HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 E DublinTraffic Impact Fee
,.
~;
- - .-'.... :'~: ,J~!'
. ;,L"';"
~'J -.,.
"'.- >
- .
C I TV C LE R K
File # Dla][2][a.~lQ]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 23, 1996 .
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
e:
.. .
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
4)
5)
RECOMMENDATION: /J 1,0. f)
'~ 2)
3)
4)
5)
Revision to Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee/Area of Benefit Fee
Report Prepared by: Lee S. 'Qtompson; Public Works Director
Resolution Establishing Revised Traffic hnpact Pee/Area of Benefit
Fee for Future Developments within the Eastem Dublin Area,
including the following exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Land Use Map
Revised Traffic Impact Fee Report by TJKM
(January 4, 1996)
Report of Roadway Costs by Santina & Thompson
(January 3, 1996)
List of Properties by Assessor's.Parcel Numbers
Fee Schedule
Area of BenefitIMajor Thoroughfaresaild Bridges
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Gener~ Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
'Eastern Dublin Specific Plan .
Barton-Aschman Traffic Impact Fee;Report (Nov. 1994)
Resolution No. 1-95 '.' , '.
Open Public Hearing .':_
Receive. Staff presentation and public testimony
QuestiQn Staff and. the public.. ., _ _. _
Close Publi~ Hearing, determine y~ueof pJ.:otests (to.' ~ea "Jf
benefit fee, only) an~ deliberate'_ . . ..... :
Adopt Resolution Revising the Traffic Impact Fee/Area of
. Benefit Fee for Future Developments within the Eastern
Dublin Area'
,< t'
J~ , . ,,"' "",~ ....... ,', .--.."~.(~ ~.. ~.l"i, '".-.,'~'
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ., . The cost ofprepapng. the Eastern Dublin Tt1ftic.lmpact Fee report is
'. . included in ~. fee. .. '.
'~-:~-----------------------CO-PD[ST()~----------------~-~~~~~---------
'..,' ......'.-..........., M""
. ~ . -
. . . .
.. .
"ItEM NO. .' ,
: t,
g:\nzenmis;:\tifrcv
~,
I-";;"'~
, , ' '--.,
BACKGROUND:
e.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted by the City in 1993. The
General Plan Amendment (OPA) outlines future land use plans for the approximately 4,176 acre eastern
Dublin sphere of influence. Approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9,737 million square feet of
commercial/office/industrial development are anticipated in the OP A area, in addition to parks, open
space, and institutional uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SP) provides more specific detailed
goals, policies, and action programs for the approximately 3,313 acre portion of the GPA nearest the City.
Approximately 2,744 acres to the east of the City's sphere of influence are designated on the Land Use
Map (Exhibit A of resolution) as "Future Study Area." The GP A does not outline future land uses in this
area and this area was not considered in developing the Traffic Impact Pee.
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the OP A and SP (SCH No. 91103064).
The EIR was certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution No. 51-93). Two addenda, dated
May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994, have been prepared.
Chapter 5.0 of the SP addresses Traffic and Circulation. The existing roads are generally rural in
character and adequately serve existing development in the area, which is rural residential (EIR, pp. 2-3).
The transportation and. circulation systems for the SP are designed to provide convenient access to and
mobility within theSP area.
.\.,
The road system is characterized by three major north-south and east- west streets to accommodate traffic
in the SP area (SP 5.2.1). The north-south streets are Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road;"
and the east-west streets are Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, and Gleason Road. These streets are all
planned as major four- or six-lane streets. Other streets necessary for development of the SP are local
roads which will be constructed by developers to provide access to their properties as they develop. No
fees are necessary to provide for such roads.
The SP also identifies certain freeway improvements and interchange improvements necessary to
accommodate traffic to and from the SP area (SP 5.2.12). The SP includes a policy (policy 5-10) that
transit service should be provided within one quarter mile of95 percent of the SP population. It also
establishes park-and-ride lots adjacent to freeway interchanges on the tlrree north-south streets (SP 5.7.2).
Finally, to encourage non-motorized forms of transportation, the SP provides for a network of pedestrian
tr~Hs (policy 5-15) and bike paths (policy 5..17 and Figure 5.3).
y
In analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the EIR assumed that certain improvements 'would be
constructed and that development within the SP/GPA areas would pay its proportionate share of the cost
of such improvements (EIR, pp 3.3-16 to 3.3-18). The EIR also includes a number of mitigation measures
to mitigate the transportation-related impacts of the project (EIR, p. 3.3-19 to 3.3-29). These mitigatior.
measures were adopted by the City Council as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution No.
53-93). "
."
.". ,.
The General Plan contains a policy that new development pay for infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C). The SP contains a similar goal and policy
(Policy 10-1, page 151).
Page 2
""w",
~".~ ~
..' The City Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee ordinance at its December 12, 1994, meeting
,,',' (Ordinance No. 14-94). This ordinance provides the authority for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Pee
("TIF"). which was adopted by the Council 00 January 9~ 1995 by'R.esolution 1-95. The TIF was based
on two reports: a study prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates ("Study"). and a report prepared by
Santioa & Thompson ("Cost Estimate Report").
UPDATED FEE STUQY
The City Council directed Staff to update the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee periodically. TJKM has
prepared a revised report (the "Study Update") which updates the Barton-Aschman Study.
or;
A separate report was prepared by Santina and Thompson ("Cost Estimate ReporlUpdate") which
provides updated estimates of the cost of constructing the improvements which are included in Categories
I and 2 of the Study. TJKM's Study Update and Santina&Thompson's updated cost estimates
incorporate change~ based on last year's comments from the public.
The major changes to the Barton-Aschrnan Study identified in the Study Update are due to the following:
e::
o ;'
1. A more detailed cost study than was originally developed.
2. As a result 'of a new appraisal, the land value for the street right-of-way acquisition was
determined to be significantly higher than last year's estimates.'
3. Con~truction cost inflation factor was considered.
4. Changes'were made in the residential land use categories tb add more tiers of density.
5. Interest on loans' from other agencies who advanced monies, improvements and land was
incorporated.
--,>,', ".,
The Barton-Aschrnan Study and the Study Update divide the required transportation and traffic
improvements into three categories:
Category I (or Section I) improvements are those improvements within the SP area which :are
needed for development of the SP and GP A areas. The Study concludes that development within
the SP/GPA areas should contribute 100% of the funding for these improvements. Because the '
existing improvements within the SP/GP A area are adequate for existing development, there are
no "existing deficiencies" which must be funded by sources other than new development within
the area, except that Contra Costa County is responsible for its portion of road. Improvements.
Category 2 (or Section II) improvements are those impnlvements located within the City of
Dublin. but outside of the Eastern Dublin SP/GP A area. which Brerleeded not only 'for, the
development of the SP fGP A areas but for other devel0pl1'1extt within Llubli>> and the 'surrounding
areas. The Study calculated the SP/GPA~s pwportiolUltesh~of~impiovements.
.
',\ . :,
Category 3 (or Section III) improvements are improve:martts of ,a regional nature which ~ not
within the City of Dublin but are needed for development oftheSP/GPA$'eaS;Qi:~nas oth~
development within the Tri- Valley area; ,The Study calculates the SP/GPA' sproportioriate share
of these regional improvements. The Study Update uses. the Tri- Valley Transpbrtation Council
report for cost estimates, for this category.
Page 3
'~'l.~"~: !," " ...:....~.
...
. ". '-l(~
G?vernment Code Secti,on 65913.2 require~ the, Co~cil to co?si~er the effect ~f a resol~tio~ such as ~is .~~:
WIth respect to the housmg needs of the regIon In whIch the CIty IS located, thIS resolutIon IS one step.1n ' '
the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13,906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
The Study Update and Cost Estimate Report Update conclude that the total cost of all TlF improvements
attributed to the SP/GPA areas rose by approximately $10 million from $101,444,240 to $111,423,843.
This is broken down as follows:
Resolution
No. 1-95 TIF
Proposed'
Revised TIF
Category 1 Improvements:
Category 2 Improvements:
Cat~gory 3 Improvements:
$71,911,500
$19,118,740
$10,414,000
$79,291,973
$21,045,870
$11,086.000 -
The Study detennined that development of the SP/GPA areas will generate 421,360 daily vehicle trips.
The Study concludes that "pass-by" trips (one trip stops at more than one desitnation) account for 35% of
certain retail trips, and reduces the total daily vehicle trips to 344,078.
The Study Update compares the relationship between the total number of trips for residential
development 034,227) and non-commercial development less the 35% reduction (209,851) and ,
concludes 'that residential development's share of the total cost is $43,467,144 and the non-residential
development's share is $67,956,699.
.',.'
". '&,
The cost per trip is then determined to be:
Resolution
No. 1-95 TIP
Proposed
Revised TIP
Category ,1 :
~ Category 2:
Category 3:
$208
$ 55
1..lQ
$230
$ 61
1...32
TOTAL:
$293
$323
The cOst per unit for residential development based on trip generation is then calculated to be $3,841 for
Low Density Residential (upto 6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-14 units per acre),
$2,689 for MediumlHigh Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $2,305 for High Density
Residential (more than 25 units, per acre). The number of units per category ofland use is based on the
SP.
"
" ~
Non-residentialdevelGpment results ina fee of$323 per trip. The number of trips for non-residential
development will continue'to be detennilled by the estimated weekday trip generation rates for different
uses and types of dev:elopment. Weekday traffic rates are used' as they represent the average traffic use on
the roadway, and thus better relate to the maintenance costs and life of the streets than do the peak hour
.'.,'"
.,'
Page 4
',;-\
.~
.,.
.
traffic rates. The proposed fee will charge development its proportionate share of the actual use of the
streets. If the fee were based on peak hour traffic rates, the amount of the fee would be skewed towards
uses which produce more traffic at peak hours, but may produce less overall traffic.
The amount of the fee would be adjusted if Council adopts a Regional Transportation Pee recommended
by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council for regional improvements. Such a fee would replace the
Category 3 fee. The fee could also be adjusted as the result of Staff negotiations for a Traffic Impact Fee
with Contra Costa County. '
AREA OF BENEFIT FEE
The adoption of an Area of Benefit Fee is called for in the SP. This Area of Benefit Pee would cover the
cost of oversizing the major thoroughfares and bridges within the Specific Plan.
There are six major thoroughfares in Eastern Dublin (Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road; F.llon Road,
Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, and Gleason Drive) and three bridges (see Exhibit F of the
resolution). These improvements are included in Category 1 and the imposition of the proposed Traffic
Impact Fee would duplicate an Area of Benefit Pee for construction of such improvements. However,
because the SP calls for adoption of an area of benefit fee, and to eliminate any doubt as to the validity of
a Traffic Impact Fee to pay for the construction of such improvements, Staff has drafted the proposed
resolution to satisfy both the procedural requirements for adoption of a fee under the Transportation
e. Impact Fee Ordin~ce (No.. 14-94). and ~e Area ofBe~efit Ordi~ce (No. 10-94). . The Area ?fBen~fit
-. Fee for LowlMedlUm DensIty ResIdentIal (up to 14 unIts per acre) IS $2,240 per urnt; for MedlwnlHIgh
Density Residential (15 to 25 units per acre) the Fee is $1,568 per unit; and for High Density Residential
the Fee is $1,344 per unit. For Non-Residential units, the Area of Benefit Fee is $203 per trip.
The Area of Benefit Fee would be collected only in the event that the Traffic Impact Fee for the same
improvements is held to be legally invalid. Thus, there will be no duplication 6ffees~
Copies of the public Hearing Notice, draft Staff report and draft resolution were mailed to all East Dublin
property owners on January 9, 1996, in addition to the required public notice which was published.
Staff recommends that Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the draft resolution.
.'
Page 5
.-
.'
.-,
RESOLUTION NO.
-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE
AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA,
AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance
No, 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a
Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Specific
Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GP A outlines future land uses for approximately 4,176 acres
within the City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling
units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action
programs for approximately 3,313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GP A and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land
Use Map contained in the GP A (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shown on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the OP A and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by
Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994
("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway
interchange, and road improvements necessary for implementation of the SP, along with
- transit improvements, pedestrian trails, and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic improvements
would be made and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate
share of such improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No, 53-93 which
requires development within Eastern Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain
transportation improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within
Eastern Dublin; and
.',
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the Year 2010,
and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required
by future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995,
establishing an "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" for development within Eastern
Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared
for the City of Dublin by Barton-Ascbman Associates, Inc., in a document dated.
