HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Eastern Dublin TIFCTTY CLERK
FJ~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEET]lNG DATE: 3une 15, 2004
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Revision to Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee (EDTIF) and Area of Benefit Fee Resolution
Report Prepared by: Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic) and
Mark Lander, Consulting Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Resolution Establishing Revised Traffic Impact Fee and Area
of Benefit Fee for Future Developments within the Eastern
Dublin Area, as Previously Established by Resolution 1-95
and Revised by Resolutions 41-96 and 225-99, including the
following Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Land Use and Boundary Map
Exhibit B: 2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
Update, dated May 27, 2004
Exhibit C: Traffic Impact Fee Schedule
Exhibit D: Area of Benefit/Major Thoroughfares and
Bridges
Allocation Between Land and Construction Costs
Analysis of East Dublin Residents Parking at the Dublin
BART Station, Omi-Means Engineers and Planners,
October 11, 2002
Transit Center Staff Report (PA 00-013), November 19,
2002 (without attachments)
Written Comments From Public (Three Letters)
Staff Responses to Written Comments
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
General Plan (Updated to November 5, 2002)
Eastem Dublin Specific Plan (Updated to November 1, 2002)
Dublin Transit Center, General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning,
October, 2002
Resolution No. 47-04 Approving Amendments to the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the IKEA
Project and the Dublin Ranch Area F North Project
Resolution No. 1-95 (with all Exhibits)
Resolution No. 41-96 (with all Exhibits)
COPIES TO: Mark McClellan, MacKay & Somps
Martin Inderbitzen, Attorney for Lin Family
Stuart Cook, Alameda Co. SPA
ITEM NO. ~__
G: IED TIF Update [Staff Report ED TIF Update 06-15-04. doc
7) Resolution No. 225-99 (with all Exhibits)
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff Presentation
Receive Public Testimony
Close Public Hearing, determine value of protests (to Area of
Benefit Fee only)
Deliberate
Adopt Resolution Revising the Traffic impact Fee and Area
of Benefit Fee for Future Developments within the Eastem
Dublin Area, as Previously Established by Resolution 1-95
and Revised by Resolutions 41-96 and 225-99.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Fees collected are used to finance public facilities and improvements
needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by development
in Eastern Dublin. The EDTW (Fee) was last revised in December
1999, and needs to be updated to reflect the current cost of acquiring
land and constructing traffic impact improvements. In addition,
additional territory was added to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
and that territory will be added to the EDTIF. The Fee needs to be
updated to reflect the addition of that territory and additional
improvements related to the newly added territory. The cost of
preparing the 2004 EDTIF Update is included in the fee.
DESCRIPTION: The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF), which was
originally established in January 1995, was revised in April 1996, and again in December 1999. Since the
last revision, some of the background data (land-use assumptions, land valuations) used in determining the
Fee has changed. In addition, the territory known as the Transit Center was added to the Eastem Dublin
Specific Plan and that territory will also be added to the EDTIF. It is therefore necessary for the Fee to be
updated to reflect current conditions and the addition of the Transit Center. Accordingly, a 2004 TIF
Update Study has been prepared, the details of which are discussed in the body of this report. As a result
of the 2004 Update Study, an increase in EDTIF rates is recommended for adoption by the City Council.
The proposed resolution includes an automatic annual fee adjustment, which is based on indicators
measuring the annual increase in land and construction costs.
Proposed TIF Rates:
The proposed per trip EDTIF rates (Section I and Section Ii only) are summarized on the following table
(Page 3 of this Report). The per trip rate utilized for residential uses located within the Transit Center is
$594 per trip, while the per trip rate utilized for residential uses outside the Transit Center is $695 per trip.
The per trip rate for non-residential uses is proposed at $549 per trip. All residential uses are subject to
the Section I Residential adjustment ($45 per trip), which allocates to the residential fee the improvements
that benefit residential uses. In addition, residential uses outside the Transit Center are subject to the
Section II Residential BART Parking adjustment ($101 per trip), which allocates a portion of the Transit
Center BART parking structure to the Fee. The proposed rates represent a 9%-25% increase over the
current fees, which have been in place and escalated for four years, based on automatic annual
adjustments to reflect increased costs of construction and land
Page 2 r~ i-Z~
The two residential surcharge fees will be collected and tracked separately from the remainder of the
Section I and Section II fees. Credits. for improvements constructed in these categories will also be
tracked separately.
Land Use .... Residential Non-Residential
Existing Proposed % Change Existing Proposed %
Change
Section I $391 $425 9% $391 $425 9%
Section I Residential $48 $45 (6%) N/A N/A N/A
Section II $99 $124 25% $99 $124 25%
SeCtion II Residential $0 $101 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Parking Gara~ge
Total Section I and N/A $594 N/A N/A $549 N/A
II (Development within
Transit Center)
Total Section I and $538 $695 29% $490 $549 12%
II (Development
Outside
Transit Center)
Non-Residential Fee
The fee for non-residential development is determined by applying the per trip fee of $549 to the
estimated average weekday trip generation of the particular development, utilizing the trip generation rates
detailed on Exhibit C to the proposed resolution, entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Schedule."
The fee schedule has been modified from the current fee schedule. Trip generation rates remain the same,
but several categories of land uses have been eliminated from the schedule for practical reasons. Further,
the application of the trip rates has been clarified. Financial uses (bank/savings & loan) and most
restaurant uses will be subject to the appropriate shopping center rate, as these uses are likely to occur as
part of a larger shopping center. For cormnercial/retail and certain recreation uses, the trip rate for the
specific land use will only be used if the site is a stand-alone land use; if the land use is part of a larger
shopping center, the trip rate for the shopping center will apply. Certain land uses (fast food restaurants,
convenience markets, and automotive uses) will utilize the trip rate for the specific use regardless of
location, as these uses tend to generate destination trips and will not likely result in shared trips to
adjoining uses.
The trip generation rate specified for fast food restaurant in Exhibit C was lowered from 511 trips/I,000 sf
to 465 trips/I,000 sf in order to be consistent with current trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation,
6th Edition and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Two commercial uses, the retail stores within the Transit Center and the retail within the Fairway Ranch
high-density residential development, are exempt from paying the fees as these retail uses are ancillary to
these developments, will serve the adjoining residential areas via pedestrian access, and will not generate
additional vehicle trips.
Residential Fee
The fee' for residential development (except for development within the Transit Center) is determined by
applying the per trip fee of $695 to the estimated average weekday trip generation of the particular
housing type, based on the land designation included in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Page 3 ~1--~
Specific Plan. The fee for residential development within the Transit Center is determined by applying
the per trip rate of $594 to the estimated average weekday trip generation. The residential fee schedule is
summarized below:
Trips per
..................... Type Dens!.ty.. Day per Unit Fee per Unit
Within Outside of
Transit Center Transit Center
Low Density Up to' ~'unii~)'-acre .................. 10 N/A $6,950
Medium Density 7-14 units/acre 10 N/A $6,950
Medium/High Density 15-25 units/.....a...c, re 7 N/A $4,865
High Density 26 or more units/acre 6 $3~..564 ......... $4,.!.._7.0._..'
Background
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SP) were adopted
by the City in 1994. The GPA outlines future land use plans for the 4,176-acre Eastern Dublin sphere of
influence. Based on the 1994 GPA, approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of
commercial/office/industrial development are anticipated in the GPA area, in addition to parks, open
space, and institutional uses.
The SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action programs for the 3,313-acre westerly
portion of the GPA abutting the easterly City limits.
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103064)
and was certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution No. 51-93). There were two
subsequent addenda, dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994.
Chapter 5.0 of the SP addresses Traffic and Circulation. At the time the SP was adopted, the existing
roads were generally rural in character and adequately served existing rural residential development in the
area (EIR, pp. 2-3). Portions of the SP area have since been developed and new roads constructed. The
transportation and circulation systems for the SP are designed to provide convenient access to and
mobility within the SP area.
The road system is characterized by three major north-south streets (Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and
Fallon Road) and three major east-west streets (Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive)
to accommodate traffic in the SP area (SP 5.2.1). These streets are all planned or built as major four- or
six-lane streets. Other streets necessary for development of the SP are local roads that will be constructed
by developers to provide access to respective properties as development occurs. No fees are necessary to
provide for such roads.
The SP also identifies certain freeway improvements and interchange improvements necessary to
accommodate traffic to and from the SP area (SP 5.2.12). The SP includes a policy (Policy 5 -10) that
transit service should be provided within one-quarter mile of 95 percent of the SP population and also
establishes park-and-ride lots adjacent to freeway interchanges on the three north-south streets (SP 5.7.2).
Finally, to encourage non-motorized forms of transportation, the SP provides for a network of pedestrian
trails (Policy 5-15) and bike paths (Policy 5-17 and Figure 5.3).
In analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the EIR assumed that certain improvements would be
constructed and that development within the SP/GPA areas would pay its proportionate share of the cost
of such improvements (EIR, pp 3.3-16 to 3.3-18). The EIR also included a number of mitigation
measures to mitigate the transportation-related impacts of the development (EIR, p.3.3-19 to 3.3-29).
These mitigation measures were adopted by the City Council as part of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Resolution No. 53-93).
As a result, two Supplemental EIRs (SEIR) have been prepared and certified: the first for the Eastem
Dublin Property Owners Annexation (EDPOA SEIR), and the second for the recently-approved IKEA
project (IKEA SEIR). Both SEIRs assumed that certain improvements would be constructed and that the
costs would be shared by development in Eastern Dublin.
In December 2002, the SP was amended to add the territory known as the Transit Center. The EIR for this
project also assumed that certain improvements would be constructed and that development in the Transit
Center would pay its proportionate share of the cost for the improvements.
The General Plan contains a policy that requires new development to pay for infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C). The SP contains a similar goal and policy
(Policy 10-1, page 151).
The City Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee ordinance on December 12, 1994 (Ordinance No.
14-94), which provided the authority for the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("TW"), which was then
adopted by the Council on January 9, 1995 (Resolution 1-95). The TIF was based on two reports: a study
prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates ("Study"), and a report prepared by Santina & Thompson ("Cost
Estimate Report").
