HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Attachments 5-8
-
f"",:- ~
(
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EASTERN DUBLIN
"
Prepared for
City of Dublin
Prepared by
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
November 1994
EXHIBIT 3 (of Staff Report)
Exhibit B of Resolution
Barton~Aschman Report
"i.~ -0.'.' "
~
Contents
Chapters
Page
1
2
3
Introduction
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
1
4
14
Appendix
Tables
2-1 Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2-2 Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
2-3 Section 2 Fees: Eastern DublinlDublinlContra Costa Countyl
Developer Responsibility
2-4 Section 3 Fees: Tri-Va1ley Jurisdiction Responsibility
5
10
12
13
Figures
1
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area
3
119+-TIF.I6M233.01000
..- ".....' ,
,
1 .
Introduction
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee is designed to pay for roadway and transit
improvements necessitated by development associated with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. These improvements include both the
construction of new roadway facilities and the upgrade and improvement of existing
facilities, including transit.
The traffic and transportation impacts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas are documented in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment EIR. Impacts were evaluated for the year 2010. In order to
compare traffic impacts for the year 2010, certain arterial and regional roadway
facilities and facility sizes were assumed. Impacts from land uses for all development
in the Tri-Valley area, excluding the Eastern Dublin development, were compared with
impacts from all development in the Tri-Valley area including the Eastern Dublin
development. For any impact that was considered significant, mitigation measures
were developed and included in the Em. Impacts were considered significant if the
Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service E on study freeway
segments, if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service D at
designated study intersections or, if the Project generated traffic that would cause
significant safety hazards (from page 3.3-18 of the Specific Plan).
The Eastern Dublin Impact Fee is designed to pay for the Project's proportional share
of the assumed 2010 base network and for the roadway and transit improvement
projects specified in the mitigation measures to the EIR.
This report first describes existing conditions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas and then lists the required network improvements
from the Em.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1
...."
~
Introduction
Existing Conditions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan Amendment area is shown
on Figure 1. It does not include the area designated on the figure as Future Study
Area Agriculture. The majority of the land in the area is presently undeveloped.
Existing land uses in this area include some Camp Parks buildings, some Alameda
County facilities, and a few low-density residential homes or ranches.
Existing Transportation Network
The existing transportation network in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and
General Plan Amendment area is very sparse. Dublin Boulevard extends as two lanes
from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is a two-lane roadway. Fallon
Road and Doolan Road are two-lane local roadways that dead-end north of 1-580.
There is no existing transit service in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area
Year 2010 Network Assumptions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes new and improved facilities in or near the
Project area that would be built in conjunction with new development through year
2010. In addition to those facilities in or near the project area, the Specific Plan EIR
includes future transportation improvements in the entire Tri-Valley area for the year
2010 either as assumed background network or as project mitigation. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment area is expected to contribute to
funding for these regional road and transit improvements.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
2
yo"" ~.I
~ '" r,1
..
'" ..
<ll " <0 E
~ ., "
~ ~ en
Cl >- ;:;:
" -
c: ." <l ::;; '~J
c: 0 -
c: "
'" ;;; ~ ,..
i) .. " ~z
0: !i g ~ i) i) ~ ~ '-~-.]
" ;:: g .~ Q.
0, "-
't;l ~ ~ ~b;~_ 1ft '0 ~
<ll " i 0. 0. " " ~\a:z
't;l w 0 ~ L; 0 :,.. CJ (I) :g
c: ll.. D '" g c <:i ~ ~ l5 ~ ~ ~ u "
2! < 0 OJ L; ! ~ 2 g ~ 0
c: 2 6 '~ 'ii ..J E tD ~ U'J " <l:W- .. t1E
::E 0 c a> ~ E Q .c ~a~~ Q ..
'" )( i ~ ~ a: :> ~~~!l <n ~ ~ ...J ~
0: w w 0 0. U U z f? c
, i ~ "
c: l/) ~ ~ ~ . ::E ~iIDOO<!J@ .. " ~ cnee ~
15 ;;; 3 (<0 @<ID ~ '"
~ :J 't;l '" w a: w 0 g
... c: <n
<ll C <ll ~D <t::J ~
c: '" z ~~fJO g~'lG~ 0 I ! I ~
'" Cl aLJ~ ~ ..:
<ll LY < <ll :~LJ~ ~ , i we ~
C:l ....l ....l .. ..: I I
\
;___...__...._......_.....-J
\
\
\
\.
i\o
"-P
';j,,~
'0~
<>,"
%,
\
i
fl.
t
<
i
E
.J::.
o
.
<
g
i
II
<(
w
a:
<(
>-
o
:::>
I-
en
w
a:
:::>
I-
:::>
u.
w
a:
:::>
I-
...J
:::>
u
a:
<.9
<(
..
..
u
<(
'"
.,;
...
....
'"
e ~
<> ..
<( ~
D'A';Jitl~!f;'
\ ,'/
oJ !i'
~ ~
c '"
o '"
~ B
~ ~
.~ '5
~ ~
~ .g
;;; "
is. 0
E "
3 Q
i3 .,
; z
~ ~
13.1 .:;
~ <(
-"-
:l <(
~ ~
Q: -
W~
o !I
N 0
g~
E D
~ .~
~ II;
~ ~
D
E ~
~ ~
'" ::
~ ..
'" ~
D ~
~ ~
'" <(
E ~
; ::
"';z
~~
E '"
Q ~
~g
0'"
u '"
~ 8
~ "
[;~
* *
*
'r. ,
~
2.
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
"
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and
included as mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections;
(1) Improvements for which Eastem Dublin developments are responsible for 100
percent of the cost, (2) Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastem Dublin
developments are partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastem Dublin, are responsible.
Description of the Project
Eastem Dublin includes two development areas. The first includes only growth
projected in the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 1. The second, called the
Project, includes all the development in the first development scenario plus additional
development in the General Plan Amendment area. The impact fee is designed to
cover the Project development scenario. Land uses projected for this scenario include
low-density, medium-density, medium-high density, and high-density residential,
retail, office, industrial, public school, and parks. Table 2-1 shows the amount of
development by land use.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
4
. '... .,
'!
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-1
Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use
Units
Residential
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium-High Density
High Density
3,916 d.u:
4,863 d.u.
2,680 d.u.
2,447 d.u.
Non-Residential
Retail
Office
Industrial
School
Park
4,415 ksf
3,952 ksf
1,370 ksf
9,731 students
258 acres
Source: Memorandum from City Senior Planner, Dennis Carrington, November 29,1994
d.u. = dwelling units
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the land use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment area was projected based on trip generation rates that relate the type and
size of a land use to the number of persons or vehicles traveling to or from the land
use. The traffic generation rates used for the Eastern Dublin land uses were based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation and specific counts of
traffic generation conducted by DKS Associates for the Specific Plan Em. The rates
were adjusted based on local conditions.
Using the adjusted trip generation rates, the Project is expected to generate 423,787
daily vehicle trips. This number is reduced to 346,525 when pass-by trips are taken
into account. Pass-by trips are comprised of vehicles that stop at certain land uses,
such as restaurants and stores, while on the way to somewhere else. Since these trips
are not new trips, but merely diverted trips, a pass-by reduction can be applied to the
total number of trips generated by such uses. For the purposes of the traffic impact fee
calculation, all retail land uses were assigned a pass-by reduction of 35 percent. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation gives a range of pass-by rates
for retail development from 12 percent to 89 percent.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
5
., . ~ ""
...
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Transportation Improvements
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections; (1) Improvements for
which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100 percent of the cost, (2)
Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin developments are
partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all jurisdictions in the
Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible. The transportation
improvements for each of the three sections are outlined below.
Section I. Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the EIR, the following
transportation improvements are needed for the development of the Specific Plan area
and the General PI<Ul Amendment area and should be funded solely by Eastern Dublin
Development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-
of-way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from December 15, 1992 and
mitigation measure 3.3/10).
2. Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Gleason Drive and to six lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the Em
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
3. Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements (from mitigation measure 3.317.0).
Reimburse Alameda County for dedication of right-of-way and add a second left-
turn. lane to the eastbound off-ramp. This interchange was constructed by the City
of PIe as an ton with participation by the County for the funding but with no cost to
Eastern Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the
interchange as will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin
developers' proportional share of the additional left-turn. lane is considered to be
100 percent.
4. Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Road (from the Em future road improvement assumptions on page
1 of the DKS revised report).
5. Gleason Drive. Construct new four-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).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
6
\ 1....... .,.
"\
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
6. Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from Dublin
Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation
measure 3.3/14.0).
7. Tassajara/Santa Rita Road/I-580 Interchange. Modify and improve this
interchange to provide northbound overpass approach as three through lanes and
widen eastbound and westbound off-ramps to add turn lanes. The southbound
overpass was constructed by the City of Pleasanton with no cost to Eastern
Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the interchange as
will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin developers'
proportionate share of these additional improvements is 100 percent (from
mitigation measures 3.318.0 and 3.3/9.0).
8. Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-
of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road (from the Em future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
9. Bicycle Path along Tassajara Creek (from mitigation measure 3.3/16.0).
10. TIF Study. The study is to establish the required traffic impact fee.
11. Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify the exact street alignments
in the Eastern Dublin area.
Section II. Dublin Projects with Partial Eastern Dublin Developer
ResponsIbIlity
The second section of transportation improvements, also specified in the Eastern
Dublin Em, are in or near Dublin and according to the Em should be partially funded
by Eastern Dublin development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Village Parkway to
the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way (from the Em future road improvement
assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measures
3.312.1 and 3.3/10.0). All new developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin,
will share funding responsibility.
2. Scarlett Drive (Southern Pacific Right-of Way Connector). Construct a new four-
lane street from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road (from the Em future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report). All new
developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin, will share funding
responsibility.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
7
,.. .
..
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
3. Dougherty Road. Widen to six lanes from north of 1-580 to Contra Costa County
Limits (from the Em future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS
revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/6.0). The cost for this project should be
shared by all City of Dublin new development, including Eastern Dublin, and
Contra Costa County new development.
4. I-580lFallonlEl Charro Interchange Upgrade. Improve the interchange (from the
EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised report
and mitigation measure 3.3/12.0). If not for the interchange's use by trucks from
the quarry/gravel pit, the interchange improvements would be less expensive.
However, the use by trucks will necessitate extra improvements and will increase
the cost of construction. The added increment of cost should be the sole
responsibility of the quarry/gravel pit developer, since no other developer will be
benefitting from these extra improvements. The remaining cost of this interchange
will be divided proportionately among the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and
Contra Costa CoUnty.
5. Airway 11-580. Replace and improve this interchange (from mitigation measure
3.3111.0). The cost of improving this interchange should be divided among the
Eastern Dublin, Contra Costa County, and Livermore developers.
Sect/on 111. TTi-Valley Jurisdiction Regional Responsibility
The third section includes regional transportation improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Development within Eastern Dublin will only be responsible for its estimated
proportionate contribution to the impacts creating the need for such improvements.
These transportation improvements from the EIR are as follows:
1. 1-58011-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover and Dublin hook ramps
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised
report and mitigation measure 3.3/4.0).
2. 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes. Tassajara to "East of Airway" assumed to be North
Livermore Avenue (from mitigation measures 3.3/1.0, 3.3/3.0, and 3.3/5.0).
3. Route 84. Build as a four-lane highway on the Isabel alignment from 1-680 to
1-580, including a new interchange at SR 84/1-580 (from the Em future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report).
4. Improve Transit Services (see item No. 3.3115.0-.3).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
8
~, .,. :' -,:. . }
., ~,:" "_ I r.. ','::':.:<<~~~. .',~: ' : - ""~.. <:. ,.-
..... .'.. ., ",~~.;~.::.~:~~'i;{.'- ~.~~.:... ,. .~:.^:~~~~:~~-c_c- ,_~_:... ...-- -.- -. ....
-~'--~_....~..-.....~.
, . ...../:. ~'.
'-' '':...'',
,'.,1-'.
_ . ..~:~::.:...:~.~.........~__~__ .)...~..:.:....~;. ..:..=.-~~~_ :, _:.- .......:.~-~;,. '~';.::"';":":':';'~~:.~.::~ ::=-::.:~~:.~.r: ...~~
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Other Improvement Responsibility
There are some improvements specified in the EIR that are not included in the three
sections above. These improvements are:
1. 1-680 HOV Lanes between RudgeSI Road and 1-580
2. North Canyons Parkway extended to Vasco Road.
3. Bollinger Canyon Rood extended as a four-lane arterial to Dougherty Road.
4. 1.580 improvements widen to eight lanes plus two auxiliary lanes between 1-680
and Tassajara Road.
5. Other local improvements in San Ramon. Pleas anton, and Livermore south of
I~580 consistent with adopted general plan circulation elements.
The 1-680 HOV lanes are already under constroction. The North Canyon Parkway
projects will be the sole responsibility of the City of Livermore. The City of Livermore
will not participate in sharing the cost of improvements in the City of Dublin's road
system and vice versa. Bollinger Canyon Road and other projects located exclusively in
other Tri-Valley jurisdictions will be the responsibility of those jurisdictions. The 1-580
auxiliary lanes will be constructed as part of the BART and 1-580/1-680 flyover
projects. The Tassajara Connection is not warranted by year 2010, beyond that it is
the responsibility of Contra Costa County developers.
Cost for Improvements
The costs for interchanges) roadway systems and studies for the first two categories of
improvements were calculated by the City of Dublin's consultant CSantina and
Thompson) or City of Livermore. These roadway cost estimates were prepared baSed
on the premise that within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and Genernl Plan
Amendment area, developers adjacent to the road would be directly responsible for the
parkway and 20 feet of roadwayixnprovemeuts (next to the parkway), including right-
of.way dedication for this area, eS8eIltially creating a two--Iane access road. The
." adjacent developer to a bridge does not have to directly pay for the parkway area and
20 feet of roadway improvements for the bridge. The developer will also be responsible
for any turn-lanes into the project site. The impact fee will cover the (Xlst of building
the necessary roadway width beyond the miniD'lum two-lane cross-section. The
additional width is needed to serve the traffic of all Eastern Dublin development.
Costs for regional transportation improvements have been developed by Barton-
Aachman Associates, Inc. as part of the Tn-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan.
The oosts for roadway improvements are shown in Tables 2.3, 2-4, and 2.5.
Barton~Aschman Associates. Inc.
9
",. .
~-
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Determination of Traffic Impact Fees
The traffic impact fee is calculated by dividing the Eastern Dublin percent share of the
total cost of the specified improvements by the total number of daily trips generated
by Eastern Dublin development. For section one improvements Eastern Dublin
developments are responsible for 100 percent of the costs. Table 2-2 lists the
improvements, cost of improvements, and the impact fee for section one.
For the improvements in Section II, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among the identified jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
of non-participating jurisdictions and through traffic will be deducted from the total
percentage and the remainder proportionately divided among the paying jurisdictions.
The percentage share for section two was determined in a three-step process. First, the
Tri~Valley Transpo~tion Model was used to determine the amount of traffic from the
responsible jurisdictions that are projected to be using the improved facilities based on
PM peak-hour forecasts using the 2010 expected land use. Then the relative percent of
new growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-3 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
For the regional improvements, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among all the Tri- Valley jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
share for section three was determined in a similar process as section two. First, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Model was used to determine the
amount of traffic from Dublin, Eastern Dublin, Livermore, North Livermore,
Pleas anton, San Ramon, Danville, Dougherty Valley, and Tass~ara Valley, which are
projected to be using the improved facilities. Then the relative percentage of new
growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-4 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
10
"~ ...