November-1994 and entitled "Traffic Impact Fee--Eastern Dublin" (hereafter "Study"),
which is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 1-95; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 further relies upon a second report which was
prepared for the City of Dublin by Santina and Thompson in a document dated December
30, 1994, entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Costs, Initial
Level" (hereinafter "Report"), which was attached as Exhibit C to Resolution No, 1 -95;
and
e:"
, '
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Resolution No. 1-95 provides that the City will
periodically review the fee and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained TJKM Transportation Consultants to assist the
City in reviewing and updating the Traffic Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, TJKM has prepared a report dated January 4, 1996, and entitled
"1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" (hereafter "Study Update")
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update includes and incorporates revised cost estimates
for anticipated roadway improvements, prepared by Santina & Thompson and dated
January 3, 1996 (hereafter "Cost Estimate Report Update"), which are attached hereto as
Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95, in reliance upon the Study and Report, sets
forth the relationship between future development in Eastern Dublin, the needed improve-
ments and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and
.
2
e
e:-,
..
.
WHEREAS, the Study Update and the Cost Estimate Report Update
demonstrate the appropriateness of modifying the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in
certain respects; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update and the Cost Estimate Report Update were
available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Fee") is
to finance public improvements and facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts
caused by future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements and facilities
are listed in the Study and the Study Update under Sections I, II, and III and are hereafter
defined and referred to as "Improvements and Facilities". The Improvements and
Facilities listed under Section I are needed solely to acconunodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section II
are needed to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin and the
nearby vicinity and development within Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional
share of such Improvements and Facilities with the implementation of this Fee. The
Improvements and Facilities listed under Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all
necessary to accommodate new development projected within the region by the Year
2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. However, if there later are changes
in the projections and development in the region, one or more of the Improvements and
Facilities may not be necessary, and additional improvements and facilities may be
required. Such alternative improvements and facilities are included in the definition of
Improvement and Facilities to the extent development in Eastern Dublin contributes to
the need for such improvements and facilities, and the proceeds of the Fee may be used to
fund such alternate improvements and facilities. However, since the Study was prepared
in December 1994, there have been no significant changes in projects warranting any
revisions to the list of Section III Improvements.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the
Improvements and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Study Update, the Cost Estimate Report,
the Cost Estimate Report Update, Resolution No. 1-95, the Agenda Statement, the GPA,
the SP, the General Plan, the EIR and Addenda, all correspondence received and the
testimony received at the noticed public hearings held on January 23, 1996 (hereafter the
"record"), the Council reapproves and readopts the Study, as revised by the Cost Estimate
Report Update, and incorporates each herein, and future finds that future development
in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the
Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA, the SP, and the City's General
Plan,
3
D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the EIR and Addenda, The
Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate
traffic from and/or to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of
such development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed
at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR,
no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information
of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific
environmental review under CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities will be
required before any such Improvements and Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to
provide project specific environmental review of the Improvements and Facilities at this
stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details as to
their timing and construction are not presently known.
E.. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Improvements and Facilities and the impacts ofthe types of development for which
the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential -- will generate traffic which generates or contributes to
the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
pay for the construction ofthe Improvements and Facilities) and the type of development
for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin -- both residential
and non-residential -- generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and
Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
Fee and the cost of the Improvements and Facilities or portion thereof attributable to
development in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips
generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the
Improvements and Facilities, and the percentage by which development within Eastern
Dublin contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study, as revised by the
Study Update, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the Cost Estimate Report
Update, are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and Facilities,
and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the
projected costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation ofthe Fee to a particular development,
set forth in the Study, as revised in the Study Update, bears a fair and reasonable
relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements and
4
...
.'::
e::
."
.":-
::
.-
Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of
automobile trips each particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as
follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition
of any building or structure within Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan
Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting
the property designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture." The individual properties
within this area are listed by assessor's parcel number on Exhibit D of this resolution.
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include those transportation
and transit improvements and facilities as are described in Sections I, II and III ofthe
Study and as described in the Study Update, Cost Estimate Report, Cost Estimate Report
Update, SP, EIR and Addenda, "Improvements and Facilities" shall also include
comparable alternative improvements and facilities should later changes in projections of
development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative improvements and
facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable
relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative
improvements and facilities, (2) that the alternative improvements and facilities are
comparable to the improvements and facilities in the Study and Study Update, and (3)
that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin development's fair
and proportionate share of the alternative improvements and facilities.
d, "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for up to six
units per acre.
e. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for 7 to 14
units per acre,
f. "MediumJHigh Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit
as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for 15 to 25
units per acre.
5
g. "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and OP A for 26 or
more units per acre.
.
2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each
Low Density Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, MediumlHigh Density
Dwelling Unit, and High Density Dwelling Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the
date of final inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or
structures within Eastern Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued for such
building or structure, except where the building or structure will require a later stage of
discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which case, with the
approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be
deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is
required prior to occupancy.
3, Amount of Fee.
a. Low Density Dwelling Units, The amount of the Fee for each Low
Density Dwelling Unit shall be $3,841 per unit.
.'
b. Medium Density Dwelling Units. The amount of the Fee for each
Medium Density Dwelling Unit shall be $3,841 per unit.
c. Medium/High Density Dwelling Units. The amount of the Fee for
each MediumlHigh Density Dwelling Unit shall be $2,689 per unit.
d. High Density Dwelling Units. The amount of the Fee for each
High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $2,305 per unit.
e. Non-Residential Buildings or Structures. The amount of the Fee
for each Non-Residential Building or Structure shall be $323 per average weekday trip.
The amount of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Uses are shown
on Exhibit E.
4. Exemptions From Fee,
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(1)
Any alteration or addition to a residential structure,
.:
6
.
.-'
, "
.--
except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a
single-family residential unit or another unit is added to an
existing multi-family residential unit;
(2)
Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished
provided that the building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building was destroyed
or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction
increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or
more.
(3)
Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
non-residential structure that has been destroyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for new
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building
was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building
would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's
trips based on Exhibit E.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the
Capital Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall
be used to account for such revenues, along with any'interest earnings on each account.
The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way
acquisition and construction of the Improvements and
Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies
related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Improvements and
Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other
sources including funds from other public entities, unless
the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended
by the grantor to be used for traffic improvements.
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed and
constructed Improvements or Facilities which are oversized
with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and
(4)
To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of the Fee
program.
7
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the
Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
.-
6. Miscellaneous.
a. The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements and
Facilities are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards
contained in the General Plan, GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies
within Eastern Dublin and that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category I
(Section I) of the Study is generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin
and, further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category II and III
(Sections II and III) of the Study is generated by new development within Eastern Dublin
and other new development and, therefore, the Study, as revised by the Study Update, has
detennined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements and Facilities for
which development within Eastern Dublin is responsible. Exhibit D identifies the list of
property owners by Assessor's Parcel Number.
7, Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for
the City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifYing the balance of
fees in each account.
..,.,
-'
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council
shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the
approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements
and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in
accordance with appropriate indices of inflation, The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and
demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is
charged.
8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in
reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study
and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to detennine that the
amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within Eastern Dublin,
The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of
further studies and any standards in the GP A, SP and General Plan, as well as increases
due to inflation and increased construction costs,
.-
8
.
.,--
.---
9.
Iri-Valley Regional Fee.
The City has joined with other cities and counties in the Tri-Valley area in
a joint powers agreement to fund preparation of a "Tri- V alley Transportation Plan" for
the purpose of addressing transportation issues through the Year 20 I 0 within the Tri-
Valley area. The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council," an advisory group consisting of
elected representatives from each jurisdiction, has prepared a "Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (hereafter "Action Plan". The
City Council adopted the Action Plan by Resolution No. 100-95 on August 8, 1995. The
Action Plan indicates that further study is necessary of a proposed regional transportation
impact fee which would share funding of regional transportation improvements among
development within the various jurisdictions, Because the Tri- Valley Transportation
Council has not yet developed a regional traffic impact fee, the Study, as revised by the
Study Update, has analyzed Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of responsibility for
regional improvements which is set forth in Section III of the Study. In the event that a
regional transportation impact fee is developed by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
and adopted by the City, the City Council will amend the portion of the Fee which is
attributable to Section III improvements.
10, Area of Benefit Fee.
A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of Benefit Fee
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the portion of the Fee designated for
the construction of those improvements and facilities identified in Category I (Section I)
of the Study which are major thoroughfares and bridges. These improvements and the
estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit F attached hereto, The "Area
of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the
Area of Benefit in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this resolution and in the
Study, with the amount to be assessed for residential and non-residential as shown on
Exhibit F. The Area of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Capital Projects
Fund into separate accounts established for each of the improvements identified in
Exhibit F.
11. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the
resolution and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 1-95 sixty (60) days
from the effective date of the resolution, The Area of Benefit Fee established in Section
10 of this resolution shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 hereof
is declared invalid for any reason.
9
12, Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be
and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that
portion that has been judged to be invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
the following vote:
day of
, 1996, by
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MA YOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
g:lagenmisclresotif
10
.'
.-'
"
.--
*
* *
::'f G>
El g:;
o ~
g !!!.
< 0
(1) 0
::l 3
6" 3
"T1 (1)
~ 2.
(1) -
en 3
_ III
c: '<
UCT
'< (1)
)>.u
(il (1)
~ 3
)>. ;:;:
<0 -
~. ~
c: IC1
~ ''<
(1) l)'
:= 12
ffi ~
(b ~
a. 0.
m C.l
~ (jJ
3 (J.
5' 9:
~. ~
,(1)
:J :J
o ,,~
o ,N:
iil :0
in' ~
rolW
a. ,:u
:= oS
;:;:. ctl
::TO roo
)>. ~
1)........
)>. *
tji'ax
~ W
x
ro :::
~ ~
a 0
.., 0
o 3
o u
3 ro
'2-iii
!!!. U
l\J in'
Q, g
(/'J (/'J
g ~.
(/'J 0
(/'J :J
c)' '-'
:J
I~
.
.
.. ;~.'\'->}'\'.
. ~..'
.
r
OI:.I:~. l
.;;
11 I
i
C \
~
)> C
G) JJ I
I
m f
JJ I
0 (J) i
N ~ I
"-..j C
.to. C
w r
to ~ 0 i
I
)> C -< I
C)
...., :n
co )>
(fJ m
JJ
m
,.
~
I.c.m
'~ c:::t>
l'men
, ,.-1
Ro -'m
. -f .
<& .Z::tJ
,t,z
cnG>cn~
u ltI 0'"
10 :J-Ill
~!J:CDf!l,
o,~o ~
];! ];! c: .
~ ~ a.
III
~ ~-<
~
~~
ltI (1)
III a.
(/)
e
a.
'<
~
(1)
III
~(t)@@1) ~@~~~
.0' ~ ~
g:~OoQ: ~.if.2-mQ:
o -. 3 .;[,.... CT "" :> ~ en
3-<g.3 1)~ ~~~rf6 3
gCTc:llln (/)n:c2:r
o _ ..., ......" ...., -0
a. 3- ~ " ltI . ltI ::T cO' !:; c:
en 0 '< III 2. g ::T '< CT
.n 0 1) g, -b - (f) (f) IT
6ia.1ll :J C ng."T1
,,",1)X- g ::Tglll
CD III nOn
* 2.-:;;
-<
I ~~: O~U':f' ~:'e~:"
I () .\ ;~..:: .. . .
I C' ,1;\;
r-
)>.
O~--lUlO
OCD-O.....U
Iii z CD (1)
n ~ III ';}
6" 3 (/)
~ ~ 0 ~
q ltI 0 n
CD!!!. =iCD
!!!. a:
o
""'
R
LJ
.
.
~
i
tJ't
:jf~:~
~'l:'
ii
r~~
a'~
~~T:If"!~;
~,.{
I
~
..: '. ';.. \,""
~'..;
.., , .
.;
..
'S::
1'>'
'<
f --
~o
ell co
N co
CD w
t
~
'1
.j~
;
\..
ffim"U
,~
.....
Ul
m
~
"r
"U
C
OJ
r
o
<3
1)
m
z
r~ B ~ I~H:l ~ G~ ~Hr~ ~ @ i
rJ OLJDg LJllilljlfi{H~]~ ~
Z o:n::J
:nr-S:S:I:j5'~G)ZO Q.