The City Council adopted a revised Traffic Impact Fee at its meeting of April 9, 1996, under Resolution
No. 41-96. The revised Fee was based on two reports (Exhibits B and C, respectively): a study prepared
by TJKM Transportation Consultants ("1996 Study Update"), and a revised cost estimate by Santina and
Thompson ("1996 Cost Estimate").
A revised Traffic Impact was subsequently adopted by the City Council on December 7, 1999, under
Resolution No. 225-99. The revised Fee was based on the 1999 .Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
Update prepared by the Department of Public Works, dated November 8, 1999 ("1999 Study Update").
The current proposed revision to the EDTIF is the result of a Staff Report for the Transit Center
(Attachment 4), in which it was indicated that Staff would return to the City Council with a proposed
amendment to the EDTIF to include those improvements required by the Transit Center that are
appropriate for inclusion in the EDTIF program.
2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
The 2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update (2004 Update Study, Exhibit B to Resolution)
utilizes similar methodology to that used in the original 1995 Study, the 1996 Study Update, and the 1999
Study Update, to determine the appropriate fee rate. This approach first estimates the cost of all TIF
improvements left to be constructed, and then allocates these estimated costs to new development left to
be constructed, based on the estimated average weekday trip generation of different types of land uses.
EDTIF improvements are categorized in three sections: Section I improvements are those within the
Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Area which are needed solely to accommodate new development projected
within Eastern Dublin and are funded 100% through the EDTIF. Section II improvements refer to
improvements within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area which are needed, in part, to
support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the EDTiF funds the proportionate fair
share by Eastern Dublin development. Section III improvements were originally necessary to
accommodate new development projected within the region by the Year 2010.
Page 5 ar;~D\ -z__
Section I improvements include two projects funded solely by residential development through a
residential adjustment: (1) the Park and Ride lots, and (2) the Tassajara Creek Bike Path. In addition,
Section II improvements also include an East Dublin BART Garage project funded solely by residential
development outside of the Transit Center. The remainder of the Section I improvements are funded both
by residential and non-residential development at the same trip rate.
The 2004 Update Study calculates the appropriate Fee rates for Section I and Section II improvements, as
well as for the Section I and Section II residential adjustments. The Section III portion of the Fee was
suspended with the adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) in 1998; thus,
the 2004 Update Study does not include a Fee rate for Section III fees. In the event that the Section III
portion of the Fee becomes effective again, the rate will be adjusted to account for all changes in land and
construction costs since the effective date of the TVTDF.
While the 2004 Update Study employs the same methodology as was used in the past, the fact that the
EDTIF program is well underway complicates the calculation. The 2004 Update Study must account for
EDTIF improvements that have been completed or are under construction by private developers in return
for EDTIF credits, as well as for EDTIF funds that have been received to date. The 2004 Update Study
also refines the aggregate trip generation estimates and determines the remaining trips upon which to base
the revised Fee. Table 1 of the 2004 Update Study details the calculation of the revised EDTIF rates. The
following discussion highlights specific issues that were considered in calculating revised TIF rates:
Cost Estimates
The 2004 Update Study relies on a number of data sources to determine the costs that must be financed by
the revised EDTIF, which are listed below:
The Department of Public Works has prepared a new cost estimate for remaining improvements
(included as Attachments 1 through 5 in the Study Update). This estimate updates cost estimates
for all EDTIF improvements remaining to be funded, excluding improvements already completed
or currently being constructed by private developers under existing development agreements.
The Finance Department has provided information regarding the outstanding balance due on prior
funding advances and EDTIF credits, as of March 10, 2004, as well as the cash balance of EDTIF
funds collected and unallocated as of March 10, 2004 (Attachments 6 and 7 in the Study Update).
Costs and credit estimates in Item 1 above rely on updated right-of-way values provided in the Valuation
Analysis Report for Traffic and Facilities Impact Fee Study, Eastern Dublin, prepared by Associated
Right-of-Way Services, dated September 10, 1999, and updated in June 2003. Right-of-way values were
based on the same methodology and policy as in past studies, but were updated to reflect current economic
conditions.
Certain EDTIF improvements changed in scope since the 1999 Study Update and are reflected in the cost
and credit estimates. Largely due to refinements in street design, which resulted from more detailed
traffic studies of specific developments, the changes are minor in scope and are consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The specific changes are described in detail in the 2004
Update Study.
Page 6 c~"~D ~ ~
Contra Costa County Contribution
The 1999 Study Update included an estimate of $19.5 million in traffic mitigation funds to be provided by
Contra Costa County to pay for portions of EDTW improvements needed as the result of development in
the Dougherty Valley. Subsequent to adoption by the City Council of the 1999 Study Update, the City of
Dublin and Contra Costa County entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (dated June 1, 2000)
whereby the total amount of the Dougherty Valley contributions was set at $13.5 million. The 2004
Update Study uses the revised contribution amount.
Inclusion of the Transit Center and the Associated Improvements
As alluded to previously, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
Amendment/Stage I Development Plan/Tentative Map for the Eastern Dublin BART Transit Center on
December 3, 2002. This allows the development of two million square feet of office space, 70,000 square
feet of retail space, and 1,500 units of high-density residential development. The development will
contribute to the need for a number of roadway improvements not currently included in the EDTIF. The
Transit Center property is not currently located within the boundaries of the EDTIF, nor is it now subject
to the payment of the EDTIF, although it is now within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, owner of the Transit Center property, has requested that
the property be annexed into the EDTIF area and that certain improvements required to mitigate traffic
impacts from the Transit Center development be added to the scope of improvements funded by the
EDTIF. Staff indicated in the Transit Center staff report that it would retum to the Council with a
proposed amendment to the EDTIF to include improvements required by the Transit Center that are
appropriate for inclusion in the EDTIF program. The resulting extended EDTIF area is shown in the Land
Use and Boundary Map (Exhibit A to the Resolution).
The 2004 Update Study finds that several improvements, estimated at a cost of $10.7 million, required of
the Transit Center Project are appropriate for inclusion in the EDTIF:
(1)
Dublin/Dougherty intersection [Dougherty Road north leg and south leg, and Dublin
Boulevard west leg and east leg], Condition No. 26 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892;
(2)
Scarlett Drive improvements between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, Condition
No. 27 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892; and
(3)
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange, Condition No. 29 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892.
While the Transit Center requires the completion of these improvements, the need for the improvements is
necessitated not just by the trips associated with the Transit Center alone, but cumulatively by the trips
from Eastern Dublin and the Transit Center. In other words, both the Transit Center and other Eastern
Dublin developments would generate additional trips in the area and contribute to the need for the
improvements. Thus, costs of these improvements should be spread across the entirety of Eastern Dublin.
Other improvements that were required as Conditions of Approval for the Transit Center, such as the
roadway extensions of Martinelli Way west of Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road south of Dublin Boulevard,
and other internal roadway improvements, were considered to be inappropriate for inclusion in the EDTIF
Page 7 [7~D[ 7__
since they were more local in nature and do not meet the general benefit requirement for a regional
improvement/fee.
In addition, the developer of the Transit Center requested that the City consider including certain parking
spaces in the proposed BART parking garage in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. This improvement was
not a Condition of Approval for the Transit Center because it was proposed as part of the Project. Based
on a study conducted by Omi-Means Engineers and Planners, dated October 11, 2002 (Attachment 3),
the 2004 Update Study concludes that the cost of a portion of the parking spaces in the parking garage can
be included in the EDTIF. The 2004 Update Study indicates that Eastern Dublin creates a need for
parking stalls at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and that this need will continue to grow as Eastern
Dublin develops. The 2004 Update Study concludes that Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of the $20
million cost of the garage is $6 million, or 30% of the total cost, based on traffic generated within Eastern
Dublin utilizing 500 parking spaces out of the total of 1,680 spaces in the structure.
Since the Transit Center EIR indicates that the Transit Center does not necessitate the BART parking
garage, the costs associated with the BART parking garage would only be charged to the remainder of
Eastem Dublin, which creates the need for the spaces in the garage. In addition, since Eastern Dublin's
use of the BART parking garage is associated with residential development and not commercial
development, costs associated with the parking garage would only be imposed on residential development.
Accordingly, the proposed EDTIF update includes a new adjustment to the Section II fees that applies
only to residential development outside of the Transit Center Area in order to fund the portion of the costs
for the BART parking garage that are attributable to Eastern Dublin.
The 2004 Update Study also demonstrates that the Transit Center contributes to the need for the
improvements funded by the existing EDTIF. Inclusion of the Transit Center in the EDTIF area is
justified because the Transit Center, like the rest of Eastem Dublin, relies on the Eastern Dublin
transportation network that the EDTIF funds. Like the remainder of Eastern Dublin (including the
General Plan Amendment area), the Transit Center is in an area that was characterized by the lack of
developed transportation infrastructure to serve the necessary urban development. That infrastructure is
necessary only to serve development in Eastern Dublin, and since the Transit Center is within Eastern
Dublin, it should pay its proportionate share of the costs of the necessary infrastructure.
One important issue to note is that, if the Transit Center and the improvements associated with the Transit
Center are included in the area covered by the Eastern Dublin TIF, the TIF amount for those properties
within the current TIF area will be less than it would have been under the 2004 Update had the Transit
Center not been included.
Thus, the 2004 Update Study demonstrates that it is appropriate to include the Transit Center and the
associated improvements in the TIF.
Trip Generation
The 2004 Update Study refines the estimated trip generation from land subject to the EDTIF based on
actual land use proposals. This refinement results in a total number of trips to be generated within the Fee
area of 361,432, as compared to 356,369 in the 1999 Update and 344,078 in the 1996 Update. The
changes are due to minor differences between the densities allowed under the SP and actual densities
proposed for projects that have received entitlements or for which project applications are currently
pending. The 2004 Update Study excludes trips generated by and from public facility land uses, including
public schools and parks, because the trips to and from these land uses are generated by new development.
Trips for Alameda County government offices are also currently excluded from the 2004 Update Study,
Page 8 c>(D~'L.
but differ from trips to schools and parks because they are not generated by the new development. This
information is shown in Attachments 9 and 10 to the Update Study.