",
Traffic Irrpact Fee Approach
Table 2-2
Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Segment/Improvement
Cost Estimate
Dublin Boulevard
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to PJrway Boulevard
$27,563,000
Hacienda Drive
Gleason to Dublin (four lanes)
Dublin to 1-580 (six lanes)
$5,488,000
Hacienda Drlvell-580 Improvements
Transit Spine
Dublin w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Gleason Drive
w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Tassajara Road
Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four lanes/six-lane right-of-way)
Dublin Boulevard to 1.580 (six lanes/eight-lane right-of-way)
$4,056,000
$12,268,500
$6,900,000
$4,279,000
Tassajarall-580 Interchange
Fallon Road
1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right-of-way)
Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study
Street Alignment Study
Subtotal of Costs
Total Number of Daily Trips
CostlTrlp
$5,600,000
$4,430,000
$1,006,000
$16,000
$301 ,000
$71,911,500
346,525
$208
The total cost per trip for all three types of improvements is $293; for Section I, $208;
for Section II, $55; and for Section III, $30. The total cost for each type of development
can be calculated based on the number of trips generated by that type of development.
By dividing the development into residential and non-residential development it is
possible to separate the costs due to the different types of developments. The total
number of trips generated by the residential development included in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan is 123,679 trips. The total number of trips generated by
residential development, including trips generated by public schools and 85 percent of
those generated by parks, which are made necessary by the residential development, is
136,674. The remaining 15 percent of park trips are attributed to office land use. The
total number of trips generated by the non-residential development, including a 35
percent reduction for the retail trips, is 209,851. The total cost incurred by the non-
residential development is $61,475,210. The total cost incurred by the residential
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
11
'- .~
...
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
development is then $39,969,030 plus the cost of park-n-ride lots, $1,526,000, for a
total of $41,495,030. Only the residential development is required to pay for park-n-
ride lots because only residential projects will use them. The non-residential
development will have to participate in trip reduction ordinances as mandated by the
City of Dublin or the BAAQMD. By dividing the total cost incurred by the total
number of residential units and total non-residential square footage a cost per unit or
a cost per square foot can be obtained. With the 8,779 single-family residential units,
and the 5,127 multi-family residential units specified by the Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, the approximate cost per single-family residential unit is $3,355,
and the approximate cost per multi-family residential unit is $2,350. This breaks down
to a cost for Section I of $2,380, Section II of $640, and Section ill of $335 for single-
family residential units. For multi-family residential units, the section breakdown is
Section I, $1,670, Section II, $445, and Section III, $235.
Barton~Aschman Associates, Inc.
12
~ ,"
~
~
.-
-
:c
.-
UI
C
o
Co
in
CD
a:
....
CD
c..
.2
Q)
>
Q)
C
~
C
:::J
o
o
ca
1;)
o
o
ca
....
...
C
o
o
C
.-
:is
:::J
C
-
c
.-
.c
:::J
C
C
....
S
in
ca
W
..
in
CD
CD
LL
N
C'lc::
NO
CU_
-u
,cQ)
t!cn
Ii
= ~
_0
CD
li:
~ ~
CDO
>
:J
C; al-t
i ~88
"C
~
..,
>.
.0
8
i~
-8
w
CD
1ii~
8~
w
I~
CD
li:
c
CD
E
C-
o
1
CD
o
~
~
9
CD
.a gst
~ calli ~
:c a a
Vi
c;
&.
1II
CD
II:
i
e
~
I!
~ ~
~o
:J
C.EO
~-
li.g
wO
c
~~
C CD
~ ~
og.
tB_
o
foIIt
2
g
.EO
15
~
o
o
o
~
i
8
..,.
~
~
8
o
~
<IS
w
~
~
~
.EO
:is
a
~
~
~
'2 s i;'
III >- J:
I ;* =
::J ~ T -
o ill: c
m a.. -2' ==
~ 8,.g -!
.c -- ft
55~c7i
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~
~
0)
a 2
o 0
w ~
a
~
I/')
~
CD
~
g 2
g
C'!.
...
w
o 0
o 0
o 0
.n 6
... CD
I() I/')
i. :i
o
CD
o
~
N
..,.
o
o
o
an
N
~
a
g
c5
;1
o
~
~
N
...
o
N
,....,
f8
0)
~
8
o
~
N
<IS
w
~
~
~
::.e
~
,
a
~
CD
lIS
CD
CD
N
..,.
g
o
an
g
~
o
o
o
o
o
CD
...
8
o
N
o
CD
~
o
8
o
~
o
;;;.
8
o
o
8
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
#.
...
t,;
~
~
#.
...
I/')
tfl
~
~
...
i:
:2
~ e
CD S lii 1'>
..c l:'..c i8
g> C 0 CD
8....~8 !g i
911la:S II:
-glij~{j) ~&i;'CD
iii;; CD 8. 'ii 51 i
&:; a g!l! ~'2 c,.~
.cas::J cS ~CD ~CD
5~88e_s-s
g
g
C'!.
...
..".
o
o
o
an
,....,
CD
ti
~
~
N
~
~
:g
,....,
...
~~~
cOlIS
:: (Jj
en
;;;.
! a.
8 j!: c-
'5 ~ j!:
iii ...
~ 0 !.
15 iii 1ii
o ~ 8
13
~
-
:c
"0
c
o
Co
en
G)
a:
c
o
"';:
(,)
"-
"'C
en
"E:
::J
..,
>
oS!
as
>
.
"C
I-
.! . a a a ~ ~
]~ ~ ~
;. ;.
~ ~ . ~ a a ~ ~
cr;~ 18 ~ ~
M ;; Ii
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
re g i i 8
... ..... ...
it ... ~ ci 0
tit M ;;
CD ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
i~
15 I g ; ~ :s
0 ...
~ ! a wi ,.:
~ tit ~
::J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..., gJ!1~
~ 8~~ & ~ i ~ N
~ CO)
0 i
* ~
.6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Zi re ~ g ~ iii
8 III ~ ;; ~
N ~ wi
tit tit
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III 0
E c:: N ~
J!I= III
~~ ~ 0 ~ N ..; !
co ... :;
~ N
it it 0
;;
-I ~. ~ ~ ~.
~., ~ ~ ~ ~
.n III ,.: a iii
* ~ ;;
,I!! .
~~ ~ ~ ~ ;1.
...
E ~J~
i ;1. ~ ~ "#-
.... ...
g
0 I~ "#- ~ "#- ~
I c;; ..-
.... ..- ..-
a a:::
! i .
'P
~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Zi ~ .... CO)
Iii
i III J!I ~
~~~ 'If. ~ ;I. ~
cr; .... ..-
..-
i .6
~ :s ~ ~ ~ .,.
8 ..-
....
E c::
J!!- ~ ;I. Ii ~
~~ CO)
.... ....
U) J
Ii 3 a.
~ t y I '6 >- ~
~i a: ~;;I ]I ~ l
~~- ~ aJ9~~_
If J!I e a.~~ ~~ ~j: ~
...1..50- ...1.< .5~
", ~ ..,.
,
..
en
m
u.
C")
1'c
NO
CD-';::;
-0
J:lG)
~~
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
14
~ .1"
~
3.
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
This chapter outlines the application of the traffic impact fee on an individual project
basis. This chapter also indicates the process to be used for updating the traffic impact
fee
Traffic Fee Application
Using the Traffic Fee Impact Approach outlined in Chapter 2 results in the traffic
impact fee rate of $293 per trip with a per-section cost for Section I of $208, for
Section IT of $55 and for Section III of $30. The trip generation rates used for the
generation of the fee were average rates for the various land uses (see Appendix). Trip
generation calculations for individual types of land use will be done on a project by
project basis. The City of Dublin will be responsible for calculating appropriate
development-specific trip generation rates, based on the Inetitute of Transportation
Engineers, Trip Generation, on the San Diego Association or Governments manual,
and OD local trip generation data.. This will result in some variation &om. the general
rates based on the mix of development. For example, multi.family hoU8ing generates
fewer tripe than single-family housing and therefore has a rate of $2,350 which is
lower than the single family rate of $3,355.
Developers will receive credit for portions of the fee network th.B.t they build and for
the dedication of right-of-way needed for the completion of the fee network. Credit will
not be given for any roadway construction required solely by the project, such as a
right-turn lane into the project site that is only used by project patrons or residents.
Certain land uses, such as parks and public schools are exempt from the traffic impact
fee. Their cost of the roadway fee network is absorbed by the residential and office
development that necessitates the need for such facilities. Public facility land uses,
such as post offices, city buildings and libraries are also exempt.
B8tTOn-Aschman Associates. Inc.
15
, "
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
Updating the Traffic Fee
The traffic impact fee may need to be updated for a variety of reasons including;
negotiated changes to the proportional cost shares between Dublin and Contra Costa
County, changes to the land use mix specified in the Specific Plan, changes in the
construction and land costs, or adoption of a regional traffic impact fee by the Tri.
Valley Transportation Council.
"
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
16
- -_.,- - .-. -_.-
,. .t
. .
General Trip Generation Rates
Used for Calculation of Fee
Land Use
Rate
Residential
High Density
Medium-High Density
Medium Density
Low Density
Rural Residential
Non-Residential
Retail
Office
Industrial .,
SChool
Parks
7 trips/unit
7 trips/unit
1 0 trips/unit
10 trips/unit
10 trips/unit
50 tripslksf
15trips/ksf
5 trips/ksf
1.2 trips/student
6 trips/acre
.,,,, .-~
~
Calculation of Cost per Single-/Multi-Family Unit
. Residential + Park + School Trips / Total Trips = Residential Percent Share of
Total Trips
136,674/346,525 = 39.4%
.. (Residential Percent Share of Total Trips * Total Cost) + Park-n-Ride Lot Cost =
Residential Share of Total Cost
(39.4%) * ($101,444,240) + $1,526,000 = $41,495,030
. Residential Cost / Number of Residential Trips = Cost per Trip
($41,495,030) / (123,679) = $335.50
. Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit = $335.50 * 10 = $3,355
. Cost per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit = $335.50. 7 = $2,350
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
SANTINA&;::
THOMPSON.lNC.
lj ~n"'t
~H9tt
DECEMBER 14, 1994
r___~
2()
Y[;An::; OF:
F ;\ c: r~; t IL K;; M !; F.
;j t)r.rrm~t7.K,r(..r
'i ')i '":'-~ C~il'~'iFP"'c'oln1 ; 1; 1:"1'"'-
.... J.,* ;), J.~lr'~~~ .ih\....:.~, ..lL L,~\,,~
.'
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF DUBLIN, CA
EXHIBIT 4 (of Staff Report)
Exhibit C of Resolution
Santina & Thompson Report
SANTINA&=
THOMPSON,INC.
Munidpal Engineering SlllVeying
Railroad Engineering Planning
December 14, 1994
Mi. Lee S. Thompson
CITY OF DUBLIN
l()() Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMP ACI' FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
Dear.Lee:
,
As requested, we have prepared cost estimates to be used in the development of the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. Estimates have been provided for those roadway segments
impacted by development associated with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment. The estimates have been provided for improvements that include the construction
of new roadway facilities as well as the upgrade of existing roadway facilities.
These initial level estimates are based on information provided by your staff and on the
alignments defined in the "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study", dated November, 1994. All
aJJlounts are in 1994 dollars. The estimates are current for comments received through the
December 12, 1994 City of Dublin City Council Meeting.
It has been a pleasure to work with you and your staff on this project. If we can be of any further
, assistanc'e, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
fYJ~//'~j
~
. Paul E.-Hardy._~__
Principal
Enclosures:
1355 Willow Way, Suite 280 Concord, California 94520-5728
510-827-3200 Fax 510-687-1011
Dougherty Road - Segment 1
4300 feet, 118 Right-of-Way
City Limits to Amador Valley (WideninQ>
1/2 Im~rovements Exist. ~awcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $530 oer LF $2,279,000
Sianals
Willow Creek $120,000
Amador Vallev $90,000
Rioht-of-Way
None $0
citY Administration. Desian, Construction Manaaement. ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $497,800
Total with 10% Continoencv (0 on Admin:) $3.235,700
, Douaherty Road - Seament 2
4,250 feet, 118 Riaht-of-Way
Amador Valley to Huston Place (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $530 oer LF $2,252,500
Sianals
None $0
Rioht-of-Way
40 x 440 x $18, Southern Pacific Riqht-of-Way $316,800
920 x 8 x $18. near Huston Place $132,480
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $540,356
Total with 10% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $3.512.314
Do,:!_gherty Road - Segment 3
Right Hand Turn
Huston Place to Dublin Boulevard (9001
Right Turn Pocket OnlY; All Other Improvements Are Done
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, 8 x 300 $33,600
Rieht-of-Wav and Demo, LS (City) $100,000
Sianals $0
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $26,720
Total with 10% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $173,680
Page 1
Doug.~erty Road - Segment 4
3,000 feet
Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp
Widen Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Lump Sum $200,000
Sional Modification $0
Right-of-Wav, Lumo Sum; Includino Demo $1,000,000
CitY Administration, Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $240,000
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $1.680,000
Douahertv Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchanae) $8.602,000
(Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of
Douohertv Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road)
Dublin Road - Segment 5
2,200 feet, 108 Riaht-of-Way
Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widenina)
As Submitted to Caltrans
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 300 oer Linear Foot $442,30S
Bridge Widenino $205.769
Right-of-Way and Demo; have 100, need 108 $221,154
citY Administration, Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acouisition, 20.0% $173,S46
Total with 10% Continaency (0 on Admin} $1,130,000
$1 Million Credit for ISTEA Contribution $1,000,000
Net Total for this Seament $130,000
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 oer Linear Foot $609,000
Signals
Sierra Lane, Civic - MOdification $75,000
Dublin Court. Modification $75,000
Dougherty with Civil Improvements $210,000
Rioht-of-Way, 8- $1S+100K demo $392,320
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $272,264
Total with 10% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $1.769.716
Page 2
Dublin BoulevarC!Extention, Segment 7
1,700 feet, 126 Right-of.Way
Douoherty to Southern Pacific Rioht-of.Way
300 Feet Completed; 1,400 Feet 50% Complete
Future Im~rovements Only in Estimate
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $700,000 $364,000
Right-of-Way $0
BART Load of $2.821 M $2,821,000
Signals with Other Street, See Seament 5 $0
CitY Administration, Desian, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $637,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $4,140,500
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific Rlaht-of-Way) $6,040,000
Dublin Boulevard Extention, Segment 8
4,750 feet, 126 Right-of.Wav
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Hacienda
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 oer lineal foot $2,850,000
Signals
Hacienda, New, Maior $170,000
Interim Sienal, New (Road Unknowrl) $125,000
Spine Intersection, New $125,000
Interim Sienal, New (Road Unknown) $0
Rigtit-of-Way, 126-$7 + 200K demo $3,292,125
citY Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,312,425
(Includes Alameda Co., Right-of-Wav Costs & City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Continaency (0 on AdminI $8,530,762
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9
5,600 feet, 126 Right-of.Way
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot $2,240,000
Signals
Tassaiara New, Maior $170,000
Bridae, $80-120W100L $960,000
Right-of-Way, 126-$7 + Ok demo $2,469,600
citY Administration, Desian, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,167,920
(Costs Include City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $7,591,480
Page 3
Dublin Boulev'!rd - SegmentlO
6,200 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Tassajara Road to Fallon
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 per lineal foot $2,480,000
Sianals
Fallon - New, Major $170,000
Riaht-of-Way, 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $488,250
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $627,650
Total with 20% Contineency (0 on Admin.) $4,393,550
Dublin Boulevard Extension ~ Segment 11
9,250 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Fallon Road to Airway
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 per lineal foot $3,700,000
Sianals
Airway Boulevard, Major $170,000
Gleason, Maior $170,000
Brides, $80*120W*100L $960,000
Right-of-Way, 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $728.438
City Administration, DesiQn, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $1,145,688
Total with 20% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $8,019.813
$28,536,000
Dublin Boulevard Extension Subtotalcwithout Freewav Interchange)
(Note City of Dublin received $573,000 from State of California (58300 funds) and $400,000 from ($973,000'
the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to
Tassaiara Road.