~ 0 ltI CD us' )>. a. ~!!!.:;
; ~ ~ ~ ~ r! ~ ~ r
~ ';} 0 I:> - 00;
a: g:, CD .0' ~ "U ==l: 0 00
CD '< :J :::r '< III .ri" 3 a.
:J ~ ~ ltI 3
iff' .;[0 0
S ~ ' l\Jo'" 0
).: II> 3 -
o -. ~ 3
:l. -< CD
n ..,
~ n
~ ~
ltI
- :t
~ ~
8 ~
III
o
!p ~ f\J
~ , If
J:. ~ e:
~ ~ ~
n ~
~
z.
C
c:
(J)
m
~
>
"'0
'(;)
g' ~
(J)'=
,... (p .
(p ...
.., 0)
= -.
m :2'
)<.0)
rot- =
(I)
=
0.
(I)
C.
"
ii
=
:3
:3
(Q
)>
...
(f)
po>
~ Transporta"on COn.u.....
.
MEMO
January 4, 1996 Project No.: 157-001 Task 7
To: Mehran Sepehri, City of Dublin
From: Vinton Bacon
Carl Springer
Subject: 1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
TJKM has completed the update of the Eastern Dublin TIP for 1995. This memorandum explains
the new infonnation that was used to revise the previous technical report which was prepared by
Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. in November 1994 (hereafter referred to as the original report).
The majority of the infonnation, methodologies, assumptions and findings of the original report
were retained in developing the updated fee strocture. Only the changes to that report are
identified below.
Changes to the 1994 TlF Report
.'-
..
1. New Cost Estimates - As more studies have been completed for the planned
infrastructure to support Eastern Dublin and the surrounding region, better cost estimates
have become available for use in the TIF calculation. New cost estimates for the
improvements applied to the TIF were provided by Santina & Thompson (January 3,
1996). The total fees covered by the TIF rose by approximately $10 million from
$101,444,240 to $111,423,843.
2. New Residential Trip Categories - The TIF rate structure used in the original report
combined all residential uses into two categories -- single-family and multi-family. This
update recognized that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan shows four categories of
residential development based on ranges of unit density per acre. By adding two
residential categories, the accompanying calculation for residential trips was adjusted
based on standard trip generation data.
The selected trip generation rates were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, the San Diego Association of Governments October 1993
Traffic Generation Rates and engineering judgement. Table 2.1 shows the rates used for
each of the four residential use categories. The only change made from the original
report is for high-density residential development. The lower rate more accurately
reflects the propensity for a lower number of residents and incomes per household in
apartment units as compared to townhome or condominium units. The change in trip
generation rate from 7 per unit to 6 per unit for high density uses results in a decrease in
the total number of residential trips from 123,679 to 121,232.
.
;,::: :i: ~i Hj i 7' Ot. ._
,. . _....."PI~:.u,........-.""I,,o.,-..~
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214, Pleuanton, CA 94588-2754, (510) 463-0611, Fax (510) 463-3690
PINNnton . Fraeno . Santa RON
Mehran Sepehri Page 2 January 4, 1996
,
f
Table 2-1 .
Trip Generation Rates
Trip Generation Rate - Trip Generation Rate -
Residential Original Report 1995 Update
Land Use Type Density (DU/Acre) (Daily Trips/Unit) (Daily Trips/Unit)
Low Density 1-6 10 10
Medium Density 7-14 10 10
Medium/High Density 15-25 7 7
High Density >25 7 6
3. Re-Assessment of the Percent Responsibility for the 1-58011.680 Interchange
Project - The original report calculated the responsibility for funding the 1-580/1-680
interchange project based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model during the p.m. peak
hour of travel. TJKM re-assessed this calculation to investigate the fmding from the
previous report that there would be a high proportion of responsibility in Central Dublin
(46%) even though it is not expected to grow significantly. The same report also
showed a relatively low share for Eastern Dublin (12%) despite the proximity and
relatively high rate of development. Also. the planned 1-580/1-680 project has since been
revised to delete the previously planned northbound off-ramp from 1-680 to Dublin
Boulevard.
TJKM used the most recent version of the TVTM and the 2010 road networlc to re- .-
assess the percent share. The same methodology was used to re-calculate the percent
shares for each of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions. The model was used to track the origins
and destinations of traffic growth that would use the improved elements of the
interchange (Le. the southbound flyover ramp and the hook ramps into downtown
Dublin). 1bis involved a select link analysis on 2010 p.m. peak hour traffic weighted by
the expected growth in households and employment for each area. The new f'mdings
(shown in Section 3 Fee, Table 2-4) indicate a higher share for Eastern Dublin and San
Ramon and a much lower share for Central Dublin. The percentage contribution for East
Dublin changed from 12 percent to 24 percent.
4. Residential Development Improvement Responsibilities - The original report added the
cost of parlc.-and-ride lots to the exclusive responsibility of residential development. All
other fees were proportionately divided among all land uses based on the relative share
of trip generation. 1bis update also added the Tassajara Creek Bicycle Trail to the
exclusive responsibility of residential development. This was previously lumped into the
Section 1 fees for all land uses.
Updated TIF Cost Structure
The TIP calculations were revised based on the above changes. As in the original report, the TIP
costs were tiered for varying areas of responsibilities which were described as Section 1 (East
Dublin Only), Section 2 (Sub-Regional) and Section 3 (Tri-Valley) as depicted in Tables 2-2, 2-3
and 2-4 in the 1994 report. These same tables were reprinted with the above changes incorporated .'
(see attachments).
.
...
.-
Mehran Sepehri
Page 3
January 4, 1996
Two new tables were created to present important summary information. Table 2-5 is a summary
table which shows the total costs, and cost per trip for each of the three sections. Finally,
Table 2-6 presents the recalculated the cost of residential development based on the new
assumptions.
The cost per nip for non-residential nips increased from $293 to $323. The cost per trip for
residential wlits increased from $335.50 to $384.09.
rhm
Attaclunents
157-001.17
Table 2..2 .-
Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Res 100 Percent
Cost Estimate
Dublin Boulevard $ 30,975,371
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard
Hacienda Drive 5,465,372
Gleason to Dublin (four lanes)
Dublin to 1-580 (six lanes)
Hacienda Drlve/J..580 Improvements 4,056,000
Transit Spine 12,258,800
Dublin w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Gleason Drive 5,763,659
w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Tassajara Road 7,551,661
Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four lanes/six lanes right-of-way)
Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (six lanes/eight lanes right of way)
Tassajara/I-580 Interchange 5,600,000 .'
..:--
Fallon Road 7,260,110
1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right-of-way)
Traffic Impact Fee Study 60,000
Street All nment Stud 301,000
Subtotal of Co~s $ 79,291,973
Total Number of Daily Trips 344,078
$ 230
.
East~rn Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
1/4/96
Page 4
.'-
.~\
."
"
M
.
N
CI)
.c
co
t-
c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
S
c: N
j ..- EA-
-
ll.
l!! ~ ~ ~ LO g LO
..- r-
g LO C") a;J
Ei g ,...:
~ -
U)
0
~ 0 ~
q ~ ~ ~ LO ~ ~
N
..- O~ ~
0- ~ $ $
.c III :J
l:: .1>>8
0 .2 8
c: ts
& '5 ~ ~ r- ~ ~ OJ
.;:: c: r- ti
::l :a - - ~
0 ""') :J
G) ~ 0
a: 1ii
.... 8 ~ ~ i LO I ~. ~ ..-
! E e ~ 0 ~
.9l2j g g N Ei ..- i
0 III :J - ~
CD wO
>
CI) ~ C") OJ ~ 8 ::8
C .9l ..... C")
.... III co N r-
'> 8 E ,...: g m 0 Ei ,...:
0'" - (i; ~
en
- W
c:
::s ~
0 -
l:: ~
Q) j ~ ~ ~ ~
E 0 0 0 ~ 0
as a. 0 0 0 ..... 0
0 ll.
U) Q)
0 > l!!
Q)
0 g ~ :::e :::e ~ :::e
0 0
~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~
f! 0 0 0
Q)
Z
c:: .9
0 Q) jgJ!l~
:;J :::e :::e :::e ~ :::e
"C 8 ~ :J 0 0 fa lh 0
c: 008 0 0 to .....
- ~
:a
'w
c c: :::e
8. :a :::e :::e ~ ~
0 ~ 0 0 0
:J -.t M 0 0
l/.l 0
Q)
a:
C j~
~ ~ :::e :::e ~ :::e
0 fa 0 &, &,
lQ.g ~ ......
Q) wO 0> M '" ......
D-
o
15
III e
ll. ~ 0
~
E ~ ~ Ctl "iiil
CIl ~
C S Dl 'E ~
0 :J ,g 0
Q) 8 Ctl
E /i, b [jJ > ....
g s c: -- Q) !!;.
Q) :J al '3
> "'0 f~ 1l~ i8 .
~ 0 8 t
~ Ctl 0
> Q) ~ ~ c2~ a: co jE
f a.
E ~ > ~f jE
::l ";:: ~:; l: '0 ~
ll..,!. .2
S 0 CD Ii' 0 ii ~ s 'ii ii ...
m c:- Ctl !.
l: ~:c 15 ~~ s c
Q) .!:: _0> .J::. 0 u... J!l ~ ~
g 5i:i: ;:: 00: 0)0 ffl .!: e;.!: .Q
:0 ::I
C\1 ::l m In
Q) ::l 0 0
en 0 C/) 0 ...!.. ...!..
Il)
Q)
~
a..
(J
(0
0'1
~
..-
-
(J
-
(J
-
o
j5
::J
C
-
c:
0-
.c
::J
C
C
....
CI)
-
U)
ca
W
Q)
Cil
R
::>
Q)
Q)
u...
t5
C\1
a.
E
o
o
CI)
CI)
u..
N
c:
o
;::;
(.)
CI)
CJ)
()
~
.=
.5
:0
::l
o
C
~
Q)
-
II)
Ctl
LLJ
.!! & ~ ~ *
~ ;;
<II
0
l: ~ ~ ~ *
0
~ .-
~ -
l:
OJ
g ~ ~ ~ ~
'E .-
! ;; * - N
.. -
0 l.
0
q, l!! i ~ ~ R
~ 0 tD
E ..E g 06
l: j ~ -
0
1i -'
is ~ ~ ~ ~
0:::: J~J <=>
:J - ~
..,
>-
J:I
.. i ~ ! *
0
U .5 ;;
:g ~
0
~ <=> ~ N
E l: GO (\j
<1>- ft -
!~ ;; f1
CD ~ ~ ~ ~
~i ~ a 2i <.D
;;
w
.!!
~ "if!. "if!. "if!. "if!.
~ ~ ..,. <=> <=> .-
- - l:
.c l: 0
Gl ~
1i5 E -;p. -;p. -;p. :P-
c.. co <=> <=> .-
t: 0 l: N
8 "i OJ
= l:
UI C 0
CI) 'E '* '* '* '*
a: :r: ! <=> ..,. ... .....
:! .9! N ...... ...... ......
C ll.
.2 0
- i
- Gl '* tf!. tf!.
.2 :J tf!.
'U on on tD on
'0 >- ~ ...... tD ..... <')
UI :5
~ 15
:J Ii I!!<II~ tf!.
l: 6~~ '* -;p. -;p.
t 0 ...... N .- '"
a.. o 8 ......
:
co IX
1: .s
. ~ :g tf!. ';Ie. ';Ie. <l!-
e co tD ..,. ......
0
Gl
Do
. .
UI E l: '* '* '*
(1) CD= tf!.
m.g ..,. <') tD
CI) N .- co N
wO
E oCD CD
C CD
0 ~E cog' '5
C CD CD III . ~ 0 Q)
- a:
~ ~ '..c::: y o'!!! II) >.:!::~
-::::: 0 .s o II)
019 0..... :=Q) ... C ~
co Q) '0' coxc t3;i; ~~~
CD E 11).......... 1I)::l1ll
(f)_ ..l.Ea.. ..l.<(...J -I-
..,
>
t-
U.
"I:t M
.
N
CD ....
:is (J
as CI)
t- CJ)
!
~
~
;g
0
;;
~
a
i
zi
~
zi
~ co tt
l:;
.- ~
;;
~
r-:
~
I
~
I ! ~
'15 ~ :.
:s ;! a..
