HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Infrastructure-Heindel Study
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: January 31, 1995
SUBJECT:
Dublin Extended Planning Area Infrastructure Study
Report by' Public Works Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)
2)
3)
Resolution
November, 1989, Dublin Extended Planning Area
Infrastructure Study (Heindel Study)
Agenda Statement dated December 11, 1989,
Regarding Infrastructure Study
Minutes of December 11, 1989, Meeting Regarding
Infrastructure Study
Attendance List - January 20th property owner meeting
4)
5)
RECOMMENDA nON:
~
Adopt resolution affirming the motion adopted on December 11,
1989, and directing Staff to return to the City Council with a
recommendation with respect to funding mechamsm(s) to implement
thc concept ofthe Heindel Study with respect to 1-580 interchange
infrastructure.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The result of this exercise will undoubtedly increase the Traffic
Impact Fee in Eastern Dublin. The prelimmary estimate from the
Heindel study was a net $8.5 million to be pmd to Pleasanton by
Dublin developers. $8.5 million would increase the Eastern Dublin
TIF by about 8%.
DESCRIPTION: In the process of developing a traffic impact fee for Eastern Dublin,
Pleasanton raised the issue ofrepaymg Pleasanton for a share of the 1-580 interchange Improvements
which Pleasanton built and which will also benefit Eastern Dublin.
In 1989, the Dublin City Council approved, in concept, a study for Eastern Dublin which attempted to
assign costs for Improvements to three interchanges on 1-580 Pleasanton had already made major
improvements to the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road interchanges. The Fallon Road interchange
would be needing major improvements, and future developments in the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton,
and Dublin would be the beneficiaries of these Fallon Road improvements.
Because Pleasanton had made improvements to the Hacienda and Tassajara interchanges, Eastern Dublin
development would pay an assessment or fee to repay Pleasanton. The Fallon Road interchange would
need improvements in the future; so no reimbursement would be required. The HopyardIDougherty Road
interchange was not included in the Heindel Study
The result of the study prepared by John Heindel was that each jurisdictIOn would build its own interior
major street system and that Pleasanton and Dublin would share the costs of the Hacienda and Tassajara
interchanges based on a proportIOnate share of each City's traffic generation using the interchanges. Also,
it was recommended that the Fallon mterchange be improved by Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin, again
based on traffic generation.
ITEM NO 8. t.
Copies to
Attendance List (Exhibit 5)
City of Pleasant on
City of Livermore
CITY CLERK
FILE 1/IOliOloH9lol
.
.
The Dublin City Council committed in 1989 that new development in Eastern Dublin should pay its fair
share of the improvements based on traffic generation from actual development as it is constructed.
On January 20, 1995, StafTheld a property owner meeting, which was attended by 10 people representing
various property owners. Discussions were held on the subject of cost sharing, and it was recommended
that the City go forward and explore the costs involved in paying pJeasanton its fair share of the freeway
interchange costs. Ted Fairfield volunteered the technical services ofChns Kinzel ofTJKM and Rod
Andrade of McKay and Somps to help out in the re-evaluatlOn.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution affirmmg the motion adopted on Deccmber
II, 1989, and directing StafTtu return to the City Council with a recommendation for its consideration
with respect to funding mechanism(s) to implement the concept of the Hemdel Study Wlth respect to the
I-580lHacienda and I-580/Santa RitalTassaJara interchanges.
a:(9495) vanUQry\agst580
Page 2
. .
RESOLUTION NO. -95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF TIlE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE
BENEFITING PROPERTIES WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan
CSP") were approved by the City Council in May, 1993, after approximately six years of study; and
WHEREAS, the GP A designates land uses within an approximately 4,176-acre area
which includes properties wlthin the City of Dublin and properties to the east of the City; and
WHEREAS, the SP providcs more detailed goals, policies, and actIon programs for the
approximately 3,313-acre porlJon of the UPA nearest the City; and
WHEREAS, in 1989 in antICipation of the adoption of the GPA and SP and m responsc to
a request from propcrty owncrs in North Pleasanton, the CitIes of Dublin and Pleasanton jointly funded a
study by Juhn II. Heindel, Consulting Civil Engineer, entitled the "Dublin Extended Planning
Area/Infrastructure Study" ("Heindel Study"); and
WHEREAS, the scope of the Heindcl Study included two interchanges at 1-580 and Santa
RIta Road, and Hacienda Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Heindel Study noted that it was based on land use assumptions within
Dublin's Sphere oflnfluence and cost assumptions; and
WHEREAS, the Heindel Study was presented to the City Council at its December 11,
1989, meeting, at which time the Council by motion:
1 Acknowledged that Dublin's Eastcrn Planning Area, when developed, will benefit from
the ncw interchange work bemg funded by Pleasanton through the North Pleasanton
Improvcmcnt District (NPID);
2. Accepted the conccpt of assigning cost sharJfig on the basis of benefit to the traffic
generated on both sides ofl-580;
3 Determined that Dublin's contribution be subject to actual development taking place
north ofI-580 and wlthm Dublin; and
4 Determined that fimding mechanism(s) be established within the Dubhn Extcnded
Plmming Area.
Page I
~W'Mlr.l;v.~r 1
~ff~~ \lJ~~ _,_.,~""""'~~~
,-,
'1'w:;,( G..lhc--Y\
.
.
WHEREAS, on Januill) 9, 1995, the City Council adoptcd Resolution No. 1-95
estabhshmg a Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") [or development within the GP A and SP areas; and
WHEREAS, the TIF includes Improvements necessary for the ultimate configuration of
the two interchanges identificd above; and
WHEREAS, inasmuch as the GP A and SP have now heen adopted, it is appropriatc to
dctcrmine the funding mechanism or mechanisms which may be approprlSte to implement the <;onccpt of
the Hcindel Study, which mechanisms may include amendment of the TIF,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
The City COlillcil reaffirms the motion adopted by it on Decembcr II, 1989, and directs
Staff to return to the Council with a recommendation for its consideration with rcspect to funding
mechanism(s) to implement thc conccpt of the Heindel Study with respect to thc above two interchanges.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 31st day of January, 1995
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
a:(949.5 )/january!reso580
Page 2
! I .1
.
.
DUBLIN
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
November 1989
m JOHN H. HEINDEL (408) 741'01S9
W CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
P O. BOX 3452 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
E}(tmarr_~-
^ /
\ VI \1'2" Jrr,\ c+"xe '.).hCcl-Af
I
Forword
Summary
I
.
.
DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
Contents
Descriptiun of Required Improvements
A. Dublin Boulevard
B Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
C Hacienda Drive Interchange
D. Tassajara RoadJSanta Rita Road Interchange
E. Fallon RoadlEl Charm Road Interchange
II.
Projected
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Ill.
Financing
A.
B.
C.
D
E.
F
G
H.
Land Use
Dublin's General Plan
Camp Parks
Alameda County Jail Site
Pleasanton's and Livermorc's General Plans
EI Charro Quarry Properties
Alternatives and Considerations
Scope and COSI of Work
I3enefiu"d Properties
Land Use
Benefits
Credits for Previous Work
Governmental Contributions
Timing of Consuuction
Timing and Method of Funding
IV. Recommendations
A. Cost Assumptions
B. BOWldary of Benefit Area
C. Land Use Assumvtions
D Benefit Formula .
E. Pleasanton Credits
F. Method of Funding
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map (1" = 2000')
B. Project Preliminary Cost Estimate
C. Standard 60-Foot Half-Strcet Cost Estimate
D. Area and Benefit Unit Summary
E. Asscssillent Rate Calculations, Summary of Unfunded
Costs and Suurce of Funds
F SelectIon 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act
G . List of Reference Documents
11 List ofIndividuals Consulted
Page
Jt
1
4
7
12
.
.
Forword
This smdy was jointly funded by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasamon and was
commissiOned by me City of Duhlin in September 1987, relativc to Ihe following proposed
improvcmtcnt work which will hereinafter be refem:d to as the Project:
The extension of Dublin Boulevard easterly from Dougheny Road [0 Doolan
Road (including storm drainage and right of way for a future light rail SYSICrn).
2 The improvement of interchanges on Interstate Highway 580 (I-5801 at
Tassajara Road/Sanm Rila Road and at Fallon RoadJEl Charm Road, [0 meir
ultimate configuration.
3 TIle consuuction of a new interchange on 1-580 at Hacienda Drive, 10 its
ultimate configuration.
4 Thc construction!improvemem of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara i~oad and Fallon
Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard. 10 their ultimate configuration.
S. The consuuction of related freeway improvement\ as may be required by the
California Department of Trans po nation (Calmms) and otherlunsdictions.
TIle pnmary objectives of this study are to:
I. Determine as specifically as possible the scope of work needed 10 complete the
Project.
2 Estirnale the custs that will bc involved in completing the Project.
3. Esmblish a boundary mcluding those parcels which will receive a sub~tantial
benefit from the Project.
4. Recommend a formula for spreading the Project costs to thc parcels benefined
therefrom.
5 Dcvelop assessment rales ihat can be used to estimate total assessmcm amoul1ts
on benefited parcels.
O. Recommend a method offmancing the costs ofihe Project
S~ction I of this sludy describes the Project work; $cction IV COntains recommcndanons
rclative 10 the remaining five objectives listed above.
This study is based on land usc assumptions within Dublin's Sphere of Influence, withoul
henefit of a land use study and resulting general plan adoption. The recommendations
herem, therefore, serve only as a guide for the apportioning of costs since actual benefits
are not yet known. When the land use sIDdy has been completed and a general plan
amendment has been adopted, a fonnula based on the indicated benefits can be esmblished
and a method of fmancing can be pUt in place. TIle improvement cost figures are alsu
preliminary and will be refined as time goes on and mc improvements are made.
