HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Infrastructure Study Heindel Report
-t
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
cay Council Meeting Date
December 11, 1989
SUB,JEeT
Dublin Extended Planning Area Infrastructure Study
(Heindel Report)
Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS ATTACHED.
November, 1989, Report
5)
Receive presentations by Staff and John Heindel
Receive public comment
Acknowledge that Dublin's Eastern Planning Area,
when developed, will benefit from the neW
interchange work being funded by Pleasanton
through the North Pleasanton Improvement District
(NPID)
Accept the concept of assigning Cost sharing on
the basis of benefit to the traffic generated on
both sides of 1-580.
Determine that Dublin's contribution be subject
to actual development taking place north of I-56U
and within Dublin, and that funding lnechanism(s)
be established within the Dublin Extended
Planning Area
RECOMMENDATION' /I, I'i'Y ~;
1\ ()J'(' 3)
\
4)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
None at this time, The Cost of the study was paid by
private contributions from both the north and south
sides of 1-580.
Properties within the East Dublin Extended Plannin!\
Area, when developed, will finance freeway
improvements and East Dublin Boulevard improvements
once a funding mechanism has been established
DESCRIPTION
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 interchan!\e"
on Interstate 580 with Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road
Some of the proposed developers on the Dublin side of the freeway recognized
that they, tOOl 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 wa.s hired as B. consultant as an expert on assessment di.,Stri.cts
and also because he was not working for any of the affected agencies or
developers and should therefore have an unbiased approach to the problem
From the orIginal request to study three interchanges, the scope of the study
was
1) Expanded to include the Dublin Bouleva.rd extension, as its construction
was a requirement of the FIIWA to have frontage roads on both sides of the
freeway when the new Hacienda. Interchange is constructed,
2) Reduced to exclude the Dougherty/Hopyard interchange improvements, as
Dublin and Plea.santon had a previous agreement covering this work, and
~"r" ~ ~ ~ ~__ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _~ ~ U~. M ~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - - --- - - --- - - -- - - - -- - - ~ ~-
ITEM NO
J.~,
COPIES TO
Property Owners and Interested
Parties Mailing List
11
.
.
3) Expanded to include the El Charro/Fallon Road interchange improvements,
which were not funded but would be needed to develop properties on both sides
of the freeway
John Heindel interviewed the various people and agencies that had been
involved in previous studies and reports and gathered the available
documents, He also made independent cost estimates of the work to be done,
Mr. Heindel then established an "area of benefit" for the improvements on
both sides of I~580 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 1-580, he is recommending that the property owners fronting
these streets be responsible for the cost of one half of a standard 60-foot
collector street and that the oversizing of these streets be the
responsibility of those properties north of the freeway, again based on
traffic generation.
Based on assumed land uses for Dublin, Heindel estimated that the City of
Dublin would oWe the City of Pleasanton approximately $8,59l,000 for the
portions of the freeway improvements already funded by NP1D It is important
to note that this amount could increase or decrease, and that the final
amount will not be known until the improvements are completed and land uses
have been established.
Four potential methods of financing are proposed in the report
l) An assessment district for the entire project
2) Individual assessment districts for each phase of the project
3) Formation of a Mello-Roos district
4) Establishment of a development fee for a benefit district
Mr. Heindel 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, If they contributed
more than their share based on the fees, a reimbursement agreement could be
entered into to pay back the developer Staff recommends that consideration
of the type of funding mechanism be deferred
Throughout the meetings Staff has held regarding this report, it has been
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,
City Staff has had discussions with several property owners within the area
bounded by Dougherty Road, I~5BO and the Southern Pacific Railruad (SPllR)
right-of-way regarding the extension of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty
Road and the SPRR.
These property owners recognize the need for the Dublin Boulevard extension
and the benefit to their properties, however, they were reluctant to front
the entire cost of the project in the hope of the eastern planning area's
reimbursing the majority of the cost Nothing in Staff's recommendations
would preclude a continuation of investigations and discussions to obtain
some funding methods for all or portions of the Dublin Boulevard extension
As the General Plan land use studies have not been completed and the costs of
these improvements are still in preliminary stages, Staff recommends that th@
City Council acknowledge that East Dublin property owners will be responsible
for funding these improvements, but only if they develop their properties.
- 2 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUBLIN
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
November 1989
rIl JOHN H. HEINDEL (408) 741-0159
rn CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
p, O. BOX 3452 SARATOGA. CALIFOIlNIA 95010
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Forword
DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
Contents
Summary
I. Description of Required Improvements
A. Dublin Boulevard
B. Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
C Hacienda Drive Interchange
D. Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road Interchange
E. Fallon RoadIE! Charro Road Interchange
II.
Projected
A.
B.
C.
D.
E,
III.
Financing
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H
Land Use
Dublin's General Plan
Camp Parks
Alameda County Jail Site
P!easanton's and Livermore's General Plans
EI Charro Quarry Properties
Alternatives and Considerations
Scope and Cost of Work
Benefi!led Properties
Land Use
Benefits
Credits for Previous Work
Governmental Contributions
Timing of Construction
Timing and Method of Funding
IV. Recommendations
A. Cost Assumptions
B Boundary of Benefit Area
C. Land Use Assumptions
D. Benefit Formula
E P!easanton Credits
F. Method of Funding
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map (1" = 2QOO')
B. Project Preliminary Cost Estimate
C. Slalldard 6Q-Foot Half-Street Cost Estimate
D Area and Benefit Unit Summary
E. Assessment Rate Calculations, Summary of Unfunded
Costs and Source of Funds
F. Selection 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act
G, List of Reference Documents
H List ofIndividuals Consulted
Page
I
11
1
4
7
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Forword
This study was jointly funded by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanwn and was
commissioned by the City of Dublin in September 19R7, relative to the following proposcd
improvement work which will hereinafter be referred to as the Project:
I. The extension of Dublin Boulevard easterly from Dougherty Road to Doolan
Road (including stonn drainage and right of way for a furore light rail system I.
2 The improvement of interchanges on Interstate Highway 580 (I-5801 at
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and at F anon RoadlEl Charm Road, to their
ultimate configuration.
3 The construction of a new interchange on 1"580 at Hacienda Drive, to its
ultimate configuration.
4. The construction/improvement of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Pallon
Road between 1,580 and Dublin Boulevard, to their ultimate mnfiguration.