~ S ~
~ ~ u
tD'
CD
it
in
Q?
N
......
-
e:,
:::i:
::::.:::
~
>.
.rJ
II)
1
III
c
I'll
~
o
E
>-
..9,!
Ii
::::-
"C
I-
'0
fJ
"&.
::J
.!:
'0
Q)
Ul
1Il
.rJ
~
:0
"ii)
C
8-
Ul
CD
a:
o
co
~
-=::
o
co
~
Q)
iU
R
::>
CD
Q)
u..
n
I'll
c..
E
o
~
l-
it
CD
ia
w
.
Ul
Q)
'0
z
.'
.>
...,
Table 2..5
Summa of Fees for all Three Sections
Total Cost of
1m rovements
Section 1 Fees
Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Section 2 Fees
Eastern Dublin/Dublin/Contra Costa County!
Developer Responsibility
Section 3 Fees
Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
Total Applied to All Uses
$79.291,973
$21,045.870
$11,086,000
$111,423,843
Other 1m rovements (Residential Uses Onl
Park-and-Ride Lots
Tassa.ara Creek Sic cle Path
$1,716.000
$1,381,120
Cost per NonR
Residential Tri *
$230
$61
$32
$323
· The Traffic Impact Fee per residential trip is shown on Table 2-6. Non-residential development is
responsible tor 60.99 percent at the total applied to all uses (0.6099X $111,423.843).
Eastern Dublin T rattic Impact Fee Update
Page 7
Table 2..6
Calculation of TIF Cost per Residential Unit
o Residential Share of Total Trips:: Residential + Park + School Trips 1 Total Trips
134,227/344,078.. 39.01 %
o Residential Share of Cost for Sections 1, 2, and 3 :: (A x Cost for Sections 1, 2, and 3)
39.01% x $111,423,843 :: $43,467,144
~Cost of Improvements Funded Exclusively by Residential Development:: Park-and-
~Ride Lots + Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
$1,716,000 + $1,381,120:: $3,097,120
GTotal Funded by Residential Development:: B + C
$3,097,120 + $43,467.144:: $46,564,264
0cost per Residential Trip:: D 1 Residential Trips
$46.564,264/121,232 :: $384.09
· Cost per Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Dwelling Unit:: $384.09 X 10:: $3,841
· Cost per Medium Density (7-14 DUlAcre) Dwelling Unit:: $384,09 X 10:: $3,841
· Cost per Medium/High Density (15-25 Du/Acre) Dwelling Unit=' $384.09 X 7 = $2,689
· Cost per High Density (> 25 DUlAcre) Dwelling Unit:: $384.09 X 6=' $2,305
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
.
e:',
e:
Page 8
.
.'
.
SANTINA
THOMPSON.INC.
Municipal Engineering
Railroad Engineering
Surveying
Planning
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
INITIAL LEVEL ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES
WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Submitted to:
CITY OF DUBLIN
JanU3ry 3. 1996
'U~~' ~'-"~'11'---"~' C
L;,o.. .>. ~1~ t~ ~ :1 "_.. ....... ....,.~ __~.;Io..~.-..y~~~'~1/.~
SANTINA&= '
THOMPSON.INC .
MWlidpal Engineering swveyin.
Railroad Engineering Planning
January 3, 1996
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST EsTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
Dear Mehran:
As requested, we have attached cost estimates and supporting documentation for the development
of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program.
.':,
-'
The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) cost estimates present a cost per lineal foot for 100 percent of the
improvement work for each roadway segment. The TIF portion of the cost was frequently not
100 percent of the improvement cost. A portion of the funding for some segments will be
provided by future developers as their contribution for frontage improvements.
We derived the percentages for each FUNDING TYPE, (Le., traffic impact funding or
developer funding for frontage improvements) by allocating each cost estimate item to a funding
source and then summing the cost estimate items to find an overall percentage allocation for each
roadway segment. The resulting allocation was very close to what would be obtained by merely
taking the total cross sectional width and then ratioing by the cross sectional lengths for each
funding type shown on the attached cross sectio?S. For simplicity, we did not include
documentation regarding the allocation percentage.
The supporting documents are presented in three sections. The first section contains the TIP cost
estimates for each roadway segment.
The second section contains cross sections for each segment of the roadways as well as the cut
off line for each funding type.
..
1355 Willow Way, Suite 280 Concord, California 94520~5728
510-827 -3200 Fax 510-687-1011
.-
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
January 3, 1996
Page Two
The third section contains a cost breakdown for each roadway segment. The cost breakdown
presents the cost for each item of work as well as a cost per lineal foot for each item. The cost
per lineal foot is presented for comparison purposes. The cost breakdown was reduced to a total
cost per lineal foot for each roadway segment and then rounded up or down for an ultimate cost
per lineal foot. Until a plan line is established for the roadway network, the approximate cost
per lineal foot represents an appropriate cost to be used for these initial level estimates. The cost
per lineal foot number was used in combination with the funding allocation percentage and the
length of roadway to obtain the dollar amount that is presented in section one of this report.
Appraisal information from the Alameda County Right of Way Department is also included in
this section.
Contra Costa County developers may be required to contribute money to the TIP program as a
result of their traffic impacts to the roadway network. The City of Dublin is currently
negotiating with Contra Costa County regarding this issue. The TIP program amounts may
require adjustment as a result of these negotiations.
.:'
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~
Principal
phldub\960I04
.-:
SAt~TINA&=
THOMPSON.lNC.
.'
.",
..
Dougherty Road - Segment 1
4300 feet, 118 Right-at-Way
City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $540 per LF @ 100% $2,322,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way
Amador Valley, 3 legs $568,560
Right-ot-Way
None $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $578,112
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $3,757,728
Dougherty Road - Segment 2
4,250 feet, 118 Right~ot-Way
Amador Valley to Houston Place (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $540 per LF @ 100% $2,295,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way --
None $0
Right-ot-Way @ 100%
40 x 440 x $18, Southern Pacific Right-ot-Way $316,800
920 x 8 x $18, near Houston Place $132,480
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $548,856
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $3,567,564
Dougherty Road ~ Segment 3
Right Hand Turn
Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900')
Right Turn Pocket Only; All Other Improvements Are Done
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, 900' at $150 per LF @ 100% $135,000
Right-of-Way, 900 x 8 x $18 @ 100% $129,600
Signalized intersection wI right of way $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $52,920
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $343,980
0231,XLS
Page 1
,
Dougherty Road - Segment 4
520 feet .
Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off~Ramp --
Widen Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Lump Sum @ 100% $207,480
Signalized intersection wI right of way $0
Right-of-Way, Lump Sum; Including Demo $1,000,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $241,496
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,569,724
Dougherty Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $9,238,996
(Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of
Dougherty Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road)
Dublin Boulevard- Segment 5
2,200 feet, 108 Right-of-Way
Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
As Submitted to Caltrans
Civil Improvements at 370 per Linear Foot @ 100% Totals for TIF S.:
$814,0-
Bridge Widening $205,769
Right-of-Wayand Demo; have 1 DO, need 108, $18 @ 100% $316,800
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $267,314
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $1,737,540
$1 Million Credit for ISTEA Contribution ($1,000,000)
Net Total for this Segment $737,540
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6
2,030 feet, 108 Right-of-Way
Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening)
Future Improvements Will Be Similar to Segment 5
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot @ 100% $609,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way, single left turn
Sierra Lane, Civic - Modification $130,000
Dublin Court - Modification $130,000
Dougherty with Civil Improvements $758,080
Right-of-Way, 8X$18+100K demo @ 100% $392,320
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $403.~t
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $2,625,22
0231.XLS
Page 2
.'
.-
:\
.
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 7
2,000 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
300 Feet Completed; 11700 Feet 50% Complete
Future Improvements Only in Estimate
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $1.027285 (48%) $493,097
Right-of-Way SO
BART Loan of $2.938M, to be repaid with TIF funds $2,938,000
Signals with Other Street, See Segment 5 I $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0%; 0% on Loan $98,619
Total with 10% Contingency, including loan (0 on Admin.) $3,872,826
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way) $7,235,586
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 8
4,600 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Hacienda
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @75% I $2,760,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way I
Hacienda, New, Major, 4 legs I $513,440
Interim Signal. New (Bart and Camp Park Access), 4 legs T $513,440
Spine Intersection, New. 4 legs I $513,440
Right.of-Way, 126x$7 @ 75%+ 100% of 200K demo I $3,242.900
City Administration, Design, Constructi~n Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I $1,508,644
I
(Total includes City of Pleasanton Loan amount, see note on Page 4) I
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) T $9,806,186
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9
4,600 feet, 126 Right"of-Way
Hacienda to rassaJara Road
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $800 per lineal foot @ 60% $2,208,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way
Tassajara New, Major $513,440
Bridge. $80t60wt1 DOL, 1/2 bridge exists; TIF=1 00% at ACFC channel $480,000
Right-of-Way, 126"$7 @ 60%+ Ok demo $2,434,320
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20,0% $1,127,152
(Total includes City of Pleasanton Loan amount, see note on Page 4)
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $7,326,488
0231.xL$
Page 3
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10 I
6,200 teet, 126 Right-at-Way
Tassajara Road to Fallon
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @ 50% I $2,480,000
Signalized intersection wI right of way
Fallon w New, Major $513,440
Right-at-Way, 12fu$7 @ 50% + Ok demo $2,734,200
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $1,145,528
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $7,445,932
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 11
9,350 feet, 126 RIght-of-Way
Fallon Road to Airway
All New Roadway Included
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 600 per lineal toot @ 50% $3,740,000
Signalized intersection wI right ot way
Airway Boulevard, Major I $380,000
I $96.
Bridge, S80Jd 20Wxl DOL I
Right-of-Way, 126XJi1 @ 50% + Ok demo I $589,050
City Administration, Design, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $1,133,810
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $7,369,765
Dublin Boulevard ExtensIon Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $31,948,371
(The City of Dublin received $573,000 from State of CalifDrnia (58300 funds) and $400,000 frDm
the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the SDuthern Pacific R Df W tD Tassajara
Rd,) -973,000
The subtotal also includes money to re-pay a loan of $2,408,955 to the City Df Pleasanton tor the
40 ft. roadway that will be re-used, segments 8 and 9.
Subtotal Is therefore $30,975,371
,-
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 - {Airway Boulevard}
I Totals for TIF Share
CivillmprDvements. Ramps $2,650,000
Signals $107,143
Right-ot-Way $100,000
City Administration, Design, CDnstruction Management, ROW AcquisltiDn, 20.0% $57_
Total with 20% CDntingency (0 Dn Admin.) $4,000, "
0231_XLS
Page 4
.
.-
.
Hacienda - Segment 13
1700 teet, 126 Right-ot-Way
1-580 (Not including interchange) to Dublin Boulevard Extension
Improved on Each Side ot Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot @ 50% $680,000
Signals, See Segment #8 $0
Right-of-Way, 126x$7,OO @ 50% + Ok demo $749,700
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $285,940
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,858,610
Hacienda - Segment 14
4100 teet, 102 Right-ot-Way
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 38% $1,012,700
Signalized intersection wI right of way
Transit Spine, Major $513,440
Gleason, Major $446,720
Right-of-Way, 102 ft, + 100k demo; 1100 ft. @ $7 & 3000 ft, @ $4, all at 38% $801,572
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $554,886
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $3,606,762
Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchange) $5,465,372
Freeway Interchange - Segment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
Widen Offramp and Modify Signal (Loan amount built prior)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Left Turn Lane $170,000
Signal and Intersection Improvements $75,000
Alameda County $3.762 M Loan (Including Interest) $3,762,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0%; (0% on Loan) $49,000
..
Total with no Contingency. $4,056,000
0231,XLS
Page 5
.
Transit Spine - Segment 16 I
3,200 teet, 102 Right-at-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Hacienda
(Camp Parks is on Both Sides ot Roadway)
Improved on each side ot Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 69% $1,435,200
Signalized intersection wI right of way
Future Road $513,440
Right-of-Way, 102X$7 @ 69% + 1 OOk demo @ 100% $1,676,512
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $725,030
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I $4,712,698
Transit Spine - Segment 17
4,500 teet, 102 Right-at-Way
Hacienda to Tassajara
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 38% $1,111,500
Signals, See Segments #14 and #23 $0 .',
Bridge, $80JS6Wx100L $768."