Subtotal is therefore ($573k + $400 k) $27,563000
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 - (Airway Boulevard)
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements, Ramos $2,650,000
Signals $107,143
Rioht-of-Way $100,000
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $571 ,429
Total with 20% Contineencv (0 on Admin.) $4.000.000
Page 4
Hacienda - Segment 13
1500 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
1-580 -(Not including interchange) to Dublin Boulevard
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 oer linear foot $600,000
Sianals, Including with 6 and 25 $0
Riaht-of-Way. 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $661,500
City Administration, Design, Construction Manaqement. ROW ACQuisition. 20.0% $252,300
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $1,766,100
Hacienda - Segment 14
4400 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,086,800
Sianals $0
Transit Soine, Maior $170,000
Gleason, Maior $170,000
Blght-of-Wav, 102*$7 + 100k demo $1,231,808
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition. 20.0% $531,722
Total with 20% Continqencv (0 on AdminI $3,722.051
Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchanae) S5,488,000
Freeway Interchange - Segment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
Widen Offramp and Modify Signal (Loan amount built prior)
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements, Left Turn Lane $170,000
Sienal $75,000
Alameda County $3.762 M Loan (Includina Interest) $3.762.000
City Administration. Desien. Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition. 20.0% $49.000
Total $4.056.000
Page 5
Transit SEine. Segment 16
3130 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Hacienda
(Camp Parks is on Both Sides of Roadway)
Improved on each side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,403,805
Signals
Future Road? $170,000
Right-of-Way, 102-$7 + 100k demo $1,611,026
citY Administration, Desian, Construction Manaqement, ROW Acauisition, 20.0% $636,966
Total with 20% Continaency CO on AdminT $4,458.763
Transit Spine - Seament 17
5600 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Hacienda to Tassaiara
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,383,200
Signals, See 11 and 20 $0
Bridoe, $80-96W-100L $768,000
Rioht-of-Way, 102-$7 + 100k demo $1 ,557,392
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acauisition, 20.0% $741,718
Total with 20"/" Continqencv (0 on Admin} $5,192,029
Transit Spine - Seament 18
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,531,400
Signals, See 20 and 23 $0
Right-of-Way, 102-$1.25 + 1 OOk demo $338,390
CItY Administration, Desian, Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $373,958
Total with 20% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $2,617,706
Transit Spine Roadwav Subtotal $12,268,500
Page 6
Gleason - Seament 19
7000 feet, 1 02 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 350 oer linear foot $681.000
Sienals. See 11 and 20 $0
Bridge. $80.SSW.1 OOL $440.000
Riaht-of-Way. 102.$7 + 1 OOk demo $1.937.240
cHY Administration. Desion. Construction Manaaement. ROW ACQuisition. 20.0% $611.648
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $4.281.536
Gleason - Segment 20
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadwav
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 650 per linear foot $1.531.400
Sianals. See 20 and 23 $0
Rioht-of-Way. 102.$1 .25 + 1 OOk demo $338.390
CiiYAdministration. Desion. Construction Manaaement, ROW Acauisition. 20.0% $373.958
Total with 20% Continaency (Q on Admin.) $2.617.706
Gleason Roadway Subtotal $6.900.000
(Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road
is not included because no development is orooosed for Doolan Canyon as part of the
Dublin General Plan Amendment)
Scarlett Drive - Segment 21
2,400 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 oer linear foot $156.000
Signals $0
Douahertv, Maior $170,000
Dublin. Major $170.000
Railroad Utilities? $0
Bridae, $80.90W*1 OOL $720.000
Riaht-of-Way, 102.$7 + 1 OOk demo $1.813.600
City Administration. Desion. Constru.::tion Manaoement, ROW Acauisition, 20.0% $886.720
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $6.207.000
Page 7
Tassaiara Road - Segment 22
8,250 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
CItY Umlts to Gleason .
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot $1,797.500
Signals $0
Fallon $0
Gleason, Maior $0
Riaht-of-Wav, 126.$7'"50% ... 1 OOk demo $0
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $359,500
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $2,516.500
Tassaiara Road - Segment 23
4,400 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 oer linear foot $880,000
Signals
Transit Spine, Maior $850,000
Gleason, See 19 $0
Right-of-Way, 126.$7'"48% ... 100k demo $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $193,000
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on AdminJ $1.351.000
Tassaiara Road - Segment 24
1000 feet, 150 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; <not including InterchanQe)
Existing Pavement Unusable
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 900, short. at freeway $270,000
Sianals, See 21 and 7 $0
Riaht-of-Wav, 150.$7'"48% ... 1 OOk demo $23,740
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaqement, ROW AcQuisition, 20.0% $58,748
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $411 ,236
Page 8
.
Tassalara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchanae) $4,279,000
Tassajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchange
1/2 of Interchange Exists
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Ramps $3,700,000
Signals $300,000
Right-of-Wav $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $800,000
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) I $5,600,000
'Fallon Road ~ Segment 26
16,000 feet 126 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot $2,160,000
Signals
Gleason $85,000
Transit Spine $85,000
Right-of-Way, 126.1.25+ 1 OOK Demo $452,250
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $556,450
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on AdminT $3,895,150
Fallon Road - Segment 27
1,500 feet 126 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580
All New Roadway, Include Interchange
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot $300,000
Signals
See Segment 8 $0
No Freewav Interchange or FW Sionals $0
RiQht-of-Way. 126"1.25+1 OOK Demo $84,063
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acauisition, 20.0% $76,813
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin~) $537,688
Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freeway Intercha~g~) $4,430,000
Page 9
Fallon & 1-580 Freeway Interchange with Signals - Segment 28
Totals for TIF Share
Freeway Interchanae, Includina Sianals $7,500,000
Riaht-ot-Way $0
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,500,000
Total with 20% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $10,500,000
Tassajara Creek Bikepath - Seament 29
12,800 feet
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Contra Costa County Line
Totals for TIF Share
12,800 feet $720,000
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acauisition. 20.0% $144,000
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $1,008,000
Park & Ride
40,000 s.f. for 150 cars
Totals forTIF Share
East ot Tassaiara, 40,000 s.f. @ ($4 Imorey. & $7 rioht of way) $440,000
East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ ($4 Imorov. & $7 riaht of way) $440.000
East ot Fallon. 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & $1.25 for richt ot way) $210,000
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $218,000
Total with 20% Continaencv (Q on Admin.) $1,526,000
Precise Plan Line Costs
Totals for TIF Share
Total Cost $301,000
Page 10
946-500-1-2
Anne Gygi
5868 Tassajara Rd.
PleasaRlon, CA 94588
946-500-3
Clyde C. Casterson
5020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-2-1
Jose L. & Violetta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946_541_5_1/946_1040_2/946_1040.1_2/946.1040_3_2
Charter Properties
c/o Chang S" Hong.Y., & Hong L. Un
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-1
Mission Peaks Home Inc.
47460 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
946-680-6-1
Rodman Scott & Claudine T. Azevedo
6363 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-9
Robert J. Nielson Jr., Michelle Olds, & Larry R,
Williamson
P.O, Box 1667
Lafayette, CA 94549
998-3036-4
Dublin Ltd,
c/o Teachers Management
P.O. Box 2500
Newport Beach, CA 92658
99B-3036-9/99B-3036-10
Hanubul F. Jordan & Orletta Molineux
537 Grove Way
Hayward, CA 94541
Alameda County Assessor's Parcels
946_500_1_1/946_500_2_1/946_15_1_7
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Ct
Oakland, CA 94605
946_15_1_8/946_15_1_9/946_1040_3_3
City of Pleasant on
City Clerk
200 Bernal Ave.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
946-541-2-3
Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-580-1
Roberta S. Moller
6861 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3005-1-3
Dublin Land Company
1991 Leigh Ann Place
San Jose, CA 95125
946-680-7
Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight
6833 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B- 3026-1 /99B- 3026- 2
Paoyeh & Bihyu Lin
9657 E. Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
99B-3036-5
William L. & Jean S, Maynard
350 Tideway Dr.
Alameda, CA 9450 I
99B-3200-6-3
Anderson Second Family Ltd. Partnership
3457 Croak Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-500-2-2
Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams
5379 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-1
James G. & Sue Tipper
7440 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-3
Elvera L Bragg & Claire Silva
646 Donner Dr.
Sonoma, CA 95476
946-580-2
Redgwick Construction Company
25599 Huntwood Ave.
Hayward, CA 94544
946-680-5-1/946-680-5-2
Michael H. Kobold
815 Diablo Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
946-680-8
Ann H. Silveria
6615 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3026-3-1
William L. & May K. Devany
299 Junction Ave.
Livennore, CA 94550
99B-3036-6-2
Levins Metals Corporation
1800 Monterey Hwy
San Jose, CA 95112
99B-3046-2-14
Fallon Enterprises Inc.
5781 Fallon Rd.
Livennore, CA 94550
Exhibit D of Resolution
List of Individual Properties
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change in the future.
I
99 B-3 046-2-8/99B- 3046-2.9
Charter Prope~s
clo Chang S., Frederic, & Hong Y. Un
Char'2 S., Frederic, & Hang Y. Un
6601 Owens Dr. # 1 00
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Alameda County Assessor's Parcels
99B-3036-1
Charter Properties
clo Frederic & Jennifer Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3046-2-15
Charter Properties
c/o Chang 5., Hong Y., & Hong L. Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946- 15-1-10/946-15-4
Surplus Property Authority of County of Alameda
County of Alameda - Public Works Agency
399 Elmhurst St.
Hayward, CA 94544-1395
998-3036-6-3
Pleasanton Ranch Investments
998-3281-1-1I99B-3281-2
Francis P. Croak
1262 Gabriel Ct.
San Leandro, CA 94577
99B-3281-3
David P. Mandeville
60 Fenton St.
Livermore, CA 94550
946-540-1
R.T. & Eileen Sperfslage
6060 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3200-5-2
Milton R. & Gloria Righetti
3088 Massachusetts St.
Castro Valley, CA 94546
99B-3200-4.3
James R. & Dixie M. Campbell
4141 Mattos Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
998-3036-7/99B-3036-8/99 B- 3046- 2-6/99B.3046- 2- 7
Charter Properties
clo Chang S. & Frederic Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-2/946-15-1-6
United States of America
946-680- 3/946-680-4
Charter Properties
clo Frederic & Kevin Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3200-4-4
Robert D. & Shirley M. Branaugh
1881 Collier Canyon Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change in the future.
Exhibit D
/
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Single-Family Residential (1 to 14 units per acre):
Multi-Family Residential or Mobile Home Park
(more than 14 units per acre):
Development Other Than Retail
$3,355/unit
$2,350/unit
$293/trip
(Based on the following table)
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
HOTEUMOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
10/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
RECREATION:
Recreation Community Center
Health Club
Bowling Center
Golf Course
Tennis Courts
Theaters
Movie
Live
Video Arcade
26/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
8/acre
33/court
220/screen
O.21seat
96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
1.5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
Convalescent/Nursing
Clinic
121bed
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
Exhibit E of Resolution
Trip Generation Rates
'"
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive-through)
BarfTavern
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)
Drive Through/ATM (add to Bank or Savings & Loan)
COMMERCIAURETAIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 to 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
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS.BYS)
63/1,000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1,000 sf
585/site
70lwash 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
65/1ane 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
Page 2 of 2
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Cost of Roadway
Improvements
Cost of Bridge
Improvements
Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from
the Southern Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Boulevard
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from
December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10)
$ 24,971,100
$ 2,592,000
Hacienda Drive. widen and extend as four lanes from
Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive and to six lanes
from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS
revised report)
$ 5,488,000
-0-
Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin
Boulevard west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from
the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1
of the DKS revised report)
$ 11,193,000
$ 1,075,200
Gleason Drive. Construct new four~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)
$ 6,283,000
$
616,000
Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to the Contra Costa
County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane right-
of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/14.0) $ 4,279,000
-0-
Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four
lanes over a six-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) $ 4,430,000
-0-
Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify
the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area S 301.000
-0-
S 56.945.100
S 4.283.200
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 136,674 trips for residential
and 209,851 trips for non-residential is $1,814/unit for single-familYi $1,270/unit for
multi-familYi and $164/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for the bridge improvements_for single-family is $136/uniti multi-
family is $96/uniti and non-residential is $12/trip.
Single-family is from 1 to 14 units per acre and multi-family is more than 14 units per
acre. The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 8,779 single-family units and
5,127 multi-family units.
a: \dec\edtit
Exhibit F of Resolution
Major Thoroughfares & Bridges List'
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
"II
...
-
.
'-'
.
.
.~.
'.
~
--
-~(."....
',\
\
5.0
1RAFFIC AND CIRCUIADON
-
1\:
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The transportation and circulation systems for eastern Dublin
are designed to provide convenient access to and mobility Within
the Specific Plan area. The plan provides for an integrated,
multi-modal circulation system that reduces potential tn1fftc
impacts by providing area residents with a high degree of choice
in selecting a preferred mode of transportation. While ensuring
that vehicular circulation is convenient and efficien~ the plan
puts a strong emphasis on accommodating alternate modes of
tranSportation, including walking, bicycles, transit and
ridesharing. These alternate modes of transportation will not
only relieve future traffic congestion, but can also help to
minimiZe air pollution, reduce noise pollution, and conserve
energy.
GOAL: To prooide a circulation
system for eastern Dublin that is
convenient and efficient, and en-
courages the use of alternate modes
of transportation as a means of im-
proving community character anti
reducing environmental impacts.
density housing has been integrated into commercial areas and
mixed-use developments are encouraged as a means of stimulat-
ing pedestrian activity. Higher intensity development is also
designated near the proposed eastern Dublin BART station and
along the transit spine to support tranSit use. An extensive trail
system has been designed to encourage walking and cycling. On
the micro scale, advisory development and design guidelines
included in the plan promote perlestrian-friendly streetscapes
that provide a safe and comfortable environment for the
pedestrian.
Policy 5-1: Encourage higher intensity development
near transit corridors.
Policy 5~2: Require all development to provide a
, balanced orientation toward pedestrian, bicycle, and
automobile circulation.
5.1.1 EXISTING ROADS
The Specific Plan area is semrl by one major freeway and several
local routes which are primaIily rural in character.
/MERSI'AJE 580
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane freeway which runs east-west
along the south side of the planning area. Interstate 580 (1-580)
connects with Interstate 680 in Dublin, and continues west
through Dublin Canyon to serve Vf-estern Alameda County and .
San Francisco. To the eas~ 1-580 connects to Livermore, Tracy
and Interstate 5 in the Central Valley. Interchanges in the
planning area vicinity include Dougherty RoadlHopyard Road,
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara RoalVSanta Rita Road, Fallon Road!
EI Chano Road, and AirWay Boulevard. Between 1-680 and
Tassajara Road, recent improvement projects have added a fifth
auxiliary lane in each direction to serve traffic entering and
exiting the freeway.
The peak traffic directions are westbound in the morning and
TRAFFIC AND CmCUIATION
cant peak period congestion west of Dougherty Road and at the
interchange between Interstate 580 and Interstate 680.
DOUGHERTY ROAD
Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road over most of its length.
Dougherty Road has six lanes between 1-580 and Dublin .
Boulevard. Portions of Dougherty Road have been widened to
four lanes adjacent to new development between Dublin
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa county line.
DUBliN BOULEVARD
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the city of
Dublin. Dublin Boulevard was recently extended to Hacienda
Drive, and will be further extended to Tassajara Road by
Summer 1993. Scarlett Court, a two lane extension of Dublin
Boulevard, continues east from Dougherty Road and serves local
businesses up to a dead end at the Southern Pacific railroad
right-of-way.
HACIENDA DRIVE
Hacienda Drive is an arterial road which provides access to the
Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Hacienda Drive connects
to a recently completed interchange on 1-580. Hacienda Drive
currently does not extend north of the interchange.
T~J4RA ROAD
Tassajara Road is a two-lane rural road which connects with
Santa Rita Road at 1-580 and continues north to Danville.
Tassajara Road is used for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley,
with some through traffic to and from the Danville area.
