HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 RevEDublinTrafficImpactFee
.'
I
I;
"
I'
I;
"
SUBJECT:
.' . .j.,:' i'~rl',
CITY CLERK
File # Db3l[9][(2]-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 9, 1996
~
Revision to Eastern DQ.\?lin Traffic Impact Fee/.Area of
Benefit Fee - Continued Public Hearing ..
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
Resolution Establishing Revised Traffic Impact
Fee/Area of Benefit Fee for Future Developments
within the Eastern Dublin Area, including the
following exhibils:
EXlUBITS ATTACHED:
Attach. 1
I'
.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Land Use Map
Traffic Impact Fee Report by TJKM
(January 4, 1996, as revised)
Report of Roadway Costs by Santina
& Thompson (January 3, 1996, as
revised)
List'ofProperties by Assessor's Parcel
Numbers
Fee Schedule
Area of BenefitJMajor Thoroughfares
and Bridges
Attach. 2
Written Comments from the Public with Responses
~.
BACKGROUND'DOCUMENTS 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
4)
5)
General Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Barton-Aschman Traffic Impact Fee Report (Nov. 1994)
Resolution No. 1-95
.----------------------COpiESTO:-P;op;rtYo;;;r;&rt;r;~;d-Partie-;----------
;;,v lTEM,,,NO. b4-
g:\agenmisc\tifrev
,..'.!Il."
,,~,j:'
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open Public Hearing .
Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Close Public Hearing, determine value of protests (to area of
benefit fee only) and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Revising the Traffic Impact Fee/Area of
Benefit Fee for Future Developments within the Eastern
Dublin Area
'i
'I
II
I,
I'
'i
I
FINANCIAL STATEMENT;
The cost of preparing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee report
is included in the Fee. Fees collected will be used tp construct or
reimburse for transportation improvements associated with Eastern
Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the City Council Meetings of January 23rd, February 27th and March 26,
1996, to receive additional comments from property owners and to incorporate those comments into the
report.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted by the City in 1993.
The General Plan Amendment (GP A) outlines future land use plans for the 4,176 acre eastern Dublin
sphere ofinfluence. Approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of
commercial/office/industrial development are anticipated in the GP A area, in addition to parks, open
space, and institutional uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SP) provides more specific detailed
goals, policies, and action programs for the 3,313 acre portion of the OP A nearest the City.
Approximately 2,744 acres to the east of the City's sphere of influence are designated on the Land Use
Map (Exhibit A of resolution) as "Future Study Axea." The GPA does not outline future land uses in this
area and this area was not considered in developing the Traffic Impact Fee.
.
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the OP A and SP (SCH No. 91103064).
The EIR was certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution No. 51-93). Two addenda, dated
May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994, have been prepared.
Chapter 5.0 of the SP addre,ses Traffic and Circulation. The existing roads are generally rural in
character and adequately serve existing development in the area, which is rural residential (EIR, Pl'. 2-3).
The transportati,on and circulation systems for the SP are designed to provide convenient access to and
mobility within the SP area.
The road system is characterized by three major north-south and east-west streets to accommodate traffic .
in the SP area (SP 5.2.1). The north-south streets are Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road,
and ~~t-~t streets are Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, and Gleason Road. These streets are all
planne!\~<l four- or six-lane streets. Other streets necessary for development of the SP are local
" "
Page 2
.. ,. ,"I!-.u~..
. roads which will be constructed by developers to provide access to their properties as they develop. No
fees are necessary to provide for such roads.
The SP also identifies certain freeway improvements and interchange improvements necessary to
accommodate traffic to and from the SP area (SP 5.2.12). The SP includes a policy (Policy 5-10) that
transit service should be provided within one quarter mile of95 percent of the SP population. It also
establishes park-and-ride lots adjacent to freeway interchanges on the three north-south streets (SP 5.7.2).
Finally, to encourage non-motorized forms of transportation, the SP provides for a network of pedestrian
trails (Policy 5-15) and bike paths (policy 5-17 and Figure 5.3).
In analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the EIR assumed that certain improvements would be
constructed and that development within the SP/GPA areas would pay its proportionate share of the cost
of such improvements (EIR, pp 3.3-16 to 3.3-18). The EIR also includes a number of mitigation measures
to mitigate the transportation-related impacts of the project (EIR, p. 3.3-19 to 3.3-29). These mitigation
measures were adopted by the City Council as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution No.
53-93).
The General Plan contains a policy that new development pay for infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C). The SP contains a similar goal and policy
(Policy 10-1, page 151).
. The City Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee ordinance at its December 12, 1994, meeting
(Ordinance No. 14-94). This ordinance provides the authority for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
("TIF"), which was adopted by the Council on January 9, 1995 by Resolution 1-95. The TIF was based
on two reports: a study prepared by Barton-Asclunan Associates ("Study"), and a report prepared by
Santina & Thompson ("Cost Estimate Report").
UPDA TED FEE STUDY
The City Council directed Staffto update the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee periodically. TJKM has
prepared a revised report (the "Study Update") which updates the Barton-Asclunan Study.
A separate report was prepared by Santina and Thompson ("Cost Estimate Report Update") which
provides updated estimates of the cost of constructing the improvements which are included in Categories
I and 2 of the Study. TrKM's Study Update and Santina & Thompson's updated cost estimates
incorporate changes based on last year's comments from the public.
The major concerns by developers at the initial approval of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee,
and that were deferred to this first update, were:
1)
The developers east of Tassajara Road were concerned that the values assigned to their
properties for the determination of fees and for reimbursement and credit for building
improvements and dedicating right-of-way was too low compared to the property west of
Tassajara Road.
.
Page 3
2)
There was concern by the representatives of the Pao Lin property that the assigned traffic
trip rate for the Town Center was too high and that there were only two tiers of residential
density used to spread the trip rates and costs.
.
The major changes to the original Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study identified in this Study Update
include the following:
1) A new method was used and the policy changed for valuing right-of-way. This new policy
establishes the right-of-way value assuming that infrastructure is developed to each site
(which will be the case when each fee is paid). Using this criteria, the land value for the
street right-of-way acquisition was determined to be significantly higher than last year's
estimates. The valuations have been set to give higher values to those properties closer to
1-580 and diminish as the distance increases from the freeway. The valuation amounts are
based on the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority's Contracts of Sale to two major
users (residential property to Kaufman & Broad and commercial property to Homart - now
Developers Diversified, both at $7 per square foot).
The land values used in this Eastern Dublin analysis are as follows:
a) Duhlin Boulevard and arterial streets south of Dublin Boulevard to 1-580: $7.00/sq ft
b) Transit Spine and arterial streets south of the Transit Spine
and north of Dublin Boulevard:
$4.55/sq ft .
c) Arterial streets north of the Transit Spine:
$3.00/sq ft
2) Changes were made in the residential land use categories to add more tiers of density.
3) A more detailed construction cost estimate has been prepared.
4) Construction cost inflation factor was considered.
5) Interest on loans from other agencies who advanced monies, improvements and land was
incorporated.
The Barton-Aschman Study and the Study Update divide the required transportation and traffic
improvements into three categories:
Category 1 (or Section I) improvements are those improvements within the SP area which are
needed for development of the SP and GPA areas. The Study concludes that development within
the SP /GP A areas should contribute 100% of the funding for these improvements. Because the
existing improvements within the SP/GP A area are adequate for existing development, there are
no "existing deficiencies" which must be funded by sources other than new development within
the area, except that Contra Costa County is responsible for its portion of new road improvements.
.
Category 2 (or Section II) improvements are those improvements located within the City of
Dublin, but outside of the Eastern Dublin SP/GPA area, which are needed not only for the
Page 4
.
development of the SP/GPA areas but for other development within Dublin and the surrounding
areas. The Study calculated the SP/GPA's proportionate share of these improvements.
Category 3 (or Section III) improvements are improvements of a regional nature which are not
within the City of Dublin but are needed for development of the SP/GPA areas as well as other
development within the Tri-Valley area. The Study calculates the SP/GPA's proportionate share
of these regional improvements. The Study Update uses the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
report for cost estimates for this category.
Government Code Section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. This resolution is one step in
the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13,906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
The Study Update and Cost Estimate Report Update conclude that the total cost of all TIF improvements
attributed to the SP/GPA areas rose by approximately $20 million from $101,444,240 to $121,995,379.
This is broken down as follows:
PROJECTED COST OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS
ADDRESSED BY TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
.
Resolution
No. 1-95 TIF
Proposed
Revised TIF
Category 1 Improvements (100% SP Area):
Category 2 Improvements (Outside SP Area-Local):
Category 3 Improvements (Regional):
$ 71,911,500
$ 19,118,740
$ 10.414.000
$ 85,351,314
$ 25,570,473
$ 11.073.592
TOTAL:
$10 1 ,444,240
$121,995,379
The Study determined that development of the SP/GPA areas will generate 421,360 daily vehicle trips.
The Study concludes that "pass-by" trips (one trip stops at more than one destination) account for 35% of
certain retail trips, and reduces the total daily vehicle trips to 344,078.
The Study Update compares the relationship between the total number of trips for residential development
(134,227) and non-commercial development less the 35% reduction (209,851) and concludes that
residential development's share of the total cost is $50,704,928 and the non-residential development's
share is $71,290,451.
The following breakdown identifies the cost per trip, including the amount attributable to each Category
. of Improvements:
Page 5
COST PER TRIP
.
Resolution
No. 1-95 TIF
Proposed
Revised TIF
Category 1 Improvements (100% SP Area):
Category 2 Improvements (Outside SP Area-Local):
Category 3 Improvements (Regional):
$208
$ 55
UQ
$248
$ 74
.$...12
i
"
I ii
I'
,I
I
TOTAL:
$293
$354
APPLICATION OF PER TRIP FEE BY LAND USE
The cost per unit for residential development is developed by applying the per trip charge to the estimated
trip generation. The number of units per category ofland use is based on the SP. This results in the
following fees per housing unit:
RESIDENTIAL FEES PER HOUSING UNIT
Resolution
No. 01-95
Proposed
Fee Per Unit
.
Low Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential (7-14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Residential (more than 25 units per acre)
$3,355
$3,355
$2,350
$2,350
$ 4,182
$ 4,182
$ 2,928
$ 2,509
Non-residential development results in a fee of$354 per trip. The number of trips for non-residential
development will continue to be determined by the estimated weekday trip generation rates for different
uses and types of development. Weekday traffic rates are used as they represent the average traffic use on
the roadway, and thus better relate to the maintenance costs and life of the streets than do the peak hour
traffic rates. The proposed fee will charge development its proportionate share of the actual use of the ,
streets. If the fee were based on peak hour traffic rates, the amount of the fee would be skewed towards
uses which produce more traffic at peak hours, but may produce less overall traffic.
FUTURE AD.nJSlMENTS
The amount of the fee would be adjusted if Council adopts a Regional Transportation Fee recommended
by the Tri- Valley Transportation Council for regional improvements. It is anticipated that such a fee
would replace the Category 3 (Regional Improvements) component of the fee. The fee could also be
adjusted as the result of Staff negotiations for a Traffic Impact Fee with Contra Costa County. In
addition, a periodic review of the fee will be done to address changing construction costs and total cost
affected by the carrying of debts.
.
Page 6
i
I . WRITTEN COMMENTS
Ofthe correspondence received from MacKay & Somps (representing the Jennifer Lin property) and CCS
(representing the Pao Lin property), Staff has either answered with letters and/or met with the people
involved to discuss their concerns. Attachment 2, at the back of this Agenda Statement, includes the
letters received, as well as the responses to the concerns expressed in the letters.
The MacKay & Somps letter covers a variety of comments, most of which have been incorporated into the
resolution and Study.
The CCS letter requests a reduction in the trip generation rates, and a resulting reduction in fees for the
Town Center portion of the Specific Plan.
The proposed updated TIF Study has addressed this issue by creating four residential categories instead
of the two residential categories previously shown. In addition, there has been a reduction in the trip
generation rate for the high density multiple category from 7 trips per unit to 6 trips per unit (a 14%
decrease in traffic generation rate and fee). As the total Eastern Dublin Specific Plan must pay for the
needed transportation infrastructure, this reduction increases the fee for the other land uses categories.
CCS is requesting an additional 30% reduction in trip generation for the Town Center area as they feel
that having a mixed, high density use will greatly reduce the amount of vehicle trips. It is Staff's opinion
.that, as this is a suburban area, even though there will be bus service available on the major streets, there
will not be a significant reduction in trips.
AREA OF BENEFIT FEE
The adoption of an Area of Benefit Fee is called for in the SP. This Area of Benefit Fee would cover the
cost of oversizing the major thoroughfares and bridges within the Specific Plan.
There are six major thoroughfares in Eastern Dublin (Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road,
Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, and Gleason Drive) and three bridges (see Exhibit F of the
resolution). These improvements are included in Category 1 Improvements within the studies prepared
for the Traffic Impact Fee. The imposition of the proposed Traffic Impact Fee would duplicate an Area of
Benefit Fee for construction of such improvements. However, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires
the adoption of an area of benefit fee.
In order to eliminate any doubt as to the validity of a Traffic Impact Fee to pay for the construction of
such improvements, Staffhas included Section 10 of the proposed resolution to satisfy both the
procedural requirements for adoption of a fee under the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (No. 14-94)
and the Area of Benefit Ordinance (No. 10-94).
The amounts shown are identical to the Category 1 Improvements in the Traffic Impact Fee. The Area of
~enefit Fee would be collected only in the event that the Traffic Impact Fee for the same improvements is
~eld to be legally invalid. Thus, there will be no duplication of fees.
Page 7
AREA OF BENEFIT FEE
Low /Medium Density Residential (up to 14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Residential (more than 25 units per acre)
Non-Residential Units
$ 2,130 per unit
$ 1,491 per unit
$ 1,278 per unit
$ 213 per trip
Copies of the public Hearing Notice, draft Staff report and draft resolution were mailed to all East Dublin
property owners on January 9, 1996, in addition to the required public notice which was published.
Revised reports were mailed on April 5, 1996.
Staff recommends that Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the resolution.
Page 8
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. -96
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE
AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA,
AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance
No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a
Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS. the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Specific
Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4.176 acres
within the City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling
units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
.
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action
programs for approximately 3.313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GP A and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land
Use Map contained in the GP A (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shown on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by
Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994
("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway
interchange, and road improvements necessary for implementation of the SP, along with
transit improvements, pedestrian trails. and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic improvements
would be made and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate
share of such improvements; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which
1 A1TACHMENJ~
requires development within Eastern Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain .
transportation improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within
Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the Year 2010,
and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required
by future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995,
establishing an "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" for development within Eastern
Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared
for the City of Dublin by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in a document dated
November 1994 and entitled "Traffic Impact Fee--Eastern Dublin" (hereafter "Study"),
which is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 1-95; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 further relies upon a second report which was
prepared for the City of Dublin by Santina and Thompson in a document dated December
30, 1994, entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Costs, Initial
Level" (hereinafter "Report"), which was attached as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 1-95;
and .
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Resolution No. 1-95 provides that the City will
periodically review the fee and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained TJKM Transportation Consultants to assist the
City in reviewing and updating the Traffic Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, TJKM has prepared a revised report dated January 4, 1996, as
revised and entitled "1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" (hereafter
"Study Update") which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update includes and incorporates revised cost estimates
for anticipated roadway improvements, prepared by Santina & Thompson and dated
January 3, 1996 as revised (hereafter "Cost Estimate Report Update"), which are attached
hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95, in reliance upon the Study and Report, sets
forth the relationship between future development in Eastern Dublin, the needed improve-
ments and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and
.
2
.
.
.
WHEREAS, the Study Update and the Cost Estimate Report Update
demonstrate the appropriateness of modifying the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in
certain respects; and
WHEREAS, the Study Update and the Cost Estimate Report Update were
available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Fee") is
to finance public improvements and facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts
caused by future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements and facilities
are listed in the Study and the Study Update under Sections I, II, and III and are hereafter
defined and referred to as "Improvements and Facilities". The Improvements and
Facilities listed under Section I are needed solely to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section II
are needed to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin and the
nearby vicinity and development within Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional
share of such Improvements and Facilities with the implementation of this Fee. The
Improvements and Facilities listed under Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all
necessary to accommodate new development projected within the region by the Year
2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. However, if there later are changes
in the projections and development in the region, one or more of the Improvements and
Facilities may not be necessary, and additional improvements and facilities may be
required. Such alternative improvements and facilities are included in the definition of
Improvement and Facilities to the extent development in Eastern Dublin contributes to
the need for such improvements and facilities, and the proceeds of the Fee may be used to
fund such alternate improvements and facilities. However, since the Study was prepared
in December 1994, there have been no significant changes in projects warranting any
revisions to the list of Section III Improvements.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the
Improvements and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Study Update, the Cost Estimate Report,
the Cost Estimate Report Update, Resolution No. 1-95, the Agenda Statement, the GP A,
the SP, the General Plan, the EIR and Addenda, all correspondence received and the
testimony received at the noticed public hearings held on January 23 and continued to the
meetings of February 27, March 26, and April 9, 1996, (hereafter the "record"), the
Council reapproves and readopts the Study, as revised by the Study Update, and the Cost
Estimate Report, as revised by the Cost Estimate Report Update, and incorporates each
herein, and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will generate the need
for the Improvements and Facilities and the Improvements and Facilities are consistent
with the GPA, the SP, and the City's General Plan.
3
D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope ofthe EIR and Addenda. The .
Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate
traffic from and/or to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of
such development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed
at a Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR, there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR,
no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new infonnation
of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific
environmental review under CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities will be
required before any such Improvements and Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to
provide project specific environmental review of the Improvements and Facilities at this
stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details as to
their timing and construction are not presently known.
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which
the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential-- will generate traffic which generates or contributes to
the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
.
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
pay for the construction of the Improvements and Facilities) and the type of development
for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin -- both residential
and non-residential -- generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and
Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
Fee and the cost of the Improvements and Facilities or portion thereof attributable to
development in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips
generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the
Improvements and Facilities, and the percentage by which development within Eastern
Dublin contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study, as revised by the
Study Update, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the Cost Estimate Report
Update, are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and Facilities,
and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the
projected costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development,
set forth in the Study, as revised in the Study Update, bears a fair and reasonable
.
4
.
.
.
relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements and
Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of
automobile trips each particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as
follows:
I. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition
of any building or structure within Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan
Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting
the property designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture." The individual properties
within this area are listed by assessor's parcel number on Exhibit D of this resolution.
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include those transportation
and transit improvements and facilities as are described in Sections I, II and III of the
Study and as described in the Study Update, Cost Estimate Report, Cost Estimate Report
Update, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Improvements and Facilities" shall also include
comparable alternative improvements and facilities should later changes in projections of
development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative improvements and
facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable
relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative
improvements and facilities, (2) that the alternative improvements and facilities are
comparable to the improvements and facilities in the Study and Study Update, and (3)
that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin development's fair
and proportionate share of the alternative improvements and facilities.
d. "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for up to six
units per acre.
e. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GPA for over 6 to
14 units per acre.
f. "Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit
as defmed in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for over 14 to
25 units per acre.
5
g. "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as
defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin
constructed or to be constructed on property designated by the SP and GP A for over 25
units per acre.
.
2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each
Low Density Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, Medium/High Density
Dwelling Unit, and High Density Dwelling Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the
date of final inspection for the unit, provided that the Fee shall be payable by the date that
the building permit is issued for any such Unit from and after the date the City Council
approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Improvements and Facilities.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or
structures within Eastern Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued for such
building or structure, except where the building or structure will require a later stage of
discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which case, with the
approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be
deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is
required prior to occupancy.
3.
Amount of Fee.
.
a. Low Density Dwellin~ Units. The amount of the Fee for each Low
Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,182 per unit.
b. Medium Density Dwellinli Units. The amount of the Fee for each
Medium Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,182 per unit.
c. MediumIHigh Density Dwelling Units. The amount of the Fee for
each MediumlHigh Density Dwelling Unit shall be $2,928 per unit.
d. High Density Dwelling Units. The amount of the Fee for each
High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $2,509 per unit.
e. Non-Residential Buildings or Structures. The amount of the Fee
for each Non-Residential Building or Structure shall be $354 per average weekday trip.
The amount of Traffic Impact Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Uses are shown
on Exhibit E.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a.
The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
.
6
.
(1)
Any alteration or addition to a residential structure,
except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a
single-family residential unit or another unit is added to an
existing multi-family residential unit;
(2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished
provided that the building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building was destroyed
or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction
increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or
more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
non-residential structure that has been destroyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for new
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building
was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building
would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's
trips based on Exhibit E.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the
Capital Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall
be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account.
The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way
acquisition and construction of the Improvements and
Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies
related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Improvements and
Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other
sources including funds from other public entities, unless
the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended
by the grantor to be used for traffic improvements.
(3) To reimburse developers and/or public agencies who have
constructed Improvements and Facilities; and
(4)
To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of the Fee
program.
.
7
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the
Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
.
6. Miscellaneous.
a. The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements and
Facilities are based are the standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards
contained in the General Plan, GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies
within Eastern Dublin and that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category I
(Section I) of the Study is generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin
and, further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category II and III
(Sections II and III) of the Study is generated by new development within Eastern Dublin
and other new development and, therefore, the Study, as revised by the Study Update, has
determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements and Facilities for
which development within Eastern Dublin is responsible. Exhibit D identifies the list of
property owners by Assessor's Parcel Number.
7. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for .
the City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of
fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council
shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the
approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements
and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in
accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and
demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is'
charged.
8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in
reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study
and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. Further study shall be made
in increments of no more than two (2) years. When additional information is available,
the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related
to the impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the
Fee to incorporate the fmdings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the .
8
I.
I
I
.
.
GP A, SP and General Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased
construction costs.
9. Tri-Valley Re~ional Fee.
The City has joined with other cities and counties in the Tri- Valley area in
ajoint powers agreement to fund preparation of a "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan" for
the purpose of addressing transportation issues through the Year 2010 within the Tri-
Valley area. The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council," an advisory group consisting of
elected representatives from each jurisdiction, has prepared a "Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (hereafter "Action Plan". The
City Council adopted the Action Plan by Resolution No. 100-95 on August 8, 1995. The
Action Plan indicates that further study is necessary of a proposed regional transportation
impact fee which would share funding of regional transportation improvements among
development within the various jurisdictions. Because the Tri- Valley Transportation
Council has not yet developed a regional traffic impact fee, the Study, as revised by the
Study Update, has analyzed Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of responsibility for
regional improvements which is set forth in Section III ofthe Study. In the event that a
regional transportation impact fee is developed by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
and adopted by the City, the City Council will amend the portion of the Fee which is
attributable to Section III improvements.
10.
Area of Benefit Fee.
A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of Benefit Fee
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the portion of the Fee designated for
the construction of those improvements and facilities identified in Category I (Section I)
of the Study which are major thoroughfares and bridges. These improvements and the
estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit F attached hereto. The "Area
of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as defmed herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the
Area of Benefit in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this resolution and in the
Study, with the amount to be assessed for residential and non-residential as shown on
Exhibit F. The Area of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Capital Projects
Fund into separate accounts established for each of the improvements identified in
Exhibit F.
11. Administrative Guidelines
The Council may, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to
provide procedures for reimbursement, credit or other administrative aspects of the Fee.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public works
Director using the costs of construction and value of right-of-way used by the City in
calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any reimbursement or credit, once
established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on such amount.
No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the
9
Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from
revenues raised by Payment of the Fee.
12. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the
resolution and shall supersede the Fee established by Resolution No. 1-95 sixty (60) days
from the effective date of the resolution. The Area of Benefit Fee established in Section
10 of this resolution shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 hereof
is declared invalid for any reason.
13 . Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be
and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that
portion that has been judged to be invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
the following vote:
day of
, 1996, by
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
g: lagenmisclresotif
10
.
.
.
ro
'<lJ
...
<(
C'J
c:
.-
c:
c
~
c..
'C
CD
"
C
C ~
~ .>(
'0. W
, C
tV ...
... CI,)
, CD ....
c,f/)
CD m
"Ly
<:')
0>
.0>
to
('j
ell
~
~-'
:il
u 0
~ ~
6 ~
:il ~ ~
:a ~ ~
N ;! c.b
0"
...
'"
<IJ
.i{
>.
"0
2
en
C '"
<1> <1>
,f3<
c:
Qi :>.Ea
.... <( en
~ ~ lij lij
..... .2! 5 1L 1L
o ~oro'u
"0 ,~CD:V13
Q) - c: <IJ
'0 .....OQ) Q
U /- (/) ~ (/)
>.