TIle information contained in this sIDdy resulted, to a large extent, from meetings and
discusslons held wilh Ihe individuals listed on Exhibit "H" herein. Their assistance was
invaluable and is greatlyappreclated.
I
.
.
Summary
Exhibit "A" shows the recommended boundny of the area \U be benefited by the Project.
This area has been subdivided inm three zones of responsibility, one for each of the cities
involv"li Dublin's zone has been assumed to be a1J of the benefited area lying nonh of
Imerstale Highway 580. Pleasanton's zone has been assumed to be all of the bencfited area
included on tbat city's general plan, and Livermore's zone has been assumed 10 be thc
balance of thc benefited area.
The COSt oftbe Project is estimated to be $127 million in 1988 dollars, including
approximately $34 4 million which will be funded by the City of Pleasanton under its
North Plcasanton Improvemem District Since the Pleasamon connibution was found 10 be
approximately $8,591,000 greater than that city's obligation of $25,809,000 under the
recommended benefit f=ula, Pleasanmn can be considered to have met its entire
obligation and should receive a reimbursement of $8,591,000 from the balance of the
benefited area. Dublin's obligation would be $99,255,000, and Livermore's would be
$1,903,000
It is recummended that one or more benefit districts similar to that described in Section
66484 of thc Stale Subdivision map Act (see E..'(hibit "F') be formed to fmance Dublin s
and Livermore's obligations.
The recommended bcnefit furmula can be summarized as follows:
I) A frontage charge on a1J parcels fronting on the proposed streets equal to $480
per from foot (the approxlInate cost of a 60-foot half street).
2) A charge to all parcels located nonh of 1-580 for the balance of the street COSt
not charged above, equal to $1,425 per benefit unit. (A benefit unit is defmcd
as the bendit received by one single-family dwelling, based on potential vehicle
nip generation).
3) A charge to all parcels within the benefit area for thc cost of the freeway
improvements, "qual to $790 per benefit unit.
Al! dollar figures stated above are based on vety preliminary infonnation availablc at this
timc and are subject to significant change due to subsequent refmements of the cost
estimates and adoption of Dublin's proposed general plan amendment.
It
.
.
I. Deserintion of Required ImDrovements
The following informanon was ()hlained from reviewing the documems listed in
Exhibit "G", (Uld from irltervlewmg Ihe individuals lisied irl Exhibit "H" While
some questions remain unresoived.. a fairly com!,iele descnpllon of Ihe sco!,e of
requircd Improvements has rcsulted from these resources.
A. Dublin BOlllcvard
The alignment of Dublin Boulevard has nOt been adopted preciscly, bUI
several consrraims will limit its location to a grcat extent. It fiUSI conform
to existing inlerseclions ar Dougherty Road and Doolan Road, must intersect
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and FalJon Road an adequme diSlance nunh
of the interchanges al those streets and the 1-580 freeway 10 allow for proper
signal operation, and will probably be located south of Ihe base of the
foothills.
Any alignmcnt chosen will transit essemialJy undevelu!,ed land berween [he
Southern Pacific Railroad nght of way and Doolan Road. The shon
se=ent berween Dou~henv Road and the railroad ri~ht of wav will reqUITe
the acquisition of five buildings. - - .
The alignment east of the railroad right of way will cross a 150+/- acre
parcel of Camp Parks which may be disposed of as surplus, a large porTion
of the old Santa Rita Jail sire which Alamcda County is expecled to develop
or sell for developmeni, and approximately eight privalely owned parce Is.
It was previously anticipared that il might take several years to negotiate an
easement or right of way lhrough the Camp Parks propenv However, i[
now appears that the City of Dublin will obtain lhis right of way by wav of
a congressional bill which provides for a four-jurisdiction land swap.
Dublin Boulevard is expecled to he a six lane divided roadway within a 12X
foot right of way The light rail facUities are expccted to require an
additional 48 feet of right of way where they are adjacem to Dublin
Boulevard, and 56 feet where they are not
B Hacienda Drive, Tassaiara Road and Fallon Road
Hacienda Drive does not now exist north of 1-580. Its alignmem belWC(;n
the frccway and Dublin Boulevard will probably be perpendicular 10 those
facilities. It is anTIcipated to be a six lane divided roadway wiIhin a 114 foOl
righl of way.
Tassajara and Fallon Roads will probably follow their existing alignmems
between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard. Both are planned as six lJ.Ile divided
roadways wllhin 114 foot rights of way.
C HaCIenda Drive Imerchan!!c
The City of Pleas anIOn, under its Nonh Pleas anIOn Improvemem Dismct
(NPID), proposes 10 construct interim improvements for thIS new
imerchanlZe, consisting of a three lane btid!':e, east and west bound on.
ramps from nonh bolliid Hacienda Drive, e-ast and weSI bound off ramps 10
I
.
.
south bound HacIenda Drive, and intenmramps serving Bacicnda Drive
north of the freeway Other improvemems which will be required before
this interim facility can be placed into service include I) auxiliary lanes on
both sides of 1-580 between the DoughertylHopyard interchange and the
Tassajara/Santa Rita interchange and 2) a parallel street on each side of I.
580 between Dougherty/Hopyani and Hacienda.
Stoneridge Drive satisfies this laua requiremem on the south side, as thc
Dublin Boulevard extension will ultimately do on the north. In the interim,
the existing northerly frontage road may be used, providing it is connecled
10 the end of Scarleu Coon on the west and to Hacienda Drive on the east
(This frontage road is presently not a public right of way, but is owned by
Alameda County and the federal government). The City of Dublin has gone
on record as opposing this interim frontage road, opting instead for a two
lane first phase improvement to Dublin Boulevard.
The balance of the improvements required to bring this interchange to its
ultimate configuration include a second three lane bridge and modification to
the ramps serving Hacienda Drive north of the freeway Additional rights
of way would be required at the northwest quadrant of this interchangc to
alJow the new ramp consnuction.
Caltrans and FHW A have approved the conceptual plan for this interchange.
Pleasanton anticipates paying for the interim improvements described
above, including the required rights of way, but has no money budgeted for
the north frontage road.
Presently, the Alameda County and PleasanlOn are negotiating for the
County 10 dedicate righl of way for the ultimate interchange improvements,
in exchange for the County being given a credit equal to the value of this
right of way in any furore assessment or fce district.
D. Tassaiara Road/Santa Rita Road Interchan{!e
The existing improvements consist of a two lane bridge with eaSI an west
bound loop on-ramps for both north and south bound traffic. Pleasanton
proposes to consnuct a new three lane bridge along-side the existing bridge,
consnuct a new east bound on-ramp from nonh bound Santa Rita Road,
widen and modify existmg ramps and approaches, and perform
signalization work. It will acquire right of way at the southeast quadram
(which will involve relocation of the existing McDonald's restaurant) in
order to consnuet the new on-ramp.
Caltrans has stated that auxiliary lanes on the nonh and south sides of I-580
wiIl be required along with the construction of the Hacienda Interchange
improvements. These auxiliary lanes have been budgeted by Pleasanton.
For the ultimate interchange, a west bound on-ramp from south bound
Tassajam Road will be required. The new on-ramp will require the
realignment of the existing frontage road in the nonhwest quadrant of the
interchange unless Ihe construction of Dublin Boulevard 10 Tassajara has
been accomplished and the frontage road has been abandoned.
2
.
.
Construction of the ultimaie improvements will require acquisition of rights
of way for the new on-ramp and for the realigned frontage road.
E Fallon RoadlEl CharTO Road Interchange
The eXIsting improvements consist of a two lane bridge with ramps in a
diamond configuration. EI Charm is presently a privaie road primarily
serving rock quarries south of 1-580. Fallon pnmarily serves ranches north
of 1-580.
Ultimatel y this inlerchange must be improved to handle traffic gcneratcd by
new developments that will eventually be built on both sides of me freeway,
in addition to Ihe quarry traffic. The potential of mixing high volumes of
trucks with general traffic poses a difficult design problem, especially al the
EI Charro/Stoneridge/W. Las Positas intersection just south of 1-580.
Although several alternative solutions have been proposed, none has been
approved by all the principal inieresied parties (me cities of Pleasanton,
Livermore and Dublin, Alameda County, Caltrans and the quarry
operators).
A recently proposed deSIgn, providing a separaie northbound truck lane
which bypasses me EI Charro/Stoneridge/W Las Posita.s intersecnon by
utilizing an underpa.%, has met WJth general approval, but both Alameda
County and Caltrans officials have expressed serious reservations. A
second significant problem is the method of financing me considerable cost
of any solution to the future traffic problems at this interchange,
The existing bridge over 1-580 can remain since its span is adequate 10
accommodate a future BART line in the freeway median, but it mUSI be
widened ultirnalely, probably to a total of six lancs. The existing diamond
ramps will probably have to be replaced by a partial cloverleaf
configuration. The need for additional auxiliary lanes between
Ta.~sajara/Santa Rita and this interchange cannot be determined until traffic
volumes and weaving distances are analyzed by Caltrans, Some additional
rights of way will probably be required, especially at future loop-ramp
quadrants.
3
.
.
II. Proiected Land Use
A large portion of the area that would be benefited by construction of the proposed
improvements is presently undevcloped and has not yet been specifically planned.
Therefore, land uses and densities in this portion can be predicted only generally
The followinl! information was ob1:rined from documents lisled in Exhibit "G" and
from intervie\vs with persons listed in E)(hibit "H"
A. Dublin's General Plan
The existing Dublin General Plan includes site-specific policies for the area
generally within the existing city limits (that area generally westerly of
Dougherty Road and nonherly ofl-S80, plus the area bounded by
Dougherty, 1-580 and the Southern Pacific right of way). Ii also includes
some guiding policies for an "E)(tended Planning Area" (that area bounded
by the primary planning area described above on the west, 1-580 on the
south, the Alameda County line on the nonh, and the existing Dublin sphere
of influence boundJuy on the east).
