Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 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 :