'"
::ii.
Q)
...
ro ~
~ ~
m .g
E}ij ,~Ol
E u c: ~
o,w 'Q) '"
u E O,C;- ~
u E ~'~ >..c: '@ ~ 5j
g 8 ~ ~ f 8 ~ i
~ ~ ~ !O ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~. ~
<( r ~ ~ <( fi i Q) 5 ~
UZ~ ~i=:r;~:2~a:
a: " z
~~~I":'D' WQ~~BB~
:E :;:; ;; <
8 jm ::;; ~:l: i :E .J ~
~ ~
'g '8 g J.l .'L '" <1>
.c:.c:.D -c Q. (ij
lLoo ti c: rf.uo~
J.1 en (/) ,g 0'
.D >..c: 0 'P '" .?: 0 (/)
~ (ij ,2',g 5i . ~ ~' 'E -E u
,- E :r: U!Q ~ '" ~ ..8 0
E CI.l"'(/)~ erG.. EE,c,g
<ll E ,Q ,e -><.?;- 0 ,2' 0
~ ..!!! 5 ,Ql.g ""'.- Q).D
uW-,J:a. ",UUZ,e
~tID@@)<ID ~@@<!) I
z
a::Z'~'
W-'~'
I- ...J' ..
en m J.
<C :::) ell,
w'c'f
z
W
a.
o
.....
U
:J
CD
:::>
Q.
..L.
~
W
(/)
01'
- ,":'{-
~ ll~(
i[ (riff
...
o
~...-
<ll m
o 0 CI.l
~ U .b
en E (/)
c: <0 ~
~ ~ 6 Q)
o 00' i= ~
<(
~~fIVl'~ I
~~HY1J u I
a.
<
~
w
en
~
C
,z
:s
..
'.
2
"
c
CD
OJ
Q)
-J
~"
:.,..;:
'"
.....
I
~
I
J
: J r
. , ,I
~ f I
. . j
.-l--~-----_..
r~~---------------' ::
: ! --..~ I'II
I <( L~----
I W ':
i 0:
I <(
I
~".._--------.._____-J
" >-
\ 0
, :J
, I-
\ ~
\
\ w
, 0:
, =>
\ I-
'. =>
i\o LL
"",<:I
';j,,""
o~~
()~\~
~cl
~\ '
,
\
\\:)' - -T-----
".J i i
I
I i
I
i
I
I
w
n:
~
I-
-,.
::)
o
-
0:
CJ
<(
<Il
<l.l
.....
(.)
<(
0)
C')
':t
I"-
C\j
<Il ........
<l.l >.
..... .0
U (J)
<( 0
.....
--
\-e
,_e
e
l'
~I
~I
o! I
I."",~~
~
B\JWJIII
~~,
l;S
L~I
.
c::
.--0
c:: 'iij
o III
'en G
III III
a '6
~ 1!!
1!!-5.
.!!! E
a. 0
E u
o ...
U 0
C5 ~
~ Q)
x -;
:!!! Q)
:c1)3
3l <(
'""'a.
,~ <(
0Cll..r:
l.ll --=
:::e 3:
Ill.. C
on' Q)
~. ~
0: c::
.iJ' 0
_.. u
C c:
(\j' ,-
F. '0
\g ~
\;; "E
.1i; 2!
C:l <1>
1:J U
(IJ Q)
E ffi
ClS .r:
11 ?:
,., ~
:..' 2
c. "'5
't) ,!.!
~ C5J
.-= <(
~ m
0..(
<U >.
.Du
>0 :J
ro -
E CJ)
_ <U
,!!l 5
U -
:u ~
E 0
E -
o t:
o ~
iii 5
:v u
c::
Ci~
* *
*
I '
i
.
.
.
~ T,,,,,,,,,,,"'"on Consultan"
MEMO
Project No.: 157-001 Task 7
January 4, 1996 (Revised)
To:
Mehran Sepelui, City of Dublin
From:
Vinton Bacon
Carl Springer
Subject:
1995 Update to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Revised January 4, 1996)
TJKM has completed the update of the Eastern Dublin TIF for 1995. lbis memorandum explains
the new information that was used to revise the previous technical report which was prepared by
BartOn-Aschman Associates Inc. in November 1994 (hereafter referred to as the original report).
The majority of the information, methodologies, assumptions and findings of the original report
were retained in developing the updated fee structure. Only the changes to that report are
identified below.
Changes to the 1994 TIF Report
1.
New Cost Estimates - As more studies have been completed for the planned
infrastructure to support Eastern Dublin and the surrounding region, bener cost
estimates have become available for use in the TIF calculation. New cost
estimates for the improvements applied to the TIP were provided by Santina &
Thompson. The total fees covered by the TIP rose by approximately $20 million
from $101.444,240 to $121,995,379.
2. New Residential Trip Categories - The TIF rate snucture used in the original
report combined all residential uses into two categories - single-family and multi-
family. lbis update recognized that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan shows four
categories of residential development based on ranges of unit density per acre. By
adding two residential categories, the accompanying calculation for residential
trips was adjusted based on standard trip generation data.
The selected trip generation rates were based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip GeneraJion, Fifth Edition, the San Diego Association of
Governments October 1993 Traffic Generation Rates and engineering judgement
Table 2.1 shows the rates used for each of the four residential use categories. The
only change made from the original report is for high-density residential
development. The lower rate more accurately reflects the propensity for a lower
number of residents and incomes per household in apartment units as compared to
townhome or condominium units. The change in trip generation rate from 7 per
unit to 6 per unit for high density uses results in a decrease in the total number of
residential trips from 123,679 to 121.232.
4637 Chabot Drive. Suite 214. Pleuanton. CA 94588-2754. (510) 463-0 EX. HIOIT 'B
P.....nton . Fresno . Santa RC*l .
.
:
I
i -
I
,
Mehran Scpehri
Page 2
Table 2-1
Trip Generation Rates
.
Residential
Land Use Type
Low Density
Medium Density
MediumlHigh Density
High Density
1-6
7-14
15-25
>25
Trip Generation Rate -
Original Report
(Daily Trips/Unit)
10
10
7
7
Trip Generation Rate -
1995 Update
(Daily Trips/Unit)
10
10
7
6
Density (DU/Acre)
3.
Re-Assessment of the Percent Responsibility for the I-SSO/I-680 Interchange
Project - The original report calculated the responsibility for funding the 1-580/1-
680 interchange project based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model during the
p.m. peak hour of travel. These percentages were changed based on data obtained
from the Alameda County Traffic Authority dated November 1995.
The new data (shown in Section 3 Fees, Table 2-4) indicate a higher share for Eastern
Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon, and a much lower share for Central Dublin. TIle
percentage connibution for East Dublin changed from 12 percent to 24 percent.
4.
Residential Development Improvement Responsibilities - The original report
added the cost of park-and-ride lots to the exclusive responsibility of residential
development All other fee<; were proponionately divided among all land uses
based on the relative share of nip generation. TI1is update also added the
Tassajara Creek Bicycle Trail to the exclusive responsibility of residential
development This was previously lumped into the Section 1 fees for all land
uses.
.
Updated TIF Cost Structure
The TIF calculations were revised based on the above changes. As in the original report. the TIF
costs were tiered for varying areas of responsibilities which were described as Section 1 (East
Dublin Only), Section 2 (Sub-Regional) and Section 3 (Tri-Valley) as depicted in Tables 2-2, 2-3
and 24 in the 1994 repon. These same tables were reprinted with the above changes incorporated
(see attachments).
Two new tables were created to present important summary infonnation. Table 2-5 is a summary
table which shows the total costs, and cost per trip for each of the three sections. Finally,
Table 2-6 presents the recalculated the cost of residential development based on the new
assumptions.
The cost per trip for non-residential nips increased from $293 to $354. The cost per nip for
residential units increased from $335.50 to $418.25.
.
Ibm
Attachments
157..001.17
"'
.
Eastern Dublin T raffle Impact Fee Update
Page 3
.....
c:
c:: 0 f4 0 ;; f4 ~
.9 - - en
c:: "<T. "<T.
~ z; z;
<II
.S?
a..
e f4 f4 2 ~ r:: v
~ CO 0
Lri g N
lI; - Z;
Ii) :3
0
~ 0 .!!l
q a a I,l) N Ol $
~~ I,l) r--.
~ co to - I,l)
.- ~ I'll ;;> Lri ~ g
~ s::: .t:> 0 69-
en .2 SO
c: t5 0
8- :g r--. ~ to 0 a I,l)
CD to - 3::
.... oS ~ ~ C\l
;:! :c - -
en ..., ;;>
(1) >0 0
,&)
't;
a- 0 N ~ g ~ 0; 0 re ;:!:
8 () E c:: g r--. 0
0>= r--. ...... I,l) ~ -
- .D gi ,.: C\lO :t ;; Lri
0 10 ;;> -- - C\l
we -
(1)
>
Q) m v S5 ::G C\l N
0> to C;; iY)
-iij ..... "<T r--.
~ :g E a) g g N ,.: tD
0"" - Z;; - ~
'"
c: w
::s c::
0 'E .s ::.e
Q) ~ ::.e ~ ::.e :::e
E 0 0 0 N 0
0 0 0 0
ca C. .lI! .....
.!2 a..
en Q)
0 > e
CD
0 ~ :::e :::e :::e ::.e ::.e
0 0
;: If 0 0 0 ~ Cb
ca 0 0 0
CD .2-
Z --'
,g
CD g.m~ :::e ~ :::e :::e ~
;:! 15 g 5 0
"0 0 0 CD th 0
0 0 ~
>0 000 CD
-
:0
.(i)
s::: .5 ::.e :::e :::e :::e ::.e
8. :zs ~ ~ 0 0 0
;;> /;') 0 0
II) e
CD
a:
C j~
CD :::e ::.e :::e ::.e ::.e
~ fa fa 0 &, 0
lfjog ..... &0
CD Ol Ol l") CO) ~
c.. we
0
~ 2
a.. I ~
E ....
to .-
~ .c
. - () "E co
J:: ,g &
CD 0 ill to
E (I) :;::. > ~
a a c:: ...... CD
CD "E ~- ;;> "'C 'S
> If "'C 8 to 0 .! .
0 a:l } ~ a:l 0 m . Q,
Q fi; Q) 0 .m c: lD >olD 8 j!: Go
> c: r:l
E 'S ".: ~:;: c f .! i '0 ~ jE
c..-:. >00 .!2
S 0 0> '? 0 c::~ i; a; i Ii I.
c: m 01- - = '0 C
Q) ,.!l!..t:. 1>> .g ~ u.. j < ~ 0
~ .~ =.2' ~ 0 o~ ~ i 1;
>a: ;:: oa: 010 0 .5
:c a:l ::l m m :I ;! B
Q) ::l 0 8 co
en 0 en I I
- -
v
Q)
C)
.
c
-
-
(.,)
-
.
(.,)
a-
-
c:
o
(.,)
-
c:
.-
.c
::s
C
-
c:
.-
-
.c
:::::s
C
c:
a-
S
en
ca
W
Q)
Cii
R
=>
lB
u..
t5
a:l
C.
E
~
e
t-
.E
::a
.
US
ftl
W
M
N
Q)
:c
ca
t-
.
en
Q)
If
N
c:
.Q
-
(,)
(1)
UJ
....
.
.
.
"l:S'
.
N
G)
:is
co
I-
N 0 ~ N
-'!! I"- - u::>
'$' ;;; ;;;
<:
co
D
<: g 0 ~ N
0 - u::>
E ;;
CO --
0:
<:
CO
CI)
<: M 0 g; ~
0 ::8_ "" on
10 ..... ?"-
m ;; or> -- ~
"ii) co -
oS!
0 D..
0
0_ CD g ~ ~ 0
,- (; ?"-
M- 0 u::>
- E - ..; cD or;
c: ~ N - -
0 -
1i ....
'6 ~ ~ i ""
~ l!1lI~ ~
:::I -85 ;; M
., 500 -
>- " 0
on
1;; It'> ~ a N
0 m u::>
0 .5 ;;
:l5 t:i
"
0
N 0 ~ N
E <: ~- ;;0 N
CD= :t -
iIj.g ;; ~
wC
"" ~ ~ ~
CD ;1;
-co
~,~ or; ~ 2i cD
- ;;
.!l -
g "J!. ~ "J!.
.~ ~
0 0
>, M 0 0 .....
C
==
- - l:
c:
:e CD 0
E E "J!. "J!. "J!. ae
UI '"
c- o: It'> 0 0 ....
c: 0 ~ .....
8- G
iii !
en c 1: "J!. ~ "J!. "#.
G) 3: III 0
a: III co ~ .... r-
CD N ... .... ....
z oS!
C D..
0 0
- 5
U CD "J!. "J!. ae ae
:::I e
"1:1 M Il> cD ...,
~ :3 ..... cD r- M
en
... J5
:J "ii l!1lI~ #.
c: ~85 ae ';/!. #.
0 co
~ c- 008 N N .... .....
III
CD
co a:
C .5
. :l5 "J!. #. #. #.
. 2 " .... cD -.#' ...
... 0 ....
CD
Q.
00
en E l: #- ~ #- "J!.
CD CD= 0
log ~ M cD
G> N .... cD N
wO
'E oCD CD.
m
:;:. E tog> 'S
c: m (l) III . ~ 0 ~_CIl
~ E; ~.l:;o o~en a: 0;;;0
oeCll CD .....c:~
0-9- ~.$e CO)(~ iii~ ~~~
CD E 1l}::J1Il
CJ)_ ...!.,Eo.. ...!.c:(...J liS to -I-
a
r-
!
r-
""
-.#'
0
;;.
~
p..;-
M
-
~
..;
-
....
~
zi
~ co N
l"- I:; ~
0_ ~
;;.
""
j:!
....:-
~
-
"C
,
>
t-
i
...
e
.. · c..
! Cl..;::
u t:: ~
15 2:- ...
]j 1i &.
~ ~ 1;;
~ ! 8
u..
M
C
o
-
-
(.)
CD
C/)
U')
CD
0-
10
0..
ci
g
~
~
.!!l
l!!
III
.l:;
en
.en
>,
c:
::J
0
0
III
"0
CD
E
III
<
-0
CD
il)]l
~-
..... -
0
::;..c:
>,.!!l
:e:~
0-
.l:;=
_on
:::>-
c(~
.Q 8-
::=en
~ l!!
~>,
~c
I:: :::>
::J 0
00
o III
lIl"C
"0 CD
~ E
Ill.!!!
<<
E ~
oJ:
~en
1Il-
_I::
~rl
I:: !. .s
0 III
"00 "&.
CDO
en..... =>
1Il- CD
.alii
- CD
>,0 U.
=- !
=0
,Qc
~ 0
0"0
c..en .Q
en CD
l!!~ =
l!
0- l-
ll) c:
~~ I::
.....CD :5
go.. 8
~. E
0 CD
(ri 1il
CD
(5 W
Z
,
j
I ,,- .
I
,
,
I Table 2-5
I .
I
I Summary of Fees for all Three Sections
I Total Cost of Cost per Non-
I Improvements Residential Trip.
I
I Section 1 Fees $85.351.314 $248
, Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Section 2 Fees $25.570,473 $74
Eastern Dublin/Dublin/Contra Costa County/
~ Developer Responsibility
,
,
.j Section 3 Fees $11.073.592 $32
I
! Tri~Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
Total Applied to All Uses $121,995,379 $354
:
other Improvements (Residential Uses Only)
Park~and~Ride Lots $1.716,000
Tassaiara Creek Bicycle Path $1,397,760
· The Traffic Impact Fee per residential trip is shown on Table 2-6. Non~residential development is
responsible for 60.99 percent of the total applied to all uses (0.6099 X $121.995.379). .
.
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Page 6
-,
I,
I
.
I ~
:1
I
I
,I
I
I
I
11
.
.
Table 2-6
Calculation of TIF Cost per Residential Unit
o Residential Share of Total Trips = Residential + Park + School Trips 1 Total Trips
134,227/344,078 = 39.01 %
o Residential Share of Cost for Sections 1, 2, and 3 ::: (A X Cost for Sections 1 , 2, and 3)
39.01% x $121,995,379= $47,591,168
~ Cost of Improvements Funded Exclusively by Residential Development"" Park-and-
~ Ride Lots + Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
$1,716,000+ $1,397,760 = $3,113,760
GTotal Funded by Residential Development"" B + C
$3,113,760 + $47,591,168 "" $50,704,928
o Cost per Residential Trip:: D 1 Residential Trips
$50,704,928/121,232". $418.25
. Cost per Low Density (1-6 DUlAcre) Dwelling Unit:= $418.25 X 10:= $4,182
. Cost per Medium Density (7-14 DUlAcre) Dwelling Unit = $418.25 X 10 = $4,182
. Cost per Medium/High Density (15-25 Du/Acre) Dwelling Unit". $418.25 X 7 = $2,928
. Cost per High Density (> 25 DUlAcre) Dwelling Unit:: $418.25 X 6 = $2,509
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
Page 7
--1
I
i
i
SANTINAK
THOMPSON.INC.
MWlidpal Engineering Surveying
Railroad Engineering Planning
.
January 3, 1996 (revised)
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568,
Re: EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST EsTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
Dear Mehran:
. As requested, we have attached cost estimates and supporting documentation for the development
of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program.
The Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) cost estimates present a cost per lineal foot for 100 percent of the
improvement work for each roadway segment. The TIF portion of the cost was frequently not
100 percent of the improvement cost. A portion of the funding for some segments will be
provided by future developers as their contribution for frontage improvements.
We derived the percentages for each FUNDING TYPE, (Le., traffic impact funding or
developer funding for frontage improvements) by allocating each cost estimate item to a funding
source and then summing the cost estimate items to fInd an overall percentage allocation for each
roadway segment. The resulting allocation was very close to what would be obtained by merely
taking the total cross sectional width and then ratioing by the cross sectional lengths for each
funding type shown on the attached cross sections. For simplicity, we did not include
documentation regarding the allocation percentage.
The supporting documents are presented in three sections. The first section contains the TIP cost
estimates for each roadway segment.
The second section contains cross sections for each segment of the roadways as well as the cut
off line for each funding type.
.
1355 Willow Way, Suite 280 Concord, California'. EX' HI,B~"IT c.
510-827-3200 Fax 510.687-1011
-
---.......................-..........: .:....-
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
January 3, 1996
Page Two
.
The third section contains a cost breakdown for each roadway segment. The cost breakdown
presents the cost for each item of work as well as a cost per lineal foot for each item. The cost
per lineal foot is presented for comparison purposes. The cost breakdown was reduced to a total
cost per lineal foot for each roadway segment and then rounded up or down for an ultimate cost
per lineal foot. Until a plan line is established for the roadway network, the approximate cost
per lineal foot represents an appropriate cost to be used for these initial level estimates. The cost
per lineal foot number was used in combination with the funding allocation percentage and the
length of roadway to obtain the dollar amount that is presented in section one of this report.
Supporting documents for the cost estimates for land values have not been included in this
report, but are on file in the City of Dublin.
Contra Costa County developers may be required to contribute money to the TIF program as a
result of their traffic impacts to the roadway network. The City of Dublin is currently
negotiating with Contra Costa County regarding this issue. The TIP program amounts may
require adjustment as a result of these negotiations.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to .
contact me.
Sincerely,
~
Principal
........,
ph\dub\960104
.
SANTINA&=
THOMPSON.INC.
,
I
I.
I
t
I
I
1
,~
"
~
.,
,..
'.
'.
C'.
"
.:
-:-
..'.
Dougherty Road - Segment 1
4300 feet, 118 Right~of-Way
City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $540 per LF @ 100% $2,322,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Amador Valley, 3 legs; Willow, 3 legs (Civil improvements are minor) $400,000
Right-of-Way
None SO
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $544,400
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I $3,538,600
Dougherty Road. Segment 2
4,250 teet, 118 Right-ot-Way
Amador Valley to Houston Place (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 5540 per LF @ 100% S2,295,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
None, see segment 21 SO
Right-of-Way @ 100%
8 x 710 x $18, Southern Pacific Right-of-Way 5102,240
500 x 38 x $18, near Houston Place I S342,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I 5547,848
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I $3,561,012
Dougherty Road ~ Segment 3
Right Hand Turn
Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900')
Right Turn Pocket Only; All Other Improvements Are Done
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, 900' at $150 per LF @ 100% I $135,000
Right-of-Way, 140 x 8 x $18 @ 100% I 520,160
Intersection Improvements wI right of way, see segment 6 I SO
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% I 531,032
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I 5201,708
0231B.XLS
Page 1
..
~
':
".
"
-,
"",
c,
Dougherty Road - Segment 4 .
520 feet
Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp
Widen Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Lump Sum @ 100% $207,480
Intersection Improvements wI right of way, see segment 6 $0
Right.of.Way, Lump Sum; Including Demo $1,000,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $241,496
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,569,724
Dougherty Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $8,871,044
(Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of
Dougherty Road from the City limits north to Old Ranch Road)
Dublin Boulevard- Segment 5
2,200 feet, 108 Right-of-Way, 6 Lanes
East of Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
As Submitted to Caltrans
Totals for TIF S.
Civil Improvements at 440 per Linear Foot @ 100% $968,00
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
Clark Modification $120,000
Sierra Ct Modification $120,000
Bridge Widening $400,000
Right-of.Way and Demo; have 100, need 108, $18 '@ 100% $316,800
City Administration, Design, Construction Managemt:!nt, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $384,960
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I $2,502,240
$1 Million Credit for ISTEA Contribution ($1,000,000)
Net Total for this Segment I $1,502.240
.
0231 S.xLS
Page 2
I
I.
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6
2,030 feet, 108 Right~of~Way, 6 Lanes
Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening)
Future Improvements Will Be Similar to Segment 5
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot @ 100% $609,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Sierra Ct, Civic. Modification $130,000
Dublin Court - Modification $130,000
Dougherty with Civil Improvements $758,080
Right-of-Way, 8* $18+1 OOK demo @ 100% $392,320
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $403,880
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $2,625,220
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 7
2,000 feet, 6 Lanes
Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of~Way
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $510 per Linear Foot @ 50% $510,000
Right-of-Way, 50%"126*2000*$7, (Developer to receive R of W credit) $882,000
BART Loan of $2.838M, to be repaid with TIF funds $2,938,000
Signals with Other Street, see Segments 6 & 21 $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%; 0% on Loan I $278,400
Total with 10% Contingency, including loan (0 on Admin.) I $5,041,400
I
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way) I $9,168,860
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 8
2100 feet, 6 Lanes
From Southern Pacific Right-at-Way to East BART Access
(40 feet of roadway section exists)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per lineal foot @75%, Camp Parks will not contribute $1,023,750
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
East and West Bart Access, 7 legs $783,818
Arnold Road Intersection, New, 4 legs I $442,058
Right-of-Way, 126*$7 @ 75%, (City does not own R ofW) I $1,389,150
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $727,755
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 54,730,409
,',
".
",
-.
. ." ~
0231B.XLS
Page 3
"
i
..
;
11
l~
.: ~
...
'\
-.
;1.1
-,
.'
'"."1
-J
7'
.-:1
J
':"1
"
',.
:J
-0:')
',1
- :
.- .
-'",
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Segment 8A .
2700 feet, 6 Lanes
East BART Access to Hacienda Drive
All new Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @50% $1,080,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Hacienda, New, Major, 4 legs $442,058
Right-of-Way, 126*$7 @ 50%+ 100% of 200K demo, inc!. pavement. $1,390,700
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $582,552
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $3,786,585
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9
4,600 feet, 6 Lanes
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
(40 feet of roadway section exists)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $510 per lineal foot @ 50% $1,173,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
Tassajara New, Major, 4 legs $442,058
Bridge, $80*60W100L, 1/2 bridge exists; TIF=1 00% at ACFC channel S4BO'.
Right~of~Way, 126*$7 @ 50%+ Ok demo, (City does not own R of W) $2,028,6
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $824,73
I
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I 55,360,755
I
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10
6,200 feet, 6 Lanes
Tassajara Road to Fallon
All New Roadway Included
1 Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @ 50% I 52,480,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
Fallon - New, Major, 4 legs I $442,058
Right-of-Way, 126*$7 @ 50% + Ok demo I 52,734,200
,
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I 51,131.252
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 57,353,135
.
0231S,XLS
Page 4
.
",
..
.
:j
~
';
.\
-.
.,
i
j
"
~
r<:"'
.,
'"
,-:.