Quoting the general plan: "Policies for the 15 square miles constituting the
extended planning area are conceptual because the information available on
environmental constraints, means of providing services, and landowners'
intentions Is not sufficient to wanant adoption of mOIl: specific policies al
this time".
The City of Dublin has contracted to revise its gencral plan. TItis work is
expected to be completed by October 1990. The area to he studied generally
includes that within me existing extended planning area (excepting Camp
Parks, the county jail site and Tassajara Creek Park), extended easterly to
approl'imately Collier Canyon Road. A portion of this area is included in a
"Specific Plan Study Area".
B . Camo Parks
The review process for a new general plan for Camp Parks has begun, and
approval of me envircnmental impact statement is projected to be completed
by March 1990. A parcel of approximately 150 acres, in the southerly
portion of me facility and fronting on the northerly side ofI-580, has been
omitted from the general plan since it was expected to be disposed of as
surplus.
It is expected, subject to the four-jurisdiction land swap previously
mentioned, that this 150+/- acre parcel will first be offered to other units of
the Army, then to other branches of the Defense Deparonent. The Air Force
has expressed interest in obtaining approximately 50 acres of this parcel for
family housing, and since there is a great shortage of housing for a1J the
services in the Bay Area, this is one possible ultimate use. If it is not
retained by the Defense Department, it will be offered to other federal
agencies, and if no federal agency wants or can justify use of the site, it can
then be sold to local government agencies or to private panies. This process
could easily take two ycars or longer.
4
.
.
If \his parcel becomes privately owned, there is a reasonable probability it
will hecome developed as busincss park/light industry, since this IS the use
now shown On Duhlin's general plan for the adjoining land to Ihe eaSI and
west.
The T~sajara Creek Regional Park property "as conditionally transferred
by the federal government to Ihe East Bay RegionaJ Park Disuict severaJ
years ago. The Anny, through the four-jurisdiction land swap, 15 now
acting to acquire this land, and it is shuwn on the proposed Camp Parks
General Plan as a training facility $lllCe the re-acquisition of the park
propcrty will probably be confinned before the generaJ plan is adoptcd, and
since the slarus of the park propeny is having a bearing on the disposition of
a portion of the 150+/- acre excess parcel, action on lhis laller parcel will
probably not be completed for some time to come.
C. Alameda Coumv Jail Site
Alameda County's new jail facility is now completed on uat portion of the
old jail site lying northerly of 7th Screet. The remaining ~ortion of the site,
bounded generally by Arnold Road, 7th Street, Tassajara Road and I-580,
is expected to be sold as excess or land-leased by the County to a developer
In either case, this propeny will probably be developcd as business park or
industnaJ use in accordance with Dublin's general plan.
D Pleasanton's and Livermore's General Plans
The existing Pleasanton and Livermore general plans togethcr include all of
the area in this study which is south ofI-580 and, in fact, overlap em:h other
slightly. For purposes of this study, Pleasanton's sphere of intluencL has
been assumed to include all of the area included on its general plan.
A considerable amount of the area adjoining I-580 on the Pleasanton phm is
eIther already developed, under construction or in the design stage.
Propeny near lie southwest quadrant of EI Charro Road and I-580 is
included in Pleasanton's Stoneridge Drive Spceific Plan. Where land uscs
shown in Ihis plan conflict wili Pleasamon's gcneral plan, Ihe specific plan
uses have been o.:;sumed to be correct,
The property at the snulheast quadrant ofEI Charm and 1.580 IS shown as
low density indusuiaJ use on the Livermore gcner"l plan, and has becn
under study for a business park.
The Cities of Livermore and Dublin are in lic process of studying land uses
at the limits of their rcspecove spheres of influence on the north side of I.
580, to determine the exact sphere limit between Livermore and Dublin.
Once liese studies are complete, application will be made to LAFCO for the
final determination.
5
.
.
E. El Charm Gum Proverries
The eXIsting quarries along EI Charm Road south of 1.580 generally lie in
an unmcorporated strip of land between Pleasanton and Livermore. They
are included at least partially on the general plans of both of those cines,
designated "sand and gravel harvesting" on the Pleasanton plan and "general
agriculture" and "low intensity indusnial" on the Livermore plan.
There are no immediate plans to develop this land, and its useful life as a
quarry is estimated to be 20 to 35 ycars. At the end of that period its
development potential may be quite low because of Ihe quantity of fill that
would be req mred to restore it to a usable condition.
One of the quarry operators, Kaiser Sand and Gravel Co" has long-range
plans to develop a 15 to 30 acre parcel at the south-westerly quadrant of EI
Charro Road and SlOneridge Drive.
(i
.
.
III. Financinp' Alternatives and Considerations
"Ine fInancing of Dublin Boulevard Extension and the associated work covered by
thIS report I the Project) will depend upon sever,,-I factors, including:
I) The extent 10 whlch the scope and costs of the Project improvemcms,
rights of way and incidental expenses can be accuratcly estimated.
2) The identification of properties that will be benefIted by me Project.
3) The extent to which the ultimate use of benefited properties can be
accurately estimated.
41 TIle formula which will be used to spread eoSlS 10 the various
benefited parcels.
5) The extent to which benefited properties have already contribmed. or
are already committed to conrribute, toward the costs of me Project.
61 The extem to which Rovemmental entities will agree to contribute
toward the costs of the Project. -
7) The timing of the construction of various phases of me Project.
8) The timing and memod of funding utilized.
Each of these faclOrs is discussed in greater detail below'
A. Scooe and Cost of Work
The scope of improvcmenl~ required and the cost estimates based thereon are
thc rcsult of reviewing numerous documents (see Exhibit "G") and
interviewing many interested persons in both the public and privale sectors
(see Exhibit "H").
For some elements of the Project, conceptual plans have been drawn in
sufficient detail 10 allow preparation of reasonably good cost esnmates, and
there appear to be no substantial design concerns by the reviewing
jurisdictions. For other elements estimates are based upon far less data since
satisfactory design concepts have yet to be worked uut.
As it will probably be many years before a1J costs can be estimaled
accumtely, fairly large contingency amounts should be included in any COSt
estimates made for the Project.
B Benefited Proverties
Benefit from construction of a public facility will not suddenly terminate at a
gIVen propeny line, but will usua1Jy diminish gradually WIth distance from
the facility However, a conscientious attempt must be made to eSlablish a
houndary in such a way that all parcels which are substantia1Jy benefiled are
within the boundary while none of such parcels is omside the boundary
7
.
.
Some faclOrs which nught be considered when setting the boundary include:
1) The namre of thc proposed improvements.
2) TI1C namre of the benefit resulting from consrruction of the
improvements.
3) The dis\aIlce between individual parcels and the
improvemenl~.
4) The distance belween individual parcels and similar CX1Sting
improvements.
5) The zoning or generaJ plan use designanon of the parcels.
6) The existence of logical lines of demarcatiJn, such as water
courses, railroad rights of way, freeways or other major
highways, or jurisdictional limit lines.
C Land Use
As with Project costs, land use information was obtained from what are
believed to be the best available sources. However, specific plans do not
yet exist for much of the benefited area, and projecled intcnsines should be
kept conservati vely low in these areas for the purpose of estimating the base
available to finance the Project
D Benefits
Benefit from the Project includes the following major aspects:
1) Frontage on and/or direct access to the major anerial streets
that will be constructed.
2) Faciliiation of traffic circulation provided to parcels on the
north side of 1-5RO by those streets.
3) Improved access to 1-580 for parcels on both sides of the
freeway through consrruction of or improvements to the
three lnterchanges.
To take the first of these mto account, a portion of the Project cost, for
example the cost of half of a standard two lane street, including right of way
and incidentals, can be spread to all the frontage on the new streets.
Estimated trip generanon is a reasonable basis for spreading the remaining
costs of the Project.
E Credits for Previous Work
The City of Pleasanton will consrruct interim improvements for the
Hacienda and Tassajara/Santa Rita interchanges, and may construct the
reqUlred auxiliary lane on the south side of 1-580 between Hopyard and
8
.
.
Santa Rita. A credit for this work should be considered in any i'ormula
devised to equI\ably spread Pruject COSIS.
F Governmental Contributions
At tillS time no governmental ag~ncies have committed to making
conrributions loward the Project. However, it is possible that concribmions
jf] the form of rights of way may be received for the Camp Parks and/orthe
county Jail propernes. It is also pnssible that pan or all of the Improvement
costs through tllese properties will be contributed, but there is by no mcans
any assurance that tllis will be the case.
G Timing of Conscruction
Conscruction will undoubredly take place in phases over several years.
Othcr than for the mtenm Improvemcnts Plcasanron will be consrrucnng for
the Hacienda and Tassajara/Santa Rita interchanges, no construction
schedule now exislS for the Project. Logically developrrent, and thus
improvement conscruction, would take place from west \:) east. omward
from the eXlsung Dublin city limits. However, one of th: tirat properties to
the east 0 thc exisnng tenmnus of Dublin Boulevard is Camp Parks, and
approval of the exrension of Dublin Boulevard through tLat properry will
depend on the accomplishment of the four-jurisdiction land swap mentioned
previousl) .
H Tinling and Method of Funding
Funding of the Projecr can be approached in one of sevcral possible ways,
mcluding:
I) Form an asscssment district for tile entire Project and sell honds in
severdl issues timed to conform with the conslruction phasing.
Assessments can be collectcd first from rhose properties benefi ring
most from the fITSt conslruction phase. Less benefited parcels
would not be charged (or would receive a reduced charge) until a
later senes of bonds was sold to fmance a phase of Ihe Project
which benefited them.