Based on building permits issued in Eastern Dublin through March 31, 2004, and on construction activity
pursuant to existing entitlements, the 2004 Update Study estimates the number of trips for which the
EDTIF has already been paid at 103,026, and estimates that an additional 10,600 trips will pay the Fee at
the current rate before this update goes into effect. This results in an estimated 247,806 trips that will be
subject to the new Fee, of which 59,227 are generated from residential development and 188,579 are
generated from non-residential development.
These numbers will be increased with the addition of trips generated by the Eastern Dublin Transit Center.
The Transit Center will add 49,030 trips to the EDTIF, of which 9,030 are from residential development
and 40,000 are from non-residential development. This results in a total of 296,836 trips subject to the
revised Fee, of which 68,257 are residential trips.
Proposed TIF Rates
Based on the updated cost estimates and trip generation rates, the 2004 Update Study proposes a revised
EDTIF rate of $549 per trip for non-residential uses, $594 per trip for residential uses within the Transit
Center, and $695 per trip for residential uses outside the Transit Center. The application of these per trip
rates to particular non-residential and residential land uses is described at the beginning of this Report.
Future Adjustments to the TIF
Consistent with prior policy, the proposed resolution includes a process for making future adjustments to
the EDTIF, either based on further study and analysis of the then-current circumstances or on an automatic
adjustment.
The proposed resolution provides that the City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the Fee shall be
reviewed and revised to include amounts that are reasonably related to impacts of development in Eastern
Dublin. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal approximately once every three (3) years.
The proposed resolution further provides that, in years in which the Fee is not adjusted based on specific
studies and analysis, it shall be automatically adjusted (on July 1) based on a formula that accounts for
changes in construction and land costs. The fonnula applies indicators of the change in construction and
land costs to the Fee rates, based on the relative allocation between the cost estimates for construction and
land acquisition for certain improvements included in the 2004 Update Study. This allocation is 68% for
improvements and 32% for land, and the formula will be weighted accordingly. The allocation is shown
on Attachment 2 of the Staff Report.
Area of Benefit Fee
The adoption of an Area of Benefit Fee is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and covers the cost
of construction of the major thoroughfares and bridges within the Specific Plan. Exhibit D to the
proposed resolution identifies the major thoroughfares and bridges included in the Specific Plan Area.
Exhibit D also includes cost estimates for construction of these improvements, using the updated cost
estimates included in the Update Study for improvements that have not yet been constructed or bonded.
Exhibit D does not include credits due for construction of portions of these major thoroughfares and
bridges, but provides that, in the event the Area of Benefit becomes effective, these credits will be
calculated and the Fee will be adjusted accordingly.
Page 9
The improvements included in the Area of Benefit Fee are also included in Section I of the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee. Imposition of both the Traffic Impact Fee and the Area of Benefit Fee would be
duplicative.
In order to eliminate any doubt as to the validity of the EDTIF to pay for the construction of such
improvements, Section 12 of the proposed resolution has been added to satisfy both the procedural
requirements for the adoption of a fee under the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (No. 14-94) and the
Area of Benefit Ordinance (No. 10-94). Section 14 of Ordinance 10-94 provides that the Area of Benefit
Fee would be collected only in the event that the Traffic Impact Fee for the same improvements is held to
be legally invalid. Thus, there would be no duplication of fees.
Administrative Guidelines
The City Council last adopted administrative guidelines for the Fee program on February 16, 1999, under
Resolution No. 23-99. It is proposed that the guidelines remain in effect for the 2004 Fee update, with
one modification: Staff has received a request from property owners that the guidelines be modified to
increase the lifespan of EDTIF credits in order to offset the proposed increase in the minimum cash
payment for EDTIF fees.
Under the existing guidelines, EDT~ credits will remain in effect for ten (10) years, after which the
credits revert to a right of reimbursement for an additional ten (10) years. Since the higher minimum cash
payment will decrease the amount of existing credits that can be used with each building permit, it will
take a longer period of time for credit holders to utilize the remainder of their existing credits. This could
result in the loss of credits should the ten-year limit be missed.
The property owners are requesting that the credit life be extended by an additional ten years, which
would increase the credit life to twenty years plus the ten year right to reimbursement, or a total of thirty
years. Staff has reviewed this request and proposes to evaluate it further in coordination with current
credit holders. If the City Council approves, Staff will return at a later date with recommendations to
possibly amend the Administrative Guidelines to extend the life of the credits/reimbursements, as deemed
appropriate.
Staff also proposes to return to the City Council at a later date with recommendations to amend the EDTIF
Administrative Guidelines to allow the revenues from the Section II residential fee to be deposited in a
separate account to be used for the sole purpose of funding the cost of 500 spaces in the BART garage
structure.
Review Process for 2004 Update Study
A prior draft of the 2004 Update Study was sent to developers and affected property owners in Eastern
Dublin on April 28, 2004, for their review and comment. An informational meeting was held on Monday,
May 10, 2004 and was attended by six individuals, representing four property owners.
Verbal comments received at the meeting and Staff's responses are as follows:
Comment (Downtown TIF contribution for improvements): A number of Section II improvements are
proposed to be funded entirely by the EDT~, without a proportionate contribution by the Downtown
for the traffic generated within the Downtown Area (Comment from the Alameda County Surplus
Property Authority, or ACSPA).
Page 10
Response: Since there is currently no adopted Downtown TIF, there is no guaranteed revenue stream
from that fee. Therefore, revenue from the fee cannot be applied against the EDTIF improvements. There
are several accounts holding past traffic mitigation contributions paid by individual developments within
the Downtown area. These contributions total approximately $2.0 Million; the EDTIF cost estimates are
amended to show this revenue. No additional revenue beyond the existing contributions will be shown
until a Downtown TIF is adopted.
Comment (BART Parking Structure): The Section I Residential BART Parking Surcharge should be
included in the Section II costs (comment from the ACSPA). The ACSPA is concerned that, because of
the large amount of Section I credits held by other landowners, the surcharge will be paid using credits
instead of cash, and there will be no funds accrued to reimburse the ACSPA for its costs.
Response: The costs for constructing 500 spaces in the BART parking garage will be treated as a separate
fee, distinct from the other Section I fees. If the ACSPA constructs the structure, the ACSPA will receive
a $6 million credit for the BART Garage Section II fee. Since other developments cannot obtain credits
for the structure, these developments will have to pay the entire surcharge in cash. Staff will return with
revisions to the Administrative Guidelines that would enable ACSPA, being the only credit holder, to
receive the cash as it is accrued. There would be no reason for the City to retain the cash for other uses, as
the structure is the only improvement in this fee category.
Subsequent to the May 10th meeting, the BART parking garage was re-designated as a Section II
improvement since the structure has outside funding and meets the definition of a Section II improvement.
The fee for the parking structure will still be treated as a separate fee, and the designation change will not
impact the way the fee is administered.
Since the proposed Section II residential fee is intended to pay for only one improvement (i.e., 500 BART
garage spaces), it is appropriate to treat this fee differently by using the fee revenues to reimburse the
entity constructing this improvement. Staff proposes to return to the citY Council at a later date with
recommendations to amend the Administrative Guidelines to allow the revenues from the Section Ii
residential fee to be deposited in a separate account to be used for the sole purpose of funding the above
improvement.
Comment (Minimum Cash Payment of Fees): The proposed update will increase the minimum cash
payment for fees, which will dilute the ability of credit holders to utilize existing credits. There is a
possibility that some credits will expire under the existing 1 O-year credit life. The credit life should be
revised to extend the current 10-year limit (comment from ACSPA).
Response: Staff is considering this request and will return to the City Council at a later date with
recommendations regarding the issue of extending the life of the credits/reimbursements. Staff will
conduct this evaluation in coordination with current credit holders.
Comment (Camino Tassajara GPA): Development within the Camino Tassajara General Plan
Amendment area (Intervening Properties and Alamo Creek Residential Developments) is conditioned by
Contra Cost County to pay fees to mitigate impacts to streets in Dublin (comment from MacKay and
Somps Engineers).
Response: The fee payment is limited to the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. The amount of
the fees is negligible in terms of the overall EDTIF costs. The fees are therefore not included in the
current EDTIF calculations.
Page 11 crnc)[7-,
Following the meeting, three letters containing written comments were received. These letters are
included in this Report as Attachment 5 and Staff responses are included as Attachment 6.
Environmental Analysis
The EIR and Addenda, the EDPOA SEIR, the IKEA SEIR, and the Transit Center EIR (collectively "the
Environmental Documents") describe the freeway, freeway interchange, and road improvements necessary
for implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements, pedestrian trails, and bicycle paths. The
adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the Environmental Documents.
The Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the Environmental Documents as necessary to
accommodate traffic to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such
development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in
the Environmental Documents. Since the certification of the Environmental Documents, there have been
no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the Environmental
Documents, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of
substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the Environmental Documents' analysis of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under
CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities is' not required at this stage as they will be
implemented over at least a 20-year period, and specific details as to their timing and construction are not
presently known.
Conclusion
In accordance with Government Code Sections 66016 and 66017, notice of this public hearing was mailed
to those requesting such notice 14 days before this public hearing. Also in accordance with Government
Code Sections 66016 and 66017, the Attachments to this Staff Report and the Background Documents
(listed on page 1 of this Report) were made available for public review 10 days prior to this public
hearing.
The 2004 Update will continue to insure that new development will pay its fair share of the improvements
needed to mitigate the resulting new traffic and that those needed mitigations will be constructed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution establishing
the revised Traffic Impact Fee and Area of Benefit Fee for future developments within the Eastern Dublin
Area, as previously established by Resolution 1-95 and revised by Resolutions 41-96 and 225-99.
Page 12 ~D [ '2_..