..
:-~
,
:;
""'
"J
~.
,
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 11
9,350 feet, 6 Lanes
Fallon Road to Airway
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot @ 50% 53,740,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Airway Boulevard, Major, 4 legs 5442.058
Bridge, 580*120W*1 DOL 5960,000
Right-of-Way. 126*$7 @ 50% + Ok demo $4,123.350
City Administration. Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20,0% $1,853.082
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $12.045,030
I
Dublin Boulevard Extension Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $33,275.915
(The City of Dublin received $573,000 from State of California (58300 funds) and 5400,000 from
the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the Southern Pacific R of W to Tassajara
Rd.) -973.000
(The City of Dublin borrowed $2,408.955 trom the City of Pleasanton to build the 40 ft. width of
Dublin Blvd Extension trom SPRW to Tassajara Road; This loan must be repaid.) 2,408.955
Subtotal is therefore I $34.711,870
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 - (Airway Boulevard)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements. New 3 lane Bridge & Ramps I 55,372,744
Signal Modifications I 5200,000
Right-ot-Way I $100,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20.0% I 51,134,549
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.) 57.941,842
Hacienda - Segment 13
1600 feet, 6 Lanes
1-580 (Not including interchange) to Dublin Boulevard Extension
(60 feet of roadway section exists)
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 640 per linear toot @ 40% 5409.600
Intersection Improvements wI right ot way I 50
Right-ot-Way, 126*$7.00 @ 50% + Ok demo $705,600
City Administration. Design. Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% 5223,040
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) 51.449,760
0231S.xLS
Page 5
I
I
II
'j
I
1
,
)
OJ
:,j
":"
l
'.'
"."
'.,
Hacienda - Segment 14 .
3100 feet, 4 Lanes
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 38% $765,700
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Transit Spine, Major $392,574
Gleason, Major $366.720
Right-of-Way, 102 ft.(1700 ft @ $3 & 1400 ft @ $4.55)+1 OOk demo, all at 38% $482,577
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $401,514
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $2,609,843
Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchange) $4.059,603
Freeway Interchange - Segment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
Widen Offramp and Modify Signal (Loan amount built prior)
Totals for TIF S:i
Civil Improvements. Ramps $170,0
Signal and Intersection Improvements $150,0
Alameda County $3.762 M Loan (Including Interest) $3,762,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%; (0% on Loan) I $64,000
Total with no Contingency. I $4,146,000
Arnold Drive - Segment 16
3,100 feet, 4 Lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason
(Camp Parks is on one side of Roadway)
Improved on each side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 69% I $1,390,350
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
Gleason & Transit Spine, 3 legs each I $567.316
Right-ot-Way, 102 ft.(1700 ft @ $3 & 1400 ft @ $4.55) at 69% + 100k demo @ 100% $907.259
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I $572.985
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $3.724,402
.
0231 B.XLS
Page 6
.
Transit Spine ~ Segment 16A
1,600 feet, 4 Lanes
Hacienda to Arnold
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 655 per linear toot @ 38% $398,240
Intersection Improvements wI right ot way
Future Road, 4 legs $392,574
Right-ot-Way, 106*$4.55 + 100k demo, all at 38% $331,238
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $224.410
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,458.668
Transit Spine ~ Segment 17
4,500 feet, 4 Lanes
Hacienda to Tassajara
All New Roadway
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 655 per linear toot @ 38% $1,120,050
Intersection Improvements wI right of way $0
Bridge.$80*96~100L $768,000
Right-ot-Way, 106*$4.55 + $1 OOk demo. all at 38% $862,733
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $550,157
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $3.576.018
I
Transit Spine. Segment 18 I
3,200 feet, 4 Lanes 1
Tassajara to Fallon (Western Portion)
All New Roadway I
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 655 per linear foot (1 ft grading) @ 38% I $796,480
Intersection Improvements wI right ot way $0
Right-ot-Way, 10611. @ $4.55+100k demo, all at 38% 1 5624,477
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20.0% I $284,191
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I $1,847.244
~.
:i
"
-I
::;.
0231B,XLS
Pilge7
t
il
I
l
1
I
I
l
:!
'{
J
J
:1
.-i
j
Transit Spine. Segment 18A .
3,200 feet, 4 Lanes
Tassajara to Fallon (Eastern Portion)
All New Roadway
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 730 per linear foot (6 ft grading) @ 38% S887,680
Intersection Improvements wI right of way SO
Right-of-Way, 106 ff. @ S4.SS+100k demo, all at 38% S624.477
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $302.431
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) S1,96S.804
Transit Spine and Arnold Drive Subtotal $10,724,892
Gleason - Segment 19
1,600 feet, 4 Lanes
Arnold Rd. to Hacienda
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 425 per linear foot I@ 30% $204'1
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
Right-of-Way. 102.$3 @ 38% I $186.04
City Administration. Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I $78,010
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $507.062
I
Gleason - Segment 19A
4,600 feet, 4 Lanes
Hacienda to Tassajara
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 425 per linear foot @ 30% I $586,500
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I SO
Bridge.S80.SSW"100L I $440,000
Right-of-Way, 102.$3 @ 38% I $534,888
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% I 5312,278
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I $2.029,804
.
0231B.XLS
Page 8
::0
'..
I::.
!~
!:!
1
~.l
~
"\
J
}1
..
~l
]
].
-:'1
':~j
'.
Gleason.. Segment 20
5,100 feet, 4 Lanes
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 750 per linear foot @ 38% $1,453,500
Intersection Improvements w/ right of way $0
Right.of.Way, 102*$3 @ 38% $593,028
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $409,306
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) 52,660,486
Gleason Roadway Subtotal $5,197,353
(Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road
is not included because no development is proposed for Doolan Canyon as part of the
Dublin General Plan Amendment)
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21
2,600 feet, 4 Lanes
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot @ 100% I $1,690,000
Intersection Improvements w/ right of way 1 $0
Dougherty, Major, 3 legs I $450,458
Dublin, Major, 3 legs I $328,138
Railroad Utilities, demo and/or relocation I 52,000,000
Bridge, $80*90W*1 DOL I $720,000
Right~of-Way, 102'*$4.55 I $1,206,660
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I $1,279,051
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I $8,313,833
Tassajara Road - Segment 22
5,800 feet, 6 Lanes
5000 ft north of Gleason to Contra Costa Co. line
All New Roadway
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot, (3 ft. grading) @25% (CCCo pays portion) I 51,160,000
Intersection Improvements w/ right of way I SO
Fallon, 31~gs I S275,040
Two Bridges, 120W*100L*$80 *2 51,920,000
Right-of.Way, 126 I.f. @ $3 @ 25%+$500,000 for relocation of 2 houses $1,048,100
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% I 5880,628
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 55,724,082
0231S.xLS
Page 9
i
j
Tassajara Road ~ Segment 22A
5,000 feet, 6 Lanes
Gleason to 5000 ft. north of Gleason
All New Roadway
Totals for T1F Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot, (3 ft, grading) @25% (CCCO pays portion) $1,000,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way $0
Gleason ,see segment 23 $0
Right-of-Way, TIF portion exists. $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20,0% 5200,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $1.300,000
Tassajara Road - Segment 23
2,600 feet, 6 Lanes
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 775 per linear foot, (1 ft, grading) @25% (CCCO pays portion) $503.750
Intersection Improvements wI right of way $0
Transit Spine. 4 legs $392,57
Gleason, Major, 4 legs $366,720
Right-of-Way. 126 ft.(1200 ft @ $3 & 1400 ft @ $4.55); TIF portion exists. I SO
City Administration, Design, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $252,609
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I $1.641,957
Tassajara Road - Segment 24
1000 feet, 8 Lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; (not including Interchange)
Portion of Existing Pavement Usable
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 150 per linear feet and 100% (cost to upgrade TIF portion) $150.000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I $0
Right-of-Way, 150"$7; TIF portion exists I $0
City Administration, Design. Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $30,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 5195.000
Tassajara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) S8,861.03
0231B.XLS
Page 10
e
Tassajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchange
1/2 of Interchange Exists
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Including new 4 lane Bridge 56,416,372
Signalized intersection $300,000
Right.of-Way $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,343,274
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $9,402,921
Fallon Road. Segment 26
14,000 feet, 6 Lanes
Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 900 per linear foot @ 25% (CCCO contributes) $3,150,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way
Gleason. 3 legs $275,040
Transit Spine, 3 legs $292,276
Right.of.Way, 126 ft (12,200 ft @$3 & 1800 ft @ $4.55) @ 25% $1,410,885
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,025,640
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I $6,666.661
Fallon Road - Segment 27
1,500 feet, 6 lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1.580
All New Roadway
I Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot @ 25% (CCCo contributes) I $300,000
Intersection Improvements wI right of way I
See Segment #10 I $0
No Freeway Interchange or Freeway Signals $0
Right.of-Way, 126*$7 @ 25% I 5330.750
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition. 20.0% I $126,150
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin,) I 5819.975
Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange) $7,486.636
ie
I
,
I
1
je
0231B.XLS
Page 11
;-
-,'
t..,_
;J
,
,
; r:;
-.1
';:1
r:,
,j
'-j
n
,-,
f,j
(1
'."j
,',
1-.:
"
-,
..."
Fallon & 1.5t:lO t-reeway Interchange with signalS. Segment ::ltl .
Totals for TIF Share
Freeway Interchange, new 6 lane Bridge $8.475,070
Signals $400,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,775,014
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin,) $12,425,098
Tassajara Creek Bike. Path - Segment 29
12,800 feet
-Dublin Boulevard Extension to Contra Costa County Line
Totals for TIF Share
Bike path, 12 ft, @ $7/sf @ 100% $1,075,200
Right of Way. none; included with Tassajara of Creek Improvements $0
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $215,040
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) $1,397.760
Park & Ride
40,000 s.f. for 150 cars
Totals for TIF S
East of Tassajara, 40,000 sJ. @'($4 Improv. & $7 right of way) I 5440,000
East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & 57 right of way) $440.000
East of Fallon, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & 57 for right of way) $440,000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20,0% $264,000
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) I 51,716,000
I
Precise Plan Line Costs
Totals for TIF Share
Total Cost I $451,000
I
Grand Total $134.875,751
I
I
.
0231S.XLS
Page 12
.
,.
.
~
~
cc
-
-
o
N
Co
~~
~~
>010
j;;S
~E
~
-<
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
o
~
~ I
6 ~
8
8
E-<
Z
r;
D
r.a
rn
I
,
I
I I
I
I
$-
Co
1=1
ic
-
-
.
~
~;
!&lCl
>Or....
:0
~E
I I!
~.
<~
o~
~~ ~
~8 0
~~ ~
~ t3 t..)
~~ ~
0:: a.. ga
~~ ~
:::> ~ 53
o~ t;J
~~ ~
(3
B
t;J'
~
r.
.,.
I
i
r
i-
f
r
I.
I
l
.
d
9
l=Q
II ~~
I E
I:
II tn~
~j::l
I' ci ~r-..
I! ~ ~ ~o
ii j:l ~r=
I, d tt:u
,
I ~ ~~
<0
O~
~.!.
I ! ~~
Cl E--4~
. I ~~
~.
~t ~'~
tt: - c..'Jr:Q
Co ~ ~~
_ to-
- O~
~j:l
G
ti
~
~
N
-
.
Ii
,f
il
!I
d
I[
I
,i
{ .~"'r~~ ,; J.
""''If /
,/
/'
~,...
:/
/'
'~.''''''''''''''.''-'~..... '~.........
..... t:;.)'\.... '- -
:~.~;....i\'",...''''''''',.,:.::~'"_ _....'_.,.~,." .('_,
....~......" t .........IN.." ....-.... '. ^"..,
". c-:~~~~:~ \. "'~-._.~:~---~'~'::~;T~-'::-'-"
?~--::"'_ /'::"";~"'t'!l-"_~",,' i /- ....
(-"'-~=.~~:.,;:L~Io),/1 ~'''~_.... .~~-_..~. ...--.......-...--\
~.'!->'':.. ..~~~~F' ':/..1 .":~ {'{, _'~--'''~ \"
--;'110, ........ .I ...~,..~..-. ~=.:~ ......... / < ' ,/.
','"_:-'-..-,, .. \ ~';Fo~~" /J /' \ ,
-, '" -/. [,..... '"~ ; ("~'" ,/."~' t:::J I" r
" '" .~....... \ t .:....;~.~\::-*~~ !.
'" .... ,,' . ...."'I"~~.,.... "Jf":'~. "
.::_ "\. ", ,$-' " '-i'''''',.",m\... "'. ;
.. ,....~, ','...... ',' .:rj"':" '~{f~~"""~"::/:~:':'""'- ,:
.. ...~ ......... ....r.) ,~._- "'..:: '\. ".' ~ '/'
............ .~..... " ....", ....., ......1 - f~' ~
'':'', .,:,.,. "... \', -- \ ;..' /1'
. '",''' "-{ ......"..., .....'=..., " ' ; \ . ,. '"
~'" ... .... .........../ .... -::'" .... It... \., ": . -.
_......:"-... ..,.ot....~...~:..... ..................J (tJ,".....
-..............;...., .....~:;. '/-.>.~~~ ./ ..
'':;'~~:~':.~?~~::~..~:.,,'~ ;r,;-, "-(,_/
,...7-Z.......,... ......... ...........
, . "
~f:.
/!
/' :
/ .:
/ ;
-
~
~g
rng5
~Q
=-
~f:)
~~
r::::;u
.
~
I
~~
< 0
0 C
10
~ I
.....
.....
~~
~~
~ 0
~ E-o
~g .
0s
~9
OE5
~Q
G
~
f;i
t.:J
~
tI'J
.
.
:! I~
" ~~ r..l~
1i j::l
,I
II CD ~ f20 0 ~rs.
O~ ~ ..,0
II e:l! rlI!:l ~~
II i-- ~
:1 J:t::U
~ I -
~ i t3
Ii .~
- O~
- ~~
~ j:Q~
- Z;
-
. :,t1.
~ 0 j:Q~
r0- E--
8~
Co ro- I
0
-
8
-
-
- 0)
-
zo- ~I ~
I!rll
- tI')
K
Co f!~
.
1 N. I~
I -
I ~
~8
I, o~ ~~ Z
Ii b a.t ~o ~~
~ I N 0 .0
Ii 10 oQ:; 1--4 ~5
. ~~ U)
II E-o Z
i
I ~
N ~
-
~
.
~
S. r-. ~
t:Q.
= l'- Z
N
- ~~
........
~
N ~
-
:::>
~
N (0 "
-
~
b ~I ~
N
gg
~ ~o
N ~~
-
.
I~
~~
?cis;...
,*0
~6
.
~
~
~
z
: 1
j:O
~
~
I,.
I:
I;
Ii
<:::
~
z
~
~
u
-<
8~
8@
~ ~
CJ ~
~
.
... ...
I"
N
-
..
(:)
N
N
-
..
N
....
~ ... ,....
~ i--
~ ~ -
ic r...
N
.... N ...,
CI
....
N
-
..
N
....
..
~
.. .. 1
I"
N
-
... ..
~
~
~;
Z f.Q~
~a 0 ~p..,
-=0
M ~o """""' ~~
U)
~~ Z
~
~
>< 0
~ -<
. 0
0 ~
~ -<
~ ~ 0
Z -< <t:.
e ~ 0
: l -< 0::
~ MI:! ~ U)
[IJ z
:::> ~
0 0
~
@@ ~
~
@(ID@
~a @@)@
. ~o
M oC:; ~ ~ i
&:f!J
t!:J
~ ~ r.<:I
fI'J fI'J fI'J
-I
7'
N
-
0
r;\l
N
-
~ t-
~ -
N t-
O
- '-
N
-
0
r;\l
N
-
~
Z
~
.
l
1
t:.:::l
~fj
...... III
t:;;:::l
t:.:::l~
t:<.
?;;;O
~~
t:.:::l~ ~t5
~ p::
~~ >
~ e;:E;: t--4
Zo ~
op::
~c.. ~
"""'l:!!
-< Z ~
~ ~
z 0 ~
~ rn
t--4 -< 0:=
u ~ <
-< u
~ t:<. ~ 0 UJ
e:::
@@@
I I t1
~
~~ ~
<E;:
~ ~o
o~
O:::c..
t:<.::;s
......
,
i
!
I
I
/
I
i
I
i
i
,
I~
~8
N ~I&.
..... .0
~I ~5
M ~O
L
2 ~~
.
~
d ~
!; ~
~ ~
S i-- 0
Z
~ i-- I ~ M~ 0::;
..... <
','
"
N ~ .. ......
..... " ~ @
,
, ,
'"
, '
0 .. ~i I
N
t:J
~
~i
N g:f!
-
.
\
I
I
i
.
l!
i: ~~
I
: ~ E-~
Ii l" -..- -po- rn~
~,::::!
Ii (:) H j~ rs..
...... ~o
~ ~r:=
11 ~~ Z
:1 eo ~f;l I--l OU
ii ~~ t::l-. 0:;
i~ N
! ~ 00 rn
0:;P::
I' N rs..i! E-t
...... I--l
rn
- -- ~
N
...... ~
, ..J E-t
,. ~ l"'" e @)
- N ~
Co ~ E-
o l"'"
...... @
N
......
- -- @
N
......
e-. @)
i~ ~z
~ ~~
N ~~
co Zo
~o:; I
.... ~
0 ,.
...... ,. ~
....1 I
.....J.... -L
i
. I
I'
I
I
I
~
)
.
~
~~
~~
II /:l
i' >-"",
I ~O
I N ~~
i; .....
I' !:XiU
I
\ ~
0
N
E
~
N Z ~ Z
..... 0 0
rJ) ~ rJ)
S- i- < <
~ ~
~ "'" ~
N 0
0 i- t:..? E-< t:..?
..... t:I'J
N @= CID
..... ......-I :5
n
\' .....
, t)
\\ ~ I ~ ~
H
t:
0 'I 0
il E-o t3 IOr:l
N H t:I'J
i' B
[\
d
N
.....
.
.
~
N t: ~~
-
~~ rn~
r.w~
at t:~ ~r...
e .0
b Oc:l,. ~E
C\l ~-i!
;1
~vs
N
-
~
N 0
- ~
-<
N ~
- -<
t!:J ~
0 -<
. ~~ t- ~ N~ UJ
rn
~ ~ ~ U)
b = t- -<
lO C\l E--4
- - \
\
N \ @
- I
N t;
- l>Q
::II
~
Ei3
N
.....
fz;
t ~~
b ~~
C\l ::l!:
N ~~
.
I II II
i :: \ I :
! " 1\ t
,"II 11
\J II \\\\
J:t ~ II II ~
:::~ :\\1
[1 II "i\
I" "I
:~ ~ :\\\\;,;,;,;.",.,......:."...:...-....,.,..,;;;:;;~':':;';....-.....':...-...;'..:';.;':'...-.........--'.-,'......,~,;,;'..-"...-,"- - . -
'~::::~::~;~:::~:~:::~:~~:::~~~:~:~:~:~:::::::~:~~:~:::~~~:~:~:~:::::::~::::::~:::;~l:~::~:~:.::::;~::~:;:n::::::::::~;..
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I'
,
I'
-- --
-- --
------
------
---11":':::":- .:.:.:.:."'!......._~.:....-.'. '... ....:.;.x..:.:.:.:........, ....;.:.:.:.~.;:~t..:.....-............,.. -:...., ....".... \i:
~ II
.:.:
,;:: I
~m:
.
:z;
~
IloQ
I~
Q
~~ J&.
t;.) -= 0
~~ 5
-------
--------
-- --
--
.
: \ \
.A..YJlHN
~~
CfJ~
I'<':lc
~r...
~o
~b
~u
~
t3~
t5 ~~
~u~
~C::&i
~~i:5
~~~
:CD~
I'<':l c
800
1kE-<::sl
\,
H
n
Ni
Ii ii"
,d,
~i [l
hill
""I
Ii ~;
~ll! i
!i ~l
i II fl
11111
\ ! 111I
\ 11111
i 1; j,
\ \ i III
\ V j1l
;
l
~
o
~
~
u
~
~
E-t
Z
I--l
~~
~~
.
~0
CI --'
~
~~--- ;t :;~ .J /;1' fi~; ;
'" > , !{: '? ~ ,[ , ~;tt 1
" ;~f , t ' ;," ; \,..~\$:/I I ~ H1' l
~l \ CS !i!i r. ;t.-~ If!;f \t!, ~1'~ Ii
! ~ f '" 'i:.~ If, f' ti i' f
J ..... j : j ,1'1 tfif iJI tit ,.
._, "f 1 I h"1. ,..,_^'" If: , ~i " !
~" · "'......-..) . $ f~' l' ",~. !'
,'..,::.:;,.::........, ~...'"' "-_......._-_.......~"...:\_~, ~>;;;:;" ~ 1: t R l~ n
~ .. ~,:,~:Jio...,J.:.,.:.~~~:......~...,..._, ,.. ..::::-~,:.. "'.=::"',:::",,-::::'1 on ~~"2.... "_ ' l H 1\ i i
>,... . ><l .......,...,........,..,.....-.......- l- l'T'" '~;M"P"'%."T;:~"""~"'!"" ~.",' ::V'. 1,,1 l
.......~.......$:E':':~:S...(~L.........~+......,.._ ..-':, /":#"..~.,; . ff1i ,
,.._'^'" if fi 1 ,;~; j\ ~;} II
/') //n4,.' I ,1 Nji ' ; ;
/' / "f. Ii,I, i; ''<\' ~., jt, t" ,
"i !:, ~,'" I!; I t -I ; f I ""1 fjf' ,I 1 I
.."'" I, ',' , . \ ItI f~, j ,
,:) ~ ! i \ P' '~1 l \
/ Ii 1/~!~'l \N J;\\
d , if) f f 0':';)'; I J \ \
~~~:.:.;:;.::::::~ /' ! r i ffi'1 V ; 1 t ;
\\:,,/ 1/ n Ii I tog i i \ \l',
; f, , i \ . ~~{ ; \ \ ,
i " !?hi Fft i\\l
~ i~\ / ~,:: ;e:~'d i ii! ! \\~\~\
;' \ h-{i 11! "./ //,^ /1:~, ,~~ !
1 fUJ +':1- i'{, frill I?! ':/~f( (~ .' )~~\ I t 11i "-
>; ~ j /!J :a-f'c "! iiJJJ)~~/i f!i!' i\.f", r0~' \~\ \i "" ; jl "-
'0'! " '~j, if'! 'C).,}lj: <I~,j ~'
; <... , f.! l i ! ' ",~.... ""'- .-' , , I "^ ......... ___
/ " \ Ie ,.'1 I" ' , ~'" -:::<?\. Y l. ______. _
/ /., .'-, .' ~~ , 1'1 t;",,~ _~ , ", ____ --=----
'- /' L L.=, " J", , , ~~""'." I. ____
.. ..-. ......, '-~,,, ~f' ~f "~:~..::.'\~"",,,,,,,d"'=,,,,,,..~"..m..._..... ...."......_.."
._- . (1 '0""'-""', I
;~;.~-~~-;:~- "..,,, ~t_k'o~. -~.,~~.L~~
"'-"J!If~ ~ -~-..-::.~""..~,:..~.,..,.._,_......,~..~,iH "11 I \
r.r j ,..:, V"1.mT"'\vb-..............~-.;~-_.,~.._,___------___..._ -.. -::::.;::~~~.;;.....""..'c-.,..._'::;;... ~ \1'
a:uuQa 'un.:uu...,n..,.. - ..,;;......,,-,.... ----'--....-'-:--=~"_,.._" :;:,..... -'''''''"''''''"/-1 1" \
"""'. '-'-'~""---~'<"" _fe, I
./ " J 'yl/;;::;'~ "\~(,~):: ~":"'\" ,,; : i \ \ i !
t2g ~! r:r~ '. "~,, ",:.; ~ii l\\ j{ J
~! ~ ( . '~ -'>:.;.~~"^ \ .. i '1, I)
--'t;' '~." ,:,.! 4 I ,,'----.... A
' ",' /." '/ /"~ , ", t\\\-e; iii I '~~--~
<,.,;:;../ :/ / /\R "\,~;\ \, ~ r\l"J w~
t)$/~/ /)#)>? \ \ll \wt \\1 ~~~! ~
'/ ~ d/ .. ThH ill l \ l'j ~ ~
/" ~-\) I //:~ J il',', Ill: \ ~ J;'~ ~
y ^' c ....,..."J1l kl '~j , , \ lJi I
' ^x d'/'" . <c 'f Iii t! I 1 \ l:li, n
//~ / "':/,1" , '\ t fi dl \ 1 \_ ~~f r.~l
r;/ " .9-;V;f?'\ ~/ .}''<w,.L iif;.. 1l1~ \ I S. ~{ ""I /
./ /;;~A / /';:'" /~ ~; i$ll: ~ \ \ "{ f'li ?r '
//yr/ V /r ~ "ll;'b.iH l ~ I 'i1l v I
f{~",,~/ / #' / ~J/ ii!h dl! \. (if I ' I
~;1~7 I, I' ;'!! i'!, i,\ i ~I i
" / /~,~ 4" . '\ , i;i Ii ;: ~ w; 1; l tI~i I i
"'-,,' ). /~. /"" e>, Iii p: ;;'1 i milt
Z: //' (d i:d,ti Il!l r t,d i i
Y U ,.r" '" · " ,"-- i I
1// I
-
Ii
~~
~~
~ ~
o 0
a::J a::J
l.O l.O
~ ~
~~
~ es
oltSoltS
~~
a a
::r::::r::
rn rn
:::l :::l
o 0
~~
~
d
Z
-<
=:r::
u
0::;
~
~
Z
I---l
<
~I
~;!