SANTA RI1'A ROAD
Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-
580 interchange south to Valley Avenue. It serves the eastern side
of Hacienda Business Park. South of Valley Avenue, Santa Rita
Road continues as a four-lane street to Main Street in downtown
Pleasanton.
FAILON AND CROAK ROADS
Fallon Road and Croak Road are two-lane local rural roads
which dead end north of 1-580. They each provide local access
only to several properties, and traffic volumes are yery small.
DOOlAN ROAD
Doolan Road is a two-lane local rural road which provides access
to several ranches and residences. About two miles north of 1-
580, Doolan Road turns into a single-lane road for a half mile
before ending at a gate.
I
I
~
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
.' ,
I
,I
-
t-:>._
I
"'-
~
I
-
EL CHARRO ROAD
El Charro Road is a private two-Iane road which serves the
quarries between Pleasanton and Livennore. Multi-axle trucks
traveling to and from the quarries account for about 60 percent
of the traffic on El Charro Road and at the Fallon RoadlEl
Charm Road freeway interchange.
AIRWAY BOULEVARD
Airway Boulevard is a two lane road which serves the Livermore
Municipal Airport and the Las Posit3s golf course on the south
side of 1-580. A series of local arterial streets connect Nrw'irf
Boulevard With northwest Livermore. On the north side of the
Airway Boulevard freeway interchange, Airway Boulevard
connects to Doolan Road and North Canyons Parkway.
NORm CANYONS PARKWAY
North Canyons Parkway is a four-lane east-west arterial which
serves the Triad Business Park and connects to Collier Canyon
Road.
COWER CANYON ROAD
Collier Canyon Road is a two-Iane rural road which connects to
North Canyons Parkway and continues north to a junction with
Highland Road. Collier Canyon Road provides access to the Las
Positas College.
5.1.2 PlANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement projects have been proposed for freeways, freeway
interchange; and local roads in the eastern Dublin area. The
most important of these are the Dublin Boulevard extension,
planned improvements to the I-5801I.680 interchange, the
proposed widening of 1-680 and local street improvements
related to development in North Livermore.
The City of Dublin has completed an extension of Dublin
Boulevard east of Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive. The next
phase will be an extension to Tassajara Road, which is scheduled
for completion by summer 1993. This extension initially
50
.
.'
,
,
II
II
.
.
.;
"
--
.'
.
.
~
.'
.
.
.
.
provides one lane in each direction. The Dublin General Plan
(Figure 7, page 20) also designates a future four-lane street
parallel to the Southern Pacific right-of-way, connecting
Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard with the Dublin
Boulevard extension east of Dougherty Road.
The current 1-580/1-680 interchange project includes construc-
tion of a flyover from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580. The
improvement will help to reduce congestion on one of the key
bottlenecks in the Tri-Valley area. Construction is expected to
begin in 1994 with work completed in 1996. Partial ftmding for
this improvement will come from Alameda County's Measure
"B" sales tax Initiative, with the remainder to be made up from
other sources.
CalTrans is currently studying further improvements to the 1-
580/I..{iSO interchange. These proposed improvements would
replace all of the existing loop ramps with direct flyover ramps.
The proposed improvements would improve freeway and ramp
operations, but would restrtct local access to individual freeway
movements. For example, drivers from Dougherty Road would
have access to 1-580 east and wes~ but would not have access to
1-680 as they do now. For this reason, the CalTrans study is
considering local access freeway ramps on 1-680 in Dublin south
of Dublin Boulevard. There is no current funding source for
these further interchange improvements.
M improvement project has been planned for 1-680 which will
add one extra high occupancy vehicle (HOY) lane in each
direction in the median, to provide four total lanes in each
direction between 1-580 and State Route 24 in Walnut Creek.
The first phase of the projec~ which is currently under construc-
tion, involves the placement of soundwalls along the freeNaY.
The second phase of the project, which will add the lanes in the
median of the freeway, could be completed by 1993.
The Alameda County Measure B sales tax provides partial
funding for completion of State Route 84 as a four-lane highway
between 1-680 and 1-580, with construction of a new interchange
on 1-580 between Ai'Nl'&f Boulevard and Portola Avenue.
5.1.3 EXISTING TRANSIT
There are currently no transit lines which directly serve the
planning area. The Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore areas are
serred by local bus service and BART express bus service.
The Uvennore/ Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
provides local bus transit service in Dublin, PleasflIlton and
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
Uvennore, as well as unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
In the vicinity of eastern Dublin, there are local bus routes on
Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Road and 1-580, and
local bus service to the Fairlands Drive area of Pleasanton, just
south of 1-580 and east of Santa Rita Road.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides express bus
service connecting Dublin with BART stations in San Leandro,
Hayward and Walnut Creek. These lines pass by the eastern
Dublin planning area on 1-580, but currently make no stops
between Dougherty Road and portola Avenue.
5.1.4 FUTURE TRANSIT
The BART Board of Directors has adopted a policy for the
proposed extension of BART rail service to Dublin and
Pleasanton. Current BART policy would build a BART extension
to three new stations, on~ in Castro Valley, a West Dublin!
Pleasanton station in the median of 1-580 between Foothill
Boulevard and I -ti80, and an East DublinlPleasanton station in
the 1-580 median between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
. Two of the stations, including the Castro Valley station and one
of the DublinlPleasanton stations, will be constructed using
BART and/or other public and private financing. The third
station on the extension (the other Dublin/Pleasanton station)
can be constructed only upon the commitment of funding that is
unre1atoo. to the funding levels in the Metropolitan Transporta-
tion Commission (MTC) New Rail Starts and Extension Pro-
gram.
5.2 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
5.2.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The road system is designed to maximiZe the free flow of traffic
by creating a highly interconnected ijStem that, accommodates
the movement of vehicles while enhancing opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation (Figure 5.1). The system is
characterizOO by three major north-south and east-west streets to
accommodate local traffic as well as a certain amount of
regional traffic which can be expected to pass through the area.
5.2.2 NORfH-SOUTH CIRCUlATION
The major north-south streets will be Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, coinciding with existing planning area
roadways and interchanges.
51
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION I
Hacienda Drive will facilitate access to the freeway for residents designed to cany high volumes of traffic or to move traffic I
and employees in the western portion of the planning area. quickly through the area. It will provide two through lanes in
Hacienda Drive is planned as a four-lane road (six to eight lanes each direction. This corridor will be the "Main Street" for the [J
south of Dublin Boulevard) which will extend from 1-580 north Town Center and its function will be to serve as the transit spine
to Gleason Drive. linking the TO\1i11 Center to the future eastern DublinlPleasanton
Tassajara Road will be the major north-south road through the BART station, and to seNe local vehicular traffic. The transit I
spine extends across the width of the planning area.
Town Center carrying substantial traffic from both the planning
area and beyond into the retail core. Tassajara Road will meet The plan concentrates residential and employment uses along I
the northern portion of Tassalara Road and Fallon Road at an this spine to encourage transit use for local and regional travel.
intersection. In addition to the Town Center commerdal core, Fallon Village,
Fallon Road will be extended north to connect with Tassajara the sports park, the high school, junior high school and several II
Road in the northwest comer of the planning area. Fallon Road elementary schools are all located on the transit spine or within
will be a limited-access parkway which will serve local traffic as a quarter of a mile of it. A quarter mile represents about a five -
well as through traffic between 1-580 and Contra Costa County. minute walk and is the nonna11y accepted planning standard for
The alignment of Tassajara Road as it runs south from Contra what most people find a comfortable and convenient walking
Costa County will flow directly into Fallon Road to encourage . distance. .
this movement. 5.2.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE
" 5.2.3 EAST-WEST CIRCUIATION Streets and intersections are evaluated in tenns of "level of I
I seIVice" (LOS) which is a measure of driving conditions and
i Two east-west streets are designated in the plan to provide
convenient movement across the planning area to the major vehicle delay. Levels of seIVice range from A (best) to F (poor- .
north-south corridors. est). Levels of service A, B and C indicate satisfactory conditions
The southernmost corridor, located approximately a quarter of a where traffic can move freely. Level of seIVice D describes
conditions where delay is more noticeable, typical of a busy II
mile north of the freeway, is an extension of Dublin Boulevard, urban or suburban area during peak periods. Level of service E
providing the principal vehicular connection between eastern indicates conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to
Dublin and the existing Dublin community. Projected to capacity, resulting in significant delays and average travel speeds .
ultimately be a six-lane roadway, the Dublin Boulevard exten- which are one-third the uncongested speeds or lower. Level of
sion would ultimately connect with North Canyons Parkway in service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds ,
Uvennore to provide a reliever route paralleling the freevay. available capacity, with very slow speros (stop-and-go) and long
Approximately a half mile north of and parallel to the Dublin delays (over a minute) and queuing at signalized intersections.
Boulevard extension, a smaller four -lane arterial would be Level of service D is generally used as the standard for planning II
located along the Gleason Road alignment This roadway is not new or upgraded transportation facilities in developed areas.
currently planned to extend west of the planning area because of This LOS represents tolerable peak period delays for motorists, -
the presence of Camp Parks. The corridor would primarily serve where drivers occasionally have to wait through more than one
the more densely developed southern portion of the planning red light
area, and would extend from Arnold Road on the west to Fallon I
Road on the east It is anticipated that this road will carry Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to
predominantly local vehicle trips. maintain Level of Service D or better as the average
intersection level of service at all intersections within
g
5.2.4 TRANSIT SPINE the Specific Plan area during AM, PM and midday peak . .;:\~
periods. The average intersection level of service is
The Plan calls for a third major east-west corridor situated defined as the hourly average. II
midway between the Dublin Boulevard and Gleason 'Road
extensions. Unlike the other two corridors, this corridor is not
52 I
I'
.,
I
.
.
.'
,<
,
~.
.
.
."
i
.
.
.,
.
(I
.
.
.
.
d
5.2.6 STREET ClASSIFICATIONS
A hierarchy of streets shall be developed within the specific plan
area to accorrunodate the various levels of vehicular and
pede;trian traffic, as well as to provide amenities in the fonn of
landscaping, sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails, and lighting. The
street hierarchy shall recognize the specific function of streets
within the different districts of the specific plan. Where possible,
streets shall be designed to meet special circumstances or
conditions in order to create a particular corrununity character
or identity, to enhance corrunercial and retailing activity or to
protect sensitive natural resources.
The vehicle circulation plan includes siX basic classes of roads,
including major arterial streets, arterial streets, major collector
streets, collector streets, local residential streets, and industrial
roads. Each of these classifications serves a different function for
vehicle circulation in the Specific Plan area, and each classifica-
tion is associated with a set of design standards. In addition,
there will be several specialized street types in the Village Centers
which will facilitate improved pedestrian access and on-street
parking for fronting retail uses. Specialized street designs will
require approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
GOAL: To establish a vehicle
circulation system which provides
sufficient capacity for projected
traffic and allows convenient access
to land uses, while maintaining a
neighborhood scale to the residen-
tial street system. .
5.2.7 MAJORARfERIAL STREETS
The major arterial streets in eastern Dublin are designed to carry
very high traffic volumes with a minimum of interference from
connecting traffic. The major arterial streets include Dublin
Boulevard, as well as Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road south of Dublin Boulevard. These streets will provide siX
through lanes, with up to eight through lanes for short street
sections COMecting directly to a freeway interchange. Access to
major arterials will be permitted only at Signali~ intersections
with arterial or collector streets, or at selected controlled loca-
tions with the approval of the Director of Public Works.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION
Policy 5-4: Provide six to eight lane major arterial
streets to carry major community and sub-regional
traffic through the specific Plan area.
5.2.8 ARTERIAL STREETS
Arterial streets provide for longer distance movements within the
Specific Plan area, providing connections between the residential
and corrunercialland uses. The arterial streets include Gleason
Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. They
are designed for higher speros, with access to fronting properties
limited to selected controlled locations. The arterial streets in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will provide four through lanes
with a landscaped median and turn lanes provided at all
intersections.
Policy 5-5: Provide four to six lane arteriaI streets to
move traffic quickly and efficienlly within the planning
area.
5.2.9 MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS
Major collector streets provide direct access to major uses such as
office or industrial complexes or retail centers. They also provide
higher volume access into a residential neighborhood, although
no direct residential frontage shall be permitted. Major collector
streets will generally provide four lanes, plus provisions for
transit stops and bicycle lanes.
Policy 5-6: Provide two to fom lane major collector
streets to provide access to commercial and industrial
areas, and into residential neighborhoods.
5.2.10 COLLECTOR STREETS
Collector streets provide connections between local access streets
and the streets which provide for through vehicle movements. .
Collector streets are intended to provide access into residential
neighborhoods or between sections of the neighborhoods, but not
to pass through the neighborhoods. Direct access may be
provided to uses such as schools and parks, but direct residential
frontage shall be discouraged.
Policy 5-7: Provide collector streets to provide access
into residential neighborhoods and to connect local
residential streets with arterial streets.
5.2.11 LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Local residential streets are designed to provide direct access to
residential properties and to maintain a high quality residential
53
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
environment The streets are kept short and discontinuous to
discourage through traffic and high speeds. Pavement widths
are rninirniZed, both to discourage high speeds and to enhance
the residential character. Adequate right-{)f-way is providoo on
each side of the street pavement for sidewalks and landscaping.
Neighborhood traffic con~ol measures can help roouce speeds
and through traffic volumes on local residential streets. Traffic
control measures could include local narrowing of streets at
intersections, or properly designed diverters or traffic circles.
Stop signs are generally not effective at reducing speeds, except
in the immediate vicinity of the sign. Lowering speed limits is
only effective with intensive enforcement.
Policy 5-8: Provide local residential neighborhood
streets which use the street alignment, short street
length, strategic narrowing oflanes and appropriate
neighborhood 1rdfIic control measures to discourage
through traffic and high speeds.
5.2.12 FREEWAY AND INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements to the 1-580 freeway and the interchange at
Fallon Road will be required to accommodate traffic to and from
eastern Dublin, as well as other regional traffic. The 1-580
freeway should be widened to provide a fifth auxiliary lane in
each direction between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, similar
to the widening which has been completed west of Tassajara
Road. The Fallon RoadlEl Charm Road interchange will need to
be expanded to a partial cloverleaf design with a six-lane freeway
overcrossing, similar to the Hacienda Drive interchange. In
addition, the design of the Fallon Road interchange must
incorporate provisions for quarry trucks as indicated in the City
of pleasanton's Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan.
Policy 5-9: Construct 31mHmoy lanes on both mrec-
.1ions of I-SSO, extending from the Tassajara Road!
santa Rita Road interchange to 1he Fallon RoadlEl
Cbarro Road interchange. Construct a partial clover-
leaf interchange on 1-580 at Fallon RoadIEl Cbarro
Road, including a six-lane overcrossing, two-lane off- ,
ramps, and truck bypass lanes for 1l'11ck movemen~
from northbound EI Cbarro to eastbound or
westbound 1-580.
AC110N PROGRAM: STREETS AND HIGlIWAYS ,
. Program 5A: Detailed development plans submitted to the City shall
include the standards noted below. Localized exceptions for special
conditions may be approvro by the Public Works Director in keeping with
City procedures.
Major ArterlllJ Streets:
. Minimum tkstgn speed: 55 miles per hour
· Curb.to-curb widtb: 102 feet (126 feet for etgbt-lone sections)
including a 14100t wtds, rud median
. Maximum grade: 7 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,200 feet witb 4 pnunt supmle1Kltton
to 2,000 feet with no supere/evatiDn.
. Minimum distance between street interssctions: 660 feet
· No dired residentialfrontage.
. On.street parking is prohibited with the e:a:eptitm of emergency
parking.
. /'1rJvtII8 two left-hJm bays and one rigbt-wm bay at all
intersections with major arterial and arttJrlaJ streets.