Right-of-Way, 102 $7 @ 38% + 1 OOk demo @ 100% $1,320,9
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $640,088
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $4,160,572
Transit Spine - Segment 18
6,400 teet, 102 Right-at-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 750 per linear foot @ 38% $1,824,000
Signals, See Segments #23 and #26 $0
Right-of-Way, 102 If.; 1000 If. @ $7 & 5400 If. @ $2.25 + 100k demo, al/ at 38% $780,254
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $520,851
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $3,385,530
Transit Spine Roadway Subtotal $12,258,800
.-:
0231,XLS
Page 6
.'
Gleason - Segment 19
6,200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
1,500 feet West of Hacienda to Tassajara
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 425 per linear foot @ 30% $790.500
Signals, See Segments #14 and #23 SO
Bridge, $8OC55WX100L $440,000
Right-of-Way, 102)($4 @ 30% + 100k demo @ 100% $858,880
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $417,876
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $2,716,194
Gleason. Segment 20
5,100 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 750 per linear foot @ 38% $1,453,500
Signals, See Segments #23 and #26 SO
Right-of-Way, 102X$4 @ 38% + 100k demo @ 100% S890,704
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% I $468,841
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $3,047,465
Gleason Roadway Subtotal $5,763,659
(Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road
is not included because no development is proposed for Doolan Canyon as part of the
Dublin General Plan Amendment)
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21
2,600 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 100% $1,690,000
Signalized intersection w/ right of way $0
Dougherty, Major. 3 legs $335,040
Dublin. Major, 3 legs $335,040
Railroad Utilities, demo and/or relocation $1,000,000
Bridge, $8000WX1 OOL $720,000
Right-of-Way, 1 02 ~4 + 100k demo, all at 100% I $1,160,800
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $1,048,176
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $6,813,144
..
.,:
0231.xLS
Page 7
, I
Tassajara Road - Segment 22 I
10,400 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
City Limits to Gleason
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot @ 25% $2,080,000
Signals $0
Fallon, 3 legs $568,560
Gleason, Major, see segment 23 $0
Bridge, 120WXI 00L'i$80 $960,000
Right-of.Way, 126 I.f, @ $2,25 (for 6000 ft,)+ $100k demo, all at 25% $450,250
City Administration, Design, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $811,762
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $5,276,453
Tassajara Road - Segment 23
2,600 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot @ 25% $520,000
Signalized intersection wi right of way $513,:.
" Transit Spine, 4 legs
" Gleason , Major, 4 legs $446,720
Right-of-Way, 126 ft, @ $7; TIF portion exists, $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $296,032
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,924,208
Tassajara Road - Segment 24
1000 feet, 150 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; (not including Interchange)
Existing Pavement Unusable
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 900 per linear feet, short, at freeway @ 30% $270,000
Signals, See Segments #9 and #25 $0
Right~of-Way, 15CbQ7; TIF portion exists $0
City Administration. Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $54,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $351,000
Tassajara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $7,551'-
0231.xLS
Page 8
..
.'"
e:
Tassajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchange
1/2 ot Interchange Exists
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Ramps $3,700,000
Signalized intersection $300,000
Right-of.Way $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $800,000
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $5,600,000
Fallon Road - Segment 26
14,000 teet 126 Right-ot-Way
Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 900 per linear foot @ 25% $3,150,000
Signalized intersection wi right of way $0
Gleason, 3 legs $305,850
Transit Spine, 3 legs $305,850
Right~of-Way, 1200,25 @ 25%+ 100K Demo @ 100% $1,092,250
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $970,790
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $6,310,135
Fallon Road - Segment 27
1,500 teet 126 Right-ot-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to North ot 1-580
\ All New Roadway, Include Interchange
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot @ 25% $300,000
Signals
See Segment #10 $0
No Freeway Interchange or FW Signals $0
Right-of~Way, 126Xl @ 25% + 100K Demo @ 100% $430.750
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $146,150
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $949,975
Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $7,260,110
0231,XLS
Page 9
Fallon & 1-580 Freeway Interchange Wltn signals - Segment 2H Totals forTIF si
Freeway Interchange, Including Signals $7,500,000
Right-of-Way $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $1,500,000
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $10,500,000
Tassajara Creek Bikepath - Segment 29
12,800 feet
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Contra Costa County Line
Totals for TIF Share
Bike path, 8 ft A.C., 2 ft, shoulders, $7/sf of A.C,; @ 100% $716,800
Right of Way, $2,25 @ 100% $345,600
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $212,480
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,381,120
Park & Ride
40,000 s.f. for 150 cars
Totals for TIF ~.
East of Tassajara, 40,000 sJ, @ ($4 Improv, & $7 right of way) $440,0
East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & $7 right of way) $440,000
East of Fallon, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & $7 for right of way) $440,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $264,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $1,716,000
Precise Plan Line Costs
Totals for TIF Share
Total Cost $301,000
.'
0231,XLS
Page 10
'.
'"0"
~' .
.- ,
-,
'. "
""
.--,
,-
. \ .".:
, --
. ,.-
.".
. '7,
:i.
" r,
"'.\-
.......
.... ,,"
, ~.
. "',",
".;.-
"."
"',J'
;,
:1'
"j ~.
",'
, .:
-~ " ..
.. ..;.
\. "
. . .' .' :
, SECTION-II
-, '
..:. .
,,-
:".
\.; '"
.'
~
~~
~!5
~
0 ~~
N ~O
~~
P:<U
Q
<
e 0
~
~
~
S ~
~
Co ~ .
....-I ~
....-I
:::>
0
r:::::l
~ 8
tIJ
0 o ~ 8
N I ~ fZ:
~
c!J
r:o:l
tIJ
.
to ~~
E1 ~
tr.lg5
~l=1
~p..,
~o
~~
p:<U
~ .
<~
ot:Q
~~ ~
~ ~~ 0
~ ~ E--4 0 E-<
~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ r:w 0
rn t.) ~
S: 6 a 0 ~ ii1 i
~
dz
Co ~ ~ t:
-
- o~ -
~ 0 ~
::r: ~
8
ti
~
::II
~
r=:I
tIJ
.:
d
~
e ~~
CfJ~
~e::l
~r:z.
d ~ !;ICo
~ ~5
e::l
ci I
r:z.
:3 ~~
~ <0
Ofg
~...L
~ ~~
0 0 ~~
~ ~ ~o
CfJ CfJ ~ ~E-o
B S 0 ::C:~ e;\
~-E E-r "
0s
~ - ~E3
Co -
_ 1"- o~
-
~j:::l
G
!;
51
~
~
E
N
-
.,:)
!
;';\:~-'; /
I'
/
"
,,'
-,~~
/-
....~-:-"'.....--;
.~,..~~..~
-:;'(J'\-... ;;...~' ......~.. ......)
.......... .~..;~~"~f~.;;.~..:.. i'. ,",..~-". ...... ..~ ~.. ,-~ .. "'~....
" ..,'''> ...."",,'" ,..""" ~.f,;/r:""'''''''' ' _.....- ,--....",,,"--
~~....<1~;~;~:~,..::'::'~~,:'~':'~,~.T".-/jY:="::; l 0 (::/~'-- ";;''-8t;;~:
.. ~~ ~ ~ .. " "" ! ~}.. "i, ...(....}-t., ,>..~; .~...."y (.~~~......
',,- """ '-... <' ,j , ~' , ' , ' , ....'" '..... "~
:~~~,/~)-~~:/;.:::.y 1'i' ",;t~;t ~,)t~~i
<;, ",\ ",- ", {">.. \ "....:ft:,)'r~~~f:z.\'%-<",:~ ( '/#'~ <t, ~.. ~ . o'-.!~&.. ru'~
>,'-':.j";-', ',~.,. '....r,~\ ~i' """ ....,'-t!.J; ""~~.r:! / " '-<,) t.} , "J>- '" "
, " .... ' \. ..... ''% ' r i; i {If .. ii' J ...... 0 '.'/""
"v.... '--', , ~,"" ...., ; "'v.J'/j' - . 'u' u ..~.... '
~;, ',',/ ....~\. "I " \' \ ~,-!;' 1 ','" """,:,-: ,,""'-""'''''''1'!
_ "<~;::'i('>::-") / 6' ~'S,;; !: j / ,';1';';1 '~-4~2;:l
....;:-.~. '\\... "'>oI;~').... ....'ti~... ",':/ / /
"~-,-~':<.<"J0, .>};<-,.....(".... ,)''''\ '); : /
-<>c.... .,,">:~~~';~~~:~~:;';:;> ,,-,/ )(1'//
""......~.. ""~""_ .... '~, . "r~' ,....... " ./ I
-< "--,,,::>~- --......,..:;. '\ . //.' /
-'...., ........ ('~,\:-,_ .~'.""(Z I'>';~t",' ,v:f " /
()""(~~~~ '~~~l'~':' "'i: .
j .1/,"""" ", /! "..
: ./ . .........., " ,/',/ ~
:.",..;.
iv'
r"
;
~--,' /(/ (""or" \. ~..;. .~
, , '
{"".,:;,\
.Iv'''~7-''>''''';: ,- ,- -'-',~:'-'---,---- "..,.....
"'--"'V~lfl3\S
~
~~
tfJ~
~~
>--
;;s
~~
~
I
Q~
<0
O:g
~..!.
~~
~~
~o
~~
~~
dlXl
:=>!j
8g
G
~
f;1
~
r.w
tfJ
.'
~
~I ~~
D'J~
r:.:l.::a
Co ~ ~ =<~
o~ ~ ~o
e:~ ~~
r-.. ~
~u
-
e-:
u
.~
- ~e1
- Pl~
~ ~~
- z~
-
~ ~p... .':
~
S r-.. 0 t:Q~
e-.<
5~
Co r-.. ~
0
- ~
e
-
-
;... 0)
-
~i i
r-.. ~'
- ~
~~
Co o~
fZ~
~
N ~~
.....
l"'lt::;)
0
~~ ~I z !<r><.
11=0
0 ~ ~o 0 ~f:::
t1J~ o~ I---l o_
N ~~ t'IJ ~U
Bo z
E-t
~
~ ~
N :><
..... ~
.
N ~
..... ~
.~ i--- ~
~ Z
(c i--- ~~ I---l
N ~
-
~
N :=>
.....
~
N ~ (0
-
t:;
l"'l
b ~; ~
N ~
~ ~~
Ote:
fZ~
N
.....
.-
.
~
I'"
N
..-.
Fl
(:, .,. ~..~",.
,......
N /
"
, "
"
~ ,
N "
"
..-. ,"
,- " ,-
,
,
N " -
...... , f
J'J
~ ,-'
S- l-
-
Co i-
N
....... :>.,
N
......
N
......
0
N
N r
.......
... ..
~
~;
i:'>"le::l
~r:r..
~O
~~
~U
~
~
B
.
Q
>-
~
~
Z
t--t
~
CO
:::J
Q
.-""
'-,
'::
o
"<t'
8
8
t;
~
t!:J
~
~
N ~~
- tfJ~
~ rz:lO
tz1!':Sl ~r:...
~~ 11=0
~ t;o z ~E
0 ~~
C\J 0
.......-t
UJ.
Z
N ~
- ~
~
~
N <
- . 0 ~
Q p::;
e >- -<
~ r... '~ < 0
~ p::; p::;
Co r... ~ ~ ~ ,.z -<
C\J Z
- ~
t----f < 0
N '~ rn ~
- t::Q rn
~ -< -<
~ E--i ~
N
- @@@
0 ~ ~I @@@
N
~~ t; t:1 ~
~ ~
N
- ~ fI3 ~
<G
Q
Z
E ~
~
U
t-- ~ <G e
~~ ::r::
@
I
~
e:
~~
1io:7I~
>o~
J:1S
~~
!3::U
.
~
Z
t--I
O-t ~
(I) ~~
E--4 rn~
r:.:JQ
t--I ~r:...
(I)
N tSi ~ Jll::O
- ~~
~ ~~ p::;
o~ E-c
0 fZ2!
N ~
-<
Q ~
N Z
- ~ :>-
I----l
t--I ~
U
~ r-- ~ -< ~
~ ~
N r-- ~ ~t= z E-c
0 @ E--i
- 0 ~
N UJ ~
- -< ~
@ ~ -<
~ U
c..J (J)
0 >< ~e @@@
N
~o ~) ~ ~
O~
N fZ~ S1
- ~
r:.:J r:.:J
~. rn rn
~'
Ei3
;
, ,
. t
.