5 The construction of related freeway improvements as may be required by the
California Depanmem of Transponation (Caltrans) and Olherjurisdictions.
The primary objectives of this study are to:
1. Determine as specifically as possible the scope of work needed to complete the
Project.
2 Estimate the costs that will be involved in completing the Project.
3. Establish a boundary including those parcels which will receive a substantial
benefit from the Project.
4 Recommend a formula for spreading the Project costs to the parcels benefitted
therefrom.
5 Develop assessment rates that can be used to estimate total assessment amounts
on benefited parcels.
6 Recommend a method of financing the costs of the Project.
Section 1 of this study describes the Project work; Section IV contains recommendations
relative to the remaining five objectives listed above.
"This study is hased on land use assumptions within Dublin's Sphere of Influencc, without
benefit of a land use study and resulting general plan adoption. The recommendations
herein, therefore, serve only as a guide for the apportioning of costs since actual benefits
are not yet known. When the land use study has been completed and a general plan
amendment has been adopted, a formula based on the indicated benefits can be established
and a method of financing can be put in place. The improvement cost figures are also
preliminary and will be refined as time goes on and the improvements are made.
The information contained in this study resulted, to a large extent, from meetings and
discussions held with the individuals listed on Exhibit "II" herein. Their assistance was
invaluable and is greatly appreciated.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summarv
Exhibit nA n shows the recommended boundary of the area to be benefited by the Project.
This area has been subdivided into three wnes of responsibility, one for each of the cities
involved. Dublin's zone has been assumed to be all of the benefited area lying nonh of
Interstate Highway 580. Pleasanton's zone has been assumed to be all of the benefited area
included on that city's general plan, and Livermore's zone has been assumed to be the
balance of the benetIted area.
The COSt of the 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 Pleasanton Improvement District Since the Pleasanton contribution was found to be
approximately $8,591,000 greater than that city's obligation of $25,809,000 under the
recommended benefit formula, Pleasanton can be considered to have met its entire
obligation and should receive a reimbursement of $8,591 ,<XX) 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 recommended that one or more benefit districts similar to that described in Section
66484 of the State Sulxiivision map Act (see Exhibit nFn) be formed to finance Dublin's
and Livermore's obligations,
The recommended benefit formula can be summarized as follows:
I) A frontage charge on all parcels fronting on the proposed streets equal to $480
per front foot (the approximate COSt of a 6O-foot half streetl.
2) A charge to all parcels located north of 1-580 for the balance of the street cost
not charged above, equal to $1,425 per benefit unit. (A benefit unit is defmed
as the benefit received by one single-family dwelling, based on potential vehicle
trip generation).
3) A charge to all parcels within the benefit area for the cost of the freeway
improvements, equal to $790 per benefit unit.
All dollar figures stated above are based on very preliminary information available at this
time and are subject to significant change due to subsequent refinements of the cost
estimates and adoption of Dublin's proposed general plan amendment.
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Descrintinn of Reauired Imnrovements
'The following information was obtained from reviewing the documents listed in
Exhibit "0", and from interviewing the individuals listed in Exhibit "H" While
some questions remain unresolved, a fairly complete description of the scope of
required improvements has resulted from these resources.
A. Dublin Boulevard
The alignment of Dublin Boulevard has not been adopted precisely, but
several constralnts will limit its location to a great extent. It must conform
to existing intersections at Dougherty Road and Doolan Road, must intersect
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road an adequate distance north
of the interchanges at those streets and the 1-580 freeway to allow for proper
signal operation, and will probably be located south of the base of the
foothills.
Any alignment chosen will transit essentially undevelope.-, land between the
Southern Pacific Rallroad right of way and Doolan Road. The short
segment between Dougherty Road and the railroad right c f way will rcquire
the acquisition of five buildings.
The alignment east of the railroad right of way will cross a 150+/- a(.Te
parcel of Camp Parks which may be disposed of as surplus, a large portion
of the old Santa Rita Jail site which Alameda County is expected to develop
or sell for development, and approximately eight privately owned parcels.
It wa~ previously anticipated that it might take several years to negotiate an
easement or right of way through the Camp Parks property. However, it
now appears that the City of Dublin will obtain this right of way by way of
a congressional bill which provides for a four-jurisdiction land swap.
Dublin Boulevard is expected to be a six lane divided roadway within a 128
foot right of way. The light rail facilities are expected to require an
additional 48 feet of right of way where they are adjaccnt 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 alignment between
the freeway and Dublin Boulevard will probably be perpendicular to those
facilities. It is anticipated to be a six lane divided roadway within a 114 foot
right of way
Tassajara and Fallon Roads will probably follow their existing alignments
between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard Both are planned as six lane divided
roadways within 114 foot rights of way
C. Hacienda Drive Interchange
The City of Pleasanton, under its North Pleasanton Improvement District
(NPID), proposes to construct interim improvements for this new
interchange, consisting of a three lane bridge, east and west bound Oll-
ramps from north bound Hacienda Drive, east and west bound off ramps to
I
south bound Hacienda Drive, and interim ramps serving Hacienda Drive
north of the freeway. Other improvements which will be required before
this interim facility can be placed into service include 1) auxiliary lanes on
both sides ofl-5gb between the Dougherty/Hopyard interchange and the
Tassajara/Santa Rita interchange and 2) a parallel street on each side of 1-
580 between Dougherty/Hopyard and Hacienda.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stoneridge Drive satisfies this latter requirement on the south side, as the
Dublin Boulevard extension will ultimately do on the uorth. In the interim,
the existing northerly frontage road may be used, providing it is connected
to the end of Scarlett Court 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 interchange to
allow the new ramp construction.
Caltrans and FHW A have approved the concepmal 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 Pleasanton are negotiating for the
County to dedicate right 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 future assessment or fee district.
D.
Tassaiarn Road/Santa Rita Road Interchanl!e
The existing improvements consist of a two lane bridge with east an west
bound loop on-ramps for both north and south bound traffic. Pleasanton
proposes to construct a new three lane bridge along-side the existing bridge,
construct a new east bound on-ramp from north bound Santa Rita Road,
widen and modify existing romps and approaches, and perform
signalization work. It will acquire right of way at the southeast quadrant
(which will involve relocation of the existing McDonald's restaurant) in
order to construct the new on-ramp.