RESOLUTION NO. -04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND
AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA,
AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95
AND REVISED BY RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 AND RESOLUTION NO. 225-99
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance No. 14-94 which
creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Specific Plan ("SP")
were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the SP has been the subject of various amendments, including an amendment known
as the Transit Center Specific Plan Amendment that added 90.65 acres to the area covered by the specific
plan; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlined future land uses for approximately 4,176 acres within the City's
eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square fee of
commercial, office, and industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies, and action programs for
approximately 3,404 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas are included on the Land Use and Boundary Map of the
Eastem Dublin TIF Area attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GPA and SP
(SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 "(Addenda") have been prepared and considered by
the Council; and
WHEREAS, two Supplemental EIRs, for the IKEA project and the Eastem Dublin Property
Owners Annexation (respectively "the IKEA SEIR" and "the EDPOA SEIR"), have been certified for
portions of the GPA and SP areas; and
WHEREAS, the Diagram of the Eastem Dublin TIF Area also includes the Transit Center area,
and the area diagrammed on the Map is referred to as "Eastern Dublin"; and
WHEREAS, a Program EIR ("the Transit Center EIR") was prepared for the Dublin Transit
Center project, and certified by the Council by Resolution 215-02; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda, the EDPOA SEIR, the IKEA SEIR, and the Transit Center
EIR (collectively "the Environmental Documents") describe the freeway, freeway interchange, and road
improvements necessary for implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements, pedestrian trails,
and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Documents assumed that certain traffic improvements would be
made and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Prograrg.: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within
Eastern Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain transportation improvements necessary to mitigate
impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR, and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development
on existing public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the Year 2010, and contain an analysis of the need
for new public facilities and improvements required by future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995, establishing an
"Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee" for development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City of
Dublin by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in a document dated November 1994 and entitled "Traffic
Impact Fee-Eastern Dublin" (hereafter "Study"), which is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 1-95;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1-95 further relies upon a second report which was prepared for the
City of Dublin by Santina and Thompson in a document dated December 30, 1994, entitled "Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Costs, Initial Level" (hereinafter "Cost Report"), which was
attached as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 1-95; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 41-96 on April 9, 1996, revising the fee
established under Resolution No. 1-95, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 41-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the City by
TJKM ("1996 Study Update") and cost estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson ("1996 Cost
Estimate Update"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 225-99 on December 7, 1999, revising the
fee established under Resolution No. 41-96, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 225-99 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared by the
Department of Public Works ("1999 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update", hereinafter "1999 Study
Update"), and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Resolution No. 225-95 provides that the City will periodically review
the fee and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a revised report, dated May 27, 2004, as revised and
entitled "2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update" (hereafter "2004 Update Study") which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
2
WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study includes and incorporates the following items:
Table 1, which summarizes the calculations of the revised per trip traffic impact fee for Section I
improvements, Section I residential improvements, Section II improvements, and Section II residential
BART parking improvement;
Table 2, which provides detail of total (unadjusted) improvement costs by section and project
segment:
Attachments 1-5, which includes revised cost estimates for roadway improvements that have not
yet been constructed or guaranteed;
,, Attachment 6, provided by the Finance Division, which provides a summary of outstanding loans,
cash advances, or credits to developers for construction of improvements or dedication of right-of-way;
Attachment 6a, which segregates the current balance of Section I Residential fee credits from the
total Section I credits;
Attachment 7, which provides a summary of unencumbered Section I, Section I Residential,
Section II, and Dougherty Valley traffic mitigation fees which are currently on hand in reserve accounts;
Attachment 8, which segregates the current balance of unencumbered Section I Residential fees
from the total Section I funds;
Attachments 9, which provides detailed information on the number of trips generated for each
parcel in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (including the parcels within the Transit Center) that will
be subject to the existing fee rate;
Attachment 10, which provides detailed information on the number of trips generated for each
parcel in the ]Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area which will be subject to the proposed fee revision; and
Attachment 12, which provides a plan for paying off existing interest-bearing loans; and
WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 1-95, 41-96, and 225-99 set forth the relationship between future
development in Eastern Dublin, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those
improvements and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in certain respects; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Update Study and the 2004 Cost Estimate Update were available for public
inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was provided as required by law.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (hereafter "Fee") is to finance public
improvements and facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by future development in
Eastern Dublin. The public improvements and facilities are listed in the Study, the 1996 Study Update,
the 1999 Study Update and the 2004 Update Study under Sections I, II, and Iii and are hereafter defined
and referred to as "Improvements and Facilities." The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section I
refer to Improvements and Facilities within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed
solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and such Improvements and
Facilities are funded 100% through the Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section II refer
to Improvements and Facilities-within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are
needed, in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the Fee funds the
proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct such Improvements and Facilities.
The Improvements and Facilities listed under Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to
accommodate new development projected within the wider region by the Year 2010, including
development within Eastern Dublin.
Although the City has adopted the TVTD Fee by Resolution 85-95, and Section 10 of that
resolution suspends Section III fees, the portion of the Fee attributable to Section III improvements will
be adjusted if and when the Section III portion of the Fee becomes effective again by any adjustments
made to the cost of improvements and/or right-of-way from the effective date of Resolution 85-95 to the
date the Section III portion of the Fee becomes effective.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Improvements
and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the 1996 Study Update, the Cost Estimate Report, the 1996
Cost Estimate Update, the 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, Resolution No. 1-95, Resolution
41-96, Resolution 225-99, the Agenda Statement, the SP, the General Plan, the Environmental
Documents, all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on
June 15, 2004, the Council reapproves and readopts the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the
1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996
Cost Estimate, the 1999 Cost Study Update and the 2004 Update Study, and incorporates each herein, and
further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Improvements and
Facilities and the Improvements and Facilities are congistent with the GPA, the SP, and the City's General
Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the Environmental Documents.
E. The Improvements and Facilities were all identified in the Environmental Documents as
necessary to accommodate traffic from and/or to, to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin.
The impacts of such development, including the Improvements and Facilities, were adequately analyzed
at 'a Program level in the Environmental Documents. Since the certification of the Environmental
Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified
in the Environmental Documents, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other
new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the Environmental
Documents' analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific
environmental review under CEQA of the Specific Improvements and Facilities is not required at this
4
stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details as to their timing and
construction are not presently known.
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and
Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that
new development in Eastern Dublin, both residential and non-residential, will generate traffic which
generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of
the Improvements and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in Eastem Dublin, both residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need
for the Improvements and Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the
Improvements and Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in Eastern Dublin in that the
Fee is calculated based on the number of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount- it
will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities, and the percentage by which development within
Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the
1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Study Update, and the Cost Estimate Report, as revised by the 1996
Cost Estimate, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing the Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future
development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development, set forth in the Study, as
revised in the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, bears a fair and
reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements and
Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips
each particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition
of any building or structure within Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all territory depicted within the Eastern Dublin TIF
Area on the Land Use and Boundary Map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include those transportation and transit
improvements and facilities as are described in Section I, II and III of the Study and as described in the
1996 Study Update, 1999 Study Update, the 2004 Update Study, 1996 Cost Estimate, SP, and the
Environmental Documents. "Improvements and Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative
improvements and facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate
construction of such alternative improvements and facilities; provided that the City Council later
5
determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the
need for the alternative improvements and facilities, (2) that the alternative improvements and facilities
are comparable to the improvements and facilities in the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study
Update, and the 2004 Update Study, and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay
Eastern Dublin development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative improvements and facilities.
d. "Low Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on property
designated by the SP and GPA for up to six units per acre.
e. "Medium Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on
property designated by the SP and GPA for over 6 to 14 units per acre.
f. "Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on
property designated by the SP and GPA for over 14 to 25 units per acre.
g. "High Density Dwelling Unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) as adopted by the City of Dublin Constructed or to be constructed on property
designated by the SP and GPA for over 25 units per acre.
2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Low Density
Dwelling Unit, Medium Density Dwelling Unit, Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit, and High Density
Dwelling Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the date of final inspection for the unit, provided that
the Fee shall be payable by the date that the building permit is issued for any such Unit from and after the
date the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Program for the Improvements and Facilities.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures within
Eastem Dublin at the time of issuance of the building permit for such building or structure, except where
the building or structure will require a later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can be
occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or
structure may be deferred for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary approval which is
required prior to occupancy. Each component of the Fee, including the Section I Fee, Section I
Residential Fee, Section II Fee and Section II Residential Parking Garage Fee, is a separate fee and
together they are referred to as the "Fee."
3. Amount of Fee
a. Low Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for
each Low Density Dwelling Unit shall be $6,950 per unit.
b. Medium Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee
for each Medium Density Dwelling Unit shall be $6,950 per unit.
c. Medium/High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the
Fee for each Medium/High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,865 per unit.
d. High Density Dwelling Units (Outside Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for
each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $4,170 per unit.
e. High Density Dwelling Units (Within Transit Center). The amount of the Fee for
each High Density Dwelling Unit shall be $3,564 per unit.
f. Non-Residential Buildings or Structures. The amount of the Fee for each Non-
Residential Building or Structure shall be $549 per average weekly trip. The amount of Traffic Impact
Fees for Residential and Non-Residential Uses are shown on Exhibit C.
4. Minimum Cash Payment
a. The minimum cash payment for Section I fees shall be 11% of the total fee. The
minimum cash payment for Section II fees shall be 25% of the total fee. Developers may utilize credits
for the remainder of the fee, if authorized by the Administrative Guidelines.
The City will utilize the appropriate percentage of the cash payment for repayment of
existing interest-beating loans or advances from other agencies, as listed on Attachment 6 to Exhibit B.
The remaining percentage of the cash payment will be used for construction of remaining improvements
as listed on Attachment 1 to Exhibit B.
5. Exemptions From Fee
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
1) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that
a residential unit is added to a single-family residential unit or is added to an existing multi-family
residential unit;
2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that
has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within
one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction
increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure
that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building
would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's trips based on Exhibit C.
4) Retail uses within the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and the Fairway Ranch
High-Density Residential Development, as these uses are considered ancillary to the adjoining residential
uses and will not generate outside vehicle trips.
6. Use of Revenues
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Traffic Impact
Fee Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Traffic Impact Fee Fund shall be used to account for
7
such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be
used for the following purposes:
1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and constructions
of the Improvements and Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto;
2) To reimburse the City for Improvements and Facilities constructed by the
City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were
obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for traffic improvements.
3) To reimburse developers and/or public agencies who have constructed
Improvements and Facilities; and
4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Improvements and
Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
7. Standards
The standards upon which the needs for the Improvements and Facilities are based are the
standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, SP, and the
Environmental Documents.