~
~~
r:.1~
~
~ rz.
N ~ 0
....... t=
0
~ U
0 ~
N
rn
E
N ~
....... z i
" 0
[f)
S < u .
z.- ;:j
"'~
N ~ "'"
l'- 0
0 d
....... ~
N .'.. =
....... @o
,.......j 0
, lQ
0 ' .......
d ~ ., fZl
H
\1 rn '"'~
0 0 B - -
i' ,~
N ,I E-o
'I "f;J
!. &j ..
n
H a
~:
N
.......
,-
.-
'-
.--'
I' I' I
N
.......
...
1
0
N
-,
I'"
N
.......
N
.......
-'"
N
.......
,....J
~ i-- E
~ -
0 r:-- ~
lO
- ,
N
-
N
-
N
-
..
0
N
N
- ,.
..: ...
....J_
~e
to!: t: 0
00=
~~
~
~~
rt::l~
rslQ
?<rs..
IICO
~~
0
<
0
~
<
~
<
t-;)
~ <
to!: t/J
(f)
~
@
I
fI3
~
ts~
to!: ~~
o~
~~
I II I \
i :: I II
I II II!
:~:~
II H;
~ II II
:\.. II II 1;\
" II II 'J
:f .;;~.
\' t1 ~ '\\\l '
::::::::,::::::::-:;::::;::::::::,,,,,:>::;,:::::::::::::::_;:::':::;::::;::::::::'::~:::::::::::::;':::':~~,:,::::::/: ".;;':-;,;.-..,.-:-,--...-,-..---,-.--,,',":..:;;;;;~,;,;';':';'..,',..,-,--'.-:..,;-:';':';';'.-...-,-........,',--'';'....,::;,;,;':--',~
-- --
-- --
-----
.-,:
z
o
E
~
I;
~
:;i!?< r.:..
u JI:i 0
.....~ E:
~ fil E3
-
-
-------
-
-
--
--
~.-,:';':-~':..,:-;'...-.-.., --....,;,;,;,;..,'-:';'-....---, ':..,;,;':';,;;':;;;i:';'..,'..,.-'.-.-:.--, ,.-"-,,-,,,-, "'- '1\\~ , ,. t:'_~,_',:' "'"'''<'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''",'''''''''''',""'i''''''''''''''''''''''''''',''''''''''''''''''''''''","',""""'",,
:::~ J.
~\\; II II /
~::; .::
.;.- 0"'
.:.:. '" .
.~ II :: fi.
i II II ~l
. ;,\f , , {,:.
':? II
;;~.
~ ~ II II i
~ II I
\l
I II II .
" I
.'
.
.:-.
.
-
[lEC
'85 10: 17
FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY PWA
VALUATION
The six comparnbles :support an unadjusted land vnlucs ofbct....-een 52.24 to $10.50 per 6,f. Based
on these: comp;u-3bles it is the llppraiscrs opinion that the following segments identified below h:n'c the
following adjusted unit valucs based on the adjoining comparables.
Sern1ent
Searlct Drive between
Dougerty Road and
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive from 1-
580 north to Gleason
Drive.
Tassajara Road from 1-
580 north to the
Alameda Contra Costa
County Line.
Unit Value
S4.00/s.t:
S7.00/sJ. from 1.580 to
Transit-Spine.
$4.oo/',f. Transit Spine
to Gleason Drive.
$7,OO/s,{. from 1-580 to
Transit-Spine.
$4.00/s,[. Transit-Spine
to Gleason Drive.
$2.25/5.f. Gleason Drive
to County Line.
Gleason Drive from $4,OO/s.f.
Hacienda Drive east to
Fallon Road.
Transit-Spine, fTom
Hacienda Drive to n
point 2,500 feet cast of
Fallon Road..
DEC-01-1995 09:18
$7.00/sJ. Hacienda
Drive to 1,000 feel east
of Tass ajar a Road.
$2.25/sJ. 1,000 feet east
of Tassajara Road to
1,000 feet cast of Fallon
Road.
S1.00/s.f. east pf Fallon
Road to 2,500 feet east
of Fallon Road.
5107821939
Comparable
No.1, 5
Remarks
Former SP rnilroad
right of way
Nos. 3, 4, 6
Area is p1aJmed
industrial and
commemal.
Nos. 3, 4, 6
Area is planned
industrial and
conuncrcial. with future
single family residential
Nos. 4, 6
Futurc indu.strial area
Nos, 2. 3. 4, 6
Area is planned
industrial and
commercial with future
single family residential
..-
.
. -
.
.
.
.
.
~toi
.
.
.
.
~...
HU!:J,.C!!- r
\V \
\ -1\
\ \
\ \ <.
'\ . \ \ <.
\'\::':'" ~ \ ;
\,,:........... \ ! ...
'{O ". \~ So
;~~ '> ;
/.:
\.
'\
c.
i=\
;
J,o'. 'f'H:J
......J:,4N.lL.... _
tP
. ........--
~ .:>
-......~:..:.
: .-....
I 0: 3
.. .. .'. .
.
:-: > \
.
.
. Q
.
\
::0
.. "-..",..
----
-~-.
...
...
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
1,-
I
.. ..
'...-R'c).
.-. .. :
~
. . -..~ '.+
\
\
,'.
.'
eo:
'.
.~
'..
'.
. ",'
...:u
'.",
p ". ....
..1 ;
'..
. r~., '. ,.,'
"
":.">1\"
" .
(
" '
,"'.'
"," .
'. 'J' ,,"
~. I
. " ~.
..,'
'":"
'j..'
~, .
. , .~ .
, ~.
. ~ :;.
" ,"
;",".
"'."
~". .
",. -":... .
"'~
-~ , '..
,. >~
.,....'
'.,
,;..
.,~'
,"'f'
t".:"'
.1"
. .~..
',.",
.,:.
"..,"',
, SECTIONJIJ.
.,","
0"
:""
..:.\-
Dougherty Road, Segment 1; 4300 ft and 118 ft right of way
filename=segOl length= 4300
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
1 :26:33 PM
-,
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
===:======================;:====~===========:======::===========
Mobil ization 15.00 64500.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 64500.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 64500.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 8600.00
Grind 3.00 12900.00
Rm ex pavmt .00
.00
Full Pavmt 180.00 n4000.00
C&G 15.00 64500.00
SIJ 24.75 106425.00
MC 20.00 86000.00
.00
Overlay 63.00 270900.00
.00 ..
Earthwork 12.00 51600.00
.00
CB&SDMH 4.65 20000.00
SO pipe 50.00 215000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 68800.00
, signs 2.00 8600.00
.00
Electrl 9.n 42000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 64500.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 301000.00
.00
Survey 7.44 32000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
2320325.00
539.61
540;LF
TI F = 100i'
.'.
.
Dougherty Road, Segment 2;
filename"seg02
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
1:28:20 PM
4250 ft and 118 ft right of way
length" 4250
Description
Price per
lin Foot
Total
=================:==:==::========:===============:=====:=====::=
Mobil ization 15.00 63750.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 63750.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 63750.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 8500.00
Grind 3.00 12750.00
Rm ex pavmt .00
.00
Full Pavmt 180.00 765000.00
C&G 15.00 63750,00
SW 24.75 105187.50
MC 20.00 85000.00
,00
. Overlay 63.00 267750.00
.'. .00
Earthwork 12.00 51000.00
.00
CB&SDMH 4.24 18000.00
SO pipe 50.00 212500.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 68000.00
signs 2.00 8500.00
.00
Electrl 8.47 36000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 63750.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 297500.00
.00
Survey 6.59 28000.00
====:======:======~:================:=:;========:=:=~~==========
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
2282437.50
537.04
540/LF
TI F ,,100%
.
Dougherty Road, Segment 3; 900 ft; Rt Hand Turn,Houst Pl to Dub. Blvd
f il ename::seg03 length:: 900
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
1 :30: 15 PM
.
Description
Unit price
Total
=============:=========================:_==========;:========;=====:=====
Mobi l hat i on 10 9000.00
Traffic Ctl 5 4500.00
Clear & Grb 5 4500.00
Sawcut .00
Curb & Gutter 15 13500.00
Full Pavmt, 14 ft 4 50400.00
Import & Grading 5 4500.00
CB & SD Pipe 50 45000.00
. Strp&mkings 5 4500.00
signs 1 900.00
Survey 2 1800.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------~---
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
138600.00
154.00
150/LF
TIF
:: 100%
.-
e:
.
Dougherty Road, Segment 4;
filename=seg04
created 12/01/95
1/ 4/1996
1:31:29 PM
Dublin Blvd. to North of 1-580
length= 520
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilization 20.00 10400.00
Traffic Ctl 9.00 4680.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 7800.00
.00
Sawc:ut 3.00 1560.00
Grind 3.00 1560.00
Rm ex pavrnt .00
.00
Full Pavrnt 96.00 49920.00
C&G 24.00 12480.00
SIJ 37.50 19500.00
MC 20.00 10400.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork 24.00 12480.00
.00
.
-- CB&SDMH 10.00 5200.00
SO pipe 50.00 26000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 10.00 5200.00
signs 2.50 1300.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 10400.00
Sig Inter .00 .00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 50.00 26000.00
.00
Survey 5.00 2600.00
-----------~--------------------------~-------------------------
------------------------------------------------------~---------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE LUMP SUM
207480.00
399.00
207480.00
TIF = 1007.
.
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 5; 2200 ft and 108 ft right of way
fi lename=seg05 length= 2200
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
1:33:39 PM
.-
No utilities (new or relocated), sidewalk, maintenance overlay
L&I, electroliers, interconnect
Description
Price per
Un Foot
=====:===========:====:::======:=~======:=======================
Total
Mobil ization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Remove & Relocate
Exist. Uti l.
Remove trees,BStop
Earthwork, grding
Full Pavmt
C&G
SIJ
MC
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SOMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I, incl exist
Survey
22.00
10.00
15.00
1.55
8.00
35.00
88.00
24.00
30.00
10.00
.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
8.00
2.00
.00
15.00
70.00
4.55
48400.00
22000.00
33000.00
.00
3410.00
17600.00
nooo.oo
.00
193600.00
52800.00
66000.00
22000.00
.00
.00
.00
22000.00
.00
11000.00
22000.00
.00
17600.00
4400.00
.00
.00
33000.00
.00
.00
.00
154000.00
.00
10000.00
.'.."
'.
:===========~H========:====:===:===============:===============~
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F = 100"
809810.00
368. 10
370/l f
...
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6; 2030 ft and 108 ft right of way
filename~seg06 length~ 2030
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
1:50:57 PM
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
=====::==========::======:::_=====:===-======::=======::;=====::
Total
Mob; l i zat i on
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
14.00
10,00
14.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
1.55
3.00
Full pavmt
C&G
SIJ
MC
50.00
24.00
48.00
20.00
Overlay
.00
..,',.
.-
Earthwork
10.00
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
6.82
18.18
Strp&mkings
signs
5.00
2.00
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
5.00
15.00
L&I, incl exist
70.00
Survey
4.93
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
. USE
Tl F 1004
.
28420.00
20300.00
28420.00
3146.50
6090.00
.00
.00
101500.00
48720.00
97440,00
40600.00
.00
.00
.00
20300.00
.00
13840.91
36909.09
.00
10150.00
4060.00
.00
10150,00
30450.00
.00
.00
.00
142100.00
.00
10000.00
652596.50
321.48
300/LF
Dublin Boulevard Ext,
tilename:::seg07
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:01:11 PM
Description
Segment 7; 2000 ft and 126 tt right of way
length::: 2000
Price per
Lin Foot
....,
..
=======::==::==============.::===:=================:============
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
.Full Pavrnt
C&G
S\.l
MC
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
; ~igns
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I, incl exist
: Survey
15.00
9.00
7.50
1.00
1.50
7.14
212.50
24.00
24.29
10.00
10.00
8.57
50.00
19.29
2.41
21.45
15.00
70.00
4.55
30000.00
18000.00
15000.00
.00
2000.00
3000.00
14285.71
.00
425000.00
48000.00
48571.43
20000.00
.00
.00
.00
20000.00
.00
17142.86
100000.00
.00
38571.43
4820.00
.00
42900.00
30000.00
.00
.00
.00
140000.00
.00
10000.00
..
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE LUMP SUM
TI F ::: 48%
North::: 0%
South ::: 52%
1027291.43
513 . 65
1027285.00
e:;
.