Caltrans has stated that auxiliary lanes on the north and south sides of 1-580
will 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
Tassajarn Road will be required. The new on-ramp will require the
realignment of the existing frontage road in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange unless the construction of Dublin Boulevard to Tassajara has
been accomplished and the frontage road has been abandoned.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Construction of the ultimate improvements will require acquisition of righl~
of way for the new on-ramp and for the realigned frontage road.
E.
Fallon RoadiEl Charro Road Interchange
The existing improvements consist of a two lane bridge with ramps in a
diamond configuration. EI Charro is presently a private road primarily
serving rock quarries south of 1-580. Fallon primarily serves ranches nonh
of 1-580.
Ultimately this interchange must be improved to handle traffic generated by
new developments that will evenmally be built on both sides of the freeway,
in addition to the quarry traffic. The potential of mixing high volumes of
tnIcks with general traffic poses a difficuit design problem, especially at the
El Chanu/Stoneridge/W Las Poshas intersection just south of 1-580.
Although several alternative solutions have been proposed, none has been
approved by all the principal interested parties (the cities of Pleasanton,
Livermore and Dublin, Alameda County, Caltrans and the quarry
operators).
A recently proposed design, providing a separate northbound truck lane
which bypasses the EI Charro/Stoneridge/W Las Positas intersection by
utilizing an underpass, has met with general approval, but both Alameda
County and Caltrans officials have expressed serious reservations. A
second significant problem is the method of financing the considerable cost
of any solution to the future traffic problems at this interchange.
The existing bridge over I - 580 can remain since its span is adequate to
accommodate a future BART line in the freeway median, but it must be
widened ultimately, probably to a total of six lanes. The existing diamond
ramps will probably have to be replaced by Il partial cloverleaf
configuration. The need for additional auxiliary lanes between
Tassajara/Santa Rita and this interchange cannot be derennined 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 I.anti IJse
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A large portion of the area that would be benefited by construction of the proposed
improvements is presently undeveloped and has not yet been specifically planned
Therefore, land uses and densities in this portion can be predicted only genemlly.
The foUowing information was obtained from documents listed in Exhibit "G" and
from interviews with persons listed in Exhibit "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 northerly of 1-580, plus the area bounded by
Dougherty, 1-580 and the Southern Pacific right of way). It also includes
some guiding policies for an "Extended 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 north, and the existing Dublin sphere
of influence boundary on the east).
Quoting the general plan: "Policies fOr the 15 square miles constituting the
extended planning area are concepmal because the information available on
environmental constraints, means of providing services, and landowners'
intentions is not sufficient to warrant adoption of more specific policies at
this time".
The City of Dublin has contracted to revise its general plan. This work is
eKJlected to be completed. by October 1990, The area to be smdied generally
includes that within the existing extended planning area (excepting Camp
Parks, the county jail site and Tassajara Creek Park), extended easterly to
approximately Collier Canyon Road. A portion of this area is included in a
"Specific Plan Study Area".
B. Cam" Parks
The review process for a new general plan for Camp Parks has begun, and
approval of the environmental impact statement is projected. to be completed
by March 1990. A parcel of approximately 150 acres, in the southerly
portion of the facility and fronting on the northerly side of 1-580, 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 Department. 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 all 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 parties. TIlls process
could easily take two years Or longer.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If this parcel becomes privately owned, there is a reasonable probability it
will become developed as business park/light industry, since this is the use
now shown on Dublin's general plan for the adjoining land to the east and
west.
c,
The Tassajara Creek Regional Park property was conditionally transferred
hy the federal government to the East Bay Regional Park District several
years ago. The Anny, through the four-jurisdiction land swap, is now
acting to acquire this land, and it is shown on the proposed Camp Parks
General Plan as a training facility. Since the re-acquisition of the park
propeny will probably bc confinned before the general plan is adopted, and
since the status of the park property is having a bearing on the disposition of
a portion of the 150+/- acre excess parcel, action on this latter parcel will
probably not be completed for some time to come.
Alameda County Jail Site
Alameda County's new jail facility is now completed on t:lat portion of the
old jail site lying northerlv of 7th Street. The remaining portion of the site,
bounded generally by Arnold Road, 7th Street, Tassajara Road and 1-580,
is expected to be sold as excess or land-lea~ed by the County to a developer,
In either case, this property will probably be developed as business park or
industrial use in accordance with Dublin's general plan.
D,
Pleasanton's and Livermore's General Plans
The existing Pleasanton and Livennore general plans together include all of
the area in this study which is south of 1-580 and, in fact, overlap each other
slightly For purposes of this study, Pleasanton's sphere of influence has
been assumed to include all of the area included on its general plan.
A considerable amount ofthe area adjoining 1-580 on the Pleasanton plan is
either already developed, under construction or in the design stage.
Property near the southwest quadrant of El Charro Road and 1-580 is
included in Pleasanton's Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan, Where land uses
shown in this plan conflict with Pleasanton's general plan, the specific plan
uses have been assumed to be correct.
The propeny at the southea~t quadrant of El Charro and 1-580 is shown as
low density industrial use on the Livennore general plan, and has been
under study for a business park,
The Cities of Livennore and Dublin are in the process of studying land uses
at the limits of their respective spheres of influence on the nonh side of 1-
580, to detennine the exact sphere limit between Livermore and Dublin.
Once these studies are complete, application will be made to LAFCO for the
final determination.
5
E.
El Charm Ouarrv Pmnerties
The existing quarries along EI Charm Road south of 1-580 generally lie in
an unincorporated strip of land between Pleasanton and Livermore. They
are included at least partially on the general plans of both of those cities,
designated "sand and grovel harvesting" on the Pleasanton plan and "general
agriculture" and "low intensity industrial" 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 years, At the end of that period its
development potential may be quite low because of the quantity of fill that
would be required to restore it to a usable condition.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
One of the qulllTy operators, Kaiser Sand and Gravel Co., has long-range
plans to develop a 25 to 30 acre parcel at the south-westerly quadrant of El
Charm Road and Stoneridge Drive.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III.
F'ingncing Alternatives find Con~ider3tions
The fmancing of Dublin Boulevard Extension and the associated work covered by
this repon (the Project) will depend upon several factors, including:
I) The extent to which the scope and costs of the Project improvements,
right~ of way and incidental expenses can be accurately estimated.
2) The identification of propenies that will be benefited by the Project
3) "The extent to which the ultimate use of benefited propenies can be
accurately estimated.
4) The fonnula which will be used to spread costs to the various
benefited parcels.