This procedure has the possible advantage of some economies
resulting from a smgle assessment proceeding, but there are some
significant disadvan!ages:
a) Costs tor rhe cntirc Project probably won't be known wllh
much accuracy at the time the distrIct is formed. espeCIally
since future inflation and fmancing costs would be extremely
difficult to estimate.
b) Parcels would have to be assessed based upon an assumed
fut\lre land use and densI\Y, which could prove to be highly
<:rroneous.
c) Many parcels in the districI would have the assessment lien
placed on them far in advancc of theIr development.
9
.
.
2) Form a scparate assessment district for each phase of the Project.
This would eliminate or mitigate disadvantages a) and c) above. but
assumptions wouid still be required regarding the ultimate uses and
densities of some undeveloped parcels. In addition. special care
would be required to keep the total a,sessmenrs cqultable since thev
would be computed separately for each dislrict If the districts
overlapped, some parcels could be over-assessed unless a method ct
credits was included in the formula
3) Establish a community facilities district under the provisions of the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.
This Act provides for the levy of a special tax which can be used to
pay the debt service on any bonds that may be issued to pay for
construction of the improvements.
Flexibility is an advantage of this procedure, since the method and
rate of apportionment of the annual special tax can be designed to
vary wim time and land use. The established maximum tax rdte can
be set high enough to mitigate the problem ofuncertainry Wlth
respect to total Project cosrs.
This type of district may be difficult to fonn, however, since a
majority protest requires abandorunent of the proceedings, and even
if less than a majority protest is received, the district cannot be
formed until it receives at least a two-thirds positive vote in an
electIOn. Also, if me initial tax rate is set at less than me maximum
authorized, It may be politically difficult to increase it at a later time.
4) Establish a fee which would be due upon recording a subdivision
map or obtaining a building permit. (See Section 66484 of me
Subdivision Map Act, Exhibit "F").
This approach would overcome all of the disadvantages listed above
for other al[ematives, except the problems of estimating cosrs far in
advance and projecting the ultimate overall development intensity.
TIle nsk of inflation can be at least panly mitigated by escalating the
fees penodically on the basis of a published index, and since use
and density projections would not be required for each individual
parcel, projecllons for the overall district should be more accurate.
This approach has an additional disadvantage, however, in that
receipt of funds depends upon the pace of development, and if the
construction of a phase of the Project is desired before enough fccs
have been collected, which will likely be the case, some son of
bridge financing would be required.
In such a "Map Act" district fee obligations could be discharged by
constructing improvements rather than by lump sum cash payment,.
For example, a propeny owner who wishes to subdivide might be
required to construct ponions of the Project improvements in order
to serve his development and to mitigate offsite traffic problems
10
.
.
resulting therefrom. TIle value of such improvements could be
credited agamst the fee calculated for his subdivision, with any
shortage or excess either paid by him in cash or reimbursed to him
later as other development occurred..
Use of assessment districts would be convenient m tills situation
since having the work done under City contract and having COSIS
monitored hy the City would help to establish valId credit amounts,
while the fees would, in effect, be financed over several vears.
1 1
.
.
IV. Recommendations
A. Cost AssumDtions
It is recommended that $] 27 million in current year dollars be budgeted for
the ProjCCt. (See Exhibit "B"). This figure assumes no connibutions of
money or land from any governmental entity or others, and excludes any
financing COSIS, such as those associated with assessment diSniCI
proceedings. An allowance for right of way acquisition for the proposed
light rail system along Dublin Boukvard is included.
Also included in this $127 million amoum is the value of the applicable
Improvement~, acquisitions and incidental expenses being expended by thc
City of Pleasamon under its North Pleasamon Improvement Disnict This
value is cstimated to be $34.4 million.
Since there is only very preliminary information available for many aspects
of the Project, rclanvely large contingency allowances have been included in
the cost estimate.
B. Boundarv of Benetit Area
Exlribit "A" shows the recommended boundary of the area to be benefitcd
by the Projecl.
North of 1"580 the boundary includes all that area generally bounded by 1-
580 on the south, the existing Dublin city limits on the west, the county line
on thc north, and Collier Canyon Road on the east; excepting therefrom
Tassajara Creek Park, all parcels fronting on Collier Canyon Road, and all
portions of Camp Parks and the Santa Rita Jail site which are expected to
remain in public ownership and, therefore, cannot be assessed
involuntarily
South of 1-580 the boundary includes the area genemlly bounded by 1-580
on the north, the westerly line of the Livermore airport and its southerly
projection on the east the Western Pacific Railroad and Arroyo del Valle on
the south, a meandering line extending from approximately the intersection
of del Vaile Parkway and Santa Rita Road generally northweSlerly to
approximately the confluence of Tassajara Creek and Arroyo Mocho, a
short distance along Arroyo Mocho, and Willow Road on the west.
While a convincing case can be made that property north of the Contra
Costa County line will receive benefit from the Project, the jurisdictional
difficulties of including this area in any kind of benefit district are
considered to outweigh advantages. As an alternative, it is recommended
that Dublin pursue the possibility of obtaining a ca~h contribution to the
Project from Contra Costa County
12
.
.
In the event any portion of the excluded publicly owned land comes 1Oto
private ownerslnp and/or is developed for commercial use, it is
recommended tllis land either be annexed to the benefit area and assessed in
accordance with the recommended benefit formula or, altemativelv, be
charged a fee which would be deposited in the Project Construction fund.
Any excess fund..~ that might result could be disnibuted propOrTIonally to the
property owners within the benefit area.
C. Land Use Assummions
The land uses shown on Exhibit "A" are the basis for compiling the benefit
factors used to calculate the assessment rates recommended in th,S srudv_
The uses are generally those shown on the existing general plans of the'
cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, respectively
The dwelling unlt densities assumed for the rcSldential zones on Exhibit "D"
arc believed to be approximately the average densiries tha, will ultimately
exist in those zones.
D Benefit Formula
It is reco=ended that the following formula be used to dislribme the cost,
of the project to the benefited parcels:
1) The COSI of a standard tW(rlane street in a 6O-foot wide right of
way, including related incidental expenses, shall be spread to all
parcels fronting on the new street~ ineluded in the Project, on the
basis of each parcel's frontage on said new streets.
2) The remainder of the cost of the new streets included in the Project
(north of Interstate Route 580) shall be spread to all parcels wHhin
the benefit area which lie northerly of 1-580, on the basis of tile
number of benefit units assigned to each parceL
3) The COSt of the freeway improvements included in the Project shall
be spread to all parcels within the benefit area on the basis of the
number of benefit units assigned to each parcel.
4) Credits against any obligations resulting from the above rules shall
bc made for the value of rights of way dedicated or construction
work performed which is included in the Project description.
5) Benefit units shall be assigned based on potential motor vehicle nip
generation of each parceL One benefit unit shall be defined as the
equivalent benefit received by one single family dwelling.
The following assessment rates result from applicarion of the above formula
to the cost estimates and other factors presented in this study (see Exhibits
"D" and "E")
1 3
.
.
Land Use Zone
Assessment. $
North of 1-580 South of 1-580
Per Dwellmg Per Acre Per Dwellmg Per Acre
High DenSlty Residential
1,329 474
2,215 790
88,600 31,600
22,150 7,900
22,150 7,900
4,4301 1,580
All Other Residential
Commercial
Business Park
Industrial
Quarry
In addition, an assessment of $480 per from foot would be levied on all parcels having
frontage on thc new streets included in the Project. (See Exhibit "C").
E. Pleasanton Credits
It is estimated that Pleasanton has constructed or wiil construct Project
improvements worth $34.4 million2 in present year dollars. This amount
should be credited agaInst any obligation calculated for that city Since
Pleasanton's total obligation, according to the recommended f=u1a, is
$25,809,000, it appears that P1easanton will have overpaid its obligation by
constructing portions of the Project freeway improvements, and will be
entitled to a reimbursement of approximately $8,591,000 from the
remaming areas benefited by the Project.
F Method of Funding
~' 'I
It is reco=ended that one or more benefit districts, similar to that
described in Section 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act (See Exhibit
"F"), be established to generate the funds necessary to fUlance those
portions of the Project that wiII not be constructed by the City of
Pleasanton. The primary reasons for this recommendation are:
I) Asscssments would be imposed on properties as they
develop
2) Assessments would be equitable since land uses and
densities would be known when assessments are levied.
3) The governing bodies would have flexibility in staging
construction of the inlprovemems.
To address the likely cash flow problem that \viII result if improvements are
requined before adequate fees me generated, it is recommended that several
funding sources be pursued, including the following: Federal and State
grants, local agency (e.g., ConlTa COSta County) contributions, loans from
public and private sources, and requiring developers to construct more than
14
.
.
their share of improvements, subjecI to reimbursement agreements. Also,
the gap between revenue and expendimres might be kept to a minimum by
constructing some improvements in stages, e.g., constructing only two
lanes of Dublin Boulevard initially
Since Pleasanton will discharge the obligation of its benefited area through
the NPID, no districts need to be formed within that cuy's sphere of
influence.
1-
It is funher recommended that the assessment rates established for anv
districts formed be ned to the Engineering News Record Construction COSt
Index for the San Francisco area in order to mitigate the effects of inflation.
I) Since the small existing quarry on the nonh side ofI-5S0 has been assumed to be
ultimately developed as reSIdential, this assessment rate is not expecled 10 be applicable
to any assessed area.
2) S~C Exhibit "B"
Hacienda
TassajanJ/Santa Rita
$30,300 - $3,700 '" $26,600
$10,100 - $2,300 '" $ 7.800
$34,400
1 5
r-
.
