' 3 ,... ~. I j tJ .;" Job No.: 99-043 DU5L:r J ~ :~..~.~:~. ~.: ~:3 " . Introduction This report assesses the potential noise impacts associated of the proposed Dublin KinderCare facility. The facility is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing Kildara Townhomes development in a vacant lot just north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The purpose of the assessment is to determine what effects the noise generated by the proposed KinderCare facility would have on the adjacent neighborhood. The assessment includes a description of the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the site; projection of the noise generated by activities at the proposed KinderCare facility based on measurements of activities at a similar KinderCare facility in Concord, California; a comparison of the projected noise levels with the standards contained in the Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan; and an estimate for the potential for adverse community response to the noise generated by the facility. Summary Our analysis shows that there is little probability of annoyance of first-floor residents primarily due to the shielding provided by the proposed 8-foot soundwall. Second-floor residents will look over the soundwall, and assuming that outdoor decks would be used continuously, we calculate that there is a possibility of sporadic to widespread complaints. However, this should be tempered by the fact that these outdoor decks would not be expected to be used significantly during the week when children would be present. Interior noise levels are projected to not be significant. No indoor activity interference would be expected and the outdoor noise levels could be reduced to a level which would allow sleeping by simply closing the second-floor windows. The City of Dublin's goal for indoor and outdoor exposure on an annual average noise level basis would not be exceeded. In our opinion, this project would not be expected to have a significant impact on the adjacent homes, although it will represent a change in the noise environment. Existing Noise Environment A noise measurement was conducted on Friday, March 26, 1999 outside of the townhomes at 11894 Flanagan Court. The measurement was conducted for a half-hour period from 1 :35 to 2:05 PM. This time was selected because it was after the morning rush hour and before the evening rush hour to represent the typical minimum background noise level in the area during the day when children would be present. The noise environment in this area is dominated by distant traffic noise emanating primarily from Interstate 580 and also from traffic on San Ramon Road. The highest noise levels of individual events were generated by traffic on the access road to the Kildara Townhome development. Other sources of note include general aviation aircraft flyovers and truck loading and unloading at the fish restaurant just to the north of the proposed site. The 1 ." . energy average level, or Lcq 1, was measured to be 47 dBA2 over the half-hour period. The background noise level, or L90, was measured to be 48 dBA. Cars and other vehicles driving on the access road generated noise levels from 55 to 70 dBA. General aviation aircraft flyovers generated noise levels from 50 to 56 dBA, and a truck idling at the fish restaurant generated a noise level of 51 dBA. The townhomes facing the site have outdoor decks at both the first- and second-floor levels. All units have windows at both first and second floors facing the site. These windows are operable. KinderCare Noise Generation To gain information as to the sound levels that would be generated by the proposed facility, we visited a similar KinderCare facility in Concord. During our observation, we noted that no noise emanated from inside the facility since the building is mechanically ventilated and the windows are kept closed. The facility was essentially silent except during play periods. A conversation with Mr. Joe Bledsoe of Kinder Care indicated that typically children are allowed outdoors for a period of 3 hours and 45 minutes in the morning and 3 hours and 45 minutes in the afternoon. Children are not allowed outside before 8:00 AM and play outside is discontinued after 5:30 PM. When we visited the Concord facility, we noted that the noisiest children were the 4 through 6-year- olds. These children concentrated their play around the climbing structure and were quite vocal during their play. Younger children were considerably quieter. Measurements were made at a distance of60 feet from the center of the climbing structure during a typical period. There were about 30 children playing during the measurements. The measurements were made for two conditions: one location had direct line-of-sight to the children and the other was behind an 8-foot wall, as is proposed for the Dublin facility. The noise levels at the location with direct line-of- sight to the play structure were as follows. Yells were measured to a maximum level of 72 dBA. Average noise levels during the play period were 63 dBA. Behind the 8-foot fence, maximum sound levels reached 64 dBA and the average sound level during the play period was 55 dBA. Noise levels generated by the younger children did not exceed the background noise level of 50 dBA at this location. We noted that the younger children did play on tricycles, but the tricycles used at the KinderCare facility were equipped with rubber tires and this activity was essentially silent. Of course, it is possible that occasionally a child would cry but this did not happen during our observations. Regulatory Background The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan contains policies regarding control of noise in the City of Dublin. The policies are oriented towards control of traffic noise, which is the 1Leq - The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. 2dBA - A-weighted sound pressure level (or noise level) represents the noisiness or loudness of a sound by weighting the amplitudes of various acoustical frequencies to correspond more closely with human hearing. A 10 dB (decibel) increase in noise level is perceived to be twice as loud. A-weighting is specified by the U.S. EPA, OSHA, Caltrans, and others for use in noise measurements. 