5) The extent to which benefited propenies have already contributed, or
are already committed to contribute, toward the costs of the Project.
6) The extent to which governmental entities will agree to contribute
toward the costs of the Project.
7) The timing of the construction of various phases of the Project.
8) The timing and method offunding utilized.
Each of these factors is discussed in greater detail below;
A. Scooe and Cost of Work
The scope of improvements required and the cost estimates based thereon are
the result of reviewing numerous documents (see Exhibit "G") and
interviewing many interested persons in both the public and private sectors
(see Exhibit "H").
For some elements of the Project, conceptual plans have been drawn in
sufficient detail to allow preparation of reasonably good cost estimates, 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 out.
As it will probably be many years before all costs can be estimated
accurately, fairly large contingency amounts should be included in any cost
estimates made for the Project.
B. Benefited Provenies
Benet'it from construction of a public facility will not suddenly terminate at a
given propeny line, but will usually diminish gradually with distance from
the facility, However, a conscientious attempt must be made to establish a
boundary in such a way that all parcels which are substantially benefited are
within the boundary while none of such parcels is outside the boundary.
7
E.
Some factors which might be considered when setting the boundary include:
I) The nature of the proposed improvemenl~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) The nature of the henefit resulting from construction of the
improvements.
3) The distance between individual parcels and the
improvements.
4) The distance between individual parcels and similar existing
improvements.
5) The zoning or general plan use designation of the parcels.
6) The existence of logical lines of demarcation, 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 projected intensities should be
kept conservatively 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) Facilitation of traffic circulation provided to parcels on the
north side ofI-580 by those streets,
3) Improved access to 1-580 for parcels on both sides of the
freeway through construction of or improvements to (he
three interchanges.
To take the first of these into 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 generation is a reasonable basis for spreading the remaining
costs of the Project.
Credits for Previous Work
The Gty of Pleasanton will construct interim improvements for the
Hacienda and Tassajara/Santa Rita interchanges, and may construct the
required auxiliary lane on the south side of 1-580 between Hopyard and
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Santa Rita. A credit for this work should be considered in any formula
devised to equitably spread Project costs.
F
Governmental Contributions
At this time no governmental agencies have committed to making
contributions toward the Project. However, it is possible that contributions
in the form of rights of way may be received for the Camp Parks and/or the
county jail properties. It is also possible that pan or all of the improvement
<:osts through these properties will be contributed, but there is by no means
any aSSllr.mce that dlis will be the case.
G
Timinl! of Construction
H
Construction will undoubtedly take place in phases over several years.
Other than for the interim improvements Pleasanton will be constructing for
the Hacienda and Tassajara/Santa Rita interchanges, no construction
schedule now exists for the Project. Logically developnent, and dms
improvement construction, would take place from west tJ east, outward
from the ex;isting Dublin city limits. However, one of th~ first properties to
the east 0 the existing terminus of Dublin Boulevard is C amp Parks, and
approval of the extension of Duhlin Boulevard through that propeny will
depend on the accomplishment of the four-jurisdiction land swap mentioned
previously
Timinl! and Method of Fundinl!
Funding of the Project can be approached in one of several possible ways,
including:
1) Fonn an assessment district for the entire Project and sell bonds in
several issues timed to confonn with the construction phasing.
Assessments can be collected fIrst from those properties benefiting
most from the first construction phase. Less benefited parcels
would nO! be charged (or would receive a reduced charge) until a
later series of bonds was sold to finance a phase 0' the Project
which benefited them.
This procedure has the possible advantage of some economies
resulting from a single assessment proceeding, but there are some
significant disadvantages:
a) Costs for the entire Project probably won't be known with
much accurdCY at the time the district is formed, especially
since future inflation and fInancing costs would be extremely
difficult to estimate.
b) Parcels would have to be assessed based upon an assumed
furure land use and density, which could prove to be highly
erroneous.
c) Many parcels in the district would have the assessment lien
placed on them far in advance of their development.
9
2)
Form a separate assessment district for each phase of the Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This would eliminate or mitigate disadvantages a) and c) above, but
assumptions would still be required regarding the ultimate uses and
densities of some undeveloped parcels, In addition, special care
would be required to keep the total assessments equllable since thev
would be computed separately for each district. If the districts
overlapped, some parcels could be over-assessed unless a method u
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 with time and land use. The established maximum tax rate CUll
be set high enough to mitigate the problem of uncenainty with
respect to total Project costs.
This type of district may be difficult to form, 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 the initial tax rate is set at less than the maximum
authorized, it may be politically difficult to increase it at a later rime,
Establish a fee which would be due upon recording a subdivision
map or obtaining a building permit. (See Section 66484 of the
Subdivision Map Act, Exhibit "F").
4)
This approach would OvetCome all of the disadvantages listed above
for other alternatives, except the problems of estimating costs far in
advance and projecting the ultimate overall development intensity.
The risk of inflation can be at least panly mitigated by escalating the
fees periodically on the basis of a published index, and since use
and density projections would not be required for each individual
parcel, projections for the overall district shouid 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 fees
have been collected, which will likely be the case, some sort of
bridge fInancing would be required.
in such a "Map Act" district fee obligations could be discharged by
constructing improvements m.ther than by lump sum cash payments.
For example, a property owner who wishes to subdivide might be
required to construct portions of the Project improvements in order
to serve his development and to mitigate offsite traffic problems
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
resulting therefrom. The value of such improvements could be
credited against 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 in this situation
since having the work done under City contract and having costs
monitored by the City would help to establish valid credit amounts.
while the fees would, in effect, be financed over several years.
I 1
IV.
Recommendgtions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A. ('Alst Assunmtions
It is recommended that $127 million in current year dollars be budgeted for
the Project. (See Exhibit "B"). This figure assumes no contributions of
money or land from any governmental entity or others, and excludes any
financing coStS, such as those associated with assessment district
proceedings. An allowance for right of way acquisition for the proposed
light rail system along Dublin Boulevard is included.
Also included in this $127 million amount is the value of the applicable
improvements, acquisitions and incidental expenses being expended by the
City of Pleasanton under its North Pleasanton Improvement District. This
value is estimated to be $34.4 million.
Since there is only very preliminary information available for many aspects
of the Project, relatively large contingency allowances have been included in
the cost estimate.
B. Boundarv of Benefit Area
Exhibit" A" shows the recommended boundary of the area to be benefited
by the Project.