Exhibit "B"
Project
Preliminary Cost Estimate
,.-
Street Work
RightofWav
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road
Light Rail
76 Ac.
6 112
5
2 112
36 1/2
126 1/2 Ac. @ $28,000 (I)
Damages (16,500 SF@ $100)
Negooation & Condemnation
Title Repon~ & Insurance
Appraisals
Surveys & Description~
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Total Right of Way
ConStl11crion
Dublin Boulevard
Mass grading 15CY LF@ $6.00 $90.00{LF
Fine grading 128 SF @ $0.20 25.60
Pavement nSF @ $4.00 288.00
Curb & gutter 4 SF @ $9.00 36.00
Sidewalk 16 SF @ $3.00 48.00
Drainage
Pipe lLF @ $45.00 45.00
Manholes 1/800EA @$1,600.00 2.00
InJets!lats 1/350 EA @$3,300.00 9.43
Outfall~ 1/3000 EA @$7,600.00 2.53
Median Landsc. 17 SF @ $4.00 68.00
Lighting 1(75 EA @$3,OOO.00 40.00
$654.56r LF
Say 26,000 LF @ $655 00
B- I
.
S 1.000 s l.000
$35,420
1,650
100
80
6.700
$17,030
25
25
$44,000
.
Hacienda Dr., Tassajara Rd., Fallon Rd.-
Mass grading 12 CY LF @
Fine grading 114 SF @
Pavement 72 SF @
Curb & Gutter 4 LF (@
Sidewalk 16 SF @
Drainall:e
Pipe ~ 1 LF @
Manholes 11900 EA @
Inlets/!ats 1/450 EA @
Headwalls 1/1800 EA @
Median Landsc. 13 SF @
Lighting In5 EA @
Say 5,400 LF @
Traffic Signals
3EA
$6.00
$0.20
$4.00
$9.00
$3.00
.
$72.00/LF
22.80
288.00
36.00
48.00
$80.00 80.00
$1,600.00 1.78
$3,300.00 7.33
$1,000.00 0.56
$4.00 52.00
$3,000.00 1.Q.lli2
$648.47/LF
$650.00
@$100,000.00
Misceilaneous & ContingenCles
Total Construction
Incidental Exnenses
Design & Construction
City Fees and Charges
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Total Street Work
Total Incidentals
Freewav Work
Hacienda Interchan[!e (2)
Pleasanton-funded Improvements !NPID) (3)
Construction
ContingencIes
Right of Way
Contingencies
$12,961,000
2,592.200
$8,400,000
715.000
B-2
3,510
300
4.160
$3,500
1,000
500
$ 15,553
9,115
25,000
5.000
$74,000
.
Incidentals:
Caltrans
Dcsign & R/W
Cons-tructIon
$30,000
1,578,300
300.000
Addib.Qnal Required Improvements (4)
Tassaiara/Santa Rita Interchange
Pleasanton-funded Improvements (NPID) (3)
Construction
Contingencies
$3,380,800
656.200
$2,375,000
79,300
360,900
Ricl1tofWav
Escalation -
Contingencies
Incidentals:
Caltrans
Design & R/ W
Construction
$ 20,000
810,000
132.000
Additional Required Improvements (4)
FalIonJEl Charm Interchange
Construction
Right of Way (5 Ac. @ $260,OOO/ac.)
Incidentals
$9,000 (5)
1,300
2.300
Total Freeway Work
Project Tutal
B-3
.
1.908
$26,576
3,700
$30,276
Say $30,300
$4,037
2,815
962
$7,814
2,300
$10,114
Say 10,100
12,600
53,000
$127,000
.
.
NOTES:
(I) Assumes land west of Southcrn Pacific right of way at $ Hi/SF and remainder at
$6/SF
(2) Including auxiliary lanes both sides, both directions.
(3) From NPID reVlsed estimate datd 11" 14-89.
(4) From G Hornokla 11-15-89.
(5) Based on rough estimate made by Reimer & Associates.
(6) If a~sessment proceedings are used, all costs should be increased by approximately
10%
(7) All costs are in 1988 dollars.
B-4
r
i..
.
.
Exhibit "C"
Cost Estimate
Standard 60 Ft. RIW Half Street
$lFront Foot
Right of Way, including incidentals
240
27
80
9
Gmding
Paving
Curb and Gutter
Sidewalk
24
Drainage
Lighting
24
10
33
35
482 Say $4801FF
Consrruction in6dentals
Misccllaneous and Contingencics
$480 x 59,200 FF = $28,416,000
Say $28,500,000
C-I
Exhibit "D"
Area and flenefit Unit Summary
Area, AC Total Benefit Units
Dublin Plen,a nton Livermore Dublin P1ensanton Livermore
(J ,e Zone Zone Zone ~ Thllil DUlAC BU/AC ~ Zone Zone Tnt_II
R -[)- 30 180 210 0.05 0.05 "0- 2 9 II .
L 2,630 100 -0- 2,730 1.00 1.00 2,630 100 -0- 2,730
M 2,630 960 -0- 3,590 5.00 500 13,150 4,800 -0- 17,950
II -0- 190 -0- 190 12.00 7.20 -0- 1,368 -0- 1,368
C -0- 380 -0- 380 40.00 -0- 15,200 -(J- ]5,200
B/t 1,620 880 240 2,740 10.00 16,200 8,800 2,400 27,400
Q -[)- 1,200 -D- 1.200 2.00 -0- 2AOO "0- 2.400
Cl Totals 6,880 3,740 420 11,040 31,980 32,670 2,409 67,059
,
-
.
R = Rmal resideritial (0 05 dwelling units/acre)
L = Low density residenti~ 1 (1.00 dwelling units/acre)
M = Medinm density residential (5.0G dwelling unil~/ncre)
H = High density re,idential (12.00 dwelling units/~cre)
B = Busi lIC,S park
C = Commerdal
I = I ndl1stri~1
Q = Qll~rry
DU = Dwclling unit
BU = Benefit l1nit
.
Exhibit "E"
.
Assessment Rate Calculations
Frontage Improvcments
Other Street Improvements
Freeway Improvements
TDTAL
$28.5CXl.OOO
59,200FF
=
$45.5CXl.CXlO
31,980 BU
=
$53,000,000
67,059 BU
=
$481 42
$1,422.76
$790.35
$28,500,000
45,500,000
53.000,000
Say $480/FF
Say $1,425/BU
Say $790/BU
Summary of Unfunded Costs
Street Improvement COSts
Unfunded Freeway Costs
Hacienda
Tassajara/Santa Rita
F allol1,/El Charm
Reimbursement to Pleasanlon
Pleasanton Contribution
Less Pleasamon Obligation 1
Total Unfunded COSts
1) 32,760 BU @ $790
E-1
$3,700,000
2,300,000
12,600.000
$34,400,000
(25,809,000)
5127,000.000
$74,000,000
18,600,000
8,591,000
$101,191,000
.
59,200 ff @ $480
31,980 BU @ $2,215
2,409 BU @ $790
Total funds
Source of Funds
E-2
.
$28,420,000
70,835,000
1.903.000
$101.158,000
"
.
.
EXHIBIT "F"
'"
66484. Local ordin.lnce may impo!e fee for construction of bridges ~nd
major lhoroughtar..
(a) A loca.l ordinance may require the payment of a fee as a. condilion of
approval of a final map Or as a condition of i5suing a building permit for
purposes of defraying the 'Cwal Or estimaled co", of constructing brid~es
Over waterways. railways. f/eeways. and canyons. or constructmg majQr
thoroughfares_ The ordinance may require payment of iees pursuanl to this
section if all of the following requirement5 are satisfied:
(1) The ordinance refers to the circulation element of the general plan
and, in the case of bridges. to the tra.nsportation or flood control prov;5ions
thereof which identify railways. freeways, streams, or canyons for which
bridge c.rossings are reqUired on the general plan 'or local roads and in the
Case of major thoroughfares. to the provisions of the circula.tion elemem
which identify those major thoroughfares whose primary purpose is to carry
through traffic;: and provide a network connecting to the state highway
system, if the c.ircul.ation elemen~. transportation or flood control provisions
have been adopted by the local agency 30 day. priorto the tiling of a map or
applkation for a building ~ermit.
(2) The ordinance provides that there will be a public hearing held by
the governing body for each area benefited. Notice s.hall be given pursuant
to Section 65091 and shall include preliminary information related to the
boundaries of the area ot beneiit. estimated Cost,. a.nd the method of fee
apportionment The area of benefit may indude land or improvem~nts in
addition to the land or improvement.s which are the subject of any map or
building permit application con:sidered at the proceedings.
(31 The ordinance provides lhat at the public hearing, the boundaries of
the area of benefit. the com, whether actual Or estimated. and a fair method
of a.lIocation of '05ts to the ~rea of benefit and fee apportionment ate
established. The method of fee apportionment, in the case of maior
thoroughfares, shall not provide for higher fees on land which abuts the
proposed improvement except where tne abutting propertr" is provided
direct usable aCCESS to the major thoroughfare. A description of the
boundaries of the area of benefit the costs. whether acwal orestimated, and
the method of fee apportionment established at the hearing shail be
incorporated in a resolution of tne governing body, a certified copyofwhich
shall be recorded by the goveming body conducting the hearing with the
recorder of the county in which the area of benefit is"Iocated. The ap~
portioned fees shall be applicable to all property within the area of benefit
and shall be payable as a condition of approval of a final map or a. a
condition of issuing a building permit for the property or portions of the
property Where the area of benefit includes l,ands not subject to the
payment of fees pursuant to this section, the governing agency shall make
provision for payment of the share of improvement costs apportioned to
those lands from other SOurces.
141 The ordinance provides that payment of fees shail not be required
vnless the major thoroughfares are in addition to. Or il reconstruction of. any
exi~ting major thoroughfares serving the area at the time ot the adoption of
the boundaries of the area of bene/it_
IS) The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be required
unle" the planned bridge facility is an original bridge serving the area Or an
addition to any existing bridge f.adJity serving the area at the time of the
adoption of the boundarie, of the area of benefit The fee. shall not be
expended to reimburse the cost of existing bridge facility construction.