~
~~
rr.I~
I'>QCl
>-r:...
~o
~E
f2@
~ ~
\llq
rn
~: j 1 TI
illl :l ,til
~ 11 ' !I" II P1.1 .+..
hli! 1 ;:.
r.; fill ! i ,L-
H ,i , , ~ , .
N t,: ~,;. . I I '
". ~ I i j
F f ! , i .
~H'fl il~:'lt
Jl f +
i! 1 t\ i! ! '1 '
~ ~ ~/f \1 i. i !
if! 11 I i 1~1;1 \1
(, 1 ; f II . " .\' .
+ 11/) i, .1' i U'i
'/1/; I II ~\\ I
II / J:/" i o[ I I r\ \
Ij" ? / 11811 I \ \ !
;/ II, 1.J.1j' ! \\ \
~1 I , '~I I :
IF / . i '\
.1/ / ,__.....M_.,,,... i I .
,,4', -~'-,,~ I :
-;;:? /. I. " \ \\Ji I
"... .. .,..-:!-... ,r"'1Ii. ~ . \
-< ~~=./ '/ + !. " '
4' ~-< , \'!
r.' / " ; +., _
(./ + ']S,' ;;~~:::~?!::;:;;, :;':::-""'-~'~\"\" l.~'~::~Y ~:::,~:~,.....-" _.....
-~. .-.- ,- '//
f "-~ . · , '":'_- = -"'111' -nf . \ I 11// /
' · -=:::.. Ii " '\ 11'/, ,
· -~ ~~;~~~~~,\, I!, ~), r~".-'/;rfJ /
\~\\, II! ! '-- II
'\ \ \ II i:1 i / I'
k',' '". '''I' I /1
9 \ \1 i ill ;;(1.
... \ \ I I 11 I, / r f
ill: i:1 I 11/
1 "(' ;1 i t ^Jf 1/
~ ,'J ,.. 'I "! / /
B 'j" ~1, :If,
1 , '~;,j I ~ f / I
\ \ ~~ljl fl'!
l I II ! J ( I
q \ ,t 11 I ~ 1 f
I \ if; tV .
\ ;: ;
III +
~~ ii"
;,; x '; l
i; l
"?" t
.
..
~
.
~~
rzl~
.'
~
en
~I
en
~~
I~
~~
~~
~EZ..
-=0
~E
.........................
..........""'""-\......
~
'"
~
~
~
::c:
u
~
~;a
E-to
z=
~~
~E-"
I@
~
t
Iii
I! !
I I!
r~ l l
Ii! II
Hi 1, 1,
H!
i i ! i
, '! ! I
1 1
i,l I I [
i I i
i i:
!d'
iea
; &0
, I'
I'~,
il
! ! i
i i!
l
;
!
I
/f
11
fI
M ~~
~ lZl~
~
-=
~~ ~~
Q:iU
I~ "
~CD
~~
~iS
.'
..
/
! 1/
; !
! I
; ,/
1 If
If,
" f,
! I
:(,
1:11
ili
~~ i
II r,
i I f
II r
! '
~
~
Z
-<
::r::
u
0:=
~
~
Z~
........ 0
Q:
~2:
~~
'10
~ C\2
~
~.~
-\
\
i \
o .
.. 0
-. ..
--
III'I~P.-" ~......,..-..
.
~..
.
Sf
-oJ
.....
~ - ~:--
" .. 1'1
"''j..'-- ~ ~
:s . ~
. I ~
. -.: <
.------ \
- ~ en
~~
l1-~
::~
Q~:s~t
Z :z "'i::t -' 0)
LUw ~-lO
(DZ ~E
A 'l1J ffi ~ ~ ~
\1 ..J to tk"r G .-
.~ @~~a
.......-~..
.
..
\
.
i\"
i \ .......
.. \
') .. \
\
)\
\...
\ \
\. 'f\
- - .....,..",..-:r - ~.. -::i:l";;n,,, -
,
.
.
.
f-I~
.
.
.
.
.
- .
: c.a-.-L
~'
.. <:,
~\( .
- ~\ \
........ ":a.\\,
- .
~
~
""I
C:_ OT
\
......\
I
~~
;~
.: ---
- (,,:X\ ~
~ Ir2 O( ,.,.',.. ~
\ .. ..
--.. '\ -
.. \'\~\ ..:
\
o,r1A ~ . J
. .-
. - .
--:0 :
- J~~" _~.
.,.
. +.
" -
, -'
,,'
.--,
.,.
Dougherty Road, Segment 1: 4300 ft and 118 ft right of way
filename=seg01 length= 4300
created 9/23/94
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
==:=====::::==========;::==::===.=:::::z::===;;=;:::_=____::::::
Total
Mobil ization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
15.00
15.00
15.00
.:;.
Sawcut
Grind
Rrn ex paWlt
2.00
3.00
Full PaWlt
C&G
SI.'
MC
180.00
15.00
24.75
20.00
~:..
Overlay
i;63 . 00
Earthwork
12.00
CB&SOMH
SO pipe
4.65
50.00
Strp&rnkings
signs
16.00
2.00
Electrl
sig Inter
New utI
Exist utI
9.77
15.00
L&I
70.00
Survey
7.44
====:==::===.:=====::=======;;:::::::======:::::===:::=::=======
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F = 100X
.
64500.00
64500.00
64500.00
.00
8600.00
12900.00
.00
.00
774000.00
64500.00
106425.00
86000.00
.00
270900.00
.00
51600.00
.00
20000.00
215000.00
.00
68800.00
8600.00
.00
42000.00
64500.00
.00
.00
.00
301000.00
.00
32000.00
2320325.00
539.61
540/LF
Dougherty Road. Segment 2; 4250 ft and 1'8 ft right of way
filename-seg02 length- 4250
created 9/23/94
.
,.'
Pric:e per
Desc:ription Lin Foot Total
:::;:::==:::==::::::::::::==:Z:ZE:Z:::::===__Z:::::::===;::::===
Mooilization 15.00 63750.00
Traffic: etl 15.00 63750,00
Clear & Grb 15.00 63750.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 8500.00
Grind 3.00 12750.00
Rm ex pavmt .00
.00
Full Pavmt 180.00 765000.00
" C&G 63750.00
15.00
.'
SI.' 24.75 105187.50
Me 20.00 85000.00
t .00 .
Overlay 63.00 267750.00
.00
Earthwork 12.00 51000.00
.00
CB&SDMH 4.24 18000.00
SO pipe 50.00 212500.00
.00
Strp&mkin;s 16.00 68000.00
signs 2.00 8500.00
.00
Electrl 8.47 36000.00
Sis; Inter 15.00 63750.00
~ew utl .00
Exist utI .00
.00
L&l 70.00 297500.00
u .00
Survey 6.59 28000.00
==::=::~==-====:===;=:::==;:======_:===:===-=:_:==::=====:=:::==
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
2252437.50
537.04
540/LF
ilF
= 100::
.
';'..
Dougherty Road,
f i I eNme"seg03
created 9/23/94
Description
Segment 3; 900 ft; Rt Hand Turn,Houst PI to Dub. Blvd
length= 900
=.ERt&SE:.K:=;=;======;=;=========::CE~===R::K.==:=..=;========::::SEZEZ.
Uni t pri ce
Toul
==:E::==::::::=a:EZ:::EE:_:=____=======:ZEZ...:===ZB::::_====:::::::E:SKZ
.-.
'.
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
US:
TlF = 100~
;...
.
138600.00
154.00
,50/LF
Dougherty Road, Se9ment
ti lename:seg04
created 12/01/95
4; Dublin Blvd. to North of 1.580
length; 520
.
Description
Price per
L in Foot
TonI
::~=_E.Z==_E.=~:==:====_=::===~;~===~~E:E&Z.EZ~..Z.2EZ======:z:=
',' ~ ..
Mooili:ation 20.00 10400.00
Traffic Ctl 9.00 1.680.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 7800.00
.00
Sawcut 3.00 1560.00
Grind 3.00 1560.00
Rm ex pavmt .00
.00
Full Pavmt 96.00 49920.00
C&G 24.00 12480.00
SI.' 37.50 19500.00
Me 20.00 10400.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
t .00 .
Earthwork 21..00 12480.00
.00
CS&SOMH iO.OO 5200.00
SO pipe 50.00 26000.00
.00
Strp&mkin;s 10.00 5200.00
signs 2.50 1300.00
.00
ElectrL 20.00 10400.00
Sig Inter .00 .00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
U;.l 50.00 26000.00
.00
SU~ey 5.00 2600.00
:==:::::=:===:==========:========::===.:==::=====:::::::===;::=:
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE LUMP SUI'!
207480.00
399.00
207480.00
Tl F : 100::
.
-".
Dublin Bouleva~d,
1i lename"segOs
c:~eued 9/23/9i.
Segment 5; 2200 ft and 108 ft right of way
length- 2200
Wo utilities (ne~ o~ ~eloc:ated), side~.lk, maintenance ove~lay
L&l, elect~ol iers, inte~c:ol"ll"lec:t
Desc:ription
prj c:e pe~
Lin Foot
:=========:=:;:_~:===::=::========~~.~:=_5_::~_======~Z~::=;;=;=
TonI
::,.,.
.-
Hobilization
Traffic: Ctl
Clur & Grb
Remove & Relocate
Exist. Uti l.
Remove trees,BStop
Earth~ork, grding
Grind
Full pavmt
C&G
SI.'
He
Sawcut
Ove~lay
Earthwork
C5&SDHH
SO pipe
Strp&mIcings
signs
Eleenl
Sig Inter
Ne~ utI
Exist utI
L&l, in::l exist
Survey
25.00
20.00
15.00
5.00
8.00
35.00
3.00
50.00
24.00
48.00
10.00
1.50
.00
18.00
36.00
8.00
2.00
5.00
15.00
70.00
4.90
55000.00
1.4000.00
33000.00
.00
11000.00
17600.00
nooo.oo
6600.00
110000.00
52800.00
105600.00
22000.00
3300.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
39600.00
79200.00
.00
17600.00
1.400.00
.00
j 1000.00
33000.00
.00
.00
.00
154000.00
.00
10780.00
=====:=::==============_;::=:~=:CE=:::=;;:=========:::::===;====
Gl1AIIO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE.
.
TIF
:: 100~
8a7L.80.00
'-03.1.0
'-40/LF
Dublin Boul~vard.
f i I eNmeEseg06
created 9/23/94
Desc:ription
Segment 6: 2030 ft and 108 ft right of way
lengthE 2030
.
Price per
Lin Foot
~:=:E===;:a:====;::=::====::~~:=::::::===:~KE::~::==;=::::====;=
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawc:ut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full pavmt
C1.G
SIJ
HC
Over l ay
Earthwork, greng
CB&SDMH
so pipe
Strp&mJdngs
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utI
Exist utI
L&l, in:l exist
Survey
25.00
20.00
14.00
1.55
50.00
24 . 00
48.00
t 10.00
.00
25.00
10.00
30.00
8.00
2.00
5.00
40.00
4.93
50~0.00
40600.00
28420.00
3146.50
.00
.00
.00
101500.00
48nO.OO
97440.00
20300.00
.00
.00
.00
50750.00
.00
20300.00
60900.00
.00
16240.00
4060.00
.00
10150.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
81200.00
.00
10000.00
.
:::==:::===::==:.==:===.::====;;:===::=====:::==::===:===:=====:
GilAIID TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TlF
= 100:::
644476.50
317.48
300/LF
.
-.
.,.
Dublin Boulevard Ext,
1ilename"s.g07
c:reated 9/23/94
Oesc:ription
Segment 7: 2000 1t and 126 1t right of way
length= 2000
Price per
Lin foot
:===::~S::=_:;;==================:EZ;;=======::.~--;==::s:c:::::
TonI
Mob; I ization
Traffic: Ctl
Cleer & Grb
Sawc:ut
Crind
Rm ex pavrnt
;.:;~.
full pavrnt
C&G
S\J
I'lC
Overlay
:>
Earthwork
CS&SOMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utI
Exist utI
L&l, inc:l exi St
Survey
15.00
9.00
7.50
1.00
1.50
7.14
212.50
12.00
24.00
l 20.00
.00
20.00
9.29
50.00
19.29
2.41
20.00
15.00
50.00
5.00
30000.00
18000.00
15000.00
2000.00
3000.00
14285.71
.00
425000.00
24000.00
48000.00
40000.00
.00
.00
.00
40000.00
.00
18571.43
100000.00
.00
3E571 .43
4520.00
.00
40000.00
30000.00
.00
.00
.00
100000.00
.00
10000.00
:::::a:===:=====;;;:::=======::;:;:_====::::::z:___====:::==::::
GRAIIO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
.
Tl f "50:::
North" 0:::
South = 50:::
100121.8.57
500.62
S10/LF
Dublin Boulevard Ext., Segment 8; 3000 tt and 126 ft ri
filename=seg08 length= 3000
created 9/23/94
.
Price per
Description Lin Foot Total
=::===z::__=::=:_:=:==:_:::=_:::======%::=;_.::===;_:~=
MobiliUtion 25,00 75000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 45000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 45000.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 6000.00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
, ' .00
',"
,", Full Pavmt 2n.OO 816000.00
C&G 24.00 nooo.OO
SIJ 49.50 148500.00
Me 20.00 60000.00
.00
Overlay ~ .00 .00 .
.00
Earthwork 20.00 60000.00
.00
CB&SOMH 10.11 30315.79
so pipe 50.00 150000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 12.00 36000.00
signs 2.00 6000.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 60000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 45000.00
New utI .00
Exist utI .00
.00
L&l 70.00 210000.00
.00
Survey 5.00 15000.00
=:::=-;===.:::==::::==:::===:::===-::::===.Z:===:2=====
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1879815.79
626.61
S650/LF
Tl F = 75%
FRONTAGE = 25%
.'
~,.
Dublin Boulevard Ext., Segment 8A; 1600 ft and 126 ft r
filename=seg08a length= 1600
created 9/23/94
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
:=:::::E3Z:E:~::==:=__:_:=:::::::___============:::::=:
Toul
Mcbilization
Traffic etl
Clear & Grb
25.00
15.00
15.00
"..
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
.00
.00
9.33
Full Pavmt
e&G
SIJ
MC
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
.,.,'.
':-,
Overlay
to .00
Earthwork
50.00
eB&SDMH
SO pipe
10.11
100.00
Strp&mkings
signs
16.00
2.00
~ - .
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utL
Exist utI
20.00
15.00
L&l
70.00
Survey
8.42
::::::===========:::::::::=:::::::==::uzs__:::=========
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F = 75X
FRONTAGE = 25X
.
40000.00
24000.00
24000.00
.00
.00
.00
14932.21
.00
544000.00
38400.00
79200.00
32000.00
.00
.00
.00
80000.00
.00
16168.42
160000.00
.00
25600.00
3200.00
.00
32000.00
24000.00
.00
.00
.00
112000.00
.00
13473.68
1262974.32
789.36
SBOO/LF
Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 9; 4600 ft and 126 ft right of way
tilename=seg09 lengthE 4600
created 9/23/94
.
I".'
: ','.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
==:==;:Z===Z:==:::==:==:a:==::===:::=::z:=:g::=;;:_::=:::=::==_:
,";."
Mobi l i uti on 20.00 92000.00
Traffic etl 12.00 55200.00
Clear & Grb 10.00 46000.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 9200.00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavrnt 240.00 1104000.00
e&G 24.00 110400.00
SIJ 45.00 207000.00
Me 20.00 92000.00
.00
Overlay ~ .00 .00 .
Earthwork 20.00 92000.00
.00
CB&SOMH 10.00 46000.00
SO pipe 30.00 138000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 12.00 55200.00
signs 1.79 8214.29
.00
Electrl 10.00 46000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 69000.00
New utl .00
Exist utI .00
.00
L&I 50.00 230000.00
.00
Survey 5~00 23000.00
===E:;:==:z:==:==:::==::===::=:E:=;=====:zz==:z:==;:::=_:====::=
-.,
GRAND TOTAL
eOST PER LF
USE
2423214.29
526.79
$510/LF
TIF " SOX
frontage = 25X / 25X
.
.
Oublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 10; 6200 ft and 126 ft right of wa
filename=seg10 length= 6200
created 9/23/94
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
=-_Z::====;:;:=_:_=:::===;___:EE~::======;______:__ZC:m::::=====
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
C&G
SI.'
MC
Overlay
;....
,--;.
.. -
Earthwork
eB&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
1-'.
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utI
Exist utI
,..
L&I
Survey
,..
25.00
15.00
15.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
50.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
75.00
6.61
.00
.00
.00
155000.00
93000.00
93000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2108000.00
148800.00
306900.00
124000.00
.00
.00
.00
310000.00
.00
62000.00
620000.00
.00
99200.00
12400.00
.00
124000.00
93000.00
.00
.00
.00
465000.00
.00
41000.00
.00
===;=-_::::==;_:::::::==;:::2ZZ:===========E:.Z::::=============
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 50X
FRONTAGE = 25X / 25X
.
4855300.00
783.11
SSOO/LF
Dublin Boulevard Ext, Segment 11; 9350 ft and 126 ft right of way
filename=seg11 len9th= 9350
created 9/23/94
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
~:=-::=:K=====:=~:===_Z~=;_Z:===:_:Z::=;:Z===_.S=:::===:_::=;=::.::=
Mobilization 25.00 233750.00
Traffic etl 15.00 140250.00
elear & Grb 15.00 140250.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavmt 340.00 3179000.00
e&G 24.00 224400.00
SI.' 49.50 462825.00
Me 20.00 187000.00
.00 .
Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork n.oo 673200.00
.00
CB&SOMH 10.00 93500.00
so pipe 100.00 935000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 149600.00
signs 2.00 18700.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 187000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 140250.00
New utl .00
Exi st utl .00
.00
L&l 70.00 654500.00
.00
Survey 6.75 63112.50
==:::==:::=:====;::=====::==::=::==:::::==;ZE:::=:::::==:..::===:E:=
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
7482337.50
800.25
SBOO/LF
TIF = SOX
FRONTAGE = 25% / 25%
.
---.-
,.
]nterchange, Airway/1.580
fileNme"seg121
created
, "
Description
Price po:r
Lin Foot
length=
Toul
1S00
::==;;=:::=::_=_;____::=====~z=zz:_==:====::e=:s:_;=:=:::=:;:--=
.;
Mobi l ization
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
. :':.:,
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Bridge & elover
Full Pavmt
C&G
RAMP
MC
PAVER
Overlay
Earthwk, ramp
Earthwork
.'.
,"
. ,
C;;&SDMH
SO pipe
,..
St:rp&mk i ngs
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
Wew u~l
Exist utI
L&]
Survey
120.00
120.00
60.00
2.00
'0.00
5500.00
120.00
15.00
250.00
20.00
84.00
.00
100.00
200.00
4.65
25.00
i2.00
2.00
20.00
.00
60.00
20.00
216000.00
2'6000.00
'08000.00
.00
200.00
1000.00
.00
2950000.00
215600.00
108000.00
450000.00
36000.00
151200.00
.00
180000.00
359650.00
.00
16744.19
67500.00
.00
32400.00
3600.00
.00
nooo.oo
.00
.00
.00
.00
10S000.00
.00
72000.00
===::===;==;=;:::::::============:::_:_=;=====:::=====-=====:=::
GRAIID TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
.
ilF
:: 100~
5363894.19
53727'4.00
Hacienda, Segment 13: 1600 ft and 126 ft right of way
iilename=seg13 length= 1600
created 9/23/94
.
Price per
Description Lin Foot Total
===::-=====_E:=:::=::==:=:::::=:::::z====_z==::==::====:z=;z==::
Mobilization 25.00 40000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 24000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 24000.00
.00
Sawcut 2.00 3200.00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavmt 272.00 435200.00
e&G 24.00 38400.00
SI.' 49.50 79200.00
MC 20.00 32000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00 .
.00
Earthwork 20.00 32000.00
.00
CB&SDMH 10.00 16000.00
SO pipe 45.00 nooo.OO
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 25600.00
signs 2.00 3200.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 32000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 24000.00
New utl .00
Exist utI .00
.00
L&I 75.00 120000.00
.00
Survey 6.75 10800.00
===z=_:==:=:=-;:=::=::=::=:======::==:==z:=~:=;===::==::=:=:====
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1011600.00
632.25
S640/LF
TlF = SOX
FRONTAGE = 25X / 25"
.
.,..
Hacienda, Segment 14; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of way
fjlename=seg14 length~ 3200
created 9/23/94
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
====;;;=;=;======:::::::========:==:B:::Z:...E_=====::::::::::_:
Total
.,
, .
Mobil ization
Traffic Ctl
elear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
Full Pavrnt
C&G
SIJ
MC
Overlay
.u_.
Earthwork
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
t_"_
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utI
Exist utI
~-;".
'".'
L&l
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
19.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
64000.00
38400.00
38400.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
780800.00
76800.00
158400.00
64000.00
.00
.00
.00
60S00.00
.00
32000.00
320000.00
.00
51200.00
6400.00
.00
64000.00
48000.00
.00
.00
.00
224000.00
.00
22400.00
.00
:=:=::==============================::::=::::~E::__=;=========::
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TI F = 38X
FRONTAGE = 31% / 31%
.
2049600.00
640.50
S650/Lf
".
Interchange, Hec:ienda'1.S80
filename-5eg151
created
length~ Re~
2400
.
De:;:c:ription
Price per
Lin foot
TotaL
::==2:====:KE~=~====;::==;;;:E=====~:e===;~a==z=====:======;:ac.
Mobilization 4.00 9600.00
Traffic Ctl 2.50 6000.00
Clear & Grb 2.00 '800.00
.00
Sallcut 1.00 2400.00
Grind .00
Rm ex pavmt .00
.00
IJi den Pavmt, RalTp 48.00 1'5200.00
RoLled curb 8.00 19200.00
SIJ .00 .00
Me: .00 .00
.. .00 .
Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthllork 6.00 14'00.00
.00
CS&SDMH 1.20 28S0.00
so pipe 1.00 2400.00
.00
Strp&lnkings 2.00 4800.00
signs .00
.00
Elecul .00
Sip Inter .00 .00
Wew utI .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&l .00
.00
Survey 2.00 '800.00
:;_z:=;-=:===:==-==:===;==:==;_E:=====_:::~========_=::=~=====_:
Gj:lAIID TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE LS
186480.00
170000.00
iJ F = 100:
.
-:.
Arnold Drive, Segment 16; 3100 ft and 102 ft right of w
filename=seg16 length= 3100
created 9/23/94
Oescription
Price per
Lin Foot
=======.__a::::::ass..:::::=========:=======;==========
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
elear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
Full pavmt
e&G
SI.'
Me
c~'.
Overlay
Earthwork
eS&SOMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
L".
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utI
Exist utl
L&l
..",
Survey
=:====;;=-=::::::::::::=======-=;===;-=-;-=:~----_:_-=-
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 69%
FRONTAGE = OX / 31X
-.