Dublin Boulevard Ext"
filename=segD8
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:02:24 PM
Segment 8; 4600 ft and 126 ft right of wa
length= 4600
Description
Price per
Un Foot
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobi l ization 25.00 115000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 69000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 69000,00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt 9.33 42930.11
.00
Full Pavmt 340.00 1564000.00
C&G 24.00 110400.00
S\.I 49.50 22nOO.OO
MC 20.00 92000.00
.00
.: Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork 24.00 110400.00
.00
CB&SDMH 10.11 46484.21
SO pipe 100.00 460000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 73600.00
signs 2.00 9200.00
.00
Electrl 18.95 87157.89
sig Inter 15.00 69000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 322000.00
.00
Survey 8.42 38736.84
==========:===============~~===:;=================::====:====:::
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
3506609.05
762.31
$800/LF
TI F ::: 75%
FRONTAGE::: 25%
.
Dublin Boulevard Ext,
filename=seg09
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2:03:33 PM
Segment 9; 4600 ft and 126 ft right of way
length= 4600
.'
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
====-====::=======:======:::==========::================:=======
Mobilization 25.00 115000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 69000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 69000.00
.00
Sawcut .00 ,00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavmt 340.00 1564000.00
C&G 24.00 110400.00
SIJ 49.50 227700.00
MC 20.00 92000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
Earthwork 24.00 110400.00 ..
.00
CB&SDMH 10.00 46000.00
SO pipe 100.00 460000.00
,00
Strp&mkings 16.00 73600.00
signs 1.79 8214.29
.00
Electrl 17.86 82142.86
Sig Inter 15.00 69000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 322000.00
.00
Survey 7.14 32857.14
---------------------------------------------------~------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
, USE
3451314.29
750.29
$800/LF
TI F = 60X
frontage = 20X 1 20X
.'.:.
- '
.
Dublin Boulevard Ext,
filename=seg10
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:05:09 PM
Description
Segment 10; 6200 ft and 126 ft right of wa
length= 6200
Price per
Lin Foot
=====:==:=:=:=======::========:_=====:::===:~=========::::===:::
Total
Mobilization
, Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
Full pavrnt
C&G
,S\.I
MC
Overlay
.'
Earthwork.
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mk.ings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
24.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.61
.00
.00
.00
155000.00
93000.00
93000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2108000.00
148800.00
306900.00
124000.00
.00
.00
.00
148800.00
.00
62000.00
620000.00
.00
99200.00
12400.00
.00
124000.00
93000.00
.00
,00
.00
434000.00
.00
41000.00
.00
=====;==:::=:==============:==========::===:=============::=====
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
T1F = 50%
FRONTAGE = 25% / 25%
.
4663100.00
752.11
$800/LF
Dublin Boulevard Ext,
filename=seg11
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2:06:02 PM
Description
Segment 11; 9350 ft and 126 ft right of way
length= 9350
Price per
Lin Foot
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
,--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
F,Ull Pavmt
C&G
SIJ
MC
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
l&1
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
72.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.75
.00
.00
.00
233750.00
140250.00
140250.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
3179000.00
224400,00
462825,00
187000.00
.00
.00
.00
673200.00
.00
93500.00
935000.00
.00
149600.00
18700.00
.00
187000.00
140250.00
.00
.00
.00
654500.00
.00
63112.50
."
.-
.00
--------------~-----------------------------~--~--------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------~-----
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER IF
USE
TI F = 50%
FRONTAGE = 25% I 25%
7482337.50
800.25
S800/LF
.>
Hacienda, Segment 13; 1700 ft and 126 ft right of way
filename=seg13 length= 1700
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2;07;20 PM
e..
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total
MobiLization
Traffic CtL
Clear & Grb
25.00
15.00
15.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
.00
.00
.00
Full pavmt
C&G
SIJ
MC
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
Overlay
,00
."
Earthwork
24.00
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
10.00
100.00
... -
Strp&mkings
signs
16.00
2.00
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
20.00
15.00
L&I
70,00
Survey
6.75
=:================:=========:===================================
, GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TIF = 50X
FRONTAGE = 25X 1 25"
e
42500.00
25500.00
25500.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
578000.00
40800.00
84150.00
34000.00
.00
.00
.00
40800.00
.00
17000.00
170000.00
.00
27200.00
3400.00
.00
34000.00
25500.00
.00
.00
.00
119000.00
.00
11475.00
1278825.00
752.25
$800/LF
Hacienda, Segment 14; 4100 ft and 102 ft right of way
fi lename"'seg14 length'" 4100
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2:08:50 PM
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
==============================:::=======:============:==========
Mobil ization 20,00 82000.00
'Traffic Ctl 12.00 49200.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 49200.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full pavmt 244.00 1000400.00
C&G 24.00 98400.00
, SIJ 49.50 202950.00
MC 20,00 82000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork 19.00 77900.00 e:,
.00
CB&SDMH 10.00 41000.00
SD pipe 100.00 410000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 65600.00
signs 2.00 8200.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 82000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 61500.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 287000.00
.00
Survey 7,00 28700,00
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
2626050.00
640.50
S650/LF
T IF'" 38X
FRONTAGE '" 31Y. 1 31Y.
."
Hacienda, Segment 16; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename=seg16 length= 3200
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:12:24 PM
."
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
==:::==::=:;==;================:::======::::;==========
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
20.00
12.00
12.00
Sawcut
Grind
. 'Rm ex pavmt
.00
.00
10.00
Full Pavmt
C&G
SIJ
MC
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
Overlay
."
"
,.'
Earthwork
19.00
CS&SOMH
SO pipe
10.00
100.00
Strp&mkings
signs
15,00
2.00
Electrl
" Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
20.00
.00
L&I
65.00
Survey
7.00
=:================:=:~:==~::=:=========================
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F = 69%
FRONTAGE = 0% I 31%
e:"
.00
64000.00
38400.00
38400,00
.00
.00
,00
32000.00
.00
780800.00
76800.00
158400.00
64000.00
,00
.00
.00
60800.00
.00
32000.00
320000,00
.00
48000.00
6400.00
.00
64000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
208000.00
.00
22400.00
2014400.00
629.50
S650/LF
Transit spine, Segment
- fi lename=seg17
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2 : 13: 28 PM
17; 4500 ft and 102 ft right of way
length= 4500
.
Description
Price per
Un Foot
Total
=~====:=====:========:=:=:==============:===~================~=:
Mobil ization 20.00 90000.00
Traffic Ctl 12,00 54000.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 54000.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavmt 244.00 1098000.00
C&G 24.00 108000.00
SIJ 49.50 222750.00
MC 20.00 90000.00
, .00
Overlay .00 .00
.00
.
Earthwork 19.00 85500.00 "..-.\
.00
CB&SDMH 10.00 45000.00
SO pipe 100.00 450000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 15.00 67500.00
signs 2.00 9000.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 90000.00
, Sig Inter 15.00 67500.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 315000.00
.00
Survey 7.00 31500.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
~OST PER LF
USE
2877750.00
639.50
S650/LF
TI F = 38%
FRONTAGE = 31% / 31%
.-,
.
Transit Spine, Segment
filename=seg18
created 9/23/94
11 411996
2:14:23 PM
18i 6400 ft and 102 ft right of way
length= 6400
Description
Pri ce per
Lin Foot
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobil ization 20,00 128000.00
Traffic Ctl 12.00 76800.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 76800,00
.00
, Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavrnt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavrnt 244.00 1561600.00
C&G 24.00 153600.00
SI.' 49.50 316800.00
MC 20.00 128000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.00
.' Earthwork 1 13 . 00 723200.00
"
.00
CB&SDMH 10.00 64000.00
SO pipe 100.00 640000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 15.00 96000.00
signs 2.00 12800.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 128000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 96000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 448000,00
.00
Survey 7.00 44800.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
4694400,00
733.50
$750/LF
TIF = 38~
FRONTAGE = 31X 1 31~
.>
Gleason, Segment 19; 6200 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename:seg19 length: 6200
created 9123/94
11 4/1996
2: 15: 12 PM
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
=::=====;;:==::=======:=:==:==========:==;=========::======::=:=
Mobil ization 20.00 124000.00
Traffic Ctl 12.00 74400.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 74400.00
.00
Sawcut 1,00 6200.00
Grind ,00 .00
Rm ex pavmt 4.75 29450.00
.00
Full Pavmt 134.00 830800.00-
C&G 24.00 148800.00
SIJ 25.00 155000.00
MC 20.00 124000.00
.00
Overlay ,00 .00
,00 .
Earthwork 19.00 117800.00
.00
CB&SOMH 4.00 24800.00
SO pipe 50.00 310000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 15.00 93000.00
, signs 2.00 12400.00
.00
Electrl .00 .00
Sig Inter 15.00 93000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 65.00 403000.00
.00
Survey 5.00 31000.00
--------------~-------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
2652050.00
427.75
$425
TI F : 30%
FRONTAGE: 9% / 61%
.
...
Gleason. Segment 20; 5100 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename=seg20 length= 5100
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2:21:19 PM
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
c====================::==.====:::====:=.======:====:=========:::
Mobilization 20.00 102000.00
Traffic Ctl 12.00 61200.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 61200,00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full pavmt 244.00 1244400.00
C&G 24.00 122400.00
5\.1 49.50 252450.00
MC 20.00 102000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.'~ .00
Earthwork 113.00 576300.00
,00
CB&SDMH 9.68 49354.84
SO pi pe 100.00 510000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 15.00 76500.00
'signs 2.00 10200.00
.00
Etectrt 19.35 98709.68
sig Inter 15.00 76500,00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 357000.00
.00
Survey 7.00 35700.00
-----~----------------------------------------------------------
-----------~----------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
3735914.52
732.53
$750/LF
TI F = 38%
FRONTAGE : 31% 1 31%
.'
scarlett Drive, Segment 21; 2600 ft and 102 ft right of way
" fi lename=seg21 length= 2600
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:22:08 PM
Description
Price per
Un Foot
..'
====:==========;=:=======:~=====================::==============
Total
Mobil i%ation
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
20.00
12.00
12.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full pavmt
C&G
S\.J
MC
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
Overlay
Earthwork
19.00
CB&SOMH
SO pipe
10.00
90.00
Strp&mkings
signs
14.00
2.00
Electrl
, Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
20.00
15.00
L&I
70,00
Survey
8.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------~----------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
, COST PER LF
USE
TIF
100%
.00
.00
.00
52000.00
31200.00
31200.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
634400.00
62400.00
128700.00
52000.00
.00
.00
.00
49400.00
.00
26000.00
234000.00
.00
36400.00
5200.00
.00
52000.00
39000.00
.00
.00
.00
182000.00
.00
20800.00
.',::,
--
.00
1636700,00
629.50
S650/LF
.',
Tassajara Road, Segment 22; 10400 ft and 126 ft right of way
filename=seg22 length= 10400
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2:23:00 PM
e
oescription
Price per
Lin Foot
============:=:::===:=--=====::::===::========:::=====::_=======
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
25.00
15.00
15.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
Full pavrnt
C&G
5\.1
MC
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
Overlay
e::
Earthwork
72.00
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
10.00
100.00
Strp&mkings
signs
16.00
2.00
Electrl
sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
20.00
15,00
L&I
70.00
Survey
6.75
==========:::_;==============:::===:=====:========:~====:=======
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F 25"
FRONTAGE = 25" 1 25"
COUNTY = 25" (CONTRA COSTA)
e:
.00
.00
.00
260000.00
156000.00
156000.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
3536000.00
249600.00
514800.00
208000.00
.00
.00
.00
748800.00
.00
104000.00
1040000.00
.00
166400,00
20800.00
.00
208000.00
156000.00
,00
,00
.00
728000,00
,00
70200.00
.00
8322600.00
800.25
S800/LF
Tassajara Road, Segment 23; 2600 ft and 126 ft right of way
fi lename=seg23 length= 2600
created 9/23/94
11 4/1996
2;24;25 PM
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobil ization 25.00 65000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 39000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 39000.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full pavrnt 340.00 884000.00
C&G 24.00 62400.00
SI./ 49.50 128700.00
MC 20.00 52000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.00 ."