(6) The ordinance providesthat if, within the time when protests maybe
filed under th~ provisions of the ordinance. there is a written protest. filed
with the clerk olthe legislative body, by the owners of more than one.halt of
the area of the property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient
protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the area represented to le:i.5 than
F-l
.
.
one-half of Ihat to he benefited. then the proposed proceedings shall be
abandoned. .and [he legislative body shall nor.. for one yeM from the iilinc, oi
[hat written pratesf. commerlCe or c:arry on any proc:cedings for the sa~"rle
improvement Or acquIsition under the provisions of this section.
(b) Any protests may be withdrilwn by the owner protesting. in writing. at
.any time prior to the conclusion of a public hearing held pursuant to the
ordinance.
{c} If any majoritv protest is directed agains[ only a portion of the
improvement then all further proceedings under the provisions of this
section to construct that portion of the improvement so pro[ested a.gajns{
,hall be barred for . period of one year. but the legi'lative body may
COmmence new proceedings not including any part of the improvement or
a<;:quisition so protested against. Nothing in this secrion prohibits a legisla-
tive bodYI within ~hat one~year period, from commencing a.nd carl)'ing on
new proceedings for the consrruction of a portion of the improvement so
prote5ted agains.t if it finds, by th~ affirmative vote of fout-fifths of its
members, [hat the Owners of more than one-half of the ;area of the property
to be benefited are in favor of going foward with that portion of the
improvement or a.c.quisition.
(d) Nothing in this S~C[lOn precludes the proce,ssing and recordaHon or
maps in accordance wi~h other pmvi5ion,s of this division it the proceedings
are .abandoned.
(e) Fees paid pursu.ant to 3n ordin~nce adopted pursuant to this section
,hall be deposited in a planned bridge fadlity or major thoroughfare fund. A
fund ,hall be e'tabli,hed fOI each planned bridge facility project Or each
planned major thoroughfare project If the benefit area is one in which more
than one bridge i, required to be con'tructed, a fund may be '0 embli,hed
covering all of the bridge project, in the benefit area. Money in the fund ,hall
be expended solely for thE construction or reimbursement for cons.truction
ofthc improvemont serving the area to be benefited and from which the fees.
comprising the fund w~re collected, OnD reimhurse the local agency forthe
cost of constructing the improvement.
(fJ An ordinance adopted pursua.nt to this section m;ay provide for the
acceptance of considerations in lieu of the payment of fees.
(gl A local agency imposing fees pursuant to [his section may,advance
money from its general fund or road fund to pay the coSt of constructing the
improvements and may reimburse the general fund Or road fund for any
advances from planned bridge facility Or major thoroughfare, fund, e'tab.
Hshed to finante the construction of those improvements.
(h) A local agency imposing fees pursuant to this section may incur an
interest-bea.ring indebtedness for the construction of bridge facilities or
major thoroughfares. However, the sole security far repayment of that
indebtedness shall be moneys in planned bridge facility Or major thorough-
fare' fund,.
m The term "construction" as us~d in thi,~ sel:;:tion includes. design,
acquisition of right-oi-way, administration or construction contracts" and
actual construction.
0) Nothing in thi, section predude' a county 01 city from providing
funds for the construction of bf'idg-e fa.cilities Of major thoroughfares to
defray com not allocated to the alea of benefit.
[Amended, ChaDler 1009, Swute, of 19841
F-Z'
.
.
"';;;'"''
, ~~!t~t""!~~f,'" ~
'''"'~;~~iir;!:~::
""'I",..!.
,.,'I;.~
Exhibit "G"
List of Reference Documents
I Engmeer's Repon - N. Plca.lanton r. D. No.3 (A.D. 1986-9)
Mark Thomas & Co.
2. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch - March 1987
TJKM Transponation Consultants
3. El Charm Road Design Smdy - March 1987
TJKM Transponation Consultanrs
4 Dublin Ranch Vicinity Map (I" '" 1000')
Frisbie, Wood & Associates
5 Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Hacienda & 1-580, (I" '" 100')
(Colored). Mark Thomas & Co.
6 Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Santa Rita & 1-580. (1" '" 100')
(Colored). Mark Thomas & Co.
7 . Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometrics at Hopyard & 1-580, (I" '" 100')
Mark Thomas & Co.
.......,..
8. Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometrics at Stoneridge & 1-680 (1" '" 100')
Mark Thomas & Co.
9. Dublin Blvd.. Extension Part 1 - Collier Canyon t Springtown. Incomplete plan for
design smdy (1" - 200', 2' interval topo).
10 Dublin Blvd. Extension Pan 2 - Dougherty Rd. to Doolan Rd.. Incomplete plan for
design study (1" '" 200', 2' interval topo).
11. Dublin General Plan.
12. Pleasanton General Plan (Map only).
13. Livermore General Plan (Map only).
14. County Assessor's maps.
15. Agreement for Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Traffic Signals on
HopyardlDougherty Road at 1-580 Westbound Off-ramp, between City of Dublin and
City of Pleasanton.
16. Letter from Co!. Clifford N. Goff, Director Engineering and Housing, Presidio of
San Francisco, to Lee Thompson,re; Dublin Boulevard extension 1ll the area of Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area.
17. Compromise and Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgement: Kaiser Sand
& Gravel Co., Rhodes.Jamieson, and Lone Star Industries, Inc., vs. City of
Pleasanton.
G-l
.
.
18 Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometrics at Hacienda & 1-580 (Revised: received
11/12/87; see Doc. #5 above). (1" = 100'). Mark Thomas & Co.
19. "Northside Obligation" reportdatcd 10(31/86.
Mark Thomas & Co
20. Construction and land acquisition cost estimates for HaciendalI-580 interchange,
Santa Rita/I-580 interchange, and south side 1-580 auxiliary lanes (Hopyard to Santa
Rita) dated 11/5/86. Mark Thomas & Co.
21. Conceprual Plan, El Charm Road Traffic Line Layout, Westgate Business Park,
Livermore, California, Revised 4/2/87 (I" = 100'). Reimer Associates.
22. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Master Plan, Plans for Future Development,
dated August 1987. Sheet 3 of 12, General Land Use Plan, and Sheet 5 of 12,
General Site Plan. Muir Planning Corporation.
23. Memo headed "Doughcrty Road Expansion Meeting, Mon. 23 Nov., Issucs:"
24 List headed "Dublin Ranch Active Property Owners, I 1187", obtained from Dublin
Planning Director.
25. List headed "land in Dublin Blvd., Extension but NO! an Active Property Owner, 11-
23-87", obtained from Dublin Planning Director.
26 Map entitled "General Plan Study Area" (I" = 3333'+1-). being a reduction of Doc.
#4 with a boundary line superimposed, obtained. From Dublin Planning Director.
27. Map entitled "specIfic Plan Study Area" (I" = 3333'+/-), being a reduction of Doc.
#3 with a boundary line superimposed, obtained from Dublin Planning Director.
28. Map entitled "Major Projecrs Dougherty Valley" (I" = 1500').
Bissell & Karn.
29. Tri-Valley Transportation Study - 1985, Volume 1- Study Summary TJKM
Transportation Consultants, September 1986.
30 S toneridge Drive Specific Plan ~ Draft - September 1988
Pleasanton Department of Planning and Community Development.
0-2
.
.
Exhibit "Hit
List of Individuals Consulted
City of Dublin
Lee Thompson, City Engineer
Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Pleasanton
Joe Elliott, Public Works Drrecwr
Chandler Lee, Principal Planner
George Homolka, NPID Manager
City of Livermore
Dan Lee, Public Works Director
Dave Clemems, Planner
Alameda County
Harry Hecht, Assistant Public Works DireClor
Adolf Martinelli, Plarmer
Camp Parks
Lt. Co!. Joe Pelagreno, Co=anding Officer
Ed BaIisteros, Chief of Engineering Division, Presidio
Co!. Clifford Goff, Director of Engineering & Housing
Leila Peete, Real Estate
David Warner, Chief, Master Planmng Branch, Presidio
Caltrans
Bob Coleman, Deputy Director for Alameda County
Ernie Sato, Branch Clrieffor Alameda County
Jeet Aulakh, Senior Transportation Engineer
Leo Davies, Design
Ted Fairfield, Engineer for various owners
Mark Thomas & Co., NPID Engineer
Sam Zullo, PrinCIpal
:Mike Lohman, Project Engineer
BIssell & Karn, Prudential's Engineer
Pete Ruggeri, Bmnch Manager
Tom Winlch, Transportation Department Manager
TJKM, transportation consultant
Cluis Kinzel, Principal
Reimer Associates, engineer for Westgate Business Park
Doug Wiebe, Office Manager
Omni-Means
Carl Springer
H-I
.c,
, -: ~;..
.
.
CITY or DIIBLIll
AG~.NDA S~A~EllEN~
'(
~t
City Courte11 ~B8tlng Oat.: Pacambe~ 11, 1989
SUIlJEGT:
Dublin Extended ~l.nning Ar.. Infr..truotur. Study
(H.indel Report)
Report by Public \1or'k8 Director l,a6 ThQJIlpson
EXHIBIts AT~AGHED:
Novembar, 1989, Report
il$COHMENDAnON /7. rfy'1)
'\())" 2)
\ 3)
Re.ca'iv& 'prassntat1.ona by Staff and John Heindel
Receive public CO~Bne
A~knowledg8 th.fLt Dublin'! a Ea=;j:'t~%:'n :P1anning Area,
whe.n dav41opoEld, will benefit .from the new
interchange work being fun~Bd by Pleasanton
through. the. NO:L"t.h Pleasanton Imp1:'ovemBnt District
(NPID)
Accepe the concept of a..igning east sha~ing on
the ba"ls of bBnaf1t to the tt'Bff1c gan&rated on
both .id.. of 1-580.