North of 1-580 the boundMy includes all that area generally bounded by I-
580 on the south, the existing Dublin city limits on the west, the county line
on the 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 generally 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 northwesterly to
approximately the confluence of Tassajara Creek and Arroyo Mocha, 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 benetlt district are
considered to outweigh advantages. As an alternative, it is recommended
that Dublin pursue the possibility of obtaining a cash contribution to the
Project from Contra Costa County.
I 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In the event any portion of the excluded publicly owned land comes into
private ownership and/or is developed for commercial use, it is
recommended this land either be annexed to the benefit area and assessed in
acconiance with the recommended benefit formula or, alternatively, be
charged a fee which would be deposited in the Project Construction fund.
Any excess funds that might result could be distributed proportionally to the
propeny owners within the benefit area.
C
Land Use Assumntions
The land uses shown on Exhibit "A" are the basis for compiling the benefit
factors used to calculate the assessment rates recommended in this study
The uses are generally those shown on the existing general plans of the
cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, respectively
The dwelling unit densities assumed for the residential zeolles on Exhibit "D"
are believed to be approximately the average densities that will ultimately
exist in those zones.
D
Benefit Formula
It is recommended that the following formula be used to distribute the COStS
of the project to the benefited parcels;
1) The cost 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 streets included 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 Intersmte Route 580) shall be spread. to ail parcels within
the benefit area which lie northerly of 1-580, on the basis of the
nwnber 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 tile basis of the
number of benefit units assigned to each parcel.
4) Credits against any obligations resulting from the above rules shall
be 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 trip
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 application of the above formula
to the cost estimates and other factors presented in this study (see Exhibits
"DIt and "En).
I 3
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use Zone
High Density Residential
All Other Residential
Assessment. $
Nonh of 1-580 South of 1-580
Per DwelIin~ Per Acre Per Dwellm~ Per Acre
Commercial
1,329 474
2,215 790
88,600 31,600
22,150 7,900
22,150 7,900
4,430 I 1,580
Business Park
Industrial
Quarry
In addition, an assessment of $480 per front foot would be levied on all parcels having
frontage on the new streets included in the Project. (See Exhibit "C").
E. Plea~anmn Credits
It is estimated that Pleasanton has constructed or will construct Project
improvements wonh $34.4 million2 in present year dollars. This amount
should be credited against any obligation calculated for that city. Since
Pleasanton's total obligation, accotding to the recommended formula, is
$25,809,000, it appears that Pleasanton will have ovetpaid its obligation by
constructing portions of the Project freeway improvements, and will be
entitled to a reimbursement of approximately $8,591,000 from the
remaining areas benefited by the Project.
F Method of Fundini"
It is recommended 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 finance those
portions of the Project that wiU not be constructed by the City of
Pleasanton. The primary reasons for this recommendation are:
1) Assessments 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 improvements.
To address the likely cash flow problem that will result if improvements are
required before adequate fees are generated, it is recommended that several
funding sources be pursued, including the following: Federal and Stare
grants, local agency (e.g., Contra Costa County) contributions, loans from
public and private sources, and requiring developers to construct more than
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
their share of improvements, subject to reimbursement agreements. Also,
the gap between revenue and expenditures 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 city's sphere of
influence.
It is further recommended that the assessment rates established for any
districts formed be tied 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 north side of 1-580 has been assumed to be
ultimately developed as residential, this assessment rate is not expected to be applicable
to any assessed area.
2) See Exhibit "B"
Hacienda
Ta~sajara/Santa Rita
$30,300 - $3,700 '" $26,600
$10,100 - $2,300 = $ 7.800
$34,400
1 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit "B"
Project
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Street Work
Right of Wav
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road
Light Rail
76 Ac.
6 1(2
5
2 1(2
36 1(2
126 1(2 Ac. @ $28,000 (1)
Damages (16,500 SF@ $100)
Negotiation & Condemnation
Tide Report~ & InsW1lnce
Appraisals
Surveys & Descriptions
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Total Right of Way
Construction
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 J LF @ $45.00 45,00
Manholes 1/800EA @$1,600.00 2.00
Inlets/lats 11350 EA @$3,3OO,OO 943
Outfalls 11300) EA @$7,600.00 2.53
Median Landsc. 17 SF @ $4,00 68,00
Lighting Ins EA @$3,000.00 40.00
$654.56/ LF
Say 26,000 LF @ $655.00
B-1
$1.000 $1.000
$3~;,420
].,650
100
25
25
80
.2..1.QQ
$17,030
$44,000
Hacienda Dr., Tassajara Rd., Fallon Rd.
Mass grading 12 CY LF @
Fine grading 114 SF @
Pavement 72 SF @
Curb & Guner 4 LF @
Sidewalk 16 SF @
Dtainage
Pipe liF @
Manholes 11900 EA @
Inletsllats 1/450 EA @
Headwalls 1/1800 EA @
Median Landsc. 13 SF @
Lighting Ins EA @
Say 5,400 iF @
$6.00
$0.20
$4.00
$9.00
$3.00
$72.00 I 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 .1Q.QQ
$648.471 LF
$650,00
Traffic Signals
3EA
@$100,000.00
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Total Construction
Incidental Exoenses
Design & Construction
City Fees and Charges
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Total Incidentals
Total Street Work
Freewav \Vork
Hacienda Intetchange (2)
Pleasanton-funded hnprovements (NPID) (3)
Construction
Contingencies
Right of Way
Contingencies
$12,961,000
2.592.200
$8,400,000
715.000
B-2
I
I
I
I
I
3,510 I
300 I
1..!@
25,000 I
$3,500 I
1,000 I
~
WQQ I
$74,000
I
I
$15,553 I
I
9,115
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Incidentals:
Caltrans
Design & RIW
Construction
Additional Required Improvements (4)
Tassaiara/Santa Rita Interchange
$30,000
1,578,300
300000
.L2.Q.8.
$26,576
.2.IQQ
$30,276
Say $30,300
Pleasanton~funded Improvements (NPID) (3)
Construction
Contingencies
Right of Way
Escalation
Contingencies
Incidentals:
Caltrans
Design& R/W
Construction
Additional Required Improvements (4)
FallonJEl Charm Interchange
Construction
Right of Way (5 Ac.@ $260,OOO/ac.)
Incidentals
Total Freeway Work
Project Total
$3,380,800
656.200
$2,375,000
79,300
360.900
$4,037
2,815
$ 20,000
810,000
132.000
222.