8. No Existing Deficiencies
The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin
and that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category I (Section i) of the Study, 1996 Study
Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, is generated entirely by new development
within Eastern Dublin and, further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in Category ii and
III (Section II and III) of the Study, 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update
Study, is generated by new development within Eastern Dublin and other new development and,
therefore, the Study, as revised by the 1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update
Study, has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements and Facilities for which
development within Eastern Dublin is responsible.
9. Periodic Review
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as
part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of
availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The
estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council
shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and
demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
10. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on
the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine
whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall
review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within
Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of
further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General Plan, as well as increases due to
construction costs and land values. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal approximately
every three (3) years.
11. Automatic Increase in Fee
The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in
years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 9 above.
The City Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2005 and each July 1
thereafter, as follows:
a. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown in the 2004 Cost Estimate
Update) shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage increase/decrease in the Engineering News
Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the month of April over the same Construction
Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year. The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to
whole dollars.
b. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities shall be increased/decreased annually by
the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent land appraisal
(prepared for the City for purposed of adjusting the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the immediately
preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same
methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, if the appraised land value in
Year One is $10/acre and in Year Two is $11/acre, that is annual increase of 10% which will result in a
yearly increase of 10%, until the Fee is revised by the Council pursuant to Section 9 above. The City
Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
12. Area of Benefit Fee
A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of Benefit Fee adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the portion of the Fee designated for the construction of those
improvements and facilities identified in Category I (Section I) of the Study that are major thoroughfares
and bridges. These improvements and the estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit D
attached hereto. The "Area of Benefit" is Eastem Dublin as defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned
over the Area of Benefit in the same manner set forth in Section 3 of this resolution and in the Study,
1996 Study Update, the 1999 Study Update, and the 2004 Update Study, with the amount to be assessed
for residential and non-residential as shown on Exhibit D. The Area of Benefit Fee shall be deposited
into the City's Traffic Impact Fee Fund into separate accounts established for each of the improvements
identified in Exhibit D.
13. Administrative Guidelines
The City Council may adopt administrative guidelines for the fee program to provide
procedures for reimbursement, credit or other administrative aspects of the Fee. The amount of any
reimbursement or credit shall be determined by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction
and value of right-of-way used by the City in calculating and establishing the Fee. The amount of any
reimbursement or credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on
such amount. No credit or reimbursement shall be given unless the improvements constructed are the
Improvements and Facilities described herein. Reimbursement shall only be from revenues raised by
Payment of the Fee.
14. Effective Date
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3
of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution and shall supersede
the Fee established by Resolution No. 225-99 sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution.
The Area of Benefit Fee established in Section 12 of this resolution shall be effective only if the Fee
provided in Sections 2 and 3 hereof is declared invalid for any reason.
15. Severability
Each component of the Fee, including the Section I fee, Section I Residential, Section II, Section
II Residential Parking Garage Fees and each and every improvement financed by the Fee or any of the
component fees, and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component fee of
the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining
provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that.
portion that has been judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2004.
· AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mawr
City Clerk
G:IEDTIF UpdatelResolution. DOC
10
fl)
A~
Exhibit B
City of Dublin
2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
Prepared by Public Works Department
May 27, 2004
The following is the 2004 update ("the 2004 Update") for the Eastem Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee ("the T~"). This memorandum explains the methodology used in updating
the previous reports prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants and Santina and
Thompson for the 1996 fee update, and by the Department of Public Works for the 1999
fee update.
Summary
The following Summary Table identifies the changes on the per trip TIF for Section I and
Section II improvements for both residential and non-residential development projects:
Proposed TIF Summary Table
Section I $391 $425 9% $391 $425 9%
Section I Residential $48 $45 (6%) ................ N/A N/A N/A
Section II $99 $124 25% $99 $124 25%
Section II Residential ............... $0 $101 N/A ' 'I~/A N/A N/A
BART Garage
Total Section I and N/A $594 N/A N/A $549 N/A
Section II
(Development Within
Transit Center) .....
Total Section I and $538 $695 29% $490 $549 12%
Section II
(Development
Outside
Transit Center) .......
Page I of 19
The revised fee results in the following fees per housing unit:
Proposed Residential TIF Summary Table
Low Density Up to 6 units/acre 10 ............. .N./A $6,950
Medium Density 7-14 units/acre 10 N/A. $6,9.50
Medium/High Density 15-25 units/acre 7 N/A $4,865
High Density 26 or more 6 ..... $3,564 ....... $4,170
units/acre
Section I fees pay for improvements within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which
are needed solely to accommodate new development projected within Eastern Dublin,
and these improvements are funded 100% through the TIF. Section II fees pay for
improvements within or outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which are needed,
in part, to support new development projected within Eastern Dublin, and the TIF funds
the proportionate fair share by Eastern Dublin development to construct these
improvements.
Section I fees include a Residential Adjustment that is applied to all residential
development in Eastern Dublin to pay for two Park and Ride lots and the Tassajara Creek
RegiOnal Trail. These improvements benefit only residential development.
Section II fees include a Residential BART Parking Adjustment that is applied to all
residential development outside of the Transit Center in Eastern Dublin to pay for a
portion of the BART parking structure within the Transit Center. Residential
development within the Transit Center is within walking distance of the BART Station
and would not utilize the BART parking facility.
The Section III fee rate was not updated, as the collection of the Section III fee was
suspended with the adoption by the City (Resolution No. 89-98) of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. The TVTD Fee, which is collected from new
development in addition to the Section I and II TIF, funds improvements formerly
covered by the Section III fee. In the event collection of the Section IH fee becomes
necessary at some point in the future, the fee rate will be adjusted at that time for all
adjustments made to the TIF since the effective date of the TVTD Fee.
Page 2 of 19
Background
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was initially adopted in January of 1995, and
subsequently updated in 1996 and again in 1999. Since that time, some of the
background data used in determining the fee has changed, requiring that the fee be
revised to reflect current conditions. Background information that has changed includes
more accurate projections of land use, minor changes in the scope of infrastructure
improvements'to be funded by the fee and substantial increases in the land value of right-
of-way needed for the construction of improvements. The revised fee also takes into
account the current status (as of January 1, 2004) of those improvements that are
complete, under construction, or guaranteed under an improvement agreement.
The most significant changed circumstance is the proposed inclusion of the area known as
the Transit Center in the TIF area. This area, bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Arnold
Road, 1-580, and the Iron Horse Trail, is not currently included in the area covered by the
Eastern Dublin TIF. The land, which is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority (ACSPA), was the subject of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment approved by the City Council on December 3, 2002
(Resolution No. 216-02), allowing development of site for office and residential uses.
The Transit Center will contribute to the need for a number of transportation
infrastructure improvements not currently funded by the TIF program, in conjunction
with the Transit Center approvals, ACSPA requested annexation to the Eastern Dublin
T~ area because certain of the improvements needed by the Transit Center are also
needed by Eastern Dublin development. These improvements are the widening of the
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection and widening of the westbound on-ramp
from southbound Dougherty Road to 1-580, the widening of Scarlett Drive from two to
four lanes, and the widening of the westbound off-ramp and the northbound overcrossing
at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange.
The boundaries of the properties proposed to be subject to the fee are shown on Exhibit A
to the Resolution. The boundaries include all properties currently within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (which includes the Transit Center) as well as remaining properties
within the City's Sphere of influence that have been annexed to the City or are expected
to be annexed to the City.
The 2004 Fee Update
Inclusion of the Transit Center in the TIF Area.
The City Council approved a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment/Stage
I Development Plan/ Tentative Map for the Eastern Dublin BART Transit Center on
December 3, 2002, allowing development of two million square feet of office space,
70,000 square feet of retail space, and 1,500 units of high-density residential
development. This development will contribute to the need for a number of roadway
Page 3 of 19
improvements not currently included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Among
other things, the Transit Center approvals amended the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan to
include the Transit Center area. The Transit Center property is not currently located
within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin TIF and is not now subject to the payment of
the TIF Fee, although it is now within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, which owns the Transit Center property,
has requested that the property be annexed into the TIF area and that certain of the
improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts from the Transit Center development
be added to the scope of improvements funded by the TIF. Staff indicated in the Transit
Center staff report that it would return to the Council with a proposed amendment to the
TI~' to include improvements required by the Transit Center that are appropriate for
inclusion in the TIF program. The resulting extended TIF area is shown in the Land Use
and Boundary Map in Exhibit A to the Resolution.
Inclusion of the Transit Center in the TIF Area is justified because the Transit Center, like
the rest of Eastern Dublin, relies on the Eastern Dublin transportation network that the
TIF funds. Like the remainder of Eastern Dublin (including the General Plan
Amendment area), the Transit Center is in an area that was characterized by the lack of
developed transportation infrastructure to serve the necessary urban development. That
infrastructure is necessary only to serve development in Eastern Dublin, and, since the
Transit Center is within Eastern Dublin, it should pay its proportionate share of the costs
of the necessary infrastructure.
One important issue to note is that, if the Transit Center and the improvements associated
with the Transit Center are included in the area covered by the Eastern Dublin TIF, the
TIF amount for those properties within the current TIF area will be less than it would
have been under the 2004 Update had the Transit Center not been included, as shown in
Attachment 11 to this Update Study report. Thus, it is appropriate to include the Transit
Center and the associated improvements in the TIF.
Addition of New Improvements to the Infrastructure Funded by the TIF.
The 2004 Update includes several improvements that were not included in the previous
version of the TiF. This section of the update provides the reasons for the inclusion of
those improvements.
Improvements Related to Transit Center. Several improvements required as a condition
of approval of the Transit Center Project are appropriate for inclusion in the TIF. These
improvements are estimated to cost $10.7 million and are the following:
(1) Dublin/Dougherty intersection [Dougherty Road north leg and south leg and
Dublin Blvd. west leg and east leg], Condition No. 26 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892;
Page 4 of 19
(2) Scarlett Drive improvements between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard,
Condition No. 27 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40, approving
Parcel Map 7892; and
(3) Hacienda Drive/I-580 Interchange, Condition No. 29 of Planning Commission
Resolution No.02-40, approving Parcel Map 7892.
The 1999 Study Update includes Scarlett Drive as a two-lane facility; the proposed 2004
Update Study shows the road as a four-lane facility as a result of additional traffic from
the Transit Center.