. Full aa:ess to major arterial streets will oa:ur only at sigruzlized
intmeaions. Rigbt-tum-on/y acass mtZJ be amsidered at a
minimum separation oJ300feetfrom other acass points or
intersections.
Mterlal Streets:
. Minimum tkstgn speed: 50 miles per hour .
. Curb-to-curb width: 78 feet including a J4-joot wide, raised
meditm
. Maximum grade: 7 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,400 feet with no superekvation.
. Minimum distance between street intm<<ttons: 660 feet
. No direct residential fr0n/4ge.
. On.street parking is prohibited witb the m:eptian of emergency
parking.
. Direct access to abutting properties to he controlkd but not
prohibited.
Major CoIkckJr Streets:
. Minimum tlestgn speed: 45 miI8s per hour
. curb-to-curb width: 76feetfor4lanes, 52feetfor two lanes
. Maximum grade: 8 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,100 feet with no supereJevation.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 660 feet
. No direct residential frontage.
Collector Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 30 miles per hour
. Curb.to-curb width: 40ftet
54
.
.
rr:.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
o
.
.
.~
-
.
.
.....
..=-
I
I
..
3
I
.
I
.
,..
",
.
.
S
.
.
.
I.
.
.
.
r-
JI
. MlUimum grade: 12 percent (maximum grade up to 15 percent
may be allowed under special rondttions and approved ", CiIy
Engineer).
. Minimum curve radius: 450 feet with no superelevation.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 250 feet
. Direct resiJlmtial frontage only as approved by Public woris
Director.
Local Residential Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 25 miles per hour.
. Curb.to-curb width: 36feet (J2feetwithparJdngon onuide).
. MlUimum grade: 12 percent (maximum grade up to 15 percent
may be allowed under special rondttions and approved ", CiIy
Engineer).
. Minimum curve radius: 200 feet with no superelevation.
. Ma:dmum length of cul-de-sac streets: 6oofeet, serving1Kl more
than 25 dwelling units.
. Local residential streets may not intersect arterial streets.
. Terminate junctions of local residential streets at tbree.way '"I.'''
intersections where possible.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 150 feet
Industrial Roads:
. Minimum design speed: 30 miles per hour.
. Curbow-curb widtb: 52 feet.
. MlUimum grade: 7 percent.
. ~imumcurve~~45~n~nosu~
5.3 PUBLIC TRANSIT
The transit system for eastern Dublin will provide service to all
land use areas in the Specific Plan area (Figure 5.2). The
Transit Spine service will connect the Town Center, campus
office areas, and the higher density residential areas d1rEdly to
regional transit opportunities at the eastern Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station. It is anticipated that tranSit service along Dublin
Boulevard will carry COI1lll1UterS to and from major employment
centers along the freeway. Transit service will also extend west of
the BART station to tie eastern Dublin into the existing areas of
Dublin, and to the south to provide service between eastern
Dublin and Pleasanton.
GOAL: To maximize opportunities
for travel by public transit.
TRAFFIC AND cmcUIATION
5.3.1 LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE
The Livennore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides
local bus transit service in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and
adjacent unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Local transit
service will be extended to eastern Dublin in consultation with
LAVTA
Polley 5-10: Provide transit service within one..quarter
mile of 95 percent of the population in the Specific
Plan area in accordance with U VIA service standards.
Polley 5-11: Provide transit service, at a minimum
frequency of one bus every 30 minutes during peak.
hours, to 90 percent of employment centers with 100
or more employees in accordance with IA VIA smice
standards. Encourage frequent and regular smice
headways along the transit spine.
5.3.2 REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is currently con-
structing the Dublin- Pleasanton extension to a station to be
located just west of the Specific Plan area. The eastern Dublin!
Pleasanton BART station will be a focal point for local transit
services, and will provide regional transit connections to western
Alameda County, San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area.
.Polley 5-12: Upon implementation of BAKf service to
the proposed eastern DubliolPleasanton station, orient
local transit service to provide transit connections
between the BARf station and all portions of the
Specific Plan area.
5.3.3 TRANSIT STOPS
The use of transit service can be encouraged by the provision of
bus pullouts, transit shelters, pedestrian paths and other
amenities.
Polley 5-13: Establish design guidelines for residen-
1ial and commercial development so that there are
clear and safe pedestrian paths between building
entrances and transit smice stops.
Polley 5-14: Provide transit shelters at major transit
stops and bus pullouts on major collector, arterial and
major arterial streets.
55
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION
ACTION PROGRAM: PUBLIC TlWlsn
. Program 5B: The City shall require review and approval of the
following as condition of project approval for appUcable projects in
eastern Dub !in:
. Public transit route and phasing plan, to be prepared in
consultation with lA ITA.
. Bus turnouts and transit shelters, in consultation with lAm
. Pedestrian paths between transit stops and building entrflllC8S.
5.4 PEDESTRIAN
CIRCUlATION
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a network of
pedestrian sidewalks and trails (Figure 5.3). pedestrian paths
will connect residential areas with major activity centers such as
schools, parks, and retail centers, as well as providing passive
recreational opportunities.
GOAL: To provide a safe and
convenient pedestrian circulation
system in eastern Dublin, designed
for fumtional and recreational
needs.
5.4.1 STRFAM CORRIDOR TRAILS
The plan provides for a comprehensive system of pedestrian!
bicycle trails within planning area stream corridors (see Figure
6.1). The trail along Tassajara Creek is intended to eventually
become part of the larger East Bay Regional Park District's -
regional trail network. A regional staging area will be provided
on EBRPD land along the west side of Tassajara Road to provide
trailhead access for local residents. This regional staging area
would be likely to include facilities such as parking areas for
passenger vehicles and horse trailers, drinking water, restrooms
and telephones. pedestrian trails will also be developed within
other stream corridors in the planning area.
Policy 5-15: Provide a north-south trail along
Tassajara Creek, and 1rails along other str~ corri-
dors as shown on 1he Pedestrian and Bicycle System
map.
5.4.2 TOWN CENTER AND VIllAGE
CENTERS
The neighborhood commercial areas in the Town Center and
Village Centers are to be developed as an attractive pedestrian
environment. Features will include wide sidewalks with ameni-
ties such as seating, outdoor cafe and retail uses, public art and
street trees. The COmmunity Design section of the Specific Plan
(see Chapter 8) containS guidelines for pedestrian provisions
along individual street sections.
Policy 5-16: Prmide sidewalks and o1her streeucape
amenities in the Town Center and Vtllage Center are$
in conformance wi1h the specific Plan design guide-
lines.
AC110N PROGRAM: PED/!Sl1llAN CIRCUlATION
. Program 5C: The City shall require development applicants in eastern
Dublin to submit a detailm paiestrian circulation plan for review and
approval by the City. This plan shall include the following components as
deemed appUcable under this Specific Plan by the Public Works Director.
Any proposed improvements other than the City of Dublin Standard Plans
must be approvro by the Dire:tor of Public Works.
TOSSIQara end Trail. Trail construction materials and TTl8thods shaJ!
conform to the East &ry Regioru1l Parks District standards for trail
constnwtion. The trail sbaIl be constru&ted for minimum vislull
impact. There should be a buJler with an apprrmmate minimum
width of 100 feet between the trail and nearby devekJpment.
StagiTW Area and Trailbeads. A sJoging areafor the Tassajara Creek
trail shall be provided in eartem Dublin, with parking, signs and trash
containlJ1S as designated by the East &ry Regioru1l Parks District in
consultalion with the City of Dublin. The locaJion of the staging area
shaD be based on comxmienceforvisitorsfrom ouIsids eastern
Dublin, with minimal disruptiOn of lot;q[ tulighborhoods. .
Local trailheads shall be primarily designed for use by residents oj
eastern Dublin. Local traiJbeads shall be provitkd with appropriate
signs and trash rontainm.
Sidswalks. Street improtJtml81lt plans for eastem Dublin sbaJI include
sidewalks on both sidu oj the street tapt where the JoI1cwing
condUions occur:
. On single-loaded streets, sidewlJJs m4Y be a/lQwed on one side
only, with the approval of the Director oj Public Works.
. No sidewalk is required on IocaJ srr.t frontages with no
abutting residtmtiol or C(J'tII1MTCit1llots, and where it can be
demonstrated that the sidewalk is 1ICt neetkd Jor /ocaJ pedes-
trian circultzlion.
. 5.5 BICYCLE CIRCUlATION
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a network of
bicycle routes (Figure 5.3). A Class I paved bicycle path will be
56
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
."
:'.:1
. ..
.
.
.
~_ .,~ ~ ~ti.-. ~ ......................:..""....
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
provided parallel to the Tassajara Creek trail. Bicycle lanes will
be provided on selected arterial streets and on major collector
streets.
GOAL: To provide opportunities for
safe and convenient bicycle circula-
tion in eastern Dublin.
5.5.1 BICYCLE ROurES
Bike Paths (Class I Bicycle Routes) are special pathways for the
exclusive use of bicycles, separated from motor vehicle facilities
by space or by a physical barrier.
Bike Lanes (Class II Bicycle Routes) are lanes on the paved area
of a road designated for preferential use by bicycles. They are
usually identified by "Bike Lane" signs, special lane lines and
other pavement markings.
Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system
which helps to senre the need for non-motorized
tranSportation and recreation in eastern Dublin.
5.5.2 BICYCLE PARKING
In order to encourage the use of bicycles, safe and convenient
storage areas are needed for bicycles. Satisfactory bicycle
parking is particularly needed at schools, recreation areas such
as the Sports Park, major transit stops and commercial centers.
Policy 5-18: Provide convenient and secure bicycle
parldng facilities at key destinations in ~ Dublin,
such as schools, recreation areas, tranSit stops and
commercial centers.
ACI'lON PROGRAM: BICYCLB CIRCl1L4TlON
. Program 5D: The City shall require development proiec~ in eastern
Dublin to include provisions for bicycle circulation, as follows:
8th patb. Constru&t a bike path parallel to the Tassajara Cree. trail.
Bth 141les. Constru&t bike lanes on Gleason Road, on the Transit
Spine, on Tassajara Road and palJon Road north of the Transit Spine.
and elsewhere as designated on the Bicycle CIrculaJion map, Including
all neassary signs and lane striping.
BU;ycle StnTaee Pacilities. Locale aI kBy destinations.
I
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
5.6 PARKING
Convenient and adequate parking is an important component of
the traffic and circulation system. However, large expanses of
parking can have adverse environmental effects, including Visual
concerns, increased stonnwater runoff, and summer heat
bUildup. In dense urban areas, limitations on the parking
supply can also help to induce greater use of alternative travel
modes such as ridesharing and transit
GOAL: To provide adequate, but not
excessive amounts of parking.
5.6.1 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Various opportunities are available for reducing conventional
parking requirements. In mixed use areas, commercial and
office workers can use parking areas during the day, while
residents can use the parking at night Convenient public tranSit
also can reduce the need for using private vehicles, and thus the
demand for parking.
Policy 5-19: Parking requirements in eastern Dublin
shall be kept to a minimwn ~nsistent with actual
parking needs. Allowance shall be made for shared
parking in mixed-use areas. Parking requirements
may be reduced wherever it can be demonstrated that
use of alternative traI1Sp011ation will reduce parking
demand.
5.6.2 STREET PARKING
Parking is encouraged on all streets except for the most heavily
traVeled arterial roads or where enVironmental constraints -
warrant protection. Street side parking increases street activity,
slows traffic and aids in developing a pedestrian enVironment
where walking is desired.
Policy 5-20: Encourage on-street parldng on collector
and local residential streets. Allow on-street parking
on lower volume arterial streets within commercial
areas.
ACI'lON PROGRAM: PAllXING
. Progt'3Dl 5E: Adopt parking standards for eastern Dublin. Subject to
the approval of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator, and
Public Works Director, alloWllllce may be made for reduced parking
57
-
......__~.......... "_'."'" .~, . .__......__ ",__ ___u________ ,._ .. ..-,..- .--..--.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
requirements where effective alternative transportation is available, or for
shared parking in mixed-use areas.
. Program 5F: Revise the City's e:dsting zoning ordinance as needed to
allow flexible parking standards in eastern Dublin.
5.7 TRANSPOlO'ATION
SYSTEMS M4NAGEMENT
A program of transportation systems management measures can
help to reduce impacts related to transportation activity. Impacts
related to transportation can include increased congestion on
streets and freeways, degradation of air quality due to automo-
bile pollutants, energy consumption, use of land for automobile~
related activities, and aesthetic impacts of transportation
infrastructure.
The Specific Plan includes features which encourage the use of
alternative modes of travel. The Plan includes a mix of land
uses including housing, employment, retail and recreational
uses, which helps to maximize the potential for trips to be made
within the local area. Portions of the planning area, particularly
the Town Center, provide for these mixed uses in close proximity
to each other, which increases the likelihood that trips can be
made by walking or bicycle. Local transit service will be provided
within the Specific Plan ~ea, with direct connections to regional
transit services such as BART. The Plan also provides a full
network of pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Measures such as transportation systemS management (TSM)
programs or the provisjon of park-and-ride lots can provide
additional information and incentives which help to reduce
automobile use. Also the use of fiber optics or other "work at
home" methods is encouraged to reduce daily commuting to
work.
GOAL: To minimize the transporta-
tion-related impaets of development
in eastern Dublin.
5.7.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs are most
effective at major employment sites. A TSM program would
include strategies such as on~site distribution of transit informa-
tion and passes, provision of shuttle services to BART stations,
participation in regional ridesharing services, preferential
parking for vanpools and carpools, and flaxible or staggered
work hours.
Policy 5-21: Require all non-residential projects with
50 or more employees to participate in a Transporta-
tion SysteJm Management (TSM) program.
5.7.2 PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
Park-and~ride lots can provide a convenient location for drivers
to meet for rideshartng. If transit service is provided to the lots,
they can also provide parking for automobile access to the transit
lines. Park~and-ride lots should be located adjacent to freeway
interchanges, preferably along the route which most drivers take
to work in the morning. In the eastern Dublin area, the park-
and~ride lots should be located on the west side of Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, as close to I~580 as
possible. The lots should also be clearly visible and well lit to
promote security.
Policy 5-22: Establish park-and-ride lou, adjacent to
the freeway interchanges at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, to facilitate ridesharing by
eastern Dublin residents.
ArnON PROGRAM: 1'RANSPORIATJON SYsTEMs
MANAGEMENT
. Program 5G: The City shall establish a citywide Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) program. The program would require employers
with 50 or more employees to prepare a TSM program for submittal to the
City. '
. Program 58: Work with developers at the freeway interchanges to
provide park-and-ride lots between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard on the
west sides of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The
parking lots will pro'lide a minimum of 100 parking spaces and will
include lighting and landscaping.
58
""
-
-
."'"
.:". .-.
-',
--
.
c.
.1
"
~
:~
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~ 4
\ (6)
. .._...~~.~_...A~.....
. . .
. . .
. . .
~.. ...........III..tII........
.. .
. ~ .
. . .
. . .
~ ... :
. . .
~ / :
~ . .
.....,... :
.
ala
CD'
....
<:
.
c.
ala
e::
.
o.
=.
'0 :
CD.
0,.
w:
.
.
.
.
.......
- ,_. -, ., - -. -. ,.- '
en
... Q)>.
g en Cal
E 0 :$ Q) ~=f e
e
Q) S al _al -0
Q) = CD o-l O?'';:::
0 0 .... ....
- Q 1ii <: -<: .....r::. L..:E a:s
(/) '0 .... 'iii- CD 01 CI)O~
';:: .... .o:J .0'- CD
,....> ~ S $ 0 eQ) EO EO: en
al (ij 1llQ)
.00 0 .... .....;; :J ... :JI-CD
LO Q ~ <: ~ ~CI) ZF zgd:
CJ)-C I I . I I
l- CtS I . -
50 I . .., co
-
iIa: I .
..............
. .
:......~.............: : ....
: ~~~..
.
.
.
.
.