20.00
12.00
12.00
.00
.00
10.00
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
~ .00
21.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
.00
70.00
7.00
62000.00
37200.00
37200.00
.00
.00
.00
31000.00
.00
756400.00
74400.00
153450.00
62000.00
.00
.00
.00
65100.00
.00
31000.00
310000.00
.00
49600.00
6200.00
.00
62000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
217000.00
.00
21700.00
1976250.00
637.50
S650/LF
Transit Spine, Segment 16a; 1600 ft and 102 ft right of way
filenamezseg16a lengthz 1600
created 9/23/94
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
Total
S:===__::::====____8Z:::::::==______::::R3Z::::=======__:cz::===
Mobil ization 20.00 32000.00
Traffic etl 12.00 19200.00
elear & Grb 12.00 19200.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full pavmt 254.00 406400.00
e&G 24.00 38400.00
SW 49.00 78400.00
Me 20.00 32000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00
.00 .
Earthwork 21.00 33600.00
.00
eS&SDMH 10.00 16000.00
SO pipe 100.00 160000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 15.00 24000.00
signs 2.00 3200.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 32000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 24000.00
New utl .00
Exist utl .00
.00
L&I 70.00 112000.00
.00
Survey 7.00 11200.00
::=====:::::::======---=:::==:::=========------=====::::========
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1041600.00
651.00
S655/LF
-..
TIF = 38X
FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X
.
.'.
Transit Spine, Segment 17; 4500 ft and 102 ft right of way
filenome=seg17 length= 4500
created 9/23/94
I: '
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
::_:_.;===-======:::::~:::::::_---;========:::::=:_-------======
Total
Mobilization
Traffic etl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full povmt
C&G
5IJ
MC
',.'.
"
OVerlay
Earthwork
eB&SOMH
50 pipe
['
Strp&mkings
signs
~ "0
, . ~
Electrl
sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&l
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
254.00
24.00
49.00
20.00
21.00
10.00
100.00
15.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
90000.00
54000.00
54000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1143000.00
108000.00
220500.00
90000.00
.00
.00
.00
94500.00
.00
45000.00
450000.00
.00
67500.00
9000.00
.00
90000.00
67500.00
.00
.00
.00
315000.00
.00
31500.00
.00
=;================:::===:==:_---;;=======::::::_-===========::::
GRANO TOTAL
eOST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 38%
FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X
--.
2929500.00
651. 00
S655/LF
Transit Spine, Segment 18; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename=seg1S length: 3200
created 9/23/94
Descri pt i on
Price per
Lin Foot
.
=_Z:::==_____=%:::::=;=_=_::=K::=:=====__~=:::::=====_=:::::::==
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
elear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavrnt
C&G
SW
MC
Overlay
Earthwork, l' e/F
eS&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mlcings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
254.00
24.00
49.00
20.00
21.00
10.00
100.00
15.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
7.00
.00
.00
.00
64000.00
38400.00
38400.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
812800.00
76800.00
156800.00
64000.00
.00
.00
.00
6nOO.OO
.00
32000.00
320000.00
.00
48000.00
6400.00
.00
64000.00
4S000.00
.00
.00
.00
224000.00
.00
22400.00
.
.00
::::===--::.=:====:::==:::====;;::::.:Z:======;;___:2::::=====;=
GRANO TOTAL
eOST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 3S"
FRONTAGE = 31" / 31"
2083200.00
651.00
S655/LF
.
,-'.
Transit Spine, Segment 18A; 3200 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename=seg1SA length= 3200
created 9/23/94
--,
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
==::::___=:;==:::==___=======::::::=___=====::::::__=====::::z=_
Total
Mobilization
Traffic CtL
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
:.:":-::
Full Pavmt
C&G
SW
Me
Overlay
:..'.
.....:.-
Earthwork, 6' e/F
eB&SOMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utl
L&I
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
.00
.00
.00
254.00
24.00
49.00
20.00
.00
9S.00
10.00
100.00
15.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
7.00
64000.00
38400.00
38400.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
S12S00.00
76800.00
156800.00
64000.00
.00
.00
.00
313600.00
.00
32000.00
320000.00
.00
48000.00
6400.00
.00
64000.00
4S000.00
.00
.00
.00
224000.00
.00
22400.00
=:::---===:;=====::::-:::--====:::::::-:=======::=--=======::===
GRANO TOTAL
eOST PER LF
USE
TI F = 3SX
FRONTAGE = 31X / 31X
"-.-
.
2329600.00
728.00
S730/LF
','.
Gleason, Segment '9: 4600 ft and 102 ft right of way
f4lename=ses19 length= 4600
created 9/23/94
.
".:. Price per
Description Lin Foot Total
-_z:=::z:::==_:.~:==_:z=:=;::::=====_::::=;_:ZEE:=::=;__======__
Mobilization 20.00 92000.00
Traffic Ctl 12.00 55200.00
Clear & Grb 12.00 55200.00
-, .00
Sawcut 1.00 4600.00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt 4.75 21850.00
.00
Full Pavmt 134.00 616400.00
C&G 24.00 110400.00
SII 25.00 115000.00
Me 20.00 92000.00
.00
Overlay .00 .00 .
.00
Earthwork 19.00 87400.00
.00
CB&SDMH 4.00 18400.00
so pipe 50.00 230000.00
.00
Strp&mldngs 15.00 69000.00
signs 2.00 9200.00
.00
Electrl .00 .00
, , Sig Inter 15.00' 69000.00
New utI .00
EXist utl .00
.00
' -
L&I 65.00 299000.00
.00
Survey 5.00 23000.00
==:E:==:::===:::===_======::::===;::z:::==___z::::==;:::::===:::
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1967650.00
427.75
S425
Tl F = 30%
FRONTAGE = 9% / 61X
.
'-:.
Gleason, Segment 19a; 1600 ft and 102 ft right of way
f~lename=seg19a length= 1600
created 9/23/94
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
:zs::::=================;::::::~=:::___:;;__===:::::z::=:::ES:::
Total
Mobilization
Traffic etl
elear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
;.::
Full pavrnt
C&G
SI.'
Me
>.
- .
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SOMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
S;g Inter
New utI
Exist utI
L&l
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
1.00
.00
4.75
134.00
24.00
25.00
20.00
.00
19.00
4.00
50.00
15.00
2.00
.00
15.00
65.00
5.00
32000.00
19200.00
19200.00
.00
1600.00
.00
7600.00
.00
214400.00
38400.00
40000.00
32000.00
.00
.00
.00
30400.00
.00
6400.00
80000.00
.00
24000.00
3200.00
.00
.00
24000.00
.00
.00
.00
104000.00
.00
8000.00
===========::_:=___:_:::=:::==:::s:z:::scs..s::==__::;:====;====
GRANO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
:.:,:
Tl F = 30X
FRONTAGE = 9X 1 61X
.
684400.00
427.75
S425
.:-
Cleason, Segment 20; 5100 ft and 102 ft right of way
fi I ename=seg20 length'" 5 1 00
created 9/23/94
.
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
.:==EZECE:=========::=====:::=;;==;;:___:::E:Z::Z:_;:=__::;E::::
Total
Mobil iution
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Salo/cut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
e&G
SI.'
He
Overlay
:"."
Earthl%rk
CS&SOMH
so pipe
Strp&mkinss
signs
Ele::trl
Sill Inter
New utI
Exist utl
L&I
Survey
20.00
12.00
12.00
.00
.00
.00
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
.00
113.00
9.68
100.00
15.00
2.00
19.35
15.00
70.00
7.00
102000.00
61200.00
61200.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
12i.4400.00
122400.00
252450.00
102000.00
.00
.00
.00
576300.00
.00
49354.84
510000.00
.00
76500.00
10200.00
.00
98709.68
7!:500.00
.00
.00
.00
357000.00
.00
35700.00
.
==::===:::::===:_E:::===.::===========:;:_:::::=;;;:::==::=:====
GIl.AIID TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 3e:;
FROIIT~GE = 31: / 3i:;
3735914.52
732.53
s750/LF
.
0.,.
Scarlett Drive, Segment 21; 2600 ft and 102 ft right of way
filename=seg21 length- 2600
created 9/23/94
Description
Pri ce per
Li n Foot
w:;;==============::U::E3::::_::=======::s..s:===:::a:__;===:::s
Total
Mobilization
Traffic Ctl
elear & Grb
20.00
12.00
12.00
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavrnt
.00
.00
.00
Full Pavmt
e&G
SIJ
MC
244.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
'.
Overlay
.00
Earthwork
21.00
CB&SDMH
SO pipe
10.00
90.00
Strp&mkings
signs
14.00
2.00
Electrl
Sig Inter
New utl
Exist utI
20.00
15.00
L&I
75.00
Survey
8.00
____:====;=;;;=========:===::::.====::::ES__:;==:::::Z:;;;===:::
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
T 1 F = 100%
.
52000.00
31200.00
31200.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
634400.00
62400.00
128700.00
52000.00
.00
.00
.00
54600.00
.00
26000.00
234000.00
.00
36400.00
5200.00
.00
52000.00
39000.00
.00
.00
.00
195000.00
.00
20S00.00
1654900.00
636.50
S650/LF
Tasujera Road,
fileNme&seg22
created 9/23/94
Segment 22: 5800 ft and 126 ft right of way
lengths 5800
.
Price per
Desc:ription Lin Foot Total
. . ::=;:::&==:=::~__:==__:=::===::_===:=:C::::====::=ZE:EE::::=:::=
Mooilization 25.00 145000.00
Traffic Ctl 15.00 87000.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 87000.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pevmt 340.00 19nOOO.Oo
e&G 24.00 139200.00
SIJ 49.50 287100.00
HC 20.00 116000.00
.. .00 .
' , Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork n.oo 417600.00
. ,
.00
C3&SDMH 10.00 58000.00
SO pipe 100.00 580000.00
.00
Strp&mkings 16.00 92800.00
signs 2.00 11600.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 116000~00
Sig Inter 15.00 87000.00
New utl .00
Exist utI .00
.00
L&I 70.00 406000.00
.00
Survey 6.75 39150.00
=::==:.Ea===__=:===;;:EE:====_=;=__:::=~S=:==:=::::============;
GRANO TOiAL
COST PER LF
USE
4641450.00
800.25
saOO/LF
T IF 50:::
FRO~iAGE = 25::: / 25~
.
w.
Tassejara Road,
filCNme=seg22a
created 9/23/9(.
Description
Segment 22.; 5000 ft and 126 ft ri;ht of way
len;th~ 5000
Price per
Lin Foot
::::=:::aK=======.===::z:::====:z:==:m:.=::::_=zc==:::===._===ER
Total
....
I'!obi l ization
Traffic Ctl
Clear I. Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
C&G
51.',
H::
::-,.
'"
Overlay
Earthwork
t', -
CB&SOI'!H
SO pipe
;....
5trp.!.lnkin;s
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New ut l
Exist utI
L&l
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
.00
.00
.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
72.00
10.00
iOO.OO
10.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.75
.00
125000.00
75000.00
75000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1700000.00
120000.00
247500.00
100000.00
.00
.00
.00
360000.00
.00
50000.00
500000.00
.00
80000.00
10000.00
.00
100000.00
75000.00
.00
.00
.00
350000.00
.00
33750.00
========:::::;;======::::::====:::===:::==:.E.==a:.====-==:::===
GRAI/O TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
- .\:
.
T1F 50~
FRONT~GE = 25~ / 25~
400i250.00
SOO.25
s800/LF
Tass.jara Road,
f i I ename-s~g23
crelted 9/23/94
Description
S~9ment 23; 2600 ft .nd 126 ft right of way
length- 2600
Price per
Lin Foot
.
;;.::::====;====:=:=:=:===_:::Z~Z;==:C~:S.Z:8E~~====::z.z:_:_~zs
Total
Mobil het i 01"1
Tr.ffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
e&G
S\l
I'lC
Overlay
Earthwork
CCi&SDMH
SO pipe
Strp&mkin;s
signs
ELec-::rl
Sig Inter
Hew utI
Exist utI
L&l
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
.00
.00
.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
.00
24.00
10.00
100.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.75
65000.00
39000.00
39000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
884000.00
62400.00
128700.00
52000.00
.00
.00
.00
62400.00
.00
26000.00
260000.00
.00
41600.00
5200.00
.00
52000.00
39000.00
.00
.00
.00
152000.00
.00
17550.00
.
==___:z:::===;:::==::::::====================:::::::_:___;_::;;;
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
i1;: ::: 50:::
FRDIITAGE ::: 25::: / 25:::
19S5eso.oo
732.25
S775/lf
.
'.
Tassllj.rll Road,
filenllme=se5124
crellted 9/23./94
Segment 24; 1000 ft and 150 ft ri51ht of way
length= 1000
OIlLY TIF PORT10II IS ESTIMATED
Description
Pric:e per
L in Foot
::=:====::::;==:===:::::::;;=:E::=::E:;=:K~;==Z~==B:=:KE:_=::::=
Tot.l
., '
Mobi I i zati 01"1
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
C&G
SI.'
Me
...,.
"
Overlay
Earthwork
CB&SDMH
so pipe
Strp&mlci ngs
silins
Electrl
Sig Inter
~ew utI
Exist utI
L&l
Survey
25x.30
20x.30
1sx.30
4x1.00
14x1.20
6x4.00
20x1
28x.06
10x.20
100x.15
16x.30
2x..30
15x.30
15x.30
70x.50
10x.30
7500.00
6000.00
4500.00
.00
1.000.00
.00
16800.00
.00
24000.00
.00
.00
20000.00
.00
.00
.00
1680.00
.00
2000.00
15000.00
.00
4BOO.00
600.00
.00
4500.00
4500.00
.00
.00
.00
35000.00
.00
3000.00
:=::=~.::=====:::_::======::_====:::;===::_===~~===::==::::==:~:
GilA~O TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
.
153B80.00
153.B8
S150/LF
Interchange, Tassajara/1-saO
filename-seg251
created 2/22/96
Description
Pri ce per
Lin Foot
length-
Totcl
.
,aDo
===zz:==:c=============:::=;:=a.c.:_:_SZEKZ:::::SSZ..:_.2:==:_:K
Mobil h,at i 01"1
Traffic Ctl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
BRIDGE
Full Pavmt
e:&G
Pllvmt RlIlIp
He:
PAVER
Overlay
Earthwork, Rafll?
Earthwork
C5&SOHH
so pipe
Strp&mkings
signs
Electrl
SiS Inter
~ew utI
Exist utl
L&l
Survey
'50.00
150.00
60.00
50.00
10.00
6500.00
225 . 00
15.00
160.00
50.00
84.00
.00
130.00
250.00
5.00
25 .00
16.00
4.00
20.00
_00
70.00
20.00
270000.00
270000.00
'08000.00
.00
90000.00
1S000.00
.00
3900000.00
270000.00
27000.00
216000.00
90000.00
'51200.00
.00
175500.00
500000.00
.00
9000.00
45000.00
.00
28800.00
7200.00
.00
36000.00
_00
.00
.00
.00
126000.00
.00
63000.00
.
==:::===:::==-=======.:==::===_::::::z::==========.===::::=:====
GRAIIO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
Tl F = 100:
6.1.00700.00
6.1. '6372.00
t
i
I
i
.!
..'
.'.
Fallon Road, Segment
filename-seg26
created 9/23/94
26; 14000 ft .nd 126 ft right of way
lengths 14000
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
=_::C::==:~S=~E==:;==:~Z:.=;=:::=::=:~=SS_=:E==:==~~=:;::m===m:=
ioul
foIobi I i:::etion
Traffic e:tl
Clear & Grb
Sawcut
Grind
Rm ex pavmt
Full Pavmt
C&G
Sl.'
He:
._--.
Overlay
Earthuork
e:S&SOP'\H
so pipe
Strp&ll\ki n;s
signs
Electrl
Sig Inter
New u:l
Exist u:l
L&!
Survey
25.00
15.00
15.00
.00
.00
.00
340.00
24.00
49.50
20.00
144.00
10.0Q
100.00
'6.00
2.00
20.00
15.00
70.00
6.00
.00
350000.00
2'0000.00
2'0000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
4760000.00
336000.00
693000.00
280000.00
.00
.00
.00
2016000.00
.00
140000.00
1400000.00
.00
224000.00
28000.00
.00
280000.00
210000.00
.00
.00
.00
980000.00
.00
84000.00
;=====:::;==::===::=:;==::;=:~====_=:s=;====::==::_=::=:===:::==
.,,'
Gli.AIID TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
il F = 50:::
FRONTAGE = 25::: / 25~
.
i2201000.00
871.50
s900/LF
,.,
Fallon Road, S~gment
f i I ename~seg27
created 9/23/94
27; '500 ft .nd 126 ft right of W'Y
length- 1500
.
Price per
'.. Description Lin Foot Total
=:Z====::========;===;:e=====::;;================::::z:~::::====
Mobilization 25.00 37500.00
Traffic: Ctl 15.00 22500.00
Clear & Grb 15.00 22500.00
.00
Sawcut .00 .00
Grind .00 .00
Rm ex pavmt .00 .00
.00
Full Pavmt 340.00 510000.00
C&G 24.00 36000.00
SI.' 49.50 7:.250.00
-:. MC 20.00 30000.00
.00 .
.,
Overlay .00 .00
.00
Earthwork 24;00 36000.00
.", .00
CstSDMH 10.00 15000.00
SO pipe 100.00 150000.00
.00
Strp&rnkinss 16.00 24000.00
signs 2.00 3000.00
.00
Electrl 20.00 30000.00
Sig Inter 15.00 22500.00
New utI .00
Exist utI .00
.00
Lt1 70.00 105000.00
.00
Survey 6.00 9000.00
::::==;::::=====::::::===:::::::::::================::::========
GilAND TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
1127250.00
751.50
S800/LF
TIF = 50~
FRONT ACE ~ 25: / 25:
.
, -..
,-
1nterchange, Fallon rd/I.580
f i lename-seg281 I en9th-
created
2400
~ . . '
Description
Price per
Lin Foot
_:::_:=:;===._==:.:=======:.a::==Z===:E:==SS~===E:=:E====:.===5.
Total
Mobil iution
Traffic: Ctl
Clear & Grb
(,..'.
--
Sawc:ut
Grind
Rm ex pllvmt
BR1DGE
Full pavmt
C&G
pavmt Ra~
He
PAVER
Oved BY
Earthwork, Ra~
Earthwork
I' :
CEi&SDI'!H
so pipe
St rp&mld ngs
signs
Ele::trl
Sig Inter
Well utI
Exist utl
L&l
Survey
120.00
100.00
60.00
10000.00
300.00
24.00
128.00
20.00
60.00
.00
80.00
180.00
5.00
20.00
16.00
2.00
20.00
.00
50.00
12.00
288000.00
240000.00
144000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
6000000.00
540000.00
57600.00
230400.00
48000.00
144000.00
.00
144000.00
324000.00
.00
12000.00
48000.00
.00
38400.00
4800.00
.00
48000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
119400.00
.00
1.5000.00
:::;;====:===:::=::;:====:::======s:===:s:===:a;=::::=:::=======
8475600.00
GRAWO TOTAL
COST PER LF
USE
TlF = 100::
.
8475070.00
1-.-
Park & Ride; 40,000 sf for 150 cars
filename:$e~ park are. s.f.
created 9/23/94
1.0000
.
Description
Unit pric:e
Toul
.- ,
, '
=;KE::==;.&..E.Ke:::===:.:...:=:ZEzz:az~=~=~===========;;=;;=:_z
Mobil iu:ion .'5 6000.00
Traffic: Ctl .05 2000.00
Clear & Grb .1 4000.00
Sallcut .00
Curb .2 BOOO.OO
Full Pavmt 2.5 '00000.00
Import & Grading .25 10000.00
CS & SO Pipe .5 20000.00
Strp&mkings .15 6000.00
sipns .05 2000.00
Survey .05 2000.00
:==::~::==_::E:=:E.~~:====;::2Z~:==_=_zaE.KZ=:===~======;=___z..
GRAND TOTAL
COST PER SF
USE
160000.00
4.00
4/SF
per site
nF
: 'OO~
.
-'-
.
.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Propert~y Owners Only
986-2-1.2
Anne Gygi
5868 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-2-1-1/986-2-2-1
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Ct.
Oakland, CA 94605
986-2-2-2
Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams
5379 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-2-3
Clyde C. Casterson
5020 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
986-1-1-8/986-1-1.9/985-3-3-3
City of Pleasant on
City Clerk
200 Bernal Ave.
Plcasanton, CA 94566
946-4-1
James G, & Sue Tipper
7440 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-4.2-1
Jose L. & .'ioletta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-4-2-3
Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Rd,
Plcasanton, CA 94588
946-4-3
Elvera I. Bragg & Claire Silva
646 Donner Dr.
Sonoma, CA 95476
946-4-5- J /985-3-2/985-3-1-2/985-3-3-2
Charter Properties
clo Chang S" Hong.Y" & Hong L. Un
.~ Owens Dr.
~anton, CA 94588
905.1.4-4
Robert D, & Shirley M. Branaugh
1881 Collier Canyon Rd.
Livennore, CA 94550
985.1.2
Redgwick Construction Company
25599 Huntwood Ave.
Hayward, CA 94544
985-2-1
Mission Peaks Home Inc,
245 Sinclair Frontage Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
985-4-1-21985-4- 1 -3
John DiManto
Dublin Land Company
1991 Leigh Ann Place
San Jose, CA 95125
985.2.5-1/985.2.5-2
Michael H. Kobold
815 Diablo Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
985-2-6-1
Rodman Scott & Claudine T. Azevedo
6363 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985.2.7.1
Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight
6833 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985-2-8-2
Ann H. Silveria
6615 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
985-2-9
Robcrt 1. Nielson Jr., Michelle Olds, & Larry R,
Williamson
P,O, Box 1667
Lafaycne, CA 94549
985-5.1/985-5-2
Paoyeh & Bihyu Un
do Kenny Wan
Allwin Development
9657 E. Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
985-6-5
William L. & Jean S. Maynard
350 Tideway Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
985-5-3-1
William L. & May K. Devany
215 Tim Court
Danville, CA 94526
985-6-4
Dublin Ltd,
c/o Teachers Managementloc,
Dennis B, Schmucker/ mv
10 Second Ave., # 1421
iego, CA 92101
985-6-6-2
Levins Metals Corporation
1800 Monterey Hwy
San Jose, CA 95112
12/20/95
EXHIBIT ]).
g:\mailing<"'.dublinllpJi.t.doo
Eastern Dublin Genet-al Plan Amendment Area Future Study Area Property Owners Only
905-1-3-:/905-1-1-:
B:ln~ of the West
c/(\ HarT). Cros!'>y
P,O, Box 11:1
San Jose. CA 95108
905.1-:-:
LivemlOre Valley Joint Unified School District
685 E, Jac~ London Blvd,
Livcrmore, CA 94550
905-8-1-6 .
Anita S, & Ram S, Vij, and Khanna Tcjbir
1066 Cross Strings Cord
San Jose, CA 95120
905-8-1-3
Cit), of Livermore
105:2 So, LivemlOre Ave,
Livemlorc, CA 94550
905-8-1-7/905-8.1-111905.7-1-]
Irving B. & Belly J, Bloom
141 Via Serena
Alamo, CA 94507
905.8-1-5
City of Livermore
clo Thomas Curry
22320 Foothill Blvd,
Hayward, CA 94541
905 -2-4/90 5-2 - 5/90 5 -3-4
Doolan East Associates
c/o Ted Fairfield
P,O, Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905.7.1-5
Don & Panicia Flanigan
4589 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-61905.3-7/905.3-8
Roben & Darlene Steffen
5033 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3.9.2
Jo A. Shane
5210 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905.3.3
Trevor J. & Cassandra M, Patterson
5661 Doolan Rd,
Livc:rmore, CA 94550
9D5-3-1 0- J
Charles S, & Barbara M, Foscalina
5260 Doolan Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-12
H, & Ruth G, Muehlhausc:r
1434 Ardmore Dr,
San Leandro, CA 94577
905-3-10-2
James N, & Nadine Pestana
5388 Doolan Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-3-11
Clarence C, Silva
10000 Stillwater Rd,
Fallon, NY 89406
.
905-7-2-3
Doolan East Associates
P,O. Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905-3.14.21905-3-14-3
Doolan West Associates
P,Q, Box 1148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
985-7-1
Doolan West Associates
clo Harold Moller
P,Q, Box] 148
Pleasanton, CA 94566
905-4.1
Charlotte A. & R.A., & Aldine], Bailey
520 Arlington Ave,
Berkeley, CA 94707
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Increment Area Property Owners Only
985-1-1
Robena 5, Moller
6861 Tassajara Rd,
Pleasanton. CA 94588
985-7-2-14
Fallon Enterprises Inc.
5781 Fallon Rd,
Livermore, CA 94550
905-2-3
David p, Mandeville
4037 Croak Rd,
Pleasant on, CA 94588
.