While the Transit Center requires the completion of these improvements, the need for
these improvements is necessitated not just by the trips associated with the Transit Center
alone but cumulatively by the trips from Eastern Dublin and the Transit Center. In other
words, both the Transit Center and other Eastern Dublin developments would generate
additional trips in the area and contribute to the need for the improvements. Thus, the
costs of these improvements should be spread across the entirety of Eastern Dublin.
Other improvements that were required as conditions of approval of the Transit Center,
such as the roadway extensions of Martinelli Way west of Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road,
south of Dublin Boulevard, and other internal roadway improvements, were considered to
be inappropriate for inclusion in the TI~ because they were more local in nature.
In addition to the improvements listed above, the Transit Center developer requested that
the City consider including certain parking spaces in the proposed BART parking garage
in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. This improvement was not a condition of approval of
the Transit Center, because the parking garage was proposed as part of the Project. The
City commissioned a study by Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, dated October 11,
2002, to determine the extent of the need for parking spaces at the BART station
attributable to Eastern Dublin development. (The Omni-Means study is presented as
Attachment 3 to the Staff Report.) The Omni-Means study indicates that Eastern Dublin
creates a need for parking stalls at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and that that need
will continue to grow as Eastern Dublin develops.
Based on a license plate survey at the existing Dublin BART station, the study concludes
that 400 to 500 of the future East Dublin BART parking spaces would be used by Eastern
Dublin residents at buildout. The estimated cost of the proposed 1,680 parking space
BART parking garage is $20 million. As there are 1,680 total spaces in the BART
parking garage, the 500 spaces required by Eastern Dublin constitute 30% of the total
spaces in the garage. Thirty percent of the $20,000,000 cost of the garage is $6,000,000.
This would equate to $6 million in proportionate cost to construct 500 of the total 1,680
garage spaces to service parking demand by BART riders residing in Eastern Dublin. In
addition, since the Transit Center EIR indicates that the Transit Center does not
necessitate the BART parking garage, the costs associated with the BART parking garage
should only be charged to the remainder of Eastern Dublin, which creates the need for the
Page 5 of 19
spaces in the garage. In addition, since the Omni Means study demonstrates that Eastern
Dublin's use of the BART parking garage is associated with residential development and
not commercial development, the $6,000,000 in costs associated with the parking garage
should be imposed only on residential development. Accordingly, the proposed fee
update includes an adjustment to the Section II fees, much like the existing Section I
Residential Adjustment, that applies only to residential development outside of the
Transit Center Area to fund the portion of the costs of the BART parking garage
attributable to Eastern Dublin. The adjustment is described as the Section II BART
Parking Adjustment.
Calculation of the Fee.
The following is a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the new fee,
as shown on the attached Table 1, dated May 25, 2004.
Line 1 - Cost of Improvements/Right-of-Way Not Currently Guaranteed
The cost of remaining improvements and right-of-way to be funded by the TIF is
shown in Attachments 1 through 5. The revised cost estimate (Attachment 1, Cost
Estimate Summary) includes the following changes:
a) The costs of improvements that have already been completed or are guaranteed
have been removed from the total estimate.
b) The cost of fight-of-way acquisition has been increased to reflect higher land
values in the Eastern Dublin area. The revised right-of-way cost estimates were based
on the Valuation Analys..i.~.R..eport for Traffic and Facility Impact Fee Study, Dublin
Ranch and Portions of Emerald Glen East of Tassajar.....a._..Creek in East Dublin, May,
2003, prepared by Associated Right-of-Way Services, Inc. The appraisal is available
for public review at the Department of Public Works
c) The cost of the improvements for the remaining street segments not guaranteed
under existing improvement agreements has been increased to cover minor changes in
the scope of improvements on these streets. Those changes are summarized as
follows:
The cost of the Community Park frontage right-of-way has been added to the TIF,
as these improvements benefit all of Eastern Dublin. The park is located in the
eastern portion of Dublin Ranch along Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, and
Fallon Road (Segments 18A, 20, and 26A). The 1999 update included only cost
of frontage improvements, with the right-of-way paid out of the Public Facilities
Improvement Fee..Frontage costs reflect the realignment of Fallon Road to follow
the Old Fallon Road right-of-way, which is 600' west of the alignment shown on
the existing General Plan.
Page 6 of 19
The cost of Segment 11, Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway
Boulevard, has been amended to include the improvements and right-of-way for
the two outside lanes in easterly 3,000' section through the Extended Planning
Area, east of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Since this area currently has
little development potential, frontage improvements will not likely be bome by
adjoining properties and would therefore need to be paid out of the TIF. The 2004
Update Study assigns 50% of the entire cost of this portion of Dublin Boulevard
to the TIF. City of Livermore Staff has agreed to incorporate the remaining 50%
of the cost for this improvement into the on-going update of Livermore's TIF
program.
The Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation (EDPOA) SEIR shows the need
to provide an additional northbound lane on Hacienda Drive over the 1,580
interchange (Segment 15), as well as widen the existing eastbound and westbound
off-ramps from four lanes to five lanes. This requires reconstruction of the
existing westbound loop on-ramp. These improvements are necessary to serve
cumulative traffic generated from development within the TIF boundary.
The cost of bridge construction on Tassajara Road north of Fallon Road (Segment
22) has been increased to provide creek stabilization and possible habitat
mitigation. In addition, the cost has been revised to reflect the proposed Tassajara
Road precise alignrnent, which differs from the alignment used in the 1999
update; the current costs include free-right turn lanes southbound at Fallon Road
with a grade separated pedestrian walkway.
The cost of bridge construction on Fallon Road south of Tassajara Road (Segment
26) has been modified to reflect the current bridge design, and includes grading
work needed to provide the approach fills.
Right-of-way and improvement costs have been increased on Fallon Road
between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway (Segment 26A) to reflect the change
from a four-lane road to a six-lane road.
The existing southbound left turn lane at the Village Parkway/Amador Valley
Boulevard intersection must be lengthened to provide adequate storage for
additional trips to Eastern Dublin.
A separate fight tum lane is needed on southbound Arnold Road at Dublin
Boulevard, as identified in the SEIR for the IKEA Retail Center development.
A traffic study will be performed to analyze overall traffic impacts on the 1-580
corridor from trips generated from new development and regional through traffic.
A portion of the costs of BART parking structure to be constructed with the
Transit Center at the Eastern Dublin BART station will be assigned to the TIF to
Page 7 of 19
reflect that Eastem Dublin residential development creates the needs for that
percentage of the garage facility.
d) The cost of additional improvements required of the Transit Center project has
been added. These additional improvements are summarized as follows:
Scarlett Drive will be widened from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway
between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard (Segment 21, as required under
Condition 27 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40 ). Costs include
right-of-way for the reconstruction of the existing Iron Horse Trail, which lies on
the proposed Scarlett Drive alignment.
Improvements at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road and
the Dougherty Road/I-580 Interchange (Segments 3,4, 6 and 7) previously
assigned to the Transit Center have been added to the TIF. This includes a second
northbound right-turn lane, lengthened triple westbound left-tm lanes, a third
eastbound through lane, a fourth southbound through lane on Dougherty Road
between Dublin Boulevard and the 1-580 westbound onramp, and widening of the
diagonal westbound onramp to two lanes, as described in Condition 26 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40.
Modifications are required at the Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange (Segment 15)
to widen the existing westbound offramp from four lanes to five lanes, and widen
the northbound overcrossing to four lanes at the interchange, as described in
Condition 29 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40.
e) Right-of-way and improvement costs include an allowance for frontage
improvements which are typically the responsibility of the adjoining property owner
in certain areas where the development potential of the adjoining property is limited
and the land may not develop. These locations are detailed in Attachments 3 and 4
and are generally located on the northem end of Tassajara Road. The allowance will
allow the Tile to pay for the cost of improvements or right-of-way in the event these
are needed to allow the orderly and safe development of the surrounding area. This
allowance would be used only if necessary and its inclusion in the TIF does not
relieve the property owner of the responsibility of this work. Developers will not
receive credit for frontage improvements if these improvements are installed by the
developer in conjunction with development of the property.
f) The cost of the Zone 7 fee for new impervious surfaces has been added to each
segment. Costs are detailed in Attachment 5.
The costs for the remaining improvements have been summarized in four categories:
Page 8 of 19
Section I Improvements $76,470,693
section I Residential Improvements ........... $__1..~935,859
Section II Improvements .............. $43,465,782
Section II Residential BART Parking $6,000,000..
Total Costs $127,872,334
The Section I improvements are required solely to accommodate development of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. This report assigns 100% of the cost of each
Section 1 improvement to the Section I TIF.
The Section I Residential Improvements category includes several improvements that
benefit only the residential development in Eastern Dublin. These improvements
include the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail and one Park and Ride lot near Fallon
Road (a second Park and Ride Lot has been constructed by the Koll Corporate Center
on Tassajara Road). The City of Livermore will contribute 50% of the cost of the
3,000 foot portion of Dublin Boulevard outside the City of Dublin Sphere of
Influence. The report assigns 100% of the cost of the remainder of the improvements
to the Section I Residential Tlle.
The Section II improvements are needed to accommodate development of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Area, as well as serve traffic generated outside of the Specific
Plan Area. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Section II TIF fund only a share of the
improvement costs based on the proportion of traffic generated within the Specific
Plan Area. The Section II TIF is assigned 50% of the total cost of the Fallon Road/1-
580 Interchange, with the remainder of the costs assigned to the Cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore. Scarlett Drive and portions of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
are partially funded by prior traffic mitigation fees paid by development in the
Downtown area. The costs for the remaining Section II improvements are assigned at
100% of the total cost.
The Section II Residential BART Parking category includes that portion of the
Eastern Dublin BART Parking Garage that serves parking generated from residential
development in Eastern Dublin (this is approximately 500 spaces out of 1,680 total
spaces, or 30% of the total structure cost). This report assigns this cost to the Section
II Residential BART Parking TIF. This fee will be paid only by residential
development outside the Transit Center, as development within the Transit Center
would not travel by automobile to access the BART Station.