$7,814
2...lQQ
$10,114
Say 10,100
$9,000 (5)
1,300
UQQ
12.600
53,000
$I27,OOO
B-3
8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOTES:
( 1) Assumes land west of Southern Pacific right of way at $ 16/SF and remainder at
$6/SF.
(2) Iucluding auxiliary lanes both sides, both directions.
(3) From NPID revised estimate datd 11-14-89
(4) From G. Homokla 11-15-89
(5) Based on rough estimate made by Reimer & Associates.
(6) If assessment proceedings are used, all COSl~ should be increased by approximately
10%.
(7) All costs are in 1988 dollars.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit "c"
Cost Estimate
Standard 60 Ft. R/W Half Street
$/From Foot
Right of Way, including incidentals 240
Grading 27
Paving XO
Curb and Gutter q
Sidewalk 24
Drainage 24
Lighting 10
Construction incidentals 33
Miscellaneous and Contingencies .3.5.
482 Say $480/FF
$480 x 59,200 FF = $28,416,000
Say $28,500,000
C-l
-------------------
Exhibit "D"
Area and Benefit Unit Summary
Area, AC Total Benefit Units
Dublin Pleasanton Livennore Dublin Pleasanton Li verrnore
Use Zone Zone ~ ~ I!.llill DUlAC BUlAC ~ Zone Zone Total
R -0- 30 180 2lU 0.05 005 -0- 2 Y I]
L 2,630 100 -0- 2,730 1.00 100 2,630 100 -0- 2,730
M 2,630 960 -0- 3,590 5.00 5.00 13,150 4,800 -o- n ,950
H -0- 190 -0- 190 12.00 7.20 -0- 1,368 -0- 1,368
C -0- 380 -0- 380 40.00 -0- 15,200 -0- ]5,200
B/1 ],620 880 240 2,740 10.00 ]6,2UO 8,800 2,400 27,400
Q -0- 1.200 -0- 1.200 2.00 .:l.!: 2.400 -0- 2dQQ
t:l Totals 6,1l1l0 3,740 420 11,040 31,nO 31,670 2,40Y 67,059
,
....
R = Rural residential (0.05 dwelling units/acre)
L = Low density residential (1.00 dwelling units/acre)
M = Medium density residential (500 dwelling units/acre)
H = High density residential (12.00 dwelling units/acre)
B = Business park
C = Commercial
I = Industrial
Q = Quarry
DU = Dwelling unit
EU = Benefit unit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit "E"
Assessment Rate Calculations
Frontage Improvements
Other Street Improvements
Freeway Improvements
TOTAL
$28.500.000
59,200FF
=
$45.500.000
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
Street Improvement Costs
Summary of Unfunded Costs
Unfunded Freeway Costs
Hacienda
Tassajara/Santa Rita
Fallon/E1 Charm
Reimbursement to Pleasanton
Pleasanton Contribution
Less P1easanton Obligationl
Total Unfunded Costs
1) 32,760 BU @ $790
E-l
$3,700,000
2,300,000
12,600,000
$34,400,000
(25,809,000)
$127,000,000
$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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "F"
I
I
66484. Local ordinance may impose fee lor construction of bridges and
major thoroughfare,
(al ^ local ordinanc.e may require the payment of a fee as a (:or'Jdition of
approval of a final map or as a condition of is.suing a building permit for
purpo,e, of defraying lhe actual Or e'timaled co'1 of constructing bridges
over water\Vays. railways. fre'l:I'ways, and canyons, or constructing malor
thorougnfares. The ordinance may require payment of fees pursuant to this
.section if all of the following requirements are satisfied;
(1) The ordinance refers to the circula.tion element of the general pla.n
and. in the case of bridges/ to the tran~portation or flood c::ontrol provisions
thereof which identify railways, freewaysl streams, Or canyons tor which
bridge crossings are required on the general plan or local roads and in the
Case of major thoroughfares. to the provisions of the circulation element
which identify lhose major lhoroughfares whose primary purpo,e i, to carry
through traffic: and provide a. network connecting to thE! state highway
sv~tem, if the circulation element, transportation or flood control provisions
have been adopted by the local agency 30 day' prior to lhe filing of a map or
applicalion lor a building Rermil.
12) The ordinance provides thallhere will be a public hearing held hy
the governing body for each area. henefited. Notice shall be given pursuant
to Section 65091 and shall include preliminary information related to thEl'
boundaries of the area of benefit, estimated cost, and the method of fee
apportionment. The are!a of benefit may include land or improvements in
addition to the land or improvements which are the subject of any map or
building permit applicalioo coosidered at the proceedings.
(3) The ordinance provides that allhe public hearing, the boundalies of
lhe area of benefit, the co, I', whelher aclual or e'timaled, and a fair melhod
of allocation of costs to the area of ben~fit and fee apportionment are
e'lablished. The method of fee apportionment, in the Ca'e of major
lhoroughfares, shall not provide for higher lee, on land which abuts the
proposed improvement except where the abutting pro pert',' is provided
direct usable access to the m~;or thoroughfare. A description of the
boundaries ot the area ot benefit. the costs/ whether actual orestimated, and
lhe method of lee apportionmenl establi,hed al the hearing ,hali be
incorporated in a resolution of tne governing body, a certified copy of which
,hall be recorded by the governing body conducling the hearing with lhe
reCorder of the county ;0 which lhe area 01 benefit i; located. The ap-
portioned fees ,hall be applicable to all property within lhe area of benefit
and shall be payable as a coodil;on of approval of a linal map or as a
condition of issuing a building permit for the property or portion, of lhe
propertY Where the area of benefit includes lands not subject to the
payment of fees pursuant to this section, the governing agency shall mi;lke
provision for payment of the share of improvement costs apportioned to
those lands from other SOurces.
(4) The ordinance provide, lhat paymenl of fees shall nol be required
unless the major thoroughfares are in addition to. or a reconstruction of, any
existing major thoroughfares serving the area at the time of the adoption of
lhe boundaries of lhe area of benefil.
{Sl The ordinance provides that payment of fees shall not be required
unless lhe planned bridge facilily is an original bridge serving lhe area or an
addition to any existing bridge fac:i1ity serving the area at the time of the
adoplion of the boundaries of lhe area of benelit. The fees shall not be
expended to reimburse the c:;:ost of existing bridge fa.cility constructiOI1.