905-2-1-1 '905-2-2
Francis p, Croak
1262 Gabriel Ct.
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
.
Residential
Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)
Non.Residential
Development Other Than Residential
$4,182/unit
$4,182/unit
$2,928/unit
$2,509/unit
$ 354/trip
lAND USE
{Non-Residential}
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE*
HOTEl/MDTEl OR OTHER lODGING:
1 O/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
2011,000 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
0.2/seat
96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
1.5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
Convalescent/Nursing
Clinic
1 2/bed
3/bed
24/1,000 sf
CHURCH:
9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
8/1,000 sf
* Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers
and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip Generation Rates. These trip generation rates are based
on averages. Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction.
.
Page 1 of 2
g:formsledubtif,Jl/s
;:VH'B'IT 1::'
&:J\. 1'$ L." ·
LAND USE
(Non-Residential!
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive through)
Barrravern
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)
COMMERCIAL/RETAil:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3 + major stores)
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 . 600,000 SF; usually
30 . 60 acres, w/usually 2 + major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops:
Retail/Strip Commercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nursery
Cemetery
Page 2 of 2
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS.BYSI
.
63/1,000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000sf
100/1,000 sf
585/site
70/wash stall
97/pump
28/service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
91/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
65/lane or machine
.
22/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
26/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
20/1,000 sf
23/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 4/acre
g: lformsl<<fubllf,xls
.
AREA OF BENEFIT
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
.
Dublin Blvd., Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern
Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Blvd. (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised
report from December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10)
Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Blvd.
to Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Blvd. (from
the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report)
Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin Blvd. west
of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the OKS revised report)
Gleason Drive. Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the OKS revised report) (The Project
does not require extension of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road
due to no development proposed in the future study area)
Tassajara Road. Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way
from Dublin Blvd. to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6
.Ianes over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Blvd. to 1-580
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page
1 of the OKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/14.0)
Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes
over a 6-lane right-of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on page 1 of the DKS revised report)
Street Alignment Study. A study is required to specify
the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area
Cost of Roadway
Improvements
Cost of Bridge
Improvements
$ 32,839,870
$ 1,872,000
$ 4,059,603
-0-
$ 11,523,736
$ 998,400
$ 4,625,353
$ 572,000
$ 6,365,039
$ 2,496,000
$ 7,486,636
-0-
$ 451.000
$ 67.351.237
-0-
$ 5.938.400
TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $ 73.289.637
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 134,227 related trips for residential and 209,718
trips for non-residential is $1,957 /unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-
14 units per acre), $1,370 for Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,174 for High
Density Residential (more than 25 units); and $196/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density residential is $173/unit, for
MediumlHigh Density Residential is $121/unit, and for High Density Residential is $104/unit; and non-
residential is $17/trip.
ahe proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 3,916 Low Density units; 4,863 Medium Density units;
2,680 Medium/High Density units; and 2,447 High Density units.
!l"~'II'.~ IT
f;.., Y J~:ff.~f' . F:
1 ^ " '~"'~, ($! 1~..
, ,.' It. t' ,,",'~" ,"'
.' t"'!,,, ': '<, i/' ,'. '
~ \..& ,i ,.;:~i ,
-
.
ATTACHMENT 2.
Written comments from the public with reponses.
1.
I
I
I
,
.
A TT ACHMENT 2,.
16034-0
. IlcbY&: sImps
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING
January 31, 1996 '
Mr. Lee Thompson
Public -\Iv orks Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
.-
- - "-
Re: Proposed Traffic Impact Fee - Eastern Dublin General Plan Area
.
Dear Mr. Thompson:
On behalf of our client, Jennifer Lin, the enclosed comments are submitted in
response to the City's update of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The
Lin family currently 0'WllS 122-7::!: acres within the Eastern Dublin General Plan
area which is subject to the fee. After you have had an opportunity to review
our comments, we would appreciate meeting with you to discuss them at your
earliest convenience.
.
The following comments are a compilation of review comments prepared by
MacKay & Somps and the associated consultants working on the Lin's Dublin
Ranch property and are submitted in response to the staff report prepared for the
January 23, 1996, City C01mcil meeting:
1. The Report needs to include a section that explains the implementation of the
fee program:
. Collection - The report should establish the point in time at which the fee
is collected such as the date of final inspection. In addition, the method
by which fees are collected from other agencies such as Contra Costa
County and included in the TIF needs to be clearly explained once it is
defined.
. Reimbursement - The report should explain the process by which a
developer will be reimbursed for improvements he installs that are
covered in the TIF. It should also address the reimbursement amount for
those eligible improvements, how eligible improvements will be
reimbursed if they are constructed in phases, how improvements will be
credited in-lieu of fees, when reimbursements funds will be made
available, and procedure for establishment of a priority list as to the order
by which items /improvements are constructed or reimbursed.
. Updating and Revising - The report should explain the procedure/timing
of event(s) which will trigger an update or revision.
-
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (510) 225-0690 FAX (510) 225-0696
1~1/3l/~S: FAIRFIELD PLEASANTON ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE
, '
16034-0
I
, ,
; i 2.
I I
I j
, ;
I I
I I
I i
, I
It is our understanding that the City of Dublin is currently negotiating an fee
agreement with Contra Costa County which will address their impacts on
this East Dublin road system. The right of way needed to mitigate Contra
Costa County impacts should be included in the TIF, with monies collected
from Contra Costa County funneled to the TIF for reimbursement. Also, we
are concerned that the asswnptions made in the current TIF may not match
the way negotiations are currently proceeding with Contra Costa County on
this matter. The TIF should be further revised immediately after Contra
Costa County negotiations are concluded.
3. The "percent of responsibility" listed in Section Two and Three of the fee
study appears to be inconsistent with the current Tri-Valley Transportation
Model (TVIM) and should be updated. Once the new TVTM and Action
Plan becomes available, the TIF should be reviewed and updated as
necessary. The roadways below are examples of some of the inconsistencies
'we see:
· Fallon Road - The current TVTM identifies Contra Costa County's
responsibility at 1%, however, the TIF assumes their share is 25%. It
appears that if the TVIM percentage is correct then Fallon Road will only
require 4 lanes and not the 6 lanes as required by the TIF.
· Dougherty Road - The current TVlM allocates Dublin's responsibility at
20% and Contra Costa County at 27%, however, the TIP assumes East
Dublin's share at 31 % with Contra Costa's share at 66%.
· Scarlett Drive - The TIP assumes East Dublin's share is 96% with no
percentage of responsibility attributable to Contra Costa County. This
seems inconsistent in light of the percentages used in the current TVTM
for Dougherty Road.
4. For non-residential uses, the trip generation table in the staff report update
differs from the trip generation rates used to establish the fee. The new table
should be reviewed so that a shortage/sUIplus of funds does not occur. As
an example; based on a 3000 SF fast food restaurant, per the table listed in
the Staff Report it would generate a traffic impact fee of $495,159, however,
the TIF was established with a trip generated fee of $48,450 for this type of
land use. ill addition, the study needs to explain how fees will be established
for land uses not listed in the table.
.
.
5. An agreement for the cost sharing of the Fallon Road interchange
improvements should be pursued with both Pleasanton and Livermore. ill
light of the fact that the City of Pleasanton has been and will be processing
future development of the Staples Ranch project, the City of Dublin may
wish to start collecting funds for improving this interchange in order to
secure capacity for East Dublin development. It is suggested that the Fallon
Road/I-SSO Interchange (segment 28) cost item needs to include funding for
temporary and / or phased improvements. ill addition, funding should be
included under this segment for preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) .
for this interchange as required by Caltrans.
16Q34.(ljt1l311!l6T1f.Edublin
16034-0
.
6. The construction cost estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson should
i include information that clearly justifies the basis for the estimated costs
used. Based on recent cost research that we have undertaken, we feel most
of the costs are approximately 30% higher than they should be. Using Fallon
Road as an example (Fig. 7.39 of the Specific Plan), we estimate the cost at
$500/linear foot as compared to the $800/linear foot used in the TIF. It
appears that one of the reasons the TIP per foot costs are high is that the
estimates were rounded up, with some being rounded up by almost $50/ft.
7. Segment 11 - Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
should be divided into two segments. The first segment should be from
I: Fallon Road to the eastern edge of the General Plan area and remain a
Section One fee. The second segment should include the balance of Dublin
Boulevard to Airway Boulevard and be included in the Section Two fee, with
East Dublin development paying its fair share of the overall cost.
8. Segment 18 - Transit Spine from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road should also /
be divided into two segments. The western half should be treated as a
generally flat street with a lower grading cost, while the eastern half should
include a higher grading cost due to greater topographic variations.
9. The TIP includes a $301,000 street alignment study. Since a majority of the
. Eastern Dublin streets alignments are already set, we feel a study of this
magnitude is not warranted.
10. The fee structure and percent of responsibility sections of the TIP should be
revised to include the required street improvements adjacent to parks, open
space and schools. The current fee assumes that the adjacent landowner
(which is most likely to be a public agency) will pay for the adjacent street
improvements.
11. The estimates prepared by Santina & Thompson include landscaping in the
roads with medians. It is not clear whether this landscape cost includes the
area reserved in the median for the future lanes (lanes 5 and 6) in Tassajara
and Fallon Road which are needed to serve development outside of East
Dublin. H this is not the case, the estimates should be revised to include the
cost of this landscaping.
12. The report needs to explain in greater detail the methodology by which land
values were assigned. For example, it is difficult to understand how the
Dougherty Road right-of-way to be obtained from Camp Parks is valued at
$18/SF (Segment 2).
13. We would encourage the City to consider establishing a committee of East
Dublin landowners to work with the City on the implementation process
. discussed above under Item 1 and on updating the fee on a regular basis.
1603+Ojtl/3l/96TIF.Edublin
16034-0
; I
!
, I
II
, I
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the City's proposed
traffic impact fee program and for your consideration of our comments and
questions.
I'
I I
, I
I
Sincerely,
MACKAY &(E
~~!'
~/t/tJ;~ ~
( James T pleton-
cc: Ted Fairfield
Marty Inderbitzen
Rod Andrade
Dave Chadbourne
--
JFT Ismt
161B+-(ljU/3l/!l6TIF-Edublin
.
.
.
i,
I,
I
I;.
1
!
I
I
i I
I,
! ;
I,
I,
.
RESPONSE TO MACKAY AND SOMPS LETTER OF JANUARY 1, 1996
(REPRESENTING JENNIFER LIN)
1. Program Implementation:
a) Timing of Fee collection: The resolution implementing the Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 2a and b)
require the Fee to be paid no later than the date of final inspection, provided the Fee shall be
payable by the date the building permits are issued for any such Units from and after the date the
City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the TIF improvements for residential
uses, and no later than building permit issuance for non-residential buildings.
b) Reimbursement for and credit to a developer installing more improvements than are covered by his
required Traffic Impact Fees is outlined in the Implementing Resolution in Section 2c. Basically,
the City will establish a policy outside of this resolution.
c) Periodic analysis of the Fee will be made by the City as conditions change, but in no case more
than once every two years (Resolution Section 8).
2. Negotiations with Contra Costa County for contributions to oversizing Dublin streets are ongoing.
We do anticipate incorporation of the Contra Costa County share of improvements into the TIF soon after
negotiations are complete. The right-of-way needed for oversizing streets for Contra Costa traffic impacts
would be credited to the Dublin developers as they dedicated it.
3. The City Staff does understand that there are inconsistencies in the original model run and that the
new TJKM- TVTC plan update will correct these inconsistencies. Once we have better information, we
will incorporate the new data into the TIF calculations. Contra Costa County has also agreed to use the
updated model for our negotiations.
4. Trip generation rates used to establish the Fee are general in nature and use average trip
generations for mixed uses. The Fee is set up to be paid based on individual uses as they develop. There
is no way to tell, at this time, the mix of uses that will be proposed to be built.
5. Fallon Road Interchange: Dublin's TIF does already provide for the collection for improvements
to the Fallon Road/I-580 interchange. The TJKM report shows Dublin's share of this interchange. We
have not set up an agreement with Livermore and Pleasanton for cost sharing; however, we do anticipate
that some jurisdictions, including Contra Costa County, will participate in a study which will yield a basis
for the cost sharing at this interchange,
6. Cost breakdown of roadway cost estimate: Individual segment cost estimates are attached to the
back of the Santina and Thompson report, Both the Traffic Impact Fee collection and reimbursement is
based on the Santina & Thompson cost estimate.
. 7. The City Staffwill work with the City of Livermore, However, at this time, we do not know if
Livermore or Dublin will annex this area, or if there will be any development off of Dublin Boulevard
east of Fallon Road. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan shows Dublin Boulevard needs to be extended east
of Fallon Road. Therefore, Staff included the Dublin Boulevard segment east of Fallon Road as part of
the TIF.
II
; I
i I
I I
, I
I j
! I
I ! I
: I
I
i
i
.'i
1;1
I
Ilj
'I
['I
,
:.1
- !
8. Staff has broken the Transit Spine into two segments for estimating purposes as requested, the
difference being the topography of the site (Segment 18 and 18A).
.
9. The bulk of the street alignments in eastern Dublin have not been established. These studies need
to be done especially where the streets are proposed to bisect existing parcels of land. The alignments
will affect the proportional amoWlt of dedications required for individual property owners.
10. Our Public Facilities Fee already includes the cost of improvements for the City's parks and
libraries.
11. The Santina and Thompson estimates do not include the temporary landscaping of the area
reserved for future lanes. It is proposed to leave these areas open Wltil the future lanes are constructed,
unless the adjacent developer wishes to temporarily landscape the area at his expense.
12. Land valuations: In the new calculation for right-of-way along Dougherty Road, the only right-of-
way needed is along the east side of the street between the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and
Houston Place. The City already has the easement right-of-way needed along Camp Parks. The $18 per
square foot right-of-way estimate is based on recent appraisals and purchases along Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road. The Staff report explains the new methodology for estimating land values.
13 . We think that the committee idea for updating and implementing the TIF is a good idea and will
try to set up such a committee for implementing policy process and the next TIF update,
.
g: lagenmisc\mkayresp
.
i
I.
I :
I :
I,
I
I , Mr. Lee Thompson
City of Dublin
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
:Db
,rr
ccs
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
I '" C () J.; '" {, 1-' ~ . l :
February 23, 1996
CorDClral~ HeaOQuartf'rs
420HO Os/!ood Road. Suitl' (JUI'
frl'mo/1t, Califon/ia 94539
510/656-709/ . ftLr 5/0/656-3825
CCS94046
.'
rO. I~.....i ..-:.... l-... ~....... \:: '.,. ,-_' 1--"; f ".,
'i
I '
Subject:
Traffic Issues Regarding The Eastern Dublin Area
Dear Lee:
I am submitting this letter on behalf of Allwin Development, in association with the Pao-Lin
property, regarding traffic issues in the East Dublin Area. Following up on our telephone
conversation ofa few weeks ago, the purpose oftrus letter is to:
.
1. Propose alternative traffic impact unit fees reflecting a 30-percent trip reduction (or credit) for
residential developments within the designated Dublin Town Center area and the use of 9
trips/unit trip generation rate for medium density residential developments, and
2. Seek clarification regarding the traffic impact fee study requirements for proposed
developments in the East Dublin area.
A. Alternative Traffic Imvact Unit Fees
The alternative we are proposing reflects a 30-percent trip reduction for residential development
within the Dublin Town Center area. The alternative traffic impact unit fees we are proposing are
compared below with the unit fees currently being proposed by the City for the traffic impact fee.
Land Use Categorv
As Proposed
for TIP Update
Alternative
Low Density (1-6 du/acre)
Medium (7-14 dulacre)
MediumfHigh(15-25 du/acre)
High (25+ du/acre)
Non-residential (per trip)
$3,841
$3,841
$2,689
$2,305
$ 323
$3,976($2,783)
$3,578($2,505)
$2,783($1,948)
$2,385($1,670)
$ 363 ($ 363)
.
Two sets of unit fees will be used for residential developments. Higher unit fees are for
residential developments outside the Town Center area; the lower unit fees will be used for
TR...NSPO..T...TION
iRAF"'F"IC
P...RKING
ITS
i I
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 23, 1996
Page 2
.
residential developments within the Town Center area that reflects a 30% credit. No credit is
, I given to the non-residential uses.
Justification for Using 9 TripslUnit Trip Generation Rate
ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates an average of 3.5 units per acre for detached single-
family residential with trip generation rate of 9.55 trips/unit: San Diego Traffic Generator
indicates an average of 4 units per acre for single-family residential with 10 trips/unit trip
generation rate. It further defines 8 trips/unit trip generation rate for multi-family residential such
as condominium with density less than 20 units per acre. The medium density residential for the
E. Dublin area has been defined as having 7 to 14 units per acre that fits between the detached
single-family and multi-family residential categories mentioned above. We feel that a trip
generation rate of 9 trips per acre is more appropriate for medium density residential uses in E.
Dublin area.
Justification for Proposed 30% Town Center Trip Reduction
As discussed in the Traffic and Circulation section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
'Main Street" for the Town Center will also serve as the transit spine linking the Town Center to
the future eastern DubIinlPleasanton BART station, as well as serve local vehicular traffic. The
Specific Plan concentrates both residential and employment uses along this spine to encourage .
transit use for local and regional travel. In addition to the Town Center commercial core,
educational and recreational/sports facilities will be located on the transit spine, within a quarter
mile (about a five minute walk) which is considered a comfortable walking distance. The
commercial areas in the Town Center are also to be developed as an attractive pedestrian
envirorunent with wide sidewalks with pedestrian amenities such as seating, outdoor cafes, retail
uses, public art and street trees.
Clearly, the Dublin Town Center has been distinguished from other areas within the Eastern
Dublin Area to be of a higher density, transit and pedestrian oriented thus, generating fewer
vehicle trips than other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The multi-use
developments planned in the Dublin Town Center are similar to the type of developments found in
a central business district (downtown) area. Documented travel characteristics survey results and
trip reduction policies for these types of multi-use developments are found in other communities
which can be utilized here. We list a few examples here where various trip reductions are .
permitted by local jurisdictions because of multi-use developments & transit oriental
developments. It should also be noted that two of the example trip reduction policies allow
significantly greater than 30% trip reduction as we have requested of the Dublin Town Center
area.
1. Santa Oara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) permits a maximum of
30% vehicle trip reduction. Attacbment A shows the Vehicle Trip Reduction Standards .
specified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines published by 'Santa Clara
I
I
i
! '
j'
:.
,
1,1
,I
II
, I
!:i
.1
I'
I:
I!
'I
I
I:
.
.
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 23, 1996
Page 3
County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The CMA pennits a maximum of30% trip
reduction which can be applied to the standard ITE trip generation rates when a combination
of three trip reduction strategies (mixed-use development, effective transportation demand
management program, and location near transit) are used for land development projects.
2. Van Ness Avenue Corridor Mixed Use Developments. More than 50% of trips use
alternative transportation modes in the outlying Van Ness Avenue area corridor in San
Francisco. Attachment B shows the PM peak: period trip distribution and mode split
percentages for the Van Ness Avenue area corridor in San Francisco. Van Ness Avenue
serves as a 'hlain street" and transit corridor for the adjacent mixed use developments. The
Van Ness Avenue corridor contains residential, commercial, and office developments.
Although a BART station is not within the comfortable 5-minute walking distance, BART is
easily accessible through other transportation modes. Data included in Attachment B shows
more than 50% of the travelers use transit, walking, and other transportation modes to get to
their d~stinations without driving.
3. ITE Documented Mixed Use Development, Brandermill PUD, Virginia. This mixed use
development is much like the Dublin Town Center, but on a smaller scale. It is located in a
generally suburban area but is a planned unit development (multi-use development) which
results in many trips remaining internal to the development with people using alternative
modes to access their destinations (i.e.: walking, bicycling, or transit). Thus, the Brandennill
PUD study showed a 51% capture rate of trips, and a 51% trip reduction from standard ITE
trip generation rates. BrandennilI PUD has single- and multi-family residential units,
commercial and retail developments, offices, recreational facilities, a day-care, a church, and
schools. Attachment C provides the result of the study documented in the lTE's Trip
Generation, 5th Edition.
Allwin Development is committed to developing its properties within the Dublin Town Center
area meeting the goal and policies set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore,
AlIwin feels strongly that any new development occurring in the Town Center area should be
permitted to use an additional 30% trip reduction factor to account for higher development
densities and higher use of transit, walking, and bicycle trips as well as on-site (internal) trips and
people working at home.
Traffic Impact Unit Fee Calculations
Tables 1 through 3 illustrate the step-by-step calculations for the alternative traffic impact unit fee
proposed by Allwin Development. All calculations used our proposed 9 trips/unit generation rate
for medium density residential.
Table 1: This table calculates proposed trip reduction for each land use category within the
Town Center area. The land use data shown here is based on our visual estimates from Figure 2.4
Ownership Patterns, Figure 4.1 Land Use Map, and Appendix 4, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 23, 1996
Page 4
Land Use Summary by Land Owner as included in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Please note that
the already permitted 35% reduction factor for commercial passerby trips applied to all
commercial uses in the East Dublin area was equally applied to the retail land use within the Town
Center area. The proposed 30% trip reduction was applied only to the residential uses within the
Town Center area to reflect the use of alternative transportation modes and 'bn-site" trip
characteristics described earlier. The resultant overall trip reduction for the Town Center area is
31 %, which is comparable to the documented examples presented earlier.
.
II
Ii
:r
il
I
Table 2: The 30% trip reductions as calculated in Table 1 were then deducted from the overall
daily trips. Please note that the calculation of daily trips for retail land uses use a rate of 32.5
trips per 1,000 s.f which already reflects the 35% pass-by trip reductions as used in the ErR.
Table 3: This table presents total daily trips after the trip reductions were taken and then used
to calculate unit fees for various land uses as shown.
B. Traffic Imvact Analvsis Requirements
We had an opportunity to review the Traffic Study for Phase J of the Dub/in Ranch Property
Proposed Residential Development prepared by TJKM dated December 11, 1995. We
understand the traffic study will need to be updated when the Tentative Map applications for
proposed developments are filed with the City. However, our review of TJKM's traffic study .
raised a few questions about the study's methodologies and assumptions that we would like to
clarify with the City:
1. Trip generation rates and trip distribution pattern consistency with those used in the
Specific Plan E~ Consistency between assumptions used in TJKM's study and those used
in the specific Plan ErR is crucial because these assumptions will affect the traffic analysis
results which will then be used to determine required mitigation measures for new
developments. Mitigation measures will likely include those to be financed by traffic impact
,fees and those to be implemented solely by the individual project proponent.
2. Use of daily trip generation vs. peak hour rates. While traffic impact fees are "being
calculated based on daily trip generation rates, mitigation measures for new developments are
to be determined based on the asses~ment of peak hour traffic impacts using peak hour trip
generation rates. Potential dispute or discrepancies may arise when determining the costs and.
credits for reimbursements. We urge the City to consider updating traffic impact unit fees
based on peak hour trip generation rates only. particularly PM peak hour trip generation rates,
which are usually higher than AM peak hour rates and because most commercial/retail
developments do not generate much traffic in the AM peak periods.
.
f l
I
I
,
,
:.
I
II
.
.
Mr. Lee Thompson
February 23, 1996
Page 5
3. Special Trip Generation Rates
Specific trip generation rates for various land use categories have been adopted by the City for
the calculation ofTIF. However, trip generation rates are not available for special generators
such as senior housing project. We would like the City adopting a special trip generation rate
for this and other types of developments which are not specified in the current TIF ordinance.
For example, San Diego Traffic Generator, specifies 4 trips/unit trip generation rate for
retirement community (senior housing) which is significantly lower than that of all other
categories of residential uses.
We hereby request the City to incorporate the above comments into the update of traffic impact
fee program. We -are requesting that clear guidelines for traffic impact fee studies be established,
which is essential in order to ensure (fair share" of financial contribution by and reimbursements
to each developer.
Allwin Development recognizes the importance of the TIP program and other nutlgation
programs to ensure the success of all the developments in East Dublin Area. CCS Planning and
Engineering is thereby retained by Allwin Development to provide any technical assistance in the
traffic/transportation area to the City. We are available to meet with you or any other staff to
discuss these issues.
Please do not hesitate to call me or Kenny Wan at Allwin Development (818 285-9823) if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
~~
Chwen Siripocanont, T.E., C.E.
Principal
CCS:blc
cc. Kenny Wan/Allwin Development
Ted Fairfield, Consulting Engineer for Dublin Ranch
Chris Kinzel, TJKM
ccs214\94046\DubIin02.doc
i
I I
I, ,
!i!