Determine that Dublin's cQntr1bution be 5ubj~ct
to aetual d.V$lQpment eaklng place north of X-580
and within Dublin: artd that fund!n~ mB~han1sm{~)
be e..tabl1ahfii,!;l w1tbin the Dublin Ext:.ft.nc1Qd
Planning Area.
4)
5)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
NonB at this t~B. The coat Qf the study vaa paid by
private nontributions from both th~ ~orth and south
.id.. of 1-580.
Prope.rtiu within thB East Dublin Elttended Plann:hl.g
Area, when d~v81opsd, will finan~B freaway
i~proveIDants and East Dublin louleva~d 1mptovament~
once a funding ..chanism ha~ bean e$tabliahsd.
DESCP.IF~ION
This Eastern Extendod Planning Area study waS prec1pitA~Bd by a request from
the City of Floasanton through its North Pleasanton Improvement Oistr1ct
(NPID) for Dublin to pay its fair shAre for i~provements to the interchanges
on IntQrstate 580 with noughQ~ty ROBd, Hacienaa Drive, and T~ssajarB a04Q.
Some of ehe propo~ed develop'~5 on th~ Dublin side of th~ freeway recognized
that they. tOOl would noed th6.~ improvQmQnt~ in o~dBr to develop, an~ they
B&r.ed to ~atch r16Bsantonls eantribution of ~10.000 to undert.k~ a study to
d.t.rmin. what tho cost sharing ahould be.
John Heindel was h1red as a consultant eB An ~Xp8rt en a.Se'Bm.n~ diatricts
~nd .lso because he was not working for any of the affected ag~~ies or
devBlope~B and should therefore ~BV. an unbi.~ed app~acb to the probl~~.
From the (...riginal request to study tht'ee 1ntttrch~nges, the .cops of the study
w..
1) Expandnd to include thB Dublin 8o~levard Bxtenslon, as it. cons~ruction
wa.s a ,r~,qui.rEiment: of ths F'HlJA to have frontage roads on both sldEl::;i of thl;!
freaw4Y when tho ne.lIi' Uaciil;lnda Interchange b c:on.!jltruc'ted;
2) Rsd1.,l.ced to . exclude the OoughaI:ty/liopyard inte:r;chango iinp'rov8.monts, a.s
Dublin And Ple~$anton hAd a provious agraement ~overin& this wotk; and
con
~~
,"
EXHg~HT
J\CjfnCIJ '::Jfatevnenr IYll 1'/1
, .
--'~I
---
.
.
3) Expand.d to inolud. the El Ch.rro/F.llon ~o.d int.rchang. improvements,
which were not funded but woyld be needed to develop properties on both sides
of the freeway.
John HBindel interviewed the various people and agencies ~hat had{been
involvod in previous .tudie. .nd reports and g.ther.d the aveilabi.
document., He also made independent cost estimetes of the work to b. done.
Mr. Hoindel then established an ~8rea of b8nBfit~ for the improvement~ on
both side. of 1-5~0 end di.tribut.d the freeway improv.ment co.t. ba.ed on
Batimnted traffic generated by the a5S~9d uses.
For the extension of Dublin Boulevard and the streets ~onnecttng bublin
Boulevard to 1-580, he is recommending that tho proporty ownerB f~onting
these streets bo responsible for the cost of one half of a 5tandard 60-foot
collector street and that the oversizing of ~hese streets be the
r~sponBib111~y of those properties north of the free~ay, again based on
traffic generation.
Based on a$sumed land US$9 for Dublin, Heindel estimated that the City of
Dublin would ow. tho aity of Pl....nton approxi~.t.ly $8,591,000 for the
portions of the fr..way improvem.nt. alr..dy funded by NPID. It 1s important
to note that this amoUnt could inere4se or deer88$e, and that the final
amount will not be known until the improvements are completed and land uses
have b..n e.tablished,
rour poe.ntial m.thods of fin.ncing are propo.ad in the report;
1) An a...ssm.nt di.trict for tha entira project.
2) lndividuel ......m.nt district. for eaoh ph..a .of tha projeot.
3) Formation of . Mello-aoos di.trict.
4) Establishment of a development feD for a bsn6fit district.
Mr, Heirtd01 recomm~dQd a fQe b8n~fit district {ODe or multiplo) aB the
rne~hod of financing Improvements could be stagAd. and developers eould
build portion. of the improv.m.nt. to off.et th.ir fae.. If they oontributed
more than thei~ share based on the fees~ a relmburse~ent agreement could be
.nter.d into to pey baok the dev.lcp.r, St.ff r.oomm.nds that oonsideration
of the type of funding mechanism be def.rr.d.
Throughout tho m.etings Seaff h.. held r.garding this roport, it h.. been
apparent that the develop$rs and propa~ty owners do not wane to be assessed
until they have .ntitlement. to th.ir property.. thet thoy .re ..sur.d of
recovering these infrastructure costs.
City Steft he. had di.cus.ione with .ovoral proporty own.r. within the ar.a
bounded by Dough.rty Ro.d, 1-580 and the South.rn Pacif~o R.~lroad (SPRR)
right-of.way reg.rding the .xtenaton of Dublin Boul.vard b.tw..n Dough.rty
ROBd and the SPRR,
!lIB.e prop.rty ownor. r.cognize the na.d for tho Dublin Boulav.rd oxton. ion
and the benefit ,to their properties; however, they were reluctsnt to front
the .ntire co.t of the project in the hope of the eaotern planning area'.
r.imbur.ing the majority of the co.t. Nothing in Steff'. recomm.ndation.
would preclude a cont~nuation of inve,stigations and discussions to obtain
.cm. funding ~ethcds for all or portions of the Dublin Boul.v.rd ext.nsion,
A. the Gen.rel plan lend u.e studies h.v. not b..n comploted and tha co.t. of
these improvements are still in preliDinary atag@B1 Staff reco~6nds that the
C~ty Gouncil acknowl.dge thst Eest Dublin prop.rty cwner. will be re.ponsibL.
for funding these improvements, but only if they develop thel~ ~rQPerti~s.
I
~
---
.
.
,
the house does not have cultural or
he developers and/or land Qwners
with assistance in
( "
. '-..',
On m.
vote, the COUn that
historical significance
should offer it to the Rasmussen
1, ?--
EAST DUBLIN EXTENDED
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
* * * *
PLANNING
(HEINDEL
10(.0- fo
~:RTI Z/1..0r$D
PUblic Works Director Thompson advised that this stUdy identifies
possible funding mechanisms for 3 freeway interchanges, as well as the
Dublin Boulevard extension. The study also assigns financial
responsibility for these improvements between Pleasanton and Dublin.
This Eastern Extended Planning Area study was precipitated by a
request from the city of Pleasanton through its North Pleasanton
Improvement District (NPID) for Dublin to pay its fair share for
improvements to the interchanges on I-580 with Dougherty Road,
Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road. Some of the proposed developers on
the Dublin side of the freeway recognized that they, too, would need
these improvements in. order to develop, and they agreed to match
Pleasanton's contribution of $10,000 to undertake a study to determine
what the cost sharing should be. John Heindel was hired as an
asseSSment district ,expert.
Mr. Heindel explained that from the original request to study 3
interchanges, the scope of the study was 1) expanded to include the
DUblin Boulevard extension, as its construction was a requirement of
the FHWA to have frontage roads on both sides of the freeway when the
new Hacienda Interchange is constructed; 2) reduced to exclude the
Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interChange improvements, as DUblin and
Pleasanton had a previous agreement covering this work; and 3)
expanded to include the El Charro/Fallon Road interchange improve-
ments, which were not funded by would be needed to develop properties
on both sides of the freeway.
Mr. Heindel established an "area of benefit" for the improvements on
both sides of I-SaO and distributed the freeway improvement costs
based on estimated traffic generated by the aSSUmed uses. For the
extension of Dublin Boulevard and the streets connecting Dublin
Boulevard to I-SaO, he is recommending that the property owners
fronting these streets be responsible for the cost of 1/2 of a
standard 60 foot collector street and that the oversizing of these
streets be the responsibi.lity of those properties north of the
freeway, again based on traffic generation.
!,
"
Based on assumed land uses for Dublin, Mr. Heindel estimated that the
City of Dublin would owe the city of Pleasanton approximately
$B,591,000 for the portions of the freeway improvements already funded
by NPID. This amount will not be known until the improvements are
completed and the land uses hqve been established. so this amount
could increase or decrease. ~
*+*+*+ *+ *+ "'+*+*+* +* +*+*+*+* +*+*+* +*+*+*+* + * EX H! B!':'"
eM - 8 - 360 ... a _ _~.. ___
Regular Meeting ~1 i v\ Idi''7 11-( II In
""
~
.
.
Mr. Heindel discussed 4 potential methods of financing and recommended
a fee benefit district (one or multiple) as the method of financing.
Improvements could be staged, and developers could build portions of
the improvements to offset their fees. Staff recommended that
consideration of this type of funding mechanism be deferred, because
it has become apparent that the developers and property owners do not
want to be assessed until they have entitlements to their property so
that they are assured of recovering these infrastructure costs.
staff had discussions with property owners within the area bounded by
Dougherty Road, 1-580 and the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) right-
of-way, regarding the extension of Dublin Boulevard.
Because the General Plan land use studies have not been completed and
the costs of improvements still being in preliminary stages, Staff
recommended that the City Council acknowledge that East Dublin
property owners will be responsible for funding these improvements,
but only it they develop their properties.
Cm. Hegarty questioned who started this study that estimates the
benefit to Dublin as being $99 million.