"
Fallon Rd,
4
(6)
z
:J
m
::J 'c: '0
Q'(Q '0
- ~
Z 0. :.
a: (,) i I!
w it: .g l~
I- .ti a:::; W
en CD ----5 !~ ~~ g
<1: Co =i !~H ::J
W '1\ ~ Ii - . 'l! 0
VI ~ !l~.:!::: en
,
j!
en
CD
~
'(5
o
en
<It
<
W
:.::
o
/'
.........~~.. ......
. J'.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
,'" :
I "..
\ ..
~ ~............ ~....:.. "
: \
: ,
: " ell
: '-
: 1-
: I
....... .
: ....~.. .
" ~ ,4 v
....... (8) (6)
~~
Z
i.
\ ~
.;0
..
-
I
\:
!
..,
o
..
-
ID
",---
",'"
",'"
<
'c'
\
I
",,,,r .
"'i I
I
I
---r
_ 2 I
ell I
or I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i"--
I
..,leIl
I
I
I
I
I
co
4
e6)
4 4 6
(6) (6) (8l
4
-ci
> 0
iii co ..
.5
.., :c
:J,
0
4
Dr.
4 6
(6) (8)
or
0
..
'$
--~
-- ._~..-----..- .--.-. .--
....
..
- I
z ~.
-
...J
Ql m
.~ ::) ~
~ 15 C :g ctI
E Ql -J C ~.
CI) al CO {:
Q) ~ 1:1 -
- ::J iF Z a.. ..
CJ'J to III JL <:
>- ]I _'0 c: CJ - CI)
,g!fa ..
CJ) E CD ~.
1:. W 0- ,g
C\l Ql Ql.':l:: loI- """ ~,
Ld 0 - .... o -J;-
.~ OCll I- 0- u: !...;
a.. a.. a.. CJ 11< UJ .
CJ'J <<I iJ:"i!
e C .. 0 en (1) ~ .!jh ()
.. a:
:::l a:3 .. < Co = ! j; g.
..
Q')~ .. III ,'"
D:J- .. W (fJ == i-p
.. 3!:: ~
..
.............
o 0
....w.......~........: :._
: . .........
o .
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
.......
.
o
o o.
-.... .
....
o.
Fallon Rd.
Tassajara Rd.
\ ~# ::
~ #... ~..
. #, ~~
~ '..,1....", ..~.....~............
~ .. ..
~ .. .....41.....................
.... .
\ ... :
~ ..
. ."
o .
~ ..
. ."
......
+- J: .,
l-
e:
0
z
It'
.
.
.
I.;..
.
- .
.
.
I
.
.
.
III
Ii
.
.
...............
.
......
.....:...
Ql
.s
c.
CI)
CIl
CIl
.:(
"iij
I:
CIl
....
I-
-d
a:
I:
ell
a:
,g
"(3
CIl
a.
en:
o
o
.
o
.......
c:
o
~
ell
CIl
a
o
a)
10
-d
,..
CD
c:
=
.c
::J
C
Dr.
I:
1-0
a:=
alii.. < f
1%1(1)
~
z
-
...J
m I'll
(I) (I) !
"5 "5 :::) C :g ~
0 0
".r::;. "Il) C CO 0
"OE 0 0
.r::;. (1)- (l)e - ?- m
ia -Ill -Ill Q. .. '"
CO) a. g,a. ~ Z I>> i . <(
ctS... .2 (I) .2 Il) -
c: a: (.) ~ en
en III CO~ co~ . it)., ::.::
C>. -.s _co =cc W 0- .Q ."0 Cl
ctSCI) '" lfJ lfJ .... 0 I!!;
(I) lfJ lfJ t- o- a: :~~ w
(I') .C . 1:1 III III (.)
U'5 (Il (3 (3 . 'l!" . 0
...0) a. en G) u oS"h a:
en- .! !J~:
0>0 , . 0 <C Co :;)
~ . 0 'ii 0
>- , 0 en J "0;
::J"OO . 0 W == =a~ en
, . 0
C) 0>.- . 0
i!:a..m I . 0
E-~
..... z
.'
I
.
I
I
I
I
,
J
1-
I
fli., . l~
:.~.~<:......a.....,:
:', ,
. '",,-
: , ~....
. , \.
: " ,....,
" I \
\ I Fa"~1'to..Go;l,._
J oodiooooooooooooo~o
I 0000....,
00
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
..."...-
o .
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.in 0
eo
III 0
... 0
1-0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
,.........
.......... 1:1
:.- :>
CO
.S;
J5
:;:I
Cl
Dr.
o
o
-
o
/XI
It")
-
-.
...411I..._...
,0 ~";;l~j;':::,:-~',
'""
'.
, :..;~: :1/.',
.'.'....;.~}:.;:'
'"'\ "
, ........... ~""-.:.
~ 65913.3
Repealed
~ 65913.3. Repealed by Stats.1993, c. 56 (A.B.2351), A 22.2
GOVERNMENT CODE
Historical and Statutory Notes
Section 65913.3 was amended by Stats.1983, c. 1263, ~ 2
and Stats.1987, c. 1430, ~ 1, prior to repeal. See, now,
Government Code ~ 15399.51.
~ 65913.4. Repealed by Stats.1990, c. 31 (A.B.1259), A 2, elf. March 26, 1990
Historical and Statutory Notes
The repealed section, added by Stats.1985, c. 1117, ~ 2, and incentives for developers reserving units for lower
amended by StatsJ986, c. 1190, ~ 1; Stats.1989, c. 842, income households.
~ 2, provided for a density bonus, regulatory concessions
/
A 65913.5. Density bonus for developer of housing within one-half mile of mass transit guideway
station
(a) As part of implementation of the demonstration program established pursuant to Section 14045 of
the Government Code, a city, county, or city and county participating in the demonstration program shall
grant a density bonus to a developer of housing within one-half mile of a mass transit guideway station
unless the locality finds that granting of the density bonus would result in a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (D of Section 65915, as used in this section, "density bonus" means a
density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise inaximum residential density allowed under the
general plan and any applicable zoning and development ordinances.
(c) A city, county, or city and county may require a developer to enter into a development agreement
pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 to
implement a density bonus granted pursuant to this section.
(d) In an action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul a density bonus granted pursuant to
this section, a court shall uphold the decision of a city, county, or city and county to grant the density
bonus if the court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development will
assist the city, county, or city and county to do all of the following:
(1) Meet its share of the regional housing needs detennined pursuant to Article 10.6 (commencing with
Section 65580) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(2) Implement its congestion'management plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 2.6 (commencing with
Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve any local agency from complying with the
provisions of the Congestion Management Program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
(Added by Stats.1990, c. 1304 (S.B.2559), ~ 5.)
1990 Legislation
Application of Stats.l990, c. 1304 (S.B.2559) to all cities,
counties, and cities and counties, including charter cities,
see Historical and Statutory Notes under ~ 14035.1.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Fonner ~ 65913.5 was renumbered ~ 66008 and amend-
ed by Stats.1988, Co 418, ~ 4.
~ 65913.8. Public capital facility improvement related to development project; prohibition of fee
or other payment including amount for maintenance and operation as condition for
approval; exceptions
A fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency for a public
capital facility improvement related' to a development project may not include an amount for the
maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of payment is required
as a condition of the approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a condition of the approval.
However, a fee, charge, or other form of payment may be required for the maintenance and operation of
an improvement meeting the criteria of either subdivision (a) or (b), as follows:
(a) The improvement is (1) designed and installed to serve only the specific development project on
which the fee, charge, or other form of payment is imposed. (2) the improvement serves 19 or fewer lots
Additions or changes indicated by undertlnej deletions by asterisks * * *
32
EXHIBIT 6 (of Staff Report)
Government Code Sec. 65913.2
L
~~ .
-..,. ...
GOVERNMENT CODE
~ 65915
or units, and (3) the local agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that it is infeasible or
impractical to form a public entity for maintenance of the improvement or to annex the property served
by the improvement to an entity as described in subdivision (b). '
(b) The improvement is within a water district, sewer maintenance district, street lighting district, or
drainage district. In these circumstances, a payment for maintenance or operation may be required for a
period not to exceed 24 months when, subsequent to the construction of the improvement, either the local
agency forms a public entity or assessment district to finance the maintenance or operation, or the area
containing the improvement is annexed to a public entity that will finance the maintenance or operation.
whichever is earlier. The local agency may extend a fee, charge, or other form of payment pursuanttil
this section once for whatever duration it deems reasonable beyond the 24-month period upon making a
finding, based upon substantial evidence, that this time period is insufficient for creation of, or annexation
to. a public entity or an assessment district that would finance the maintenance or operation.<-
As used in this section, "development project" and "local agency" have the same meaning as provided
in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 66000.
(Added by Stats.1988, c. 1309, ~ 1.)
CHAPTER 4.3
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES
Section Section
65915.5. Conversion of apartments to condomini-
um project; eligibility; procedure.
65917.5. Child care facility in commercial or in-
dustrial project; density bonus or de-
veloper; ordinance; conditions; as-
sessment on use of space for other
purposes; finding necessary for
change.
Law Review Commentaries
Building and Bargaining in California. William Fulton
(1984) 4 CaI.Lawyer No. 12, p. 36.
~ 65915. Requirements of developer; ordinance specifying method of providing incentives; prelim-
inary development proposal; definitions
(a) When a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local
government, the city, county, or city and county shall provide the developer incentives for the production
of lower income housing units within the development if the developer meets the requirements set forth
in subdivisions (b) and (c). The city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance which shall
specify the method of providing developer incentives.
(b) When a developer of housing agrees or proposes to construct at least (1) 20 percent of the total
units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income
households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total
dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.2 of the Civil
Code, a city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus and at least one of the
concessions or incentives identified in subdivision (h) unless the city, county, or city and county makes a
written finding that the additional concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for
affordable housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code or for rents for the
targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c), or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent
financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit.
(c) A developer shall agree to and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure continued
affordability of all lower income density bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by
the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental
subsidy program. Those units targeted for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of
area median income. Those units targeted for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 ot
the Health and Safety Codet shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of
area median income. If a city, county, or city and county does not grant at least one additional
concession or incentive pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the developer shall agree to and the
city, county, or city and county shall ensure continued affordability for 10 years of all lower income
housing units receiving a density bonus. ' ,
Additions or changes Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks * * *
33
-
r
(,
(-
~
/'
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works
'\A..-
FROM: .... Dennis Carrington, senior Planner
DATE:
November 29, 1994
RE:
Eastern Dublin land use numbers
The city council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (GPA) on May 10, 1993. The dwelling unit and square
footage numbers for commercial uses are contained in Table 2A of
the GPA. School numbers are contained in Table 2A of the GPA and
in Table 4.4-2 (Revised) as shown on Page 631 of Volume II of the
Eastern Dublin EIR Administrative Record. Park numbers are shown
in Table 2A of the GPA and in the Parks Master Plan. These
numbers should be used in calculating the Traffic Impact Fee for
projects within Eastern Dublin. The numbers are as follows:
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
High Density 2,447
Medium High Density 2,680
Medium Density 4,863
Low Density 3,908
Rural Residential 8
13,906
COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET (in millions)
General Commercial 3.435
Neighborhood Comm. .980
Campus Office 3.952
Industrial Park 1.370
9.737
EXHIBIT 1 (of Staff Report)
Land Use Numbers
-- ----_.~.~ --.
1
(<c--
'" .t,...",
PARKS
city Park (1)
Community Park (2)
Neighborhood Pk. (7)
Neighborhood Sq. (7)
SCHOOLS
Elementary School (7)
Junior High School (2)
High School (1)
/edlul
I'
ACRES
56.3
126.7
62.2
13.3
258.5
ACRES
r
NEW STUDEN'rS YIELD
74.1
40.4
55.3
169.8
4,569
2,255
2.907
9,731
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS:
1. Alameda County (representing the County property)
2. Pleasanton Public Works Director (2 letters)
3. TJKM memo to Ted Fairfield (representing the Chang-Su-O-Lin, et. al. properties)
4. CCS (representing Mr. Kenny Wan from Allwin Development for the Pao-Lin
properties)
4
~~~
"
EXHIBIT 8 (of Staff Report)
Written Comments Received and Responses
-:;
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l'
. Development Planning . H0U5ing & Community Development · Policy Planning & Rc;earch · Zoning Administration & Enforcanrnt
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 (510) 670-5400 FAX (510) 785-8793
December 15, 1994
R E C E'j V t: 0
'I C r 'I L.;;''\(\ '
!.-I!......; ......?,; :';JJL;
,DUBUC \;':!/-jP :.e::.
. - ........... .11."_'
Lee Thompson
Dublin Public Works Director
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study
Dear Lee:
Alameda County, as a major property owner in the City of Dublin, is in support
of the City's adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee to pay for local, subregional and
regional transportation improvements that will be impacted by new development.
We believe that a fair and equitable fee system will benefit the City by providing
a means to pay for needed improvements, property owners by allowing them to
calculate, in advance, the share of these improvements that they will be required
to provide when development occurs, and the Tri-Valley region by providing funds
for regional projects that are not all within the City of Dublin.
Alameda County is committed to the development of a multi-modal transportation
system in the Valley that will meet the present and future needs of the area. To
this end, the County has participated in the extension of Dublin Boulevard to
Tassajara Road, improvements to Hacienda and Santa Rita interchanges, and the
East Dublin BART station. While it is anticipated that the Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) will, in time, reimburse the County for a portion of its costs for road and
freeway improvements, the County has made a major investment in the regional
transportation system by committing to provide approximately 17 acres of land, at
no cost, to BART for use as parking and access to the new station. We recognize
that this considerable investment toward the regional transportati~n system is not
part of the TIF program and will not be reimbursed: -However, we request that the
City acknowledge this as a substantial mitigation for transportation impacts which
will benefit all of Dublin, as well as adjoining cities. .
We have reviewed the City TIF Study, prepared by Barton-Aschman and cost
estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson and have the following comments:
"
.......~
Lee Thompson
Dublin TIF Study
Page 2
1. TIF Study, Page 7: A Section I project that should be added to this list is
the cost of the three park-and-ride lots that are required to be built as a mitigation'
measure by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. These parking lots will benefit
all of Eastern Dublin, and therefore should be paid for by the TIF.
2. TIF Study, Page 15: Rather than having each project be subject to. a
separate study to determine the TIP, it would be more straight forward for the City
to adopt standard rates for office, commercial and industrial projects, in a similar
manner to the standard rates being proposed for residential projects. This would
allow developers to accurately calculate the TIF into the project cost. However,
it would be best if the standard rate is a generalized average cost for each type of
land use, such as the ones suggested in the Appendix. Otherwise, the traffic
generation rates may require such a large fee that certain types of specific uses will
be precluded. For instance, using the generation rates suggested by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers for fast-food restaurants, while leaving the pass-by rate
at only 35 %, will produce a TIF that will effectively prevent fast-food restaurants
in Eastern Dublin. Too specific a rate could also be problematic to administer,
especially if precise uses are not known when the fee is collected, or when a new
use occupies a previously used space.
3. TIF Study Appendix: The residential trip generation rates should be
reversed, so that high density housing generates 7 trips, rather than 10. The Office
rate should be 15/ksf, not 5/ksf, if the number of trips generated overall reported
on page 5 are correct.
4. TIF Cost Estimates: The cost estimates for the Transit Spine and Gleason
Drive should be revised to include the cost of bridging Tassajara Creek.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the TIF Study. I have enclosed a traffic
fee ordinance adopted by Alameda County in 1988 which may contain some
language adaptable for administrative procedures in the Dublin program.
Very truly yours,
d/## .
v~~~ Martinelli
Planning Director
Enclosure
cc: Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager
5sc\cdublin \dubtif.124
"
r ..~;~.l~;-7)~~J'>.,
6"~~
~:~I~f~ CITY OF DUBLIN
-t: ~~~ I;))
~,,' (;--~~_./ pO, Box 2340, Dublin. California 94568
.,)! / !' ')\.:;...:/
. "..\'.,n'-'
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. California 94568
December 20, 1994
Mr. Adolph Martinelli
Planning Director
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward CA 94544-1395
Dear Adolph:
Thank you for your input on Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin.