Line 2 - Balance Due on TIF Credits
The City of Dublin received funding advances from County of Alameda, the City of
Pleasanton and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for construction of
certain improvements needed to serve Eastern Dublin development ("the funding
Page 9 of 19
advances"). In addition, between 1995 and the present, several developers in the
Eastem Dublin Specific Plan area constructed or guaranteed various improvements
funded by the TIF. Pursuant to the TIF, each such developer received TIF credits in
return.
Portions of the funding advances have been repaid. Further, developers have utilized
portions of their credits against TIF fees that would otherwise be due with building
permits, reducing the value of the remaining credits. A summary of credits per
developer is shown on Attachment 6, based on a detailed history of loans and credit
agreements provided by the Finance Division on November 10, 2003 and on March 4,
2004.
The three loans to the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, and BART are subject
to interest payments on the unpaid principal. The interest to be paid must be added to
the TIF. For the purpose of estimating the cost of the interest, it is assumed that the
City of Dublin will utilize 90% of the Section I and II fee revenue over each of the
next eight years as payment on the loans, allowing the loans to be paid in full over
that time period. The means of accruing the needed funds is discussed later in this
memorandum.
The credit total includes several adjustments for improvements, right-of-way, or fee
payments for which credits are pending and expected to be completed prior to
adoption of the 2004 Update. This includes a cash payment by the Quarry Lane
School for its Phase 1 development, improvement and dedication of Gleason Drive
(Segment 20) by the Lin Family as part of the Dublin Ranch Area A infrastructure,
and improvement and dedication of both Dublin Boulevard (Segment 10) and Central
Parkway (Segment 18A) between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way as part of the
Fairway Ranch development.
The Section I Residential Surcharge credit balance has been adjusted to reflect credits
given for the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail since the 1999 TIF update. These
changes are detailed on Attachment 6a.
The outstanding TIF credit balances as of March 4, 2004 are shown below:
Section I Improvements $59,669,243
Section I Residential Improvements $2,981,334
Section II Improvements $5,969,269
Section II Residential BART Parking N/A
Total Costs $68,~19,84'7 ....
Page 10 of 19
The above costs must be included in the revenue to be raised under the revised TIF
Section I and Section II fees, in order that adequate funds are available to reimburse
the credit holders.
Line 3 - Total Cost of TIF Improvements (Lines 1 and 2)
This line, which is the sum of Lines 1 and 2, shows the total cost of all improvements
remaining to be funded under the TIF. Total costs by category are as follows:
Section I Improvements ..... ..$.! 36,139,936
~ect!oE I Residential Improvements ................ $4,917,193
Section II Improvements $49,435,051
Section II Residential BART Parking $6,000,00.0
Total Costs ..........
Line 4 - Current TIF Fee Account Balance, Section I
Fees collected from the building permits issued to date that have not been allocated to
specific TIF improvements, remain in a reserve account and can be deducted from the
total revenue to be raised by the revised fees. The cash balance of Section I TIF fee
revenues as of March 4, 2004 has been provided by the Finance Division, as shown
on Attachment 7. The current balance is $53,732.
Line 5 - Current TIF Fee Account Balance, Section
The cash balance of Section II TIF fee revenues as of March 4, 2004 has been
provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is $4,609,182, as shown on
Attachment 7.
Line 6a - Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fee Account Balance
The City of Dublin has negotiated an agreement with the County of Contra Costa for
the payment of funds to provide traffic improvements on City of Dublin streets
necessitated by development in the Dougherty Valley. The estimated level of
contribution is $13,473,460. Under the terms of the agreement, these funds must be
spent on selected roads impacted by Dougherty Road traffic, specifically Dougherty
Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road.
The cash balance of Dougherty Valley impact fees as of March 4, 2004 has been
provided by the Finance Division. The current balance is $2,290,841. For the purpose
of the TIF update, the balance is split equally between Section I and Section Ii, or
$1,145,421 for each account, as shown on Attachment 7. Revenues are split equally
between the two Sections based on the agreement between the City and the County of
Page 11 of 19
Contra Costa, which calls for the Dougherty Valley fees to be used for the
improvement of Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road.
The Section I (Tassajara Road and Fallon Road) and Section II (Dougherty Road and
Scarlett Drive) costs are approximately equal for these four roadways, and revenues
will be assigned in equal amounts to each section.
Line 6b - Section I Residential Fee Collected to Date (Credit to Residential Account
Balance)
A portion of the Section i fees collected to date include the residential surcharge. The
fees collected to date should be applied against the remaining cost of the Section I
residential improvements. Since the surcharge is not collected as a separate fee, the
total fees collected must be estimated by the number of building permits issued to
date. The estimate is detailed in Attachment 8. The estimated fees are $1,344,110.
This amount may be deducted from the remaining residential surcharge costs.
However, since these funds are included in the Finance Division Section I account
balance, this amount must be deducted from the account balance, which results in an
increase in the remaining Section I costs.
Line 7 - Adjusted Cost of Remaining Improvements (Line 3 -Lines 4-6)
The total cost of the TIF improvements and credits (Line 3) is decreased by the
current balance of fees not encumbered for specific projects (Lines 4-6)
Lines 8a and 8b - Estimated Section I and Section II Fees from Remaining Trips
(10,600).
A list of current approved development projects is shown on Attachment 9. For the
purpose of calculating the revised TIF, it is assumed that the projects on this list will
be issued building permits accounting for 10,600 trips prior to the revised TIF taking
effect; therefore, payment of the TIF will be made at the existing rate (actual payment
will be at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). The revenue raised from
fees applied to these trips can be deducted from the total revenue to be raised by the
revised fees. Estimated revenues from the remaining trips collected at the old rate are
$4,144,600 for Section I and $1,049,400 for Section II. It is noted that, with this
update, all of these trips happen to be from residential development.
Line 9 - Estimated Section I Residential Fees From Remaining Residential Trips (10,600)
Collected at Current Rate
For the purpose of calculating the revised TIF, it is assumed that building permits
accounting for 10,600 residential trips will be issued prior to the new fee taking
effect, and that payment of the TIF will be at the existing rate (actual payment will be
Page 12 of 19
at the rate in effect at the time the permits are issued). This will generate Section I
Residential Improvement revenue in the amount of $508,800.
Line 10 - Remaining Dougherty Valley Traffic Mitigation Fees
The total remaining Dougherty Valley fees (see discussion under Line 6a above) to be
collected are equal to the amount available under the agreement minus fees collected
to date (account balance and funds transferred out to projects). This amount is equal
to $5,959,814.60 for each section. The detail is shown on Attachment 7.
Line 11 - Adiusted Costs to be Financed by Revised Fee (Line 7 - (Lines 8, 9 and 10))
The adjusted cost of the remaining improvements (Line 7) must be further adjusted to
reflect the portion of the work to be financed by the revised TIF fee. This is done by
subtracting the estimated fees to be collected under the old rate as well as the
estimated remaining Dougherty Valley revenue (Lines 8, 9, and 10). Total cost by
category is as follows:
Section I Improvemen~.~ ......... . ................................. $126,180,479
Section I Residential Improvements ............. $.3~064,283
~ction !I ImEroyements ....................... $36,671,234
Section II Residential BART Parking $6,000,000
,T.,0t a!,_C,._osts $171,915,996
Line 12 - Total Remaining Trips ~ubject to Fees
A list of pending and buildout projects subject to the Eastem Dublin TIF is shown on
Attachment 10. Trip generation is based on General Plan land use designations and
densities approved within the Eastern Dublin TIF area. Land uses for each specific
property and anticipated densities were determined by the Community Development
Department. For the purpose of estimating the revised fee, it is assumed that these
projects will all receive building permits after the revised fee has gone into effect. The
list has been revised to reflect the current status of land use entitlements. The revised
total number of trips subject to the TIF is 296,836. It should be noted that the purpose
of this list is to develop an estimate of trips for the purpose of calculating the fee, .~d.
should not imply approval of land uses or densities for svecific vrol~erties beyond any
existing entitlements for those properties. Also, actual fees will be based on the trip
rates for land uses shown on Exhibit C, and not th~. proiections shown on Attachment
10.
One commercial project is shown as creating no vehicle traffic. This is the retail use
within the Transit Center. The retail use will serve residents within the development
through pedestrian access, and will not generate vehicle trips from the outside. This
retail use will be exempt from paying the TIF.
Page 13 of 19
There is a nominal amount of ancillary retail use within the Fairway Ranch high-
density residential project, which is not shown in Attachment 10. This retail use will
also be exempt from paying TIF fees, as it will not generate additional vehicle trips.
A list of residential-only projects is shown on Attachment 10a. The total number of
residential trips is 68,257.
The total number of estimated trips includes 49,030 total trips and 9,030 residential
trips from the Transit Center project, which is being annexed to the TIF with this
update.
Line 13 - Revised Fee (Cost per Trip)(Line 11 divided by Line 12)
The revised fee for each section is determined by dividing the cost of improvements
(Line 11) by the number of trips subject to the fee (Line 12).
The increase in the Section I fee is approximately 9%. The table below shows the
major cost changes responsible for the cost increase; costs are approximate and do not
include miscellaneous minor changes.
Page 14 of 19
Costs to be Financed by TI1e (1999 Update) ................ $112,589,633
8% Cost Escalation to 2004 $9,007,171
200.4.. Value of TIF .Costs (rounded...t.0.... the nearest $1,000) $121,597,000
Section I Fees Received Since 1999 (65,000 trips, $361-$39!/.~rip). .... ($25,097,000)
Remaining TIF Costs " $96,500,000
5dditiopal Right-of-Way Cost Increases Above .1..0°./~ ....................... $6,000,000
Hacie. gda Dri.ye~I...r.5 ..8.p...~terchange, Widen W/B Offramp $1,245,000
Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange, Widen N/B Overcrossing .................... $3,020,000
Hacienda Dri.ve/..!-5O0..~terchange, Widen E/B Offramp $1,435,000
Arnold Road Southbound Right Tum Lane at Dublin Boulevard $200,000
_Zone 7 F_ees $!,.700~.000..
Community ~ark...Frp .n. tgge Right-of-Way $2,400,000
DiManto Property Right-of-Way Condemnation ............................... $3,500,000
Tassajara Road Improvements ................................... $9,300,000
Additional Interest,, .Lo.....ans $1,200,000
I-580 Corridor Stud), .............................. $100,000
City Entry Signs $..!.00..,.0..0.0__
Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road Intersection Alignment Study $100,000
Loss of Anticipated Dougherty Valley Fees ($6.5 M vs. $9.1 M) ....... $2,600,000
City of Livermore Contribution to Dublin Blvd, Fallon Road to Airway ($3,200,000)
Blvd.