; I
In
G,)
In
=>
"C
t:
fa
......J
ell
:c t
{!....
t:
G,)
o
t:
~
~
!~
10
:to
u
1;-5
o ell
1-0::
ell
c
o
~
u
=
~'t'
o ell
MQ::
ciI
ell
eva.
Q. ';::
~t-
.. >.
~m
Cl.
.;::
....
~
'fti
o
J!l
ftl
0:
0.
;:
I-
.!
o
l-
e
::;
'c
0._
Q.~
G) -
....<
c .
=0
.co
='t'
Oc
:2~
fa
~
....
....
't'
~
ftl
<.
co 0
....0
c
=~
.cu
:::s c
C""
....It:
ell
ell
~
't'
C
ftl
....I
f'o-/f'o-O U') G)
Of'o-coco"",
coco COU') G)
co.........,. M
....
f'o-f'o-OU')O)
o f'o-CO co...
cococoU')O)
co.....-.:-(Oo)
~
OMON&t)
O)NOCOO)
COO)CON...
NNU')IJ)CO
N ........
OO)f'o-CO
.....
0)' f'o- 0 f'o- ...
(0-':-0""'0)
NU')COillllO
N Nib
COO 0)
f'o-N.....
f'o-NCO
MCDN
...,.0......
...... ......
0)...... "lit
CONf'o-
NM"lit
f'o-
o
"lit
.....
~
ell
-:- c:
:::s CD
-d fa
- .c
:i~i.Q>>~
_ .in C:I: !! _
;iiEEoCDS
'1:lO:::s:::s 0
-- .--.s:::....
=~ii.2'~
O::....I~~:I:CI)
1<<1 0 0 O'OiC!O
If'o- I' I....
m fen
re Ire
000000
<<I
?"-
m
co
N
mooooO)
1"-...... llO
00 a
I"-m CD
f'o- llO
o ill 1.1)..........
ill .....
N...... C'\I
;1)g :!
..... C'\I
m
co
re
...,.
I"-
co
cD
<<I
ill
M
M
o
...i
(0
o
...,.
....:
N
..,.
men 0
ill (0
cOd
M 0
co
19
1i C
:;:: Cell
c.,. 0"'C_
.gcc~.ag:
,- ell ell - (I) ... _
eIl~~l'll-Ulll
1II--E-l'lloji;i
T.-ellCI)g-,g
cJ9u:::s.c~oQ
OCDlf:"'CUl'll::'
zo:::oc(I)Q.CI)
1~1~
I~IM
I
~*
en....
M....
....
"lit
II)
an
N
M
....
....I
~
o
t-
I I
.
:If!
c
:::s
U.
(I)
'*
o
o
.....
""0
C
m
~
';F.
o
ill
:r
~
';F.
g:g ,lgjij
"'C U CI) 5 '2
.!! If:::::s - CD
e..Oe.. ~E
Q.Oo'j - c: E
m .!!! _ CD
.- U 0
glJ!!... 32u
:..lDCU eIl"'C
~ ... E ~ 0
C"'CE 0
000 li.c
~.,go eIl~
:::s...""O :::S..Q
i.8o'-e..-=.
...,c 0 l'll~'
... C),c cu cu
CD .- .8'" ... C
,cCD l'll"'C
1:: C..c ... c:
.2 Cii ,2>> Je ~
o -CD-ii~
z 0) C 0 .eIl
C ~ C
. Iii 0'" CD
U):::s0 ~"'C
=00 ~
J!!.c..... o~
CD _""0 .... 0
.... ..- C C 1_
- U) l'lll----.-I~
ftlCD_ !CD
,g"Of! l'll~
"'C E CD .- CD
CD:::sC J!!I...
=:0 CD lD~
8: eCD ~ .:: 'in
lIJ 0,---05
g:'Ose ,*.c
~...... IJ)_
U) 0" C) CD l'll
"~o C 0) -
,:::f'o-._ cr;:'
~g>s "E'E
J. E U) I---- ~ ii
ft:::s~ ~~
~ ~ b.~ -I;":
oS c ~ 01"1::
t:..i::::: 51)0 ii
.0 g 0 E -g g
~mm-l'llO:
-5O:::i<(-Ic
!.E E.i(.E~
,*.g.!!(I)-gb
iLiIJ)C<C::loQ.
15M cDl"-cOC>>
Z<<~""'~~"t""'"
.
(I)
..J
X
0::
en
'*
o
p
~
N
'I
, I
I I
I
,
'.
I
I
'I
I
I
I
d
II
I'
,:
:1
I ~
.
.
8. M 0 0 r- 0 CO 0 0 r- eo ., CO)
""' m lIO m ~ eo eo II') r- -.;t ~ CD
"t: M CO 0 0 V N CO CO &l) N
I- CO CO r- 0 M m CO ..- ..- 10
CO ~ M M .... .... "'it' I./') ..- t'\I N
.... ..- t'\I CO)
"0 ai
l- e
l"- I"- 0 I/) i 0 0 0 0 0 0 en
VI 0 r- eo lIO v
c:: co CO CO I./') en
L.. .2 co ..- ..,. CO)
tn Cl) U .... ....
C 'E :::s
0 Cl) "t:I
U Cl)
1a c:: 0:::
... ~ "$.
G,) 0
I- l")
C VI 0 r- 0 N CIl lIO 0 0 r- eo ~ N
G,) C. co co ~ lIO co co co &t> r- v ...
C) .C:: ..... r- co ., ~ N co co II') N
?- m M co -.;t CD m co ..... ..... en
Do ~ M ..,. ..... ..... .... v ""' ..... t'\I CO)
.... ..... N CO)
.C '(ij
e
N t- o 0 0 0 ""' 0 0 "! 0
CIJ - Cl) 0 0) ,..: cO N u; u; cO
::s S ~ .....
..... ('I) .....
fa ~ 0::
.- C.
1::
as l-
e! :;; 0 0 0 0 - 0 q 0 q 0
-0 cO M ci ~ ~ u; N 0 ..... cO
<C ..... co co v ..... ""' ?"- M II')
m co ~ v v m M r- N
C !3 M ..,. N ..,. M ..... m
- 'c
:c :::l
~
C ~
. Vi
W c:: u;-
~ G) "iii
0 1:
VI .s:::. :0:: Ctl
c ?:' c "0
"iii b CI) C> CIJ ::I 'ii)
;; Iii 0 s: 'iij :e w ~
CI) c:: i ,~ i
III C c:: E E CI) CIl -
:::l CI) CI) 0 .e ~ 1;; "'5 e .e -I
"C 0 ::I ::I Cl) g
"t:I .iii ~ :c :c .s:::. .g c .(ij (,) ::I 0 ~ .g
c:: C> 1i) lo= .s:::.
Cll CD Cl) CI) :f 0 - 't:I (,) a:I
-' 0:: -' :E ::z CI) z 0::: 0 c:: U) a.. CI) .-
l-
e
<(
'ii
'0
-
en
...J
X
ri
m
"$.
o
M
U.
I-
co
~
~
i
i
I
I
I
,
, !
i'
I
I
I
j
I
I
I,
~* Cll Vi 0)
CllCO :; 0 I"--
.J:::. M t:: U ......
C/) Q) I"--
:Q ......
VI I"--
Q) r:i
c:: ''It
M-
~ 0 ~* ::I ~ ~ C'? 10
III "CO (t) CllCO ~ ~ CO
0. 0 co .s:::; M 0) 10 C'?
~ CI) CII
';: ai 0 C'? .. CO; ~ ~
... - N CJ
0 M
i t-
O ~ ~ ~ ~
t::
~ III ~ 0 Vi ::> 0 0 0 ~
I; I CO 0 CO to.. Q. Iri M oi ,..:
I"; I"; 0 10 ~ 'E 0 0) ~ 0 CO
...,. U 0 ......
M ...,. ...,. C\i Q) CO
...,. CO M "'5 "C ~ .s ...... c.
'- CIIl N ~ "in ...... N "I:
10.'. a 0 In l-
I,;: I Q) .....
.r::. n:: I- ''It
fl u ....
In tI) as .....
c: + 15
0 M- M- M- ~ oX: ?- M-
; , i ...
CIS
CJ f,~ ~ ~ 0 a a. ~ .J:::. 0 Q. CD C'! (0 co CO
CD E ... 0 - "C ,..: ,..: ,..: ,..:
UJ M M M 0- + 0 ...... Cll 0 .....
CO ~ ~ Cl) C .s:::; ...... 0- N !i G'a m 0) m 0)
CD I~ ~ ::! ::t 'ii u CO ..... l") M M C') M
f ~ := C/) ..... ~ ..... II
N N N CO :! c ..... co
J: 'ij M M M 0) ~ Q) m M
l- e 0) ... "C .....
..... t: C Cii
I-- - 0 I--
<( l ...f CD & t: 0 Q) 0 ~ ~ -
l") M 0 0 CO) CII 0 0 "C :5! 0 Cl)
, ..... 0 0 .... E: 0 N Cll CO "t: 0 ... ~
Cl) m. 0 0 ~ Vi Q) 0 0; n... ''It n:: 0 N U
... Cll CII ..... II I-
:c .2 <<i g ..., <<i CD ~ Z 0 ~ ! ~ ~
11 ...... CI) 8 ::::) ..... III ..... co ~ u
{! - 0) ~ N ::! ..... co ~ 0. ~ ..... 0 ::I ~
fI) III "t o. "II;. ~ Q) s ..... C') ';: ..... 'E .... u C u
0 ~ ::I <
CD CJ 0) .... ..... ..... ~ VI - .... ..... CD I- Cll ..... Q) c :;
CD r- N ..... .- ~ E: 0.. 0.. "C ~ ...
u.. ..... - Cii Q) S - en c ~ U) c
0 "C ... CII ,9- !::. :6
'0 :; 'iii en ~ 0 Cl) +
M- M- M- - E: M- - ... c:: ~
''It 0 CJ to- ~ U)
. II) Q)
N - (,) - ... .- ..... N
~ I/') "C D::: 0 ~ ... M 'ii ~ - 'iii - -
..es "in - Cll 0 0(5. M Q) ~ .c
C'lI Cl) c<i ~ J!i u.. ! 'E 0 ...... ;:: l"- e: OJ ~
III t= N ! "t (J) t: U .... .iii Cl) "iii
E ~ . I CIS Q) ~ %
C"I!. E: .s:::; CIS c<i Cl) C
J:: Q) iii .r::. "C ..... "'C Ci r- t: t:
E N 0 - ';,;; 0 .c N ...... Cl) E E !
~! Ci I e: E VI 0- 0 U) U) III ""t Cii :; ...... 0
Q) ...... E:
:::J N OJ 15 ii c:: 0 Cl) t:: 0 :J :J
VI Iii ......
UJ ... VI > ...J ~ C a:: Q) ~ :s :s CI)
=1 .e Cll ;; n ..... "0 ''It
J!! Q) "0 e Q) ii5 0 t: .. ..... ... "in 0 Cl) Q) CI)
... :c Q) "0 ; t: Q) OJ ..J :e :e X
CIS CII Cll CI.. Cl) Q) C/) Cl)
NM VI n:: f! C'lI "C CI.. .,
CJ ..... 0 I- ..5 " c:: ...
~ - 0 ... ... ...
C E: E: 0 Z Cll "5 .iij 'iij Cll - .e .2 .2
E ~ Cii' - CII u..
0 o 0 S ... ~ CJ Gl OJ 0 0
I n nu E Q) VI D::: D:: t- - - - -
< .r::. VI Cii 0 III CII CII CII
Q) II) Q) 0 11. - al Cll oil ail dl 0 0 0 0
~ C/) C/)CI) t- : 0 0.. I- 0 M- M- 0 0 CJ 0
11
I:
I'
j;:
"
11'
, I
I'
:11
,I
i!
I'
,I
.
.
C/)
...J
X
0::
m
#.
o
M
It
~
~
f j
I i
! '
I
I
Ii.
I j
, I
I ~
I '
1
i I
I I,
Ii '
i '
, '
.
.
,ATT4?/fIl!6#1 A
/
In special cases (such as for unique land uses), trip generation rates from
other sources may be substituted for ITE rates with CMA staff approval.
Other sources include: Caltrans' Trip Generation Studies and SANDAG
Traffic Generators Manual. Finally, trip generation rates may be
developed explicitly for use in the transportation impact analysis. If
special trip generation rates are developed,' techniques in the lTE's
Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies should be used.
The CMA may develop specific trip generation rates for use in Santa
Clara County in the future.
D. The choice of trip generation rate shall be justified in the TIA report.
The actual trip generation rate and project size used to estimate project
trip generation shall be documented in the TIA report. The most
precise type of land-use information should be used for the trip
generation step.
E. Any peak spreading assumptions must be dearly documented in the
TIA report. Peak spreading is the phenomenon in which trips normally
made during the peak hour are made before or after the peak hour in
order to avoid the peak. This increases traffic in the off-peak hours.
F. High occupancy vehicle trip generation must be justified in the TIA
report and must be consistent with the vehicle trip reduction standards
described in Section 1.13 of this methodology.
" -z;r 1.13 - Vehicle Trip Reduction Standards
A. An important goal of Santa Clara County's Congestion Management
Program is to encourage development that reduces systemwide traffic
congestion and improves air quality in the region. There are three
particular strategies that can be used to encourage land development
projects that accomplish these goals. They are: mixed-use development
1
\ ,
i \
\\
'.
Santa Clara County CMA
TIA Guidelines
January 7, 1993
17
A-2
"
I
I
I
(which increases internal trips), a strong transportation demand
management (TOM) program, and development near transit stations.
These strategies are most effective when combined into a
comprehensive program that is integrated into the project's design and
operation.
.
i
Ii
Ii
:i I
'I
!.
Implementation of these three strategies will cause a reduction in
vehicle trips genera ted by development projects. Projects that
incorporate these strategies into their design may take credit for
expected vehicle trip reductions. This methodology provides standards
for vehicle trip reductions that could be achieved through careful
project design and location. Since optimal vehicle trip reduction results
are achieved when all three strategies are combined, the standard
vehicle trip reduction increases as additional strategies are included.
Maximum trip reduction standards are described below and
summarized in Table 1-3.
I.:
It should be emphasized that standard vehicle trip generation rates
include some measure of transit use and roM programs, so trip
reductions summarized in Table 1-3 may be smaIIer than measured
transit use and TOM program participation in a given project.
.
B. AIl vehicle trip reductions must be clearly explained, documented, and
justified in the project's transportation impact analysis report. The
CMA will develop guidelines for estimating trip reduction due to mixed-
use development (internal trips), TDM programs, and transit station
proximity. These trip reduction guidelines should be used to estimate
reductions in project vehicle trip generation made in the transportation
impact analyses,1 It must be emphasized that the vehicle trip reduction
standards should be applied carefully using professional judgment.
1
The CMA will prepare Vehicle Trip Reduction Guidelines. Until such time as these
guidelines are completed, Member Agencies should use the standards presented in this
methodology and professional judgment to estimate vehicle trip reductions made in
.
Santa Clara County CMA
TIA Guidelines
January 7, 1993
18
A rr4CH ~,./r .8
Guidelines for Envirollmelltal Review: Trallsportation Impacts
APPENDIX 3.6
I,
:1
II
II
Van Ness Avenue Commercial JOU:rc To Wort Trtps
Based on P.M. Peak Period Trip Dlstrlbut on and Mode Split
Distribution Mode Spilt
NESanFlBIlclsco 12.3% Drtve A1ol'll 4.9'%
Carpool 7.9
MUNI 43.4
WIIk 42.2
Other 1.6
NW San Franclsco 16.S-k Drtve Alone 2.3%
CIlpOOl 14.8
MUNl 61.0
WIIlk 2.0
Other 1.9
SE San Fl1lnclsco 17.0% Drive Alone 20.6%
carpool 17.5
MUNI 48.0
BART 11.8
Walk 0.4
Other 1.7
SW San Franclsco 7.3% Drtve Alone 24.5%
Carpool 16.4
MUNI 53.8
BART 3.9
0Ihtr 1.4
Plrinsula 18.3% Drtve AIono 41.5%
ClIIpOOI 28.6
MlINl 2.4
BART 16.6
S81'IITI8IIS 8.1
Call rain 2.8
East Bay 19.0% DIIY8 AJone 23.3"-
CaIpooI 12.0
V~ 4.1
BART 52.4
AC 8.2
North Bay 9.3% Drtve Alone 19.3"-
CaIpooI 24.8
V~ 4.3
00 Bus 45.6
F9ny 4.0
CharterfClub Bus 2.0
InI8I1'ello 0.2% DIIY8 Alone 12.48%
Van Has Conldor carpool 0.7
MlINl 27.3
Walk 58.8
OItlIr 0.8
Source:
Van Nets Aveme FEIR, Appendix I
22
p-(
.
.
.
ii.
I'
i I
, I
,
!:
I;:
.
.
p-z
Tec1111icnl AppeIldices to Guidelines
APPENDIX 3.7
Van Ness Avenue Commerclal No~Work Trips
Based on P.M. Peak Period Trip Distribution and Mode Split
Distribution Mode Split
NE San F,.ndseo 13.0% DrIve Alone 37.4%
carpool 19.8
MUNI 26.4
Walk 14.0
Other 2.4
NW San F,.nc!sco 2&.7% Drive Alone 45.8%
CBIpOOI 11.1
MUNt 30.8
Walk 10,0
Other 2.3
SE San Francisco 18.1% Drive Alone 50.9%
CIIpOOI 18.4
MOOI 21.0
BART 4.2
Walk 3.6
Other 1.9
SW Sin Franclsco 4.2% Drive Alone 47.5%
CaIpooI 10.9
MUNI 3&.4
BART 3.5
other 1.7
Perinsula 10.5% OItveAlone 58.8%
Carpool 28.5
MUN1 0.2
BART 7.0
samTrans 3.0
OIhIr 2.5
E.st Bay 14.7% Drive AJone 43.9%
Cmpool 7.5
BART ~.O
AC U
North Bay 5.8% OM AJone 43.4%
CBJpOOl 11.9
GG Bus 40.0
Feny 4.7
InllITl8Ilo 7.00/. OM Alone 13.8%
VII1 Ness CorIIdor CmpooI 5.5
MONt 10.1
WaIII 69.8
other 0.8
SOUItll: Vln Ness Avenue FaR, Appendx I
23
I'
,.
Guidelirzes for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts
APPENDIX 3.8
, '
Van Ness Avenue Resident Trtps
Based on P.M. Peak Period DIstrlbutlon1ehd Mode Split
DIstribution Mode spin
WorklNon-Work WorklNon-Worit
NE San Fltlm:lsco 59,1% I 12.7'% onve Alone 1".9% I 20.9%
CalpooI 11.1 129.2
MUNI 53.8 137.9
Walk 18,4 I 8,8
OIher 1.8 I 3.2
NW San Fltlnclsco 17.04% I 9.2"k DllYe Alone 37.7% / 18.1%
Carpool 11.8 123.6
MUNI 31.3 /44.8
Walk 16.7 110.04
Other 2.5/3.1
SE San Fltlnclsco 9.2% I 6.6"/. OllYe Alone <45.2% 117.7%
CIIpOOI 9.S 112.5
MUNI -40.6 160.0
Walk 2.4 I 1.8 ..
OIher 2.2 / 8.0
SW SIn Fl1Ulc:lsco 2.7% / 5..../. Drive Alone 66.7%110,'(%
CalpOOl 4.9 / 1 1.6
MUNI 25.7 173.0
BART o /5.0
OIher 2.7 1 0
Peninsula 5.0% I 5.9% Drtv. Alone S5.0% /35.6%
CalpOOl 15.5/17.3
MUNI 1.8/ 0
BART 10.0140.1
SamTrans 6.0 I 7.0
OIher 1.71 0
EaslBay 5.3% I 1.6% Drtve Alone 70.0%/35.1%
CalpOOl 9.0 122.1
BART 18.0 I.caO
AC 1.0 I 0.8
ChmtelfCIub Bus 2.0 I 0
NlII1h Bay 1.3%/1.1% D1lY8 Alone 71.0%/12.4%
caIpOOI 17.5 187.6
00 Bus S.O / 0
ChartedClub Bus 5.5 I 0 "
IntemaI to 0%/57.5% Drive Alone o/.u%
Van Ness ConIdor Carpool o /8.7
MUNI o /26.0
Walk o 158.8
OIher ....
o 12.1
Soua: Van Ness AV8IIIlI FSR, Appondx I
'Note that for woII\ hips, geo9f1lphlc dltltbullon nlp....nls trip.mKm locdon; all wolll hip dntInatIons .. wIIl1ln the Van Ness AV8IIIlI Contdor.
24
/3-8
.
.
.
('4TT~r.-(i7?tT C
II
I
I,
c -(
. VIII. Multi-Use Developments/ Quantifying
Capture Rates
Background
A trip generation rate or equation is often used
to forecast trips at a proposed development.
This rate or equation is generally based on the
trip-making characteristics observed at similar
stand-alone existing developments. Often a
forecast of trips for a development consisting of
several different types of land uses, or a multi-
use development, must be made. A common
method of developing this forecast is to apply
the trip rate or equation for each individual
land use in the proposed development and then
add the forecasts together. This method does
not take into consideration the fact that some
of the trips counted at stand-alone sites are now
being made within the multi-use development,
either by vehicle or an alternate mode such as
. walking or transit. Probably the most common
example of this trip-making occurs at multi-use
developments containing residential and shop-
ping areas. Some of the resident's work tr~pS
and sh<;>pping trips are made to the on-Site
shopping area. Another example is the devel-
opment containing offices and a shop-
ping/service area. Some of the trips made from
the offices to shops, to restaurants, or to banks
may be made on-site. These types of trips thus
become internal to the multi-use site; they are
"captured" on-site.
.
Definitions
A capture rate can therefore be generally de-
fined as a percentage reduction in traditionally
developed trip forecasts to account for trips in-
ternal to the site. Depending on the methodol-
ogy being used, the reduction may be applied
to the total trips forecast or to individual land
uses or components of the multi-use develop-
ment.
It is important to note that these
"reduced" trips are applied externally to the
site-at entrances, at adjacent intersections, and
Trip Gmeration,January 1991
on adjacent roadways. The reductions to ~nte~-
nal site traffic volumes would be appropnate if
the internal trips are made by modes other than
private vehicles. The trip reduction for captu:ed
or internal trips is separate from the reductlon
for pass-by trips described earlier. These are twO
distinct phenomena, and both could be appli-
cable for a proposed development.
Multi-use developments can be classified
into twO categories. The first consists of a
combination of residential and non-residential
land uses, and the second consists of a combi-
nation of non-residential land uses only. Cate-
crory I will typically consist of one or more types
~f residences and a shopping and/or office
component. Category II will typically consist of
offices and a shopping/retail component, with
possibly a hotel or motel.
A central business district (downtown) is
the ultimate case of a multi-use development.
Downtown areas have a mixture of very diverse
employment, retail, residential, and commercial
recreation/hotel uses. Extensive pedestrian in-
ter~ction occurs because of the scale of the
downtown area, the ease of access, and the
proximity of the uses. Some downtowns have
excellent transit service. Auto occupancy, par-
ticularly during peak commuting hours, is usu-
ally higher in the CBD than in the outlying ar-
eas. For these reasons, trip generation character-
istics in a downtown environment are different
from those found in outlying or suburban areas.
Accordingly, trip generation characteristics in this
text, and specifically in the case of capture ram at
multi-use developments, are applicable to sites
outside the downtown.
A shopping center is also an example of a
multi-use devdopment. However, it has histor-
ically been considered as an individual or single
land use, and the associated trip generation
rates and equations already reflect the <<multi-
use" nature of the development because of the
way shopping center data in this report have
been collected. Accordingly, capture rates are not
1-41
,
I ~ ,
I
I
I
I,
I;
I
I
applicable and should not be utiliud in the fore-
casting of trips for shopping ((nters. Likewise, a
subdivision or planned unit development con-
taining general office buildings and suppon
services such as banks, savings and loan institu-
tions, restaurants, and service stations arranged
in a park- or campus-like atmosphere should be
considered as an office park, not as a multi-use
development. Similarly, office buildings with
suPPOrt retail or restaurant facilities contained
inside the building should be treated as general
office buildings because the trip generation
rates and equations already reflect this situation.