161 The ordinance provide, thaI if, within lhe lime when prole't' may be
filed under the provIsions of the ordinance. there is a written protest, fjled
wilh the clerk of the legi,lalive body, by lhe owners of mOre than one-half 01
the a.rea of the property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient
protests are not withdrawn 50 as to reduce the area represented to less than
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F-l
I
I
I
one~htllf of th~t to be benefitp.d, then the proposed proceedings snr\1I be
abandoned. and the legislative body shall not. for one year from the filin~ or
that writum protest, COmmence or catry on any proceedin!2:s for the same
improvement Ot acquis.ition under the provisions of this section.
tb) Any protests may be withdra.wn by the owner protestin~, in WTlti ng, at
any time prior to the conc.luslon of a. public. hearing he\d pursuant to the
ordinance.
Id If any majority protest is dIrected against only a portion of the
improvement then all further proceedings under the provisions of this
section to construct tllat portion of the improvement so protested against
shall be barred for a period of one year, but the legislative hOdy may
commelice new proceedings nOllncluding any part of the improvement or
aCQuisition so protested against Nothing in this section prohibits a legisl~-
tive body, within that one-year periodl from commencing and carrying on
new proceedings ior thEl' construction of ,.1 portion of the improvement so
protested against if it finds, by th~ afHrmative vote of fout-fifths of its
members, that the owners of more than one-half of the area of the property
to be benefited are in favor of going tory.,tard with that portion oi the-
improvement Or acquisition,
(d) Nothing in this section precludes the: processing and recordation oj
maps in olccordance with other provisions of thiS division if the proceedings
a,re abandoned.
(e) Fees paid pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section
shall be depo,ited in a planned bridge facilitvor maior thoroughfare fund. "-
fund .hall be e,tablished for each piaoned bridge facility project or each
planned major thoroughfare project. If the benelit area is one in which more
than one hridge i, lequired to be constructed, a fuod may be so e'tablished
covering all ofthe blidge plOjects in the heoefit atea. Money in the fund shall
be expended ~oleiy for the construction or reimbursement for construction
of the improvement sE:rving the area to be beneflted and from which the fees
comprising the fund were collected, or to reimburse the local agency for the
cost of constructing the improvement.
m An ordinanc:e adopted pursuant to this section may provide for the
acceptance of considerations in !leu of the payment o~ fees.
(g) A local agency imposing fees pursuant to thi5; section may advance
money from its general fund or road fund to pay the cost of constructing the
improvements and may reimburse the ~ener31 fund or road fund for any
advance, from planned bridge facility or maio' thoroughfare, funds e,tab-
li.shed to finance the construction of those improvements,
(h) A loca.l a@.ency imposing fees pursuant to this s;ection may incur an
interest-bearing indebtedness for the construction of bridge facilities or
m~ior thoroughfares. However, the sole s.ecurity for repayment of that
indebtedne" shall be mooey, in planned hridge facility or m~ior thorough-
fares funds.
(j) The term "constructionl' as used in this section includes design,
acquisition of right-at-way, administration of c.onstruction contrarts, and
actual construction.
q) Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from providing
funds for the construction of bridge facilities or major thoroughfares to
defray costs not allocated to the area of benefit.
iAmended, Chapter 1009, Statute, of 1G84J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F-2,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exbibit "G"
List of Reference Documents
1 Engineer's Report - N Pleasanton L D. No.3 (A,D. 1986~9)
Mark Thomas & Co,
2. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch - March 1987
TJKM Transportation Consultants
3 EI Charm Road Design Study - March 1987
TJKM Transponation Consultants
4 Dublin Ranch Vicinity Map 0" = 1000')
Frisbie, Wood & Associates
5. Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Hacienda & 1-580, 0" = 100')
(Colored). Mark Thomas & Co.
6 Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Santa Rita & 1-580" (I" = 100')
(Colored). Mark Thomas & Co.
7 Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Hopyard & 1-580, (1" = 100')
Mark Thomas & Co.
8. Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometries at Stoneridge & 1-680 0" = 100')
Mark Thomas & Co,
9. Dublin Blvd. Extension Pan 1 - Collier Canyon t Springtown. Incomplete plan for
design study 0" - 200', 2' interval topo).
10. Dublin Blvd. Extension Pan 2 ~ Dougherty Rd. to Doolan Rd. Incomplete plan for
design study (I" = 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 Constrnction, Operation and Maintenance of Traffic Signals on
Hopyard/Dougherty Road at 1-580 Westbound Off-ramp, between City of Dublin and
City of Pleasanton.
16, Letter from Col. Clifford N. Goff, Director Engineering and Housing, Presidio of
San Francisco, to Lee Thompson, re: Dublin Boulevard extension in 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, Ine" vs. City of
Pleasanton.
G-I
G-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18, Proposed Freeway Interchange Geometrics at Hacienda & 1-580 (Revised; received
11/12/87; see Doc. #5 above). (I" = 100'). Mark Thomas & Co.
19. "Nonhside Obligation" report dated 10/31/86.
Mark Thomas & Co.
20. Construction and land acquisition cost estimates for Hacienda/l-580 interchange,
Santa RitalI-580 interchange, and south side 1-580 auxiliary lanes lHopyard to Santa
Rita) dated 11/5/86. Mark Thomas & Co.
21. Conceptual Plan, El Charro Road Traffic Line Layout, Westgate Business Park,
Livermore, California, Revised 4/2/87 (1" = 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 "Doughenv Road Expansion Meeting, Mon. 23 Nov., Issues"
24. List headed "Duhlin Ranch Active Property Owners. 1ll8T', obtained from Dublin
Planning Director.
25. List headed "land in Dublin Blvd., Extension but Not an Active Property Owner, 11-
23-87", obtained from Dublin Planning Director,
26. Map entitled "General Plan Smdy Area" (1" = 3333'+/-), being a reduction of Doc.
#4 with a boundary line superimposed, obtained, From Dublin Planning Director
27 Map entitled "specific Plan Study Area" (1 " = 3333'+/-), being a reduction of Doc.
#3 with a boundary line superimposed, obtained fmm Dublin Planning Director
28. Map entitled "Major Projects Dougherty Valley" (1" = 1500').
Bissell & Kam.
29. Tri. Valley Transportation Study - 1985, Volume 1 - Study Summary TJKM
Transportation Consultants, September 1986.
30. Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan - Draft - September 1988
Plea~anton Department of Planning and Community Development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit "H"
List of Individuals Consulted
City of Dublin
Lee Thompson, City Engineer
Larry Tong, Plaruring Director
City of Pleasanton
Joe Elliott, Public Works Director
Chandler Lee, Principal Planner
George Homolka, NPID Manager
City of Livennore
Dan Lee, Public Works Director
Dave Clements, Planner
Alameda County
Harry Hecht, Assistant Public Works Director
Adolf Martinelli, Planner
Camp Parks
Lt Co!. Joe Pelagreno, Commanding Officer
Ed Balisteros, Chief of Engineering Division, Presidio
Co!. Clifford Goff, Director of Engineering & Housing
Leila Peete, Real Estate
David Warner, Chief, Master Planning Branch, Presidio
Caltrans
Bob Coleman, Deputy Director for Alameda County
Ernie Sato, Branch Chief for 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, Branch Manager
Tom Wintch, Transportation Department Manager
TJKM, transportation consultant
Chris Kinzel, Principal
Reimer Associates, engineer for Westgate Business Park
Doug Wiebe, Office Manager
Onuli-Means
Carl Springer
H-I
Springs _��..
/iO \ I p - 23 $ - - sae
-
r. � r .(� I �� � °o Y = o --619 , • •�
;
_
- - -
v CC.) o i e_ _ _ 7
i•
., 1• S . -tea ' ¢ 00 _
M
2 3 0 r 8 i �L F go I -no g
&h � `' VABM or
1 colDlr .tTInN 5
/ ..•`
A N ` , P, ED, i R A2 M 0 N
TaSS.1JAR& REEK - I. _ _ - I _ -- _ _ 2 _ •1 '�• ) �'1. , '
San Ramon 9t =
SM 42 G10
�.
"ur.. h Village
IyG °__•11 f u .+. -S A-1
i° • .,.� ..' '� • 1 _ -
-1 fl•� t t' _ .`>%' �-. - I - -ate. ,. ,q ,' _ x I - - _ - -O ..
0 / .Ir. Mehwn •• \° n 1 -- 1� YII ��
a 2 w61 °•• ! L 1' I 1rotTN FEUER
O `" l I, . f' - —_~ ,•e�y
CENTEry ' I 4P' - o _
•' • - . �.n 9<h'0 s i �.� 1 )�. _. _ F � I L4• •
/� �18n(IOTSIi b i lr ', y J _ - - - - .� ° . - __ _ _ _ ,. •'. f -� - _ -
-
_ nnhr C �• 1 - 'f =•� •.I IIIIJ,�I '� o 00, A
/,11..:. .....� • .,n - —.._ ." . _
I
1w
sag 11111111 i-- — ���
6 _ .`'° �a �° f 1_= �g� �' i ICI 11 L� =' `- L
NAA
__ i.: _.. „ -/ �r - 'I q - TALC L % < '� i i -- ��_ _fin \_ \� I •��
... ." _. - ,yam P t/ -. � • i l / ..:1.:: I `If • qi e .� ._.f. ! e � �._ - "�.,;' \ \Tb Q
°a ! `� � jam, . ..', ♦ .• 1 �, i 1� aso . rt ' _ -\�ti.• -ij .����� i
• v' s
Ai ll • • - ' ��, =s t�:- _ r . D�rA/ t m �I It Miggg,
' rk I� . Rtesa; .. a i, '
A.
mIi o_ x i-
��
-3$ LOOO ir k aa.0 b� UNDARY —'
-2 LANE \ \'• '•� '�417e
BM
is- -��NS 325
re ` n /�s G •• _..` - . --`_` slo
coo - b, ♦ rern�: e k , _.l'• �: \ I� , Q� V I,y -r L✓ -_ _�: P _'T,,� �. I o - .
_._ - �- • I :a J• __ 1. Santa Rita
\ C
d _- \ \. • ��,i ®I �O 'O II7 ll� %''� .: My p Rehabilitation Center \p 7./O
An 5
— +- XBM: -` 2 - _ - \`` :o - ' � +3 y"f � � ° • ' ' \� ' _ _ � - SEWAGE .
S I_ M/ T - A, ;. tun, _ u F� D15POSAL
I
A ys6
t3 we"
A — B • g G _ / A . M D-0 R
Rffi Wells
3 {j1 ° r a
LE�E"O - : . , �( J p W i • •p 3� __ __ _ _ 165 - /" i, 1 I l
^ k L
x 562 „e• . /' !' (—W
R . ,� .mom ,.1 i ' ''� 1 _ _ +.. 6 •. /W.
RURAL R6181DENTIAL
L = LOW DBN51T1f RB.° IDEN71AIc -12 ' - i A L E Y �-
N 4 �,' ✓�"{ `- .r011 �.`•t -•• �f a ells.
I'fl • M@DIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ��N
eesaik.en =— _ F
Fi s KiGN DPrNSITgr RE8IDI�NTLAL b �'_ �__ „ je,ch �.,, I -_ '' '• � r i./ _\ `�. j".- - � _ il-
_
B ° 9US111iESS PARK _ oYLC ■= _ _,; /1 — !r'1
C COMMSMIAL I �iOP' le u' Z �f. .l ( PumGhou56 ° - ___ -_- H'
INDUSTRIAL. °'w - .' �� dllTp, a
` W ARL7Y _ _ _
PWBI.LC LANDS I = I ` 0 fl 1✓ • ftOf O Y ' :. 1 Walnut ov � -- _ .1.. 3b .GRAVEL PITS i M �UTHERI�L - .tl15
PR0P0.9ED BENEFIT AREA l50LJ,N� v J _ — - _ _ p
;'a AR
P
L�. 4 �� S . ^ :.P ,o Gravel Rxis _ _ ..! ' J- eout t 7 0 1
EXISTING STRI:ETB I .a I � 0 77 ��L�- — — °°I �, _ — � Pleasanton
PROPOSED STREETS °
ti 3 1
LAND USE y ra el Wls _` W' Gra.el P4
BOUN17AR I e
• r� `
Park t�
' At F ek wh-Sch 35 P
Pt �!
-!le IS v has `•� M - T �� . � d' g . -
, S
i
. - ,-_ :••' t* ,�. .'.. �: _ � AV --
.
- —
n r Yo eM\ <<e
1 • _s �:....• .. o'I I „ _ - a i . -� 425
.USDA :O
♦ •.
-380=
Pl:nt.MelniAls ., -.....
•
EXHIMIT