Earthwork 24.00 62400.00
.00
CB&SOMH 10.00 26000.00
SO pipe 100.00 260000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 41600.00
signs 2.00 5200.00
.00
, Electrl 20.00 52000.00
sig Inter 15.00 39000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 182000.00
.00
Survey 6.75 17550.00
---------------~------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
. GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1955850.00
752.25
S800/LF
TI F = 25"
FRONTAGE = 25" 1 25"
COUNTY = 25" (CONTRA COSTA)
.'.
Tassajara Road, Segment 24; 1000 ft and 150 ft right of way
filename=seg24 length= 1000
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:26:22 PM
.
Oescri pt i on
Price per
Un Foot
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Mobil ization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
25.00
25.00
25.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
.00
.00
.00
Full pavmt
C&G
SW
MC
436.00
24.00
50.00
20.00
Overlay
.00
e::.
28.00
Earthwork
CB&SOMH
SO pipe
10.00
100.00
Strp&mkings
signs
16.00
2.00
Electrl
sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
23.00
15.00
L&I
70.00
Survey
15.00
==~====================~===::=====:::===========================
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 30%
FRONTAGE = 20% / 20%
COUNTY = 30% (CONTRA COSTA)
.'
25000.00
25000.00
25000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
436000.00
24000.00
50000.00
20000.00
.00
.00
.00
28000.00
.00
10000.00
100000.00
.00
16000.00
2000.00
.00
23000.00
15000.00
.00
.00
.00
70000.00
.00
15000.00
884000,00
884.00
S900/LF
FaLLon Road, Segment
fiLename:seg26
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:27:33 PM
26; 14000 ft and 126 ft right of way
length: 14000
.'
.
Descrjption
Price per
Lin Foot
TotaL
====::===~:::=====::===:::===;:======:==============:===========
Mobil ization 25.00 350000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 210000.00
CLear & Grb 15.00 210000.00
.00
Sawcut ,00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
FuL l Pavmt 340,00 A 760000.00
C&G 24.00 336000.00
S\,/ 49.50 693000.00
MC 20,00 280000.00
.00
OverL ay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork 144.00 2016000.00 .,.,
.00 .:".'
CB&SOMH 10.00 140000.00
SO pipe 100.00 1400000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 224000.00
signs 2.00 28000.00
.00
ELectrL 20.00 280000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 210000.00
New utl .00
Exist utL .00
.00
L&I 70.00 980000.00
.00
Survey 6.00 84000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 25X
COUNTY = 25X (CONTRA COSTA)
FRONTAGE : 25X / 25X
12201000.00
871 .50
$900/LF
.
.'
..:
..
- -----\
../
Fallon Road, Segment 27;
filename=seg27
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2:28:29 PM
Descr; pt i on
1500 ft and 126 ft right of way
length= 1500
Price per
Lin Foot
===:=:============:==========================:==-~~=~===========
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
Full pavrnt
. C&G
SI./
MC
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SOMH
, so pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
340.00
24,00
49.50
20.00
24.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.00
,00
.00
.00
37500.00
22500.00
22500.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
510000.00
36000.00
74250.00
30000.00
.00
.00
.00
36000.00
.00
15000.00
150000.00
.00
24000.00
3000.00
.00
30000.00
22500.00
.00
.00
.00
105000.00
.00
9000.00
.00
---------------------~------------------------------------------
---------------------------------~---------------~--------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
. T I F = 25~
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY = 25~
FRONTAGE = 25~ / 25~
1127250.00
751.50
S800/LF
Park & Ride; 40000 sf
filename:seg park
created 9/23/94
1/ 4/1996
2;40;08 PM
for 150 cars
area s.f.
Description
Unit price
Total
:=:====================~~=========:===:==:========~============~
Mobilization .15 6000.00
Traffic Ctl .05 2000.00
Clear & Grb .1 4000.00
Sawcut .00
Curb .2 8000.00
Full Pavrnt 2.5 100000.00
Import & Grading .25 10000.00
CB & SO Pipe .5 20000.00
'Strp&mkings .15 6000.00
signs .05 2000.00
Survey .05 2000.00
40000
--------------------------------------------------------------~-
-------------~--------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER SF
USE
160000.00
4.00
4/SF
TIF
" 100%
per site
.'
e<",
.'
.
..
.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Property Owners Only
986-2-1-2
Anne Gygi
5868 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-2-1- 1/986-2-2-1
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Ct.
Oakland, CA 94605
986-2-2-2
Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams
5379 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-2-3
Clyde C. Casterson
5020 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-1-1-8/986-1-1-9/985-3-3-3
City of Pleasanton
City Clerk
200 Bernal Ave,
Pleasanton, CA 94566
946-4-1
James G. & Sue Tipper
7440 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-4-2-1
Jose L. & ,'ioletta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-4-2-3
Thomas A, & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-4.3
Elvera I. Bragg & Claire Silva
646 Donner Dr,
Sonoma, CA 95476
946-4-5- 11985-3-2/985-3-1-2/985-3-3.2
Charter Properties
c/o Chung S,. Hong.Y" & Hong L Un
66",' ,')wens Dr,
.::on. CA 94588
905-1-4-4
Robert D, & Shirley 1'.1, Branaugh
1881 Collier Canyon Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
985-1-2
Redgwick Construction Company
25599 Huntwood Ave,
Hayward, CA 94544
985-2-1
Mission Peaks Home Inc,
245 Sinclair Frontage Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
985+ 1-2/985-4-1-3
John DiManto
Dublin Land Company
1991 Leigh Ann Place
San Jose, CA 95125
985-2-5-1/985-2-5-2
Michael H. Kobold
815 Diablo Rd,
Danville, CA 94526
985-2-6-1
Rodman Scott & Claudine T, Azevedo
6363 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985-2-7-1
Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight
6833 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985-2-8-2
Ann H. Silveria
6615 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985.2-9
Robert J, Nielson Jr., Michelle Olds, & Larry R,
Williamson
P,Q, Box 1667
Lafayene, CA 94549
985-5-1/985-5-2
Paoyeh & Bihyu Lin
c/o Kenny Wan
AlIwin Development
9657 E, Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
985-6-5
William L. & Jean S. Maynard
350 Tideway Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
985-5-3-1
William L. & May K. Devany
215 Tim Court
Danville, CA 94526
985-6-4
Dublin Ltd.
c/o Teachers Management Inc,
Dennis B_ Schmucker/ mv
1010 Second Ave" # 1421
.w.CA 92101
985-6-6-2
Levins Metals Corporation
1800 Monterey Hwy
San Jose, CA 95112
-.',..... ,-"'" ~"., 1)
"'.'~~:'~~-~ ;f~
;~~ i~.;..:ir..~ 1 t tJ..: ~ -......;t..l:..{.,t\<I..:.~_~~~4
12/2q;95
~:\mai lings\e. dublin\5pl ist.doc
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Increment Area Property Owners Only
985-1-1
Roberta S, Moller
6861 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985-7-2- 1 4
Fallon Enterprises Inc,
5781 Fallon Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
905-2-3
David P. Mandeville
4037 Croak Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
905-2- 1 - 1 '905-2-2
Francis p, Croak
1262 Gabriel Ct.
San Leandro, CA 94577
10/27/95
g:\mailil1J;S\c:. dublin\increm, doe
.
.'!
.
.
.
.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area Future Study Area Property Owners Only
905~ 1-3-2/905-[- 1-2
Bank of the West
c/o Harry Crosby
P,O, Box 1121
San Jose, CA 95108
905-1-2-2
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
685 E, Jack London Blvd,
Livennore, CA 94550
905-8-1-6
Anita S, & Ram S, Vij, and Khanna Tejbir
1066 Cross Strings Cord
San Jose, CA 95120
905-8-1-3
City of Livermore
1052 So. Livermore Ave,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-8-1-7/905-8-1-11/905-7-1-1
Irving B, & Betty 1. Bloom
141 Via Serena
Alamo, CA 94507
905-8-1-5
City of Livermore
c/o Thomas Curry
22320 Foothill Blvd,
Hayward, CA 94541
905-2-4/905-2 - 5/905-3-4
Doolan East Associates
c/o Ted Fairfield
P,O. Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905-7-1-5
Don & Patricia Flanigan
4589 Doolan Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-6/905-3-7/905-3-8
Robert & Darlene Steffen
5033 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-9-2
Jo A, Shane
521.0 Doolan Rd,
.'.,Jre, CA 94550
905-3-3
Trevor 1. & Cassandra M, Patterson
5661 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-10-1
Charles S, & Barbara M, Foscalina
5260 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3- 1 2
H, & Ruth G, Muehlhauser
1434 Ardmore Dr,
San Leandro, CA 94577
905-3-10-2
James N, & Nadine Pestana
5388 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-11
Clarence C. Silva
10000 Stillwater Rd,
Fallon, NV 89406
905-7-2-3
Doolan East Associates
P,O, Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905-3-14-2/905-3-14-3
Doolan West Associates
p,O, Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
985-7-1
Doolan West Associates
c/o Harold Moller
P.O, Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905-4- 1
Charlotte A. & R,A" & Aldinc 1. Bailey
520 Arlington Ave,
Berkeley, CA 94707
.'
11/17/95
g:\mailin!;S\e .dublin\future.doc
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
't
.
Residential
Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)
Non-Residential
Development Other Than Residential
$3,841/unit
$3,841/unit
$2,689/unit
$2,305/unit
$ 323/trip
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE*
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
10/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
2011 ,000 sf
3411 ,000 sf
RECREATION:
.:'
Recreation Community Center
Health Club
Bowling Center
Golf Course
Tennis Courts
Theaters
Movie
Live
Video Arcade
2611 ,000 sf
4011 ,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
8/acre
33/court
220/screen
0.2/seat
96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
1 ,5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
Convalescent/Nursing
Clinic
1 2/bed
3/bed
24/1,000 sf
CHURCH:
9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
8/1,000 sf
* Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers
and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip Generation Rates. These trip generation rates are based
on averages. Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction.
.
Page 1 of 2
g:forms/ed/Jblif,~Js
*;';'~r~ ~~~,i;:~;.J ~
'~,h ?'~; < '!0 ~ ~ _,.,.",:.".1;----..-.,.......
LAND USE
{Non-Residential)
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive through)
Bar/Tavern
AUTOMOBILE:
Car Wash
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire Store/Oil Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
FINANCIAL:
Bank (Walk-In Only)
Savings and Loan (Walk-In Only)
Orive- Through/A TM (Add to Bank or Savings & Loan)
COMMERCIAL!RET AIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3 + major stores) ,
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2 + major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops
Retail/Strip Commercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
Lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nursery
Cemetery
Page 2 of 2
ESTIMA TED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-BYS)
, &
e'
63/1,000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1 ,000 sf
585/site
70/wash stall
97/pump
28/service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
91/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
65/lane or machine
22/1,000 sf
.:,
33/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
26/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1 ,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
20/1,000 sf
23/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 4/acre
g.-lforms\edubti'.xIS
e.:
\ ~
...-
AREA OF BENEFIT
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
..>
Dublin Blvd., Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern
Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Blvd. (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised
report from December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3,3/10)
Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Blvd.
to Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Blvd. (from
the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report)
Cost of Roadway
Improvements
Cost of Bridge
Improvements
$ 29,103,371
$ 1,872,000
$ 5,465,372
-0-
Transit Spine, Construct four-lane road from Dublin Blvd. west
of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the OKS revised report)
$ 11,260,400
$ 998,400
Gleason Drive. Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report) (The Project
does not require extension of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road
due to no development proposed in the future study area)
$ 5,191,659
$ 572,000
Tassajara Road. Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way
.from Dublin Blvd. to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6
.~les over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Blvd. to 1-580
.', om the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page
1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3,3/14.0)
Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes
over a 6-lane right-of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on page 1 of the DKS revised report)
Street Alignment Study. A study is required to specify
the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area
$ 6,303,661
$ 1,248,000
$ 7,260,110
-0-
$ 301.000
$ 64.885.573
-0-
$ 4,690.400
TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $ 69.575.973
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 134,227 related trips for residential and 209,718
trips for non-residential is $2089/unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-
14 units per acre), $1,462 for.Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,253 for High
Density Residential (more than 25 units); and $189/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density residential is $151/unit, for
Medium/High Density Residential is $1 D6/unit, and for High Density Residential is $91/unit; and non-residential
is $14/trip.
~6~g~~~~:~/~~~e;'n~~~I~n~:e:~~c :.~~~ ~~~ g~~s~i~~~i~OW Density units; ,:':6~~:;~;~,"~~~.:.