I would like to thank the County for substantially increasing the land value in Eastern Dublin by helping to
make the East Dublin BART Station a reality. If the Eastern Dublin Area had been required, through the
Traffic Impact Fee, to purchase the 17 acres ofland which was donated by the County as part of the
needed transit improvements, the fee would have been substantially higher.
As to your comments:
1. We have added the park and ride lots to the fee for the residential portion of the area, as it will
be the residents (as opposed to the commercial area) that will use the lots.
2. We have added a two-page table of standard trip rates for set uses to make the calculations
more straight forward.
3. We found the typo's in the appendix of the study and have corrected them.
4. The revised estimates have included the cost of these bridges over Tassajara Creek.
Thank you again for your review and comment. If you need any additional information, please feel free to
call my office at (510) 833-6630.
Sincerely,
I PUBU~Wu~
~hornpson
Public Works Director
LST/gr
"
a: (949S) Idecember\20martinelli
I,
Administration (510) 833-6650. City Council (510) 833-6605. Finance (510) 833-6640. Building Inspection (510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833~6610
Police (510) 833-6670 · Public Works (510) 833~6630 · Recreation (510) 833-66..\5
CITY OF PLEASANT ON
December 14, 1994
RECEjVEC
~0 \:;~:~ ~ i?i 1 :~j:.~~~'
Lee Thompson
Public Works Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
r~ ;.._~ 2!~ ~ Co. \.\/ ~=.'. ;:"'. -\ .~:
Dear Lee,
We understand that our respective City Managers met to discuss Dublins' proposed Impact fees
yesterday and determine that there were some questions about equities in funding various 1-580
interchange improvements. The Dublin City manager believed that Dublin would contribute a
share equal to that which Pleasanton had contributed.
Due to our tight schedules during the holiday season and a problem in meeting I would like to
assure we are both working on answering the right questions. My understanding is that if
Pleasanton provides the cost of the Hacienda project, Santa Rita project and our portion of the
Hopyard Road interchange we will be able to itemize our costs. In as much as right of way can
be of concern we will also itemize these expenses.
Dublin can provide descriptions of the specific interchange improvements anticipated in your
East Dublin Specific Plan for Hopyard, Hacienda and Tassajara Interchanges together with any
new information available for EI CharTO estimates which you may have developed. We will ask
George Homolka to provide the cost estimates that he prepared for the previous joint meeting
on the El Charro Interchange.
We should be able from this cost data to break down what the assessments for the freeway
would be to Dublin property owners versus Pleasanton property owners. I believe our primary
concern is to create as equal as possible a playing field for land owners on both sides of the
freeway. . . .
We would like to assure that your staff report on the Impact Fees is accurate in regard to the
equities of freeway improvements and impact on adjacent properties. If you have any questions
please call myself at (510) 484-8041 or Mr. Bill van Gelder at (510) 484-8257.
"
200 OLD BERNAL AVENUE, P.O. BOX 520 . PLEASANTON, CA 94566-0802 . (510) 484-8000 . FAX (510) 484.8291
... j I ~
Mr. Lee Thompson
2
December 14, 1994
We have George Holmoka working on a summary of the freeway cost data. If this does not
adequately respond to the questions as you understand them please let us know.
a). /0. ;'\nt,,-lt-?~.
.i~'-
Randall A. Lum
Director of Public Works
& Utilities
Letters\Thompson.WVG
........ ~--
"
CITY omcES
123 MAIN STREET
CITY COUNCIL
484-800 I
CITY MANAGER
484-8008
CITY ATTORNEY
484-8003
CITY CLERK
484-8235
FINANCE
484-8033
PERSONNEL
484-8012
CITY omcES
200 OLD BERNAL AVE.
PLANNING
484-8023
ENGINEERING
484-8041
BUILDING INSPECDON
484-8015
COMMUNITY SERVICES
484-8160
WATER - BILLING
484-8038
FIELD SERVICES
3333 BUSCH RD.
SUPPORT SERVICES
484-8067
PARKS
484-8056
SANITARY SEWER
484-8061
STREET
484-8066
WATER
484-8071
FmE
4444 RAILROAD AYE.
484-8114
pOLICE
4833 BERNAL AYE.
P.O. BOX 909
484-8127
CITY OF PLEASANTON
P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
December 16, 1994
RECE!\/EO
Lee Thompson
Director of Public Works
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94510
(lCr. 1 t. '~QI~J.
,_' L- -.; -'-..... ;....j,
PUBLIC WORKS
Dear Lee,
Dublin's Traffic Impact Fee
Thank you very much for meeting with George Homolka,
Bill van Gelder, and me to discuss the Homart Project and
the proposed Eastern Dublin traffic impact fees. We
appreciate the ongoing spirit of cooperation.
Our primary concern, as discussed during the meeting
between our two city managers, was the apparent failure
of the proposed traffic impact fee to include costs
associated with Pleasanton's construction of the Santa
Rita/Tassajara, Hacienda and Hopyard/
Dougherty interchanges at 1-580, to the extent that such
construction benefits Dublin.
Dublin's traffic impact fee relates to only three
interchanges and covers solely Dublin's costs for certain
improvements. The Dublin fee is intended to fund the
following:
INTERCHANGE
COST ESTIMATE
Hacienda Interchange
$ 4,056,000\1
Santa Rita/Tassajara
5,600,000'1
....-
El Charro/Fallon
4.095.000\2
Total
$13,751,000
1/ This cost includes $3,762,000 as repayment to Alameda
County for right of way for Hacienda and Santa Rita.
2/ The total cost is estimated at $10,500,OOOi $.4,095,000 is
Eastern Dublin's share (39\).
"
I
( "
I.
-:
On the other hand, Pleasanton expended the following:
INTERCHANGE
Hopyard Road
Hacienda
Santa Rita/Tassajara
$14,200,000
17,700,000
9.900.000
Total
$41,800,000
Moreover, your fee study contemplates Pleasanton
contributing another $1,260,000 for the El Charro
interchange.
As we discussed at our meeting, there was a study (the
Heindel study) completed in the late 1980's which
attempted to distribute fairly the costs of several
interchanges along 1-580. That study concluded, based
solely on estimated costs, that Pleasanton should be
reimbursed over $8 million because it funded more than
its fair share of the improvements.
During our meeting, there appeared to be recognition that
Pleasanton had contributed beyond what it otherwise would
have been required to contribute solely for its
development. I believe there also was a willingness
expressed to refine the benefit/burden analysis, as well
as Dublin's cost estimate, in order to discuss further
whether the traffic impact fee should be revised such
that Pleasanton would be reimbursed for funds already
spent or that certain obligations which otherwise would
fall on Pleasanton would be funded by Dublin.
We also recognize, however, Dublin's need to have this
fee in place at the time it considers the Homart
application. We wish not to be an obstacle in that
effort. Assuming that your Council will act on that
application prior to resolution of Pleasanton's concerns,
I suggest that we make the further benefit/burden
analysis and fee revision a high priority, and meet soon
to determine how this is to proceed.
Finally, we certainly concur that Pleasanton and Dublin
should jointly pursue reimbursement from other
jurisdictions who have benefitted or will benefit from
the 1-580 improvements.
CUtrUlY yours,
\~
Rand 11 A. Lum
Director of Public Works
"
Thompson.RAUah
. ~\02fIY~'1;.
(~~~@)~\ CITY OF DUBLIN
----\~,. ~ //l/j; Po. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
( "!:ili'Zu:;:\:<"
""
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. California 94568
December 22, 1994
Mr. Randall Lum
Director of Public Works
CITY OFPLEASANTON
P. O. }3Qx520
Pleasanton CA 94566-0802
SUBJECT: Dublin's Proposed Traffic Impact Fee
Dear Randy:
This letterisi.n'response to your letters of December 14 and December 16 and our meeting on December
15. Thereiwere a few misstatements in your letter of December 14, 1994. When our respective City
Managers met to discuss Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fees, Pleasanton had some questions about
possible inequities in the way the draft fee was developed. Dublin's approach in the draft report was to
complete the two interchanges (I-580/Hacienda Drive and I-580/Tassajara Road) that Pleasanton had
begun and to pay back Alameda County for the land that the County had dedicated for the two
interchanges.. In the case of the I-580rrassajara interchange, Dublin would be adding a second bridge
across 1-580 to double the size of the overpass, plus make the necessary revisions to the ramps to make the
new overpass work.
It is my understanding that Pleasanton is requesting that Dublin include an element in the proposed traffic
impact fee to balance out Pleasanton's and Dublin's contribution for the cost of the complete interchanges
at 1-580 and Dougherty RoadIHopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road. This
balance would be based on the proportional traffic impacts of the two cities for some area of benefit.
The I-580lDQugherty RoadIHopyard Road interchange improvements were the subject of a previous
agreemerttbetween Dublin and Pleasanton and, as such, were eliminated from the Heindel study. The
costs that the,'City of Dublin has included in Dublin's Traffic Impact Fee Study for the I-580/Hacienda
Drive and 1-580/Tassajara Road interchanges were only to complete the ultimate improvements for these
two facilities.
! .
Administration (510) 833-6650. City Council (510) B33-6605 . Finance (510) 833c6640. Building InSDection (5101 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510\ 833-6620 . Engin€eTlng (5101 333-6630 . Planning (510) 833-6610
POlice (510) 833-6670- P\J::llc Works 1510) 833-6630 · RecreatIon (510) 833-66.15
Letter to Mr. Randall Lum, City of Pleasant on
December 22, 1994
Page 2
The City of Dublin anticipates that it will annually review and update this Traffic Impact Fee. When the
Fee is updated, Dublin could, if the City Council so directs, restudy the two interchanges, determine areas
of benefit, and include Dublin's share of the cost in the Fee.
In the meantime, perhaps a better approach would be to work for inclusion of the cost of these
interchanges in the Regional Fee that the TVTC is working on to try to better distribute the cost over all
the jurisdictions that are benefiting.
I hope this answers your concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at (510)
833-6630.
Sincerely,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
~jcfJ~
Lee S. Thompson
Public Works Director
LST/gr
a: (9495) \december\201um
ff
.~. :_:,~:-'.:';Y~3'~:~;u.;.',\}:~>:~~~:~}N:.:Y.{~;:'.:..':...'......" --~:..~:.,. ':, ,:<.
. .;..--..,
',d.' ,_.::"'"
-' . ~ >;. ' .. .. . ."
. . ~',' . ! ,.. .. ." .......
. ' '.~ " ~
-- .<,:;.. - ~ ,"' - .
" ;:_-,<;t.);:~Y.'~-:~.._,... --
-- ." :-.... ; -,. -.::. -. ~ .
-=-
DEC 21 '94 10:24 TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
P.2
TJKM MEMORANDUM
December 20, 1994
Project 157-066
To:
Ted Fairfield
Copies to:
Marty Inderbitzen, Bob Harris & Rod Andrade
RECEIVED
Subject:
My review of Draft Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin
DEG ~~ 1. 19S1.
From:
Chris D. Kinzel
.:}. : Q i :"'. ~.,;..-, r- .".....
......... '-! \.... 'I 'J ',....Jr-; r, -::::
My comments on the subject report are as follows:
1. Page 5, Trip Generation: The report does not describe how the total trips were obtained.
Pass~by trips are mentioned, but no mention is made of potential double-counting of trips.
For example, a trip from a home in E. Dublin to ajob in E. Dublin is the same trip, but may
be accounted for twice in the process that is used. If there were an intermediate stop for
shopping, this would be classified as a pass~by trip. Pass-by trips are described in the write-
up. Double counting of trips is not necessarily a problem, since it would account for more
trips than actual, but reduce the cost per trip. Ifnot double counted, the trips would typically
be assigned to the home end of the trip, not the job end of the trip.
2. Page 6, Dublin Boulevard funding: It is easy to make the argument that others
(Livermore developers, mainly) should help pay for the six laIling of Dublin Boulevard,
particularly the section east of Fallon Road. However, this could introduce the subject ofE.
Dublin developers reimbursing (Triad) or improving Dublin BoulevardlN. Canyon
Parkway/Airway Boulevard between E.Dublin and the Airway interchange. E. Dublin is
shown to be on the hook for some of the improvements of the Airway interchange so this
confirms the potential for E. Dublin helping out on the previously constructed improvements
in the Triad area. If reimbursement of existing improvements is not an issue, and it probably
won't be, then letting others help on the E. Dublin portion of Dublin Boulevard probably
makes sense. .
3. Page 6, Hacienda Drive improvements: I understand the County and/or Dublin are
currently pl~""i"g to have two right angle bends in the roadway. I suggest it be mentioned
that this roadway would have much greater utility in the future if it were planned to have
a design speed of at least 45 miles per hour.
4. Page 6, Hacienda Interchange improvements: It is not clear to me why the E. Dublin
developers should reimburse the County for 100 percent of the interchange right of way
dedication since NPID is a major user of this interchange. At best, a smaller percentage
should be utilized. The County should have struck its own deal with NPlD: If it didn't,
shoulq. E. Dublin have to pay? ",
- '-~._"'
DEC 21 '94 10:25 TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
P.3
Ted Fairfield, page 2
December 20, 1994
5. Page 6, Transit Spine and Gleason Drive; It could be argued that these roadways have
more local and less area-wide importance and could be paid for 100 percent by adjacent
property owners rather than spread over all ofE. Dublin. !
6. Page 7, Tassajara Road: The cost of the right of way for lanes 5 and 6 north of Dublin
Boulevard should be reimbursed by Contra Costa County developers, if a mechanism for such
reimbursement has been/will be established.
7. Page 7, Fallon Road: I am not certain that there will be a need for six lanes on Fallon
Road north of Dublin Boulevard. However, making reservations for future widening is
probably not a bad idea.
8. Page 8, Airway interchange: It will be difficult to assess Contra Costa County developers
for any appreciable s}1are of the improvements at this interchange.
9. Page 11, Study methodology: It is very unusual to use.dmlY. rather than Dealt hour. trips
to determine impact fees for mixed use developments. Streets and intersections are sized
based on peak hour traffic, not on daily traffic. ~sidential uses tend to have a smaller
portion of their trips during the peak hours, so the use of daily trips as an indicator would
penalize residential uses and favor non-residential uses, particularly those primarily
generating employment trips.
10. Page 13, Fees ~ Scarlett Drive: Scarlett Drive, the diagonal street connecting Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, will be a key route for traffic between Contra Costa County
and the E. Dublin BART station. However, Table 2-3 indicates that 0 percent of the traffic
on this roadway will be from Contra Costa County. This needs to be checked.
11. Page 13-14, Fees: Several of the costs on these charts need explanation. Costs for the
FallonJ1~580 and Airway/I-580 interchanges seem low, the I~5801I-680 interchange cost of $5. 6
million requires explanation, as does the $9 million cost for Route 84 (total cost estimate is
$200 million), and $16 million for improved transit services. .
Appendix, General Trip Generation Rates: A portion oftbis table has errors. High density
residential has less trips per unit than low density; the table indicates the opposite.
Appendix, TIF Roadway Cost Estimates: This table requires a significant amount of addit-
ional information so that the estimates and assumptions can be checked. A map indicating
the segment locations is required; clarification of all estimates and assumptions is required.
All in all, the TIF study report seems somewhat sketchy given the magnitude of the
improvements and the significance of the fees to E. Dublin. There are no maps of the
improvements, no explanation of what regional land use assumptions were made, nor is there
a detailed explanation of how regional costs were apportioned among various agencies. The
report needs more information for the reader to be able to validate the accuracy of the
assumptions and calculations.
Please contact me if there are qu~~tions regarding this review.