2 .... ., major source of noise in the City of Dublin. There are no policies applicable to the assessment of noise generated by projects such as the KinderCare facility. The only policy which provides guidance on acceptable noise levels is Policy G of the Noise Element which requires review of all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEe contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room as required by State law). It appears reasonable to assess the noise generated by the proposed KinderCare facility against the 45 CNEL indoor and 60 CNEL outdoor standard. However, because the proposed KinderCare facility is daytime activity and because the sound of children playing represent a unique noise source which does not generate the same kind of community response for acceptability of noise than traffic noise would, the assessment technique described below is also used. Evaluation of the Potential for Adverse Community Response A reasonable way to look at the noise impact of a new noise source is to evaluate the potential that the noise source would have to generate significant adverse community response. The International Organization for Standardization has developed a technique for assessing the potential for adverse community response. The technique is described in ISO Recommendation R-1996, Assessment of Noise With Respect to Community Response. The methodology evaluates the potential annoyance caused by a proposed noise source after taking into account the duration of the noise and its frequency content, and comparing the resulting noise level with the background sound level existing in a community before the implementation of the project. The potential for adverse community response is arrived at by comparing the difference between the projected sound level and the background level and comparing it with the following table: Estimated Community Response Amount in dB(A) by Which the Rating Sound Level LOt Exceeds the Noise Criterion Category Description o 5 10 15 20 None Little Medium Strong Very Strong No observed reaction Sporadic complaints Widespread complaints Threats of community action Vigorous community action Of course, the actual community response of a particular group of people will depend upon their 3CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) - The average A~weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. 3 , . .. predisposition to the noise source, tolerance of new activities, etc. These factors are impossible to determine. In our opinion, however, the technique described above offers the best available approach to evaluating the potential for adverse community response. Evaluation of Project Impacts The following table shows the ISO rating sound level that would be generated by children in each of the play areas shown on Figure 1. The noise levels in the table represent the noise exposure outside of the nearest home to each of the play areas. The levels developed include both the second floor exposure and the first floor exposure. The. projections take into account the presence of an 8-foot soundwall (which will effectively shield first floors), the distance of the buildings to the playground, the number of children expected during each play period (45 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon for each group), and the appropriate ISO adjustments for exposure time and sound quality. CALCULATION OF ISO RATING SOUND LEVELS Average Average Sound ISO ISO Distance From Sound Level Level Correction Rating Rating Nearest Generated Generated for Time Correction Sound Sound Residence to During Play During Play Outside for Quality Level for Level for No. of Center of Play Period at l't Period at 2"d (1.5hr.l9.5hr.) of Noise 1" Floor 2"d Floor Play Area Children Area Floor (dBA) Floor ( dBA) (dBA) ( dBA) (dBA) Rugmate or 39 135 feet 46 54 -8 5 43 51 North Play Area (3 yr. Olds) Rugmate or 39 135 feet 46 54 -8 5 43 51 North Play Area (4 yr. OIds) ! Rugmate or 22 5 41 49 135 feet 44 52 -8 North Play Area (5 yr. Olds) Twos Play 19 75 feet 42 50 -8 5 39 47 Area (2 yr. Olds) Infants and 26 75 feet 43 51 -8 5 40 48 toddlers Total Rated 48 56 Sound Level Outside Kildara Townhomes 4 The total projected rated sound level outside of the Kildara Townhomes is projected to be 56 dBA (second floors) and 48 dBA for first floors. The existing daytime background noise level, or L90, is 47 dBA outside the Kildara Townhomes. This means that the ISO rating sound level will exceed the background sound level by up to 1 dBA for first floors and by up to 9 dBA for second floors. According to the ISO methodology, there would be no observed reaction from the first- floor residents and the potential for sporadic to widespread complaints from second-floor residents. This would, of course, only be expected if people were us.ing the outdoor decks during the times that the school was occupied. Since the probability is that these decks would be more likely be used in the evenings or on weekends when people were not working, the potential for adverse community response would be significantly minimized. The actual average noise level during the time that the older children are playing would be expected to reach 54 dBA outside of the second floors at closest homes. Maximum instantaneous noise levels would be as high as 63 dBA. Indoors (in the second floor), with the windows open, the average noise level would be 39 dBA with maximum instantaneous levels of up to 48 dBA. With the windows closed, noise levels would be reduced by about an additional 10 decibels, resulting in an average interior noise level of 29 dBA with maximum instantaneous noise levels up to 38 dBA. Noise levels of this magnitude, even with the windows open, would not interfere with indoor activity with the exception that noise levels indoors with the windows open could interfere with sleep. However, closing the windows would lower noise levels to below the threshold for sleep disturbance which is suggested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be an average noise level of 32 dBA. The CNEL due to the activity at the school is calculated to be 48 dBA. Indoors, the CNEL is calculated to be 33 dBA. This is significantly below the City of Dublin's design goal for new multi-family housing. Conclusions Our analysis shows that there is little probability of annoyance of first-floor residents primarily due to the shielding provided by the proposed 8-foot soundwall. Second-floor residents will look over the sound wall, and assuming under the ISO guidelines that outdoor decks would be used continuously, we calculate that there is a possibility of sporadic to widespread complaints. However, this should be tempered by the fact that these outdoor decks would not be expected to be used significantly during the week when children would be present. The interior noise levels are projected to not be significant. No indoor activity interference would be expected and the outdoor noise levels could be reduced to a level which would allow sleeping by simply closing the second-floor windows. The City of Dublin's goal for indoor and outdoor exposure on an annual average noise level basis would not be exceeded. In our opinion, this project would not be expected to have a significant impact on the adjacent homes, although it will represent a change in the noise environment. 5 : EXiSTWO I. . BcuLOWC II • ki tORRk 7�•+4w,��I .. 60'.- . O . _ _ � i ,\ :i --- , R AY0RA M0 I� v • IR _ .., MIN ' If- • Cri Z8 r :i KI�+DR1lA 1 1 \ / 'fDVOIIGNEJ I l =,...,... i _ 571-6, .._....„) i-...0 qh 1 8 .6 ND E iCARE �: ':' — 11II ti" '' � BEI s / i -r t\i` ° I U ® w t.aaa-. � I Touuho 61' - rr-J ! E ' NI 11 Q ii I IQ �I . 1 _ _ i rrJ .. �•.., 4 1."" � i ..11 ra .- .• . • i• I -----. .,,,.% A . .. Tr: .4 .. 4100.,--.----..,.._._ ie_Sitaf...10 SITE PLAN Figure 1 ILLINGWORTH&RODKIN, INC./Acoustics•Air Quality • 6