Mr. Heindel advised that it was started by
obligation has been $26 million thus far.
been about $34.4 million.
Pleasanton, whose
construction costs have
Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the logic only holds true if Dublin
agrees with the way they calculated the benefits.
I,'
Mr. Heindel explained that there is a difference between the character
on the north and on the south sides of the freeway. One reason that
Pleasanton's share is less is because of building DUblin Boulevard
through in order to tie into the overpass. The state requires a
frontage road of some sort.
Discussion ensued related to units of benefits and number of trips.
one unit of benefit equals 10 trips.
Mayor Moffatt asked what benefit Contra Costa County will receive from
this.
Mr. Heindel stated that it would be very difficult to drag anyone in
Contra Costa County into this benefit district. The land owned by
governmental agencies cannot be involuntarily assessed.
Mayor Moffatt indicated
$2 million in benefit.
their benefit increase.
that the city of Livermore has approximately
He questioned if their sphere increases would
Mr. Heindel responded that it would. They divided it between the 3
spheres. Livermore's would go up significantlY and DUblin could go
down by a like amount.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
CM-8-361
--
Regular Meeting
December 11, 1989
~,
.
.
ern. Vonheeder indicated a discussion
council whereby We might have to buy
impact fees.
em. Hegarty felt there were many assumptions made in the report on the
Pleasanton side. Nothing, however, in the way of development
proposals has come before the DUblin City council to date. Discussion
has been only what might take place. The key to the whole process is
the extension of Dublin Boulevard. since the $99 million benefit is
on the Dublin side, when it comes time to pay, everyone is bucking
against this. A great deal of money is being discussed. Dublin has
problems even now with improper roads. Mistakes were made back in
1958 and he felt the city needs to know what developers are going to
do in the eastern area.
of the Tri-Valley Transportation
into off-site traffic mitigation
Cm. Snyder felt it Was important to develop a plan and that em.
Hegarty was putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Thompson stated that Staff has met several times with the property
owners and they have indicated they don't want to be assessed until
they have their entitlements on the property. A small triangle of
property was discussed bounded by Dougherty Road/Southern Pacific
Railroad/DUblin Boulevard. They tried to form an assessment district.
The recommendations tonight would not prohibit staff from going after
different kinds of funding mechanisms. A fee district could be set
up. A letter was received from Livermore and they are also
recommending that the City Council adopt this in principle only.
Mr. Ambrose stated that there was concern expressed sometime ago that
Fleasanton was paying for all the freeway improvements and Dublin
wasn't paying its fair share. Meetings took place and Dublin decided
to look at whether there was any benefit to the north side. Does
future Dublin benefit to a certain extent? At some point in the
future, Dublin should reimburse Pleasanton for its fair share. All
this action would be is to approve a concept.
em. Hegarty asked if Dublin gets any money from I-580. The only
portion Dublin receives is at. the intersection of Hopyard Road. He
stated he just wants to make sure that DUblin doesn't end up with a
plan where there is improper ingress and egress with our eastern plan.
Mr. Ambrose stated that DUblin has 2 General Plan Amendments underway
which will include roadway alignments.
Donna Ogelvie, Doolan Canyon Road stated she was happy to hear that
the assessment district seems to be premature at this time. They are
the only residents in this area currently. They realize that Dublin
needs to grow, but feels that it must be done in a more logical and .
slower manner.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff has been trying to work with property
owners in the Scarlett Court area and hoped that the city Council
would consider a means of advancing Dublin Boulevard prior to same of
these land use plans and that direction this evening would not
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*.
eM - 8 - 362
Regular Meeting
December 11, 1989
. .
preclude staff from developing some alternatives, There is benefit to
existing development within the City.
em. Vonheeder felt that no matter how much is funded, caltrans will
not proceed until there is a parallel road in place.
Mr. Ambrose advised that it has to be a minimum of 2 lanes for the
interchanges to be functional.
Bobbie Foscilina questioned the process in dealing with the 150 acre
Camp Parks property. The report states that with regard to the
federal land, it could take up to 2 years to go through the process.
I
I
I
Mr. Ambrose gave an update on the land swap. Alameda County, the
City, the East Bay Regional Park District and the Department of the
Army entered into discussions related to transportation objectives.
Also discussed were a future rail transit station, and right-of-way
through the Army property for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. The
4 parties reached agreement and legislation was signed into place
which calls for certain actions to occur regarding the Buenas Vidas
area. As soon as the details are worked out, the land swap will
become effective under federal law. The City of Dublin will end up
with 12 acres for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Before Dublin
Boulevard can be constructed, however, a General Plan Amendment must
be adopted by the City Council for the exact alignment between the
Southern Pacific right-of-way and Tassajara Road. The right-of-way
will enable us to build a 6 lane arterial, plus have space available
for light rail at some point in the future.
Ms. Foscilina asked about the need for another road going east and
west other than Dublin BOUlevard, and criticized what she felt was a
poor circulation pattern.
Carolyn Morgan asked since all this refers to the infrastructure of
DUblin, why Doolan was even shown on the map.
Mr. Heindel indicated that it was put on as a possible street pattern
within that part of Dublin. They used an alignment which showed what
it might look like. The street designations do not affect the city
one way or another.
Mr. Ambrose clarified that this roadway was not included in the cost
estimates.
Ms. AlVeS indicated she did not understand how people living in
Livermore affect Dublin.
Mayor Moffatt advised that Doolan Canyon is within the area that is
being studied for long range planning.
Following discussion of this item, on motion of em. Jeffery, seconded
by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council 1) acknowledged
that Dublin's Eastern Planning Area, when developed, will benefit from
the new interchange work being funded by Pleasanton through the North
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*-
eM - 8 - 363
'.
December 11, 1989
.
.
...
1
Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID); 2) accepted the concept of
assigning cost sharing on the basis of benefit to the traffic
generated on both sides of r-580i 3) determined that Dublin's
contribution be subject to actual development taking place north of
1-580 and within Dublin; and that funding mechanism(s) be established
within the Dublin Extended Planning Area.
. \
,
SMOKING
* * *
recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the
as reconvened.
* * * *
CrTY FACILITIES !5(d]- 90 :200-.20
staff advised a Resolution has been prepared which would prevent
smoking within enclosed City public facility. In 1986, the city
Council adopted a Ordinance which addresses Smoking Pollution Control
and includes provis ns for smoking restrictions within places of
employment, as well pUblic buildings. Should there be disputes
regarding an employer' smoking policy, the Ordinance indicates that
precedence must be give to the health concerns of the non-smoker.
by em. Jeffery, and by unanimous
On motion of em. Snyder, s
vote, the council adopted
ESTABLISHING A POLl PROHIBITING SMOKING
WITHIN ALL ENCLOSE CITY FACILITIES
i')- f30-90 /10-30
PPOINTMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY
City Manager Ambrose stated that since Counci
advised that he will no longe~ be able to serv
Housing Authority Board, it is necessary for the
recommendation related to this appointment to the
of Supervisors.
ember Hegarty has
n the Alameda county
ouncil to make a '
ameda co.~nty Board
The Board of supervisors, which actually makes the
consider the Council's recommendation.
since no one on the council was able to assume this appoint
Hegarty suggested advising the pUblic of the opening.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff could develop an ad.
Jeffery requested that an additional appointment
Transportation Committee also be advertised.
.
~+~+.+.+.+*+*+~+.+.+*+~+*+*+~+.+*+~+~+*+.+~+*+.+.+~+~+*+.+*+*+~+.+*+.+
eM - 8 - 364
-,.--~~~--
December 11, 1989
<-I
'.LJ p
r :;:.+---.-
s '3/-2 G- 92.
6-;h"-0:f'2J1
C'.. -+-
:;:;. c '\'^ L~ "":r-l-...L<./\)
" kl' CC""'<--~ T vc ~v ,,-<.:--1 '-'-Z. ~ tt-,
"
\~""<-',.-=~
"'P,AI CA ':> \;-'\ ll-{,A+..) C 0 U ~ r-r
~;5 /!:::f~~ 4~,~*v6
. ~
~'-\ "l DulL
C*l o( p".Lt_
. I
t:! C ':-:::-2-:::_.
L lt~.)-~--
C~U16,MAf'c6/'~
~,N.7 4 /0'V/
~2~7
~..{k Vr ).($("fD
~ ~_.~
.,./ , ':' ..'~- -~
~ r:"'"1-) ~ :",,_~~l .,;_..,.;,- t.___
6=".:.... ~,1 /" .....__, .. ':"-;"'r'~_,'"
t ...-
L b ~~ ?;,{ \'-'-'-'-
\2:..., c:. t,... I'), V--'- \J I,. ~ ':>"--
-
IJ.~,'L S-
'?\. .~ ^-'I ,
.^ -'-L r 'I, ., ~
('-. -, "T l,.J""-'~
ptXl-l-nI ~
I
e,,,>, (.,1., ~l'
(p# - ')$ 7/
6ft-- 2{r-fcf-.?S
u-:3 /- ..rC" c- /
-" ,-. -c:' /," "'-,
......".... _" /r--" C," l.-}
O.{C
ffi1j 'i'SC -5711
--0:.:: .' ,- .,_ .--:-
/?---
-,.
...t.1.:/~j'_.
! ,,'-
/r ....;,'.. ~ .:-::-.,.
.r' ..' _,J
670- 65 '>71
:;; 7f -~ f! CO
<-(ifr -/vC; u
,~\"". .~,' iT., .,2...____..,.,
(. I, -I, \ - C I I. ~
t".:'i"""\~:'~ If ~ .-ld I '~_ '.'.':-'1 I, 2-<.. / -; .~-
~. I-r I i f-t.'l I> I _ r" 1- I'. I r? _ !.[ J :