A-:i..--61'hflj>,
~01~~'~~,\~
_~_~(~.:'_~,-~I~~, ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
~ -~,'\'..... Po. Box 2340. Dublin, California 94568
'-:tlJn~Y>\/
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
December 22, 1994
Mr. Chris D. Kinzel
TJKM
4637 Chabot Drive, #214
Pleasanton, CA 94588
SUBJECT:
Comments on Proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Report
Dear Chris:
Thank you for sharing your comments on Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fee. I will
attempt to answer questions and comments raised in your memo to Ted Fairfield.
1. Trip Generation:
Passby trips were included in the trip generation totals, as were internal trips.
These were accounted for in the distribution and assignment, however, so the
roads are not oversized. The comment acknowledges that this double-counting
does not pose a problem since it merely lowers the per-trip fee. Whether double-
counting of trips is included in the program or not, individual developments will
pay the same total amount. The approach that was used has the advantage of
being much simpler to apply than an approach that attempts to eliminate double-
counting.
2. Dublin Boulevard Funding:
It can be argued that Livermore should pay for some of the Dublin Boulevard
Widening and Extension. However, Livermore would then argue that Dublin
should pay for North Canyons Parkway and other roads in Livermore. Therefore,
we have decided that each jurisdiction be responsible for its own roads. If
agreements suggesting otherwise are adopted sometime in the future, the impact
fee could be amended accordingly.
3. Hacienda Drive Design:
This is a good design suggestion and we will keep it in mind; however, it is not an
issue pertaining to the impact fee.
, ,
(continued)
Administration (510) 833-6650 . City Council (5101833-6605 · Finance (510) 833-6640 · Building Inspection (510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 · Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-6610
Police (510) 833-6670 . PubliC Works (510) 833-6630 . Recreation (510) 833-6645
December 22, 1994
Chris Kinzel, TJKM
Eastern Dublin TIF
Page 2.
4. Hacienda Interchange Improvements:
When Pleasanton was originally building the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road
interchanges with 1-580, some right-of-way was needed for ramps on the north
side ofI-580. Alameda County dedicated the land necessary for the work on the
north side of the freeway and Pleasanton extended their work on the north side of
1-580 to serve Dublin's ultimate needs. The extended ultimate work was sized to
very nearly match the value of the amount of land that the County dedicated.
These additional improvements then reduced the amount of work that Dublin
would have to do in the future. This exchange was included in an agreement
between Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County.
5. Transit Spine and Gleason Drive:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR, to which the City must adhere, specify
that these roads have four lanes and that their cost be shared among the Eastern
Dublin developments. The premise is that any major road width greater than two
lanes is designed to serve area-wide needs. Two-lane roads are designated as
solely serving adjacent properties.
6.
Tassaiara Road:
.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for Tassajara Road to be four lanes in a
six-lane right-of-way. Dublin City Staff are now involved in discussions
regarding cost sharing with Contra Costa County. If these discussions result in an
agreement by Contra Costs County to share any additional costs, the fee could be
amended accordingly.
7. Fallon Road:
Same response as above for Tassajara Road:- -
8. Airway Interchange:
Dublin City Staff are involved in discussions regarding cost sharing with Contra
Costa County. Ifthese discussions result in an agreement by Contra Costa
County to share any additional costs, the fee program could be amended
accordingly.
I,
~
December 22, 1994
Chris Kinzel, TJKM
Eastern Dublin TIF
Page 3.
9. Daily vs. Peak-Hour Trips:
The fee could be based on peakwhour trips, rather than daily trips; however, the
City will have a much easier time determining daily trips for new development
rather than peak-hour trips. Also, daily trips are a less volatile measure of impact
than peak-hour trips: they don't fluctuate as much on an individual project basis.
10. Scarlett Drive:
The table in the impact fee study should not be construed to indicate that zero
Contra Costa County traffic would use Scarlett Drive, but rather that Contra Costa
County is not being asked to contribute to the cost of Scarlett Drive. The table
shows cost responsibility, which is not necessarily the same as proportionate
impact.
11. Costs of Regional Improvements:
The cost estimate for the Fallon interchange was prepared by the City of Dublin
Staff based on modifications to an estimate by Greiner Engineering. The Greiner
estimate was for an interchange specially designed to accommodate large trucks
destined to or leaving the quarries on EI Charro Road. This extra design would
not benefit Dublin. The cost estimate in the impact fee study is for an interchange
to serve normal traffic. The cost estimate for the Airway interchange is based on
figures from the City of Livennore. No other estimates are available, so these are
being used. The impact fee program may need to be amended in the future if
newer designs and estimates become available.
The 1-580/1-680 interchange costs and the $16 million for transit improvements
come directly from the Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan, which is the most
up-to-date document available. The $9 million cost for Route 84 reflects a four-
lane Isabel Avenue project, which is what was assumed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. There is already a funded project to connect Isabel Avenue as a two-lane
road in a six-lane right-of-way and to build an IsabellI-580 interchange. The $9
million reflects the cost of upgrading Isabel Avenue from two lanes to four lanes.
The $5.6 million 1-5801Iw680 interchange cost is the "locally" unfunded portion of
the project.
"
December 22, 1994
Chris Kinzel, TJKM
Eastern Dublin TIP
Page 4
Appendix:
The table in the Appendix had typographical errors which have since been
corrected.
More Documentation:
The City will be happy to provide more background documentation to you upon
request.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 833-6630.
Sincerely,
-)C
Lee S. Thompson
Public Works Director
LST/mb
a:\dec\22kinze/
,-".
"
94046
/:(
f'cs.
..! V,-...
OCr t:: l)
J.... 1.." 9] ....
/:) ~"7.", .
, ! /.0 ' '>,~!."
........v. ..;r.....
to.. ,it-'; . .
....F !I] /..--.
""0'-",
1//\-.;..,
"~_I
:J)\b
,tf
ccs
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
INCORPORATED
December 20, 1994
Corporate Headquarters
42080 Osgood RO(lt!. Suile Dlle
FremOIlI. C(llifomi(l94539.0350
510;656-7091 . F(lX 510/656-3825
Lee Thompson
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Comments on the "Traffic Impact FeejEastem Dublin. Report
On behalf of Mr. Kenny Wan from Allwin Development for the Pao-Lin property located within. the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Area, I am submitting this written comments upon the review of Traffic
Impact Fee/Eastern Dublin Report prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in November 1994
and other related documents.
The following describes some of our major concerns on the implementation of traffic impact fees for
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area:
1. Imposing Traffic Impact Fees Based on the Number of Residential Units Rather Than Trip
Generation Rate.
The report recommends assessment of traffic impact fees on new residential developments
based on number of dwelling units and on non-residential developments based on each
building square foot floor area. However, this method of assessment conflicts with the
methodology used in detennining the total amount as impacts fees sOught. The reports
methodology in deriving traffic impact fees fIrst estimated total trips generated by all potential
developments in the Eastern Dublin Area. At the same time, total improvement costs for
roadway facilities which will be used by trips generated from the area were calculated. The
report then converted the unit cost per trip to unit cost per dwelling unit for residential use
and per square foot for non-residential land uses. Because basing the impact fee only on the
number of dwelling units and the square footage of a non-residential building, this method
does not take into account the reduced trip generation, thus reduced traffic impacts of
developments in the Town Center planning areas.
The Town Center areas have been designed to encourage higher density residential
developments and neighborhood commercial. The areas will also be encouraged to promote
pedestrian and bicycle access within the areas and to provide opportunities to use alternative
transportation modes. Mixed use development- in the Town. Center areas, along with
convenient access to use alternative transportation modes. will ensure reduce trip generation
per residential dwelling unit and commercial square footage when compared to the trip rates
for the same type devel~pment located outside the Town Center area.
The assessment of traffic impact fees based on dwelling unit and square footages rather than
trip generation penalizes development in the Town center areas and will create an unfair
fmancial burden on developments within the Town Center area. In fact, this will make
affordable housing in feasible. ",
, ,
TRANSPORTATION
TRAFFIC
PARKINC
I V '"' 5
.-
Lee Thompson
City of Dublin Public Works Department
December 20, 1994
Page 2
Government Code Section 65913.2 requires the City Council to consider the effect of an
ordinance with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. The
Government Code requires the City to refrain from imposing regulation s which would make
housing infeasible for any segment of the community. Housing developments in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area will help the City to meet the ABAG projected housing needs in
Dublin.
2. Lack of Administrative Guidelines for Reimbursement or Credit Against the Traffic Impact
Fees
The Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance added Chapter 7.82 to the Municipal Code of the
City of Dublin. Section 7.82.040 Developer Construction of Facilities states that "If a
developer is required, as a condition of approval of a permit, to construct a transportation
facility that has been designated to be fInanced with Transportation Impact Fees and if the
facility has supplemental size, length, or capacity over that needed for the impacts of the
development, a reimbursement agreement with the developer and a credit against the Fee
otherwise levied by this ordinance on the development project shall be offered by the City."
However, Section 7.82.050 Administration Guidelines states that "The City Council may, by
resolution, adopt Administrative Guidelines to provide procedures for the calculation,
reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects of the Traffic
Impact Fee."
In absence of these "Administrative GuidelinesH, how can developers of developments in the
Town Center area be assured that reimbursement or credit will occur based on potential trip
reductions, as compared with the assumptions made for the calculation of Traffic Impact Pees
for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area?
3. Unreasonable Allocation of Cost Sharing
Section 3.3 Traffic and Circulation of Eastern Dublin SpecifIc Plan and General Plan
Amendment EIR, specifically Table 3.3-8 shows only nine percent ofEastem Dublin residents
would work in Bishop Ranch, and other San Ramon area to the north of Eastern Dublin.
Approximately seven percent of employees in theEastern Dublin area will come from the
Dougherty Valley, Bishop Ranch and other San Ramon area from the north.
Also, Figure3.3-E shows that less than 50 percent of future daily traffic volumes on Fallon
Road north of Dublin Road would be attributed to the full developments in Eastern Dublin
(13,900 daily trips under the scenario of 2010 With Project as compared to the 28,500 daily
trips under the scenario of Bui/dout with Project). It also shows that only approximate 60
percent of daily volumes on Tassajara Road north of Dublin Road would be ~ttributed to the
, ,
-:-
Lee Thompson
City of Dublin Public Works Department
December 20, 1994
Page 3
full developments of Eastern Dublin (24,100 trips under the scenario of 2010 With Project
as compared to 40,900 trips under the scenario of Buildout With Project.)
The Traffic Impact Fee report includes costs of a four-lane roadway, with six-lane right-of-
way, for the above segment of Fallon Road and six-lane roadway with eight-lane right-of-way
for the above segment of Tassajara Road. These cost estimates are included in the "Section
1 Pees" category which is to be borne solely by Eastern Dublin. Because of the high
percentage of through traffic (traffic not generated by Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project),
these costs should be included in "Section 2 Pees" category which will be a shared
responsibility between Eastern Dublin, Dublin, Contra Cost County, Livermore, and
Pleasanton.
The recommended traffic impact feeS of $3,160 for each single-family residential unit and
$2,200 for a single multi-family residential unit are significantly higher than the traffic impact
fees imposed by adjacent cities. Attachment A shows a comparison of Typical Growth
Impact Fees compiled by City of Pleasanton.
We urge you to defer the adoption of recommended traffic impact fee plan for Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area until you address and resolve our concerns as listed above. We also urge you to
consider providing [manciaI incentives for developers in the Town Center area to promote the use of
transportation modes and to provide afforable housing needed in Dublin.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Wan at 818 285-9823 or myself at 510 656-7091.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
/~7 '\ "
di;e. ~
Chwen C. Siripocanont, P.E., T.E.
enclosure: Attachment A
MCl2.!l4 B:\94046\DUBIlN.LO 1
"
r.n ~~ s
~ ~
- ~~
E-t
U
~
~ ;z
0 ~ =
.. ""
:c ~ ~- '"
.- "'"
E-c c;;,'
-
~
r.n VI 0 S
~ "<:"....,
~~ t'-;.CO
MM
~ ~""
t) ~ ..,
<@3
~~ -
Q
-~ ::
'"
:=q
~-~
~~
~ -
c.? ~ . r::8 <"'l
~~ ,...,
~...... cO': " . "
'-:<"1
U Yl~ {fl "
-
~
~ l:l: " l:l: <:l
0 ~ t; 1<: ~ "'"
Q <> ..
Z ...... ~ .., -.. .. ~ :z:
---.<>-_--.~..
itiJ!tii; ~
0 .... ~ e~ ..a, _-c
tI.2 Q, .. Q.:! ~ q;;,'
Ea -2a.a .2g....
~""'"l..,-e...,~..
~.~.:.-4 ~
-< "'-.. :t"'"l" .
~ ~2"'<;g-..;2;:;...
~ 00 <=>
COO ~
0 ~
_M ....
U ~~ ""
~ '.-
--
. ~-~~
I- '" "
..~ ,-..,., .~ '> ""
... 'IG
U- :;E-. , ~ b~ 'IG ~ ~
,.,
:t ~:s
<C -~
..,
a:: :0.
~
0 ~
y -....
~\Z:(~i~
'-' ~~~. ,:t.
r~~I~~1
-~~~~
", I/! C(:~f':\>'
CITY OF DUBLIN
Po. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
December 22, 1994
Ms. Chwen C. Siripocanont
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
42080 Osgood Road, Suite One
Fremont, CA 94539-0350
SUBJECT: Proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Report
Dear Ms. Siripocanont:
Thank you for your comments on the City's proposed Traffic Impact Fees. We have
reviewed your comments and offer the following responses:
1. Imposing fees based on units. rather than trip generation rates:
This comment requests that lower trip generation rates be used for multi-family
development when it is in the city center. The proposed fee does take into
account the difference between an average single-family home and an average
multi-family home. The proposed fee is based on a trip rate of7 trips per unit per
day for multi-family development and 10 trips per unit per day for single-family
development. These rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) manual for Trip Generation which is based on hundreds of studies. The ITE
multi-family rate is lower partly due to the fact that these units tend to be located
in city-center areas where walking and transit use is possible. It is important to
recognize that the ITE rates are averages for the land use category. Individual
projects will be higher or lower than the average, but in order to be fair to all
developers, the City is proposing to use the ITE average rates to determine fees.
The proposed fee does take into consideration housing needs by using a smaller
trip generation rate for calculating the fees for multi-family uses. It does need to
be pointed out, however, that Eastern Dublin must pay its way for all the
infrastructure improvements.
2. Guidelines for credit against impact fees:
The intent of the impact fee program is for a developer to have the option of
directly installing some of the impact fee program network. This would be
credited toward his impact fee based on the City's estimate of the value of the
road improvements. The City will be developing Administrative Guide,Iines for
"credits" once the fee ha$, been adopted.
Administration (510) 833-6650. City Council (510) 833-6605. Finance (510) 833-6640. Building Inspection (510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-6610
Police (510) 833-6670 · PubliC Works (510) 833-6630 · Recreation (510) 833-66..\5
'"
December 22, 1994
Chwen C. Sirpocanont
Eastern Dublin TIF
Page 2.
3. Allocation of cost sharing:
The cost sharing concepts that are included in the fee study are specified in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR, which are adopted documents to which the
City must adhere. Dublin will pay for roads in its jurisdiction, and Pleasanton and
Livermore will pay for roads in their jurisdictions. Dublin City Staff are presently
involved in discussions regarding cost sharing with Contra Costa County for the
need to oversize some of the facilities, such as Tassajara Road and Dougherty
Road. If these discussions result in an agreement by Contra Costa County to
share any additional costs, the fee program could be amended accordingly. At
this point, Tassajara Road will only be improved to a four-lane facility, which is
needed for the Dublin development. The additional two-lanes of the ultimate six-
lane facility are not part of the fee.
The City will be updating this Fee on a regular basis (approximately annually) and these
concerns will be reevaluated at that time.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 833-6630.
(j:Y'Jjl,~
Lee S. Thompson
Public Works Director
LST/mb
a:\dec\22chwenc
"