Finally, it should be noted that the
database for Land Use 270, residential planned
unit development (PUD), contains sites that
are generally only a combination of residential
land uses. Accordingly, these trip rates and
equations are generally not applicable to a Cat-
egory I multi-use development. The PUD data
may possibly be used if the non-residential
component is an extremely small pan of the
overall site.
",
;!
,
'"
II
'I':
II
'I
I
I'
"I
ii
"
i
I',
Available Data
Very little information is available on quantify-
ing capture rates. The information generally
C-,;2
consists of interview data where people ar.
asked about their trip-making, actual vehicl
trip counts, or a combination of both. Follow-
ing is a brief summary of the known database.
The Permanent Trip Generation Committee
would be very appreciative of receiving any data
not reported here.
1. Trip Generation at Special Sites,
Virginia Transportation Research CoWlcil,
Charlottesville, Virginia, VHTRC 84-R23,
January 1984.
Driveway vehicle COUntS are available from one
multi-use site. The site is located in a densely
developed area located in the Northern Virginia
suburbs ofWashingron, D.C., and is served by
transit. It contains 606 rental units, 555 of
which are located in a high-rise, the remainder
being multilevel townhouse units. There are ap-
proximately 64,000 square feet of retail/office
area, including a delicatessen, a commercial
cleaning company office, two building contrac-
tor offices, a restaurant, a bank, a hospital
consulting firm, a direct-mail advertising firm,
a real estate firm, a management consultin.
firm, and a dentist. Based on applying trip gen-
eration equations, the following comparisons
were made:
Trip Ends
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
(7 - 9 A.M.) (4 . 6 P.M.)
337 764
440 559
o 205(270/0)
ITE Calculated
Field Counted
Captured
Accordingly, 17% of the daily trips and 27% of
the P.M. peak trips were internal to or captured
on the site. During the A.M. peak hour the
calculated trips were less than the measured
trips, which,' implies there were no internal
trips. This finding points out a problem inher-
ent in this method of calculating a capture rate.
That is, it is assumed in the calculation that the
ITE equation is valid for this site. In fact, the
ITE equation represents an average of several
sites, and appears to understate the A.M. trips at
this site. This further suggests that the P.M. and
1-42
Dailv
8,222
6,803
1,419(17%1
daily ITE calculated trips are understated,
which would mean that the aforementioned
capture rates are low.
2. The Brandermill pun Traffic Generation C-C)
Study, Technical Report, JHK & Associates,
Alexandria, Vuginia,JWle 1984.
Brandermill is a large, planned residential de-
velopment located approximately 10 miles
southwest of Richmond, Virginia. At the tim.
of the study there were approximately 2,300
Institute of Trans po nation Engineers
I,
1-'
1'1 ..
, ,
'I .
.
, I
"
'.
.
occupied dwelling units, with 180 townhouse-
scyle condominiums and 2,120 single-family
detached units. Commercial developmenc con-
sisted of a 82,600-square feet shopping cencer, a
63,000-square feet business park, a 14,000-
square feet medical center, and a 4,400-square
feet restaurant. There were also recreational
facilities, including a golf course, tennis courts,
swimming facilities, and several lakeside recre-
ation facilities. Finally, there was a day-care
center, a church, an elementary school, and a
middle school.
The study had the overall goal of deter-
mining the on-site (internal) and off-site
(external) traffic generation at Brandermill.
Data collected included the following:
. Automatic machine counts at selected
roadways or driveways serving specific
land uses,
/'"1 ?
<--7
. Manual driveway CountS co supplement
the machine countS,
. Land use inventory,
. Travel questionnaire distributed CO resi-
dences,
. Travel questionnaires administered co pa-
crons and employees of non-residential
land uses,
. Turning movement countS at selected 10-
canons.
Based on the various data collected, the follow-
ing comparisons were made:
Total Generated
External
Ca tured
Thus, 51% of the daily trips, 55% of the P.M.
peak hour trips, and 45% of the A.M. peak
hour trips were internal to or captured on the
site. Additionally, 46% of persons employed in
Brandermill also reside in Brandermill. Since
the generated trips were actually measured,
Hours
7 A.M. to 9 A.M.
9 A.M. to 4 P.M.
4 P.M. to 6 P.M.
6 P.M. to 7 A.M.
Dail
Home-Based Trips
with Destinations
within Brandermill
18.1%
44.4%
55.2%
40.6%
35.2%
Dail
33,540
16,280
17,260 51%
-<tl
rather than calculated based on ITE rates or
equations, this method eliminates the problem
described in the first stud\'.
..
The trave! questionnaires provided the
following information:
Home-Based Trips
with Origins
within Brandermill
50.9%
50,2%
34.4%
33.6%
39.1%
Shopping Center Trips with
Origins
within Brandermill
65%
52%
Shopping Center Trips with
Destinations
within Brandermill,'
66%
66%
Hours
11 A.M. to 1 P.M.
4 P.M. to 6 P.M.
Trip Gmeration. January 1991
1-43
.
I
j
I
, I
I '
I I
I :
! i:
I
" "
: i,
" 11
:~~:,;>.
,~ '
/,,: ~I~ \\\
:~/~:~ ~~ CITY OF Dl~BLI;\:
--- ~\, ~,__ /111 ----- -
I.\- .... -I/j
'\. :'.,~__.~'....,/ :>) Sox 23jC) ~:..:bll:; Caiil::J~;'1;a 9-'553
, 1/...-.,{",""
....~~/
.:::: ::~'il:8S
--;.=,c> .:>\": ::J:=.:c.. :>...;:)i:.... Ca::t~:~;c 9~55S
March 15, 1996
Chwen Siripocanont, T.E., C.E.
CCS Planning & Engineering
42080 Osgood Road, #1
Fremont CA 94539
1'1
i i SUBJECT: Traffic Issues for the Eastern Dublin Area
,;
: !
, I
.
.
Dear Ms. Siripocanont:
We received your letter dated February 23, 1996, and appreciate your interest in the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study. The following are responses to questions raised in your letter:
1)
30% Reduction In Trips (Or Credit) For Residential Development Within The Designated
Dublin Town Center Area:
The Specific Plan originally included plans to use the Transit Spine as the only major
mass transit route that could be used by some mass transit such as light rail. However,
when the City Council approved the Plan, the Council changed the transit spine to a 4-
lane roadway. As you can see from Section 5.3 and Figure 5-2 of the Specific Plan, the
transit spine is merely one of the major streets to be used for mass transit.
2)
Reduction In The Number Of Trips In Eastern Dublin Town Center Area:.
You suggested that in the Eastern Dublin Town Center area, reduced trips would be
justified more than in other areas because of sidewalks, commercial center. etc'- It
should be noted that in other areas of Eastern Dublin, it is planned to have pedestrian-
friendly areas, with grocery store/shopping centers within walking distance of residential
areas. As shown in the attached memo from T JKM, if some areas of Eastern Dublin are
near bus stops, Park & Rides, the BART station, or bicycle paths, for example, the trips
may be fewer than in some other areas. As you are aware, the trip rates being used are
an average, which means that some trips in this area could be higher or lower. The
average trips for the high density area is 6, and ifthe City of Dublin starts creating traffic
trip rates for each specific area, the City could have quite a few categories for only
residential areas. As you stated in your memo, some medium density developments
could have fewer than 10 trips, and some could have more than 10. However. we used
an average of 10 trips per DU for low and medium density developments.
Administ~ation 1510) 833-6650 . City Council 1510) 833-6605 . Finance (510j 833-6640 . Building lnsoection 1510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833.6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 . Parks & Communit)' Service (510) 833-6645
Police (510) 833-6670 . Public Works (510) 833.6630 . Planning (510) 833.6610
11
II
, I
As you know, using an average of 10 trips is an acceptable practice for traffic engineers.
These trip rates were used in the Specific Plan Traffic Study performed by OKS with no.
adverse criticism.
3)
Eastern Dublin Traffic Analysis Requirements:
"
i;
I
, i
Developments in Eastern Dublin do not need to perform traffic studies for the Year 2010
unless there is a specific concern or issue with an individual development, such as not to
develop as specified in the Specific Plan. However, each development is required to do
a traffic study to establish the short-term needs of the project.
,I
I
I
!:
The TIF for the Year 2010 is being collected by the City to construct the transportation
system as determined to be necessary for the Year 2010. However, if an individual
developer's goal is for a project by the year 1998, for example, a traffic study must be
provided to show the transportation needs for their project for the year 1998. The
existing roads may not be adequate to carry their project traffic; therefore, the traffic
study should show what type of short-term roadway improvements the developer needs
to construct to accommodate traffic for their project. If the developer improves any road
system within the TIF area for short-term needs, the developer will receive credit toward
the TIF as long as the improvements are within the road system stated in the TIF report.
When and how the developer gets credit will be established as part of the Development
Agreement. As the City of Dublin must approve your project, including the traffic report,
please contact me prior to working on the report and we can discuss what needs to be
studied in order to clarify and expedite your future project.
.
, I,
I
4) Special Trip Rates For Senior Housing:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allows senior housing; but does not make it mandatory,
nor does it state the number of units required for senior housing. We, therefore, do not
know at this time how many residential units should be assigned for senior housing.
If you have any questions. please feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely.
JlP/1AA-~t/U-'
Mehran Sepehri
Sr. Civil Engineer
Attach.
cc: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
Elizabeth Silver. City Attorney
Chris Kinzel, T JKM
g:\corres\ms\314chwen
.
I
: I
I'
i.
> I
: I
I
I
I
,
I
I
: I
;l,'.;,.~':";~' .."', f-";-~~I~-",'.o!(:,';ri'~'W"'!~.
~~t.OP4t'~
~
ALLWIN
~
~POR!\-'t~
iEL: (818) 285--9823 TELEX: 4955381 FAX: (818) 285-8146
9657 E. LAS TUNAS DRIVE, iEMPLE CITY. CA 91780
March 29, 1996
Kay Keck
City Clerk
City of DUblin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
:'j- 1U:: City Council Hearing April 9, 1996/1.'rat':fio Impaot Fee and
Area of Benefit li"ea
:,.
:.
:
"
Dear Ms. Keck,
The purpose of this letter is to provide our written comments to
the Dublin City Council regarding revision of Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee/area of Benefit Fee. _. _
First, I would like to state our objection with the city of Dublin
for using the same traffic consultant, TJKM, to work for the City
of Dublin in updating the Cit~.s Traffic Impact Fee program, whi1e
at the same time TJKM is work~ng for Dublin RanCh, the largest
property owner/developer in East Dublin.. TJKM is serving Dublin
ranch as their traffic consultant in preparing their traffio
impact analyses which will result in subsequent traffic impact ~ee
assessments to be paid by Dublin Ranch to the City.. I strongly
feel this relationship is a clear conflict of interest between the
City'S and its citizen's interests and those other private owners..
We respectfully request that the city ,Council resolVe this blatant
conflict of interest before any revision of the City'S Traffic
Impact Fee program..
Secondly, we are requesting approval by. the Dub1in City Council of
the ~ollowing items regarding the Eastern Specific Plan area: a
reduction in the trip generation rate used for medium density -
dwelling units from 10 trips per day to 9 trips per day and a trip
reduction of 30t for all residential trips within the town center
area with a corresponding reduction in the traffic im~act fee
assessment.. We have retained a traffic engineering f~rm with
significant experience with traffic impact fee programs to provide
their professional opinion regarding the issues before the City
Council.. We are Submitting a copy of CCS' letter to Lee Thompson,
Public Works Director, which prov1des our position regarding the
trip generation rate and traffic impact fee reduction.. Both CCS.
and our 1etters to the City should be entered into record
regarding this City Council agenda item.
!I
1',:_:
I" '
i ..
I
I: '
I
I'
II
!-
"
I'
II
'I
Kay Keck, city Clerk
City of Dublin
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your time and if you have any question, our traf!'ic
angineer, Chwen Siripocanont, Principal of CCS Plann~ng and
~gineer~ng, will be ~lad to ~rovide fOU and the City Council with
any clarification add~tional ~nformat~on you may need~
Sincere~y yours,
~
Kenny Wan
Project Manager
CC~ ccs
william Ross, Esq.,
.
.
.'
I,
I
j
I! ,.:
,,'
, '
I :
I:..
I _
I , '
I .
,
I:
I I
I
Ii
I;;,
: \
e:
.
dill:
llfF
ecs
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
INCORPORAT[D
Aprill, 1996
CorDD,.I. H..dQu"I.,.
42080 Osgood R()tId, Suite Olle
FremOl/t, Califomin 94539
510/656.7091 . Fa.T 5/0/656-3825
CCS94046
Lee S. Thompson
Director
D~partmentofPublicVVorks
City of Dublin
lOO Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee\ Area Benefit Fee Trip Generation Rates
Dear Lee:
Thank you for meeting with me on March 18,1996. The purpose of this letter is to provide
additional support to our request, on behalf of Allwin Development, for a reduction in the trip
generation rate for medium density residential dwelling units from 10 trips per day to 9 trips per
day in the Town Center area and to request an overa1130% residential trip reduction in the Town
Center area with a corresponding reduction in the traffic impact fee assessment.
TRIP RATE REDUCTION FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
The current TIF states that medium density residential dwelling units generate 10 trips per
day. This is also the same trip generation rate as used for low density single family residential
dwelling units.
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted on January 7, 1994, "Medium-Density"
is defined as the following and as noted on page 33:
" Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides a mix of
single family detached and attached units and multi-family units. The density range allows
for detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development. It is
intended that within areas with this designation, that dwelling unit types and densities
would be varied to accommodate a range of housing needs. Assumed household size is
2.0 persons per unit."
In addition, t~e Eastern Dublin Specific Plan uses the average number of units in this land use
catagory, or 10 dwelling units per acre, to detennine the total number of medium density
dwelling units there will be in the East Dublin area. Based on trip generation of the medium
density dwelling units, combined with other Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses, needed
roadway infrastructure improvements were identified, costs estimates to build identified roadway
improvements were established, and subsequently, the East Dublin traffic impact fee was adopted
to pay for the identified needed improvements based on these original land use assumptions.
TF;:ANSPO=:"'f":''TION
TI=i!~~FIC
P.-~KING
ITS
.". -"
I
I
I
I
! .
I I
,. -
Lee S. Thompson
April 1, 1996
Page 2
.
Also, it should be noted the Community Design section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
provides an illustration showing the difference between Single Family dwelling units and Medium
Density dwelling units as envisioned for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. This illustration is
very informative as it clearly shows a higher density development for medium density as compared
to low density single family. (see Attaclunent A, which provides portions of the Eastern Dublin
~pet;ific Plan, specifically pages 24, .31~ ~3, 37, 94 and ~l through A4-7)
It should be noted that the trip generation rate of 10 trips per dwelling unit used in the Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for medium density residential dwelling units is very high. In fact, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (lTE) Trip Generation, S" Edition manual states that,
based on' 348 studies, even Single Family Detached residential units, with 3_7 persons per unit,
will generate only 9.55 trips per day. The Trip Generation manual further states under the Single
Family Detached category that if the single family household size is between 2 to 3 persons per
dwelling unit, the trip rates should be reduced, reducing the daily trip rate by 1.8 trips per day,
resulting in a daily trip rate for these smaller households of7.75 trips per day per dwelling unit.
In addition, the ITE Trip Generation trip rates for residential townhouses and condominiums
(medium land use density), based on 185 studies, is even lower, generating only 5.86 trips per
dwelling unit per day. I have attached all the ITE Trip Generation pages to this letter for your
reference. (see Attachment B)
Therefore, our request for a reduction in the trip generation rates for medium-density residential
dwelling units is very reasonable. if not conservative. It is well documented that medium density
developments generate fewer trips per dwelliIig unit than lower density residential land uses. The
nationally recognized ITE data discussed above presents the results of 533 individual studies
which document these lower trip generation characteristics. Therefore, based on all OUf presented
documentation, would like you and the City of Dublin to approve our request to use a trip
generation rate of 9 trips per medium density residential dweIling unit, with a corresponding
reduction in the traffic impact fee.
.
THIRTY-PERCENT TRIP RATE REDUCIlON FOR TOWN CENTER AREA
The Town Center area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is planned for a higher density,
mixed use developments designed to be more transit and pedestrian oriented.
In fact, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for specific development policies regarding the
development of the Town Center area. These policies state and are listed on page AS-3 and
A5-4 (see Attachment A):
Policy 4-12: Locate community oriented commercial development in the "Town Center"
within walking distance or a short ride from most residents, and conveniently served by
transit
Policv 4-14: Establish the Town Center commercial area as a vital and visually distinctive
central business district and major focus of community life in Dublin.
.
I::,
I':,: :
I.-
Ii
i
I.:
I j
I,
Ii
I I
Ii'
, i"
I,i
II j!
II
Ii
"'I'
"1
~ i
,ii!
,'j
i
I .
, I
.e:-
<.
Lee S. Thompson
April I, 1996
Page 3
Policv 4-15: Concentrate pedestrian-oriented commercial uses along the transit spine and
at key transfer points.
Poliey 4-17: Encourage the creation of pedestrian -oriented shopping enviromnment in the
Town and Village centers, while accomodating the safe mo~ement of vehicular traffic.
PoIicy4-I8: Encourage mixed-use development futhe conimerclalareas oftfie Town " and .
Village Centers tli~t contnlmte'to th~ Social, cultunit, and ecoi1~nirc vitality of the ' '
commercial districts.
Policy 5-1: Encourage higher density development near transit conidors.
Clearly, the Eastern Dublin Specific P /an policy is to create higher density, mixed use
developments which are more pedestrian and transit oriented, designed to reduce dependance on
the automobile, thus reducing the trip generation of the area.
,0. .
". .-
, "
-'
In addition, the Town Center will be served by the Transit Spine. In response to your letter of
March IS, 1996, we disagree with yoor statement that "the transit spine is merely one of the
major streets to be used for mass transit." According to the Eastern Dublin Specific P /.em, page
52. (see Attachment A) the Transit Spine is described as follows:
<< The Plan calls for a third major east-west corridor situated midway between the Dublin
Boulevard and Gleason Road extensions. Unlike the other two conidorS. this conidor is
not designed to cany high volumes of traffic or to move traffic quickly through the area.
This corridor will be the <<Main Street" for the Town Center and itS function will be to
serve as the transit spine linking the Town Center to the future eastern Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station, and to serve local vehicular traffic."
This Transit Spine is also clearly illustrated in Figure 5.1 - "Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Roadway System". (see Attachment A) The Roadway System Map also designates the Transit
Spine as <<Transit Street Area". No other roadway or area on the Specific Plan is so designated.
Bus routes will be located on other streets within the Specific Plan area, however~ no other street
are designated a Transit Spine or designated as being in a Transit Street Area. Transit usage
along the Transit Spine will be have more frequency to serve the higher density development and
pedestrian activity. It should also be noted that the street cross section of the Transit Spine
requires wider sidewalks to accomodate the heavier pedestrian utilization of the Transit Spine
street. Store fronts will meet the sidewalk and contain such pedestrian amenities as sidewalk
restauant seating, outdoor cafes, retail uses, public art and sattractive street furniture and trees.
In addition, the center, or core area, of the Transit Spine will be developed with community uses,
such as educational, library, community theater, educational, and recreational/sports facilities,
within a quarter mile (about a five minute walk) from the Transit Spine which is considered a
comfortable walking distance. Page III of the Eastem Dublin Specific P/.em (see Attachment A)
also states: "
Lee S. Thompson
April 1, 1996
Page 4
.
"The Transit Spine is central to the land use and circulation concept of eastern Dublin,
which is to link land use with transit in an attempt to offer alternatives to the private auto
for daily trips. The spine is the focus of neighborhood commercial activity in the Town
, Cent~r ,and. is within w~g di$nce of all T.own Center residen~~;." ,
Thus the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan concentrates both residential and employment uses along
the Transit Spine to encourage transit use for local and regional travel.
Clearly, the Town Center area has been distinguished from other areas within the Eastern Dublin
Area to consist of higher density development,. transit and pedestrian oriented land uses, thereby
by definition generating fewer vehicle trips than other areas of Eastern Dublin. The mixed use or
multi-use developments planned in the Dublin Town Center are similar to the type of
developments found in a typical, more established central business district (downtown) area.
.- ,
'-,' :
It is also well recongnized that mixed use developments served by transit generate fewer trips that
single use developments not served by transit. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation. sth Edition manual devotes an entire chapter to this topic. "vm. Multi-Use
Developments/QualifYing Capture Rates", pages 1-41 through I-54. This chapter discusses
various studies documenting trip reduction rates for mixed use ,developments. Documented travel
characteristics survey results and trip reduction policies for these types of multi-use developments
found in other communities are informative and can be applied to Eastern Dublin (see Attachment
C). We list a few examples here where various trip reductions' are permitted by local jurisdictions
because of these mixed or multi-use, transit-pedestrian oriented developments. It should also be
noted that two of the example trip reduction policies allow significantly greater than 30% trip
reduction than we have requested for the Dublin Town Center area. Applicable studies and
policies include: -
1. Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) permits a maximum,
of30% vehicle trip reduction. The Santa Clara CMA permits a maximum of30% trip
reduction to the standard TIE trip generation rates when"' a combination of three trip
reduction strategies (mixed-use development, effective transportation demand
management program, and location near transit) are implemented for land development
projects. Attachments D and E shows the Vehicle Trip Reduction Standards specified in
the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines and Transportation Impact Analysis
Methodology documents, respectively, adopted by the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA).
.
2. Van Ness Avenue Corridor Mixed Use Developments. Although this data is from a
much more urban area, this data is informative, but we do not expect trip reductions as .
high as those found in this study which was 50%. This study shows that more than 50%
of trips use alternative transportation modes in the outlying Van Ness Avenue area
corridor in San Francisco. Van Ness Avenue serves as a "main street" and transit corridor
I::,:::
'I>::
I' -'-'
I .-.
I '
Lee S. Thompson
April 1, 1996
Page 5
I
I.
I
I
I
for the adjacent mixed use developments. The Van Ness Avenue corridor contains
residential, commercial, and office developments. Although a BART station is not within
the comfortable 5-minute walking distance, BART is easily accessible through other
transportation modes. Attachment F shows the PM peak period trip distdbution and
mode split percentages for the Van Ness Avenue area conidor in San Francisco. Data
included in Attaclunent E shows more than 50% of the travelers use transit, walking.
and other transportation modes to get to their destinations without driving.
I
I:
,I
!
3. ITE Documented Mixed Use Development, BrandermiIl PUD,Virginia. This mixed
use development is much like the Dublin Town Center, since it is a new suburban mixed
used development, but is a smaller scale. The development is located in a suburban area
and is a planned unit development (multi-use development), which results in many trips
remaining internal to the development with people using alternative transportation modes
to access their destinations (i.e.: via walking, bicycling. or transit). The Brandennill PUD
study showed a 51 % capture rate of trips, equating to a 51 % trip reduction from standard
lTE trip generation rates. Brandennill PUD has single- and multi-family residential
dwelling units. commercial and retail developmen~, office uses. recreational facilities, day-
care, church, and schools, much like Eastern Dublin area. Attachment G provides the
result of the study documented in the ITE's Trip Generation, 5th Edition.
.
Allwin Development is committed to developing its properties within the Dublin Town Center
area adhering to the goals and policies set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore.
Allwin feels strongly that new development in the Town Center area, which reflects a mixed use.
transit-pedestrian oriented design, should be permitted a 30% trip reduction of standard
residential trip generation rates, and with it a corresponding reduction in the traffic impact fee
assessment, to reflect the lower trip generation which will occur because of the area's higher
development densities, mixed use development, and higher usage of alternative transportation
modes such as transit. walking, and bicycles.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
~~
Chwen C. Siripocanont, P.E, T.E
Principal
--::.cc:
Allwin Development, Kenny Wan
I'
l.
I-
i 2.
I:
II,
II'
II!
I'
II
,
Ii
II
RESPONSE TO ALL WIN DEVELOPMENT / CCS COMMENTS
The letters from AUV\1n Development and CCS, together with over 100 pages of backup material, were
received by Staff on April 3rd. Staffhas not had time to read and analyze the requests in the letter except
that:
The objection to developers using TJKM and TlKM working for the City is being resolved by the
City's hiring the traffic consultant for new development studies and the developer paying the cost
through development processing deposits.
The request for trip reductions and the resulting reductions in traffic impact fees was addressed to a
lesser extent in a meeting with a representative from CCS as a result of an earlier letter. It should be
noted that trip reductions in residential categories and/or reduction in categories for specific areas of
the Specific Plan will result in increases in fees for the remainder oftbe users.
.
.
.