Total Additional Costs .... $29,700,00'0'
Total Costs $126,200,000
% Cost Increase (Cost Increase Factor) ...................
Total Trips w/o Transit Center .............................. 247,806
Additional Trips From Transit Center ......................... 49,030
Total Trips .................. 296,836
% Trips Increase rounded to nearest full % (Trip Increase Factor) ............... 20% (1.20)
Fee Increase (Cost Increase. F.._a.ct.or / Trip Increase Factor) 9% (1.09)
The total number of remaining trips in the original TIF subject to the revised fee is
247,806; this number is increased approximately 20% to 296,836 by the addition of
Page 15 of 19
49,030 trips from the Transit Center. The addition of these trips reduces the actual fee
increase to 9%.
There is a minor decrease in the Section I Residential fee of 6%. The scope of the
remaining improvements remained largely unchanged, with the cost increased by 10%
to allow for five years of inflation. The total number of remaining residential trips in
the original TIF subject to the revised fee is estimated at 59,227; this number is
increased approximately 15% to 68,257 by the addition of 9,030 trips from the Transit
Center. The addition of these trips is the reason for the drop in the fee.
The increase in the Section II fee is 25%. Major cost increases are summarized as
follows:
Page 16 of 19
Costs to be Financed by TIF (1999 Update) $28,478,389
8% Cost Escalation to 2004 $2,278,271
2004 Value of TIF Costs $30,756,660
Section II Fees Received Since 1999 (65,000 Trips at $91-$99/trip) ($6,156,660)
Remaining TIF Costs $24,600,000
-'~lition&l Costs
_.D.o_ugherty Road, Traffic Signal Modification $350,000
Dublin Boulevard (Transit Center Share) $500,000
Dougherty Road (Transit Center Share) $4,000,000
Dougherty Road/1-580 Interchange $1,700,000
(Transit Center Improvements)
Scarlett Drive $2,300,000
(Transit Center Imprpvements)
Fallon Road / 1-580 Interchange (Increased City Participation) .. $2,500,000
Airway Boulevard Interchange ($2,100,000)
(~h-eady Built By City of Livermore)
Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard SB left Tum Modification $150,000
Loss of Anticipated Dougherty Valley Fees ($7.1 M vs. $10.5 M) $3,400,000
Additional Int .er.e..st..,_.!~oans ................ $600,000
Dublin Boulevard Widenin~project, Village Parkway to Sierra Court $1,100,000
Downtown Traffic Impact Fees ($2,400,000)
-¥otai'Xdaitiona! Costs $ 2, oo,ooo
T0ial Costs $36,700,000
% Cost Increase ro_u_n.d.ed ~o. ne.ar, est full % (Trip Increase Factor) 50% (1.50)
Total Trips W/o Transit Center 247,806
Additional Trips From Transit Center 49,030
Total Trips 296,836
...%_T....fi.Ps .Increase (Trip Increase Factor) 20% (1.20)
Fee Incr'~as~'"i'C°st' Increase Factor / Trip Increase Factor) 25% (1.2~)
The total number of remaining trips in the original TIF subject to the revised fee is
247,806; this number is increased approximately 20% to 296,836 by the addition of
Page 17 of 19
49,030 trips from the Transit Center. The addition of these trips reduces the actual fee
increase to 25%.
The Section II Residential BART Parking fee is a new fee, and therefore there is no
comparison to the old fee.
Payment Plan for Interest-Bearing Loans
The TIF program is liable for payments on certain loans by third parties for TH
infrastructure. As many developers pay the TIF with credits, very little cash is
available to repay these loans. The 2004 Update uses an eight-year payoff period in
determining the interest costs for the three interest-bearing loans. This requires that
the Update include a plan for accruing adequate fee revenues to meet the assumed
payment schedule. It should be noted that the payment plan is developed for the
purpose of estimating interest costs, and is not a commitment to fully pay these loans
within this schedule. Actual payments will be based on the actual revenue obtained
from development, which may vary from the projections in the 2004 Update due to
developer's schedules, economic conditions, etc.
Attachment 12 includes a discussion of the three loans and a proposal to pay off the
loan principals. The discussion includes a critical point: although the total eight-year
interest amount of the loans is a very small portion of the TIF costs, historically the
revenue from TIF cash payments has only been adequate to pay the annual interest on
the loan and not reduce the principal. If this state of affairs were to continue, the
interest payments would continue indefinitely because the principal would never be
lowered. The ongoing interest payments result in the loss of fees that could otherwise
be used to construct improvements or pay back existing credits.
The 2004 Update includes the provision that the minimum Section I cash payment be
increased from 3% of the total fee to 11%, and that the minimum Section Ii cash
payment be increased from 12.4% to 25% of the total fee. Developments with
existing development agreements would continue to pay the portion of the TIF in cash
specified in the development agreement. The City will utilize the appropriate
percentage of the fee revenue for loan repayment, with the remaining percentage of
the fees retained for use on capital improvements funded by the fee or for
administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Analysis of the eight-year cash flow for the Section 11 account shows that there is
adequate Section ii funding to allow loan payments and also fund scheduled Capital
Improvement Projects (specifically, improving the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty
Road intersection and widening Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Dougherty Road
to Sierra Court) that are funded through the TIF.
The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, in addition to receiving cash
payments against the existing Section 1I loan, may utilize the existing loan as credit
Page 18 of 19
against Section II fees which would otherwise be due. Since this will result in a
decrease in Section 11 revenue and also result in a more rapid payment of the loan, the
City may suspend payments on the ACSPA loan if necessary to maintain adequate
funds for Section II capital improvement projects.
G:IEDTIF Update~2004 Study Update. DOC
Page 19 of 19
Table 2
2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
Detail of Total Costs (Prior to Adjustments) by Section and Project Segment
Credits or Advances
Segment 2004 Cost Estimate Balance at 3/10/04 Total
SECTION I IMPROVEMENTS
8 Dublin I~oulevard Extension - Southern Pacific R/W to East BART Access $ 265,345.60 $ 265,345.60
8A Dublin Boulevard Extension - East BART Access to Hacienda Ddve $ 612,095.80 $ 612,095.80
9 Dublin Boulevard - Hacienda to Tassaj.~ara Road $ · 195,325.00 $ 195,325.00
10 Dublin Boulevard - Tassajara Road to Fallon Road $ 61773,679.10 $ 6,773,679.10
11 Dublin Boulevard Extension - Fallon Road to Airway $ 12,620,161.00 $ 12,620,161.00
13 Hacienda - 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard Extension (not including interchange) $ $
14 Hacienda - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive $ 445,353.92 $ 445,353.92
15 Freeway Interchange - Hacienda Road with 1-580 $ 5,700,000.00 $ 5,700,000.00
16 Arnold Drive - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason $ 3,772,937.91 $ 3,772,937.91
16A Central Parkway - Arnold to Hacienda $ 357,497.72 $ 357,497.72
17 Central Parkway - Hacienda to Tassajara $ 1,903,486.47 $ 1,903,486.47
18 Central Parkway - Tassajara Road to Keegan Street $ 151,067.80 $ 151,067.80
18A Central Parkway - Keegan Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet $ 4,628,468.00 $ 4,628,468.00
19 Gleason - Arnold Road to Hacienda $ 81,250.00 $ 81,250.00
19A Gleason - Hacienda to Tassajara $ $
20 Gleason - Tassajara to Fallon $ 379,718.30 $ 379,718.30
22 Tassajara Road - 5,000 feet north of Gleason to Contra Costa County Line $ 15,961,385.12 $ 15,961,385.12
22A Tassajara Road - Gleason Road to 5,000 feet north of Gleason Road $ 3,675,284.50 $ 3,675,284.50
23 Tassajara Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road $ 670,958.96 $ 670,958.96
24 Tassajara Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1-580 (not including intemhange) $ 142,876.20 $ 142,876.20
25 Tassajara Road - Freeway Interchange $ - , .............. $
26 Fallon Road - Tassajara to Gleason $ 7,396,405.60 $ 7,396,405.60
26A Fallon Road - Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension $ 8,726,697.02 $ 8,726,697.02
27 Failon Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 $ 1,610,699.04 $ 1,610,699.04
Report Update $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Other Costs $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00
Existing Credits $ - $ .....59,66,9~,2,4.,3,.23 $ 59,669,243.23
TOTAL SECTION I iMPROVEMENTS $ 76,470,693.07 $ 59,669,243.23 $ 136,139,936.30
SECTION II IMPROVEMENTS
1 Dougherty Road - City Limits to Amador Valley Widening $ 3,348,516.00 $ 3,348,516.00
2 Dougherty Road - Amador Valley boulevard to Houston Place $ 3,167,756.82 $ 3,167,756.82
3 Dougherty Road - Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard $ 562,837.70 $ 562,837.70
4 Dougherty Road - Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off Ramp $ 5,587,007.86 $ 5,587,007.86
5 Dublin Boulevard - East of Village Parkway to Sierra Court Widening $ 1,138,400.00 $ 1,138,400.00
6 Dublin Boulevard - Sierra Court to Dougherty Road Widening $ 2,747,168.78 $ 2,747,168.78
7 Dublin Boulevard ~ Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way $ 1,061,221.19 $ 1,061,221.19
12 Freeway Interchange - Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 (Airway Blvd) $ $ -
21 Scadet Ddve - Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension $ 10,338,137.12 $ 10,338,13'~.12
28 Fallon and 1-580 Freeway Interchange with Signals $ 15,364,736.37 $ 15,364,736.37
Other Costs $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
$ 5,969,269.34 $ 5,969,269.34
.... Exi~t!ng Credits ............
TOTAL ............ $ ....43,465,'~'~1.84 $ 5,969,269,34, $ 49,4.3,5,05,.1,.,1.8
SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
29 Tassajara Creek Bike Path $ 1,062,179.40 $ 1,062,179.40
30 Park and Ride Lots $ 873,680.00 $ 873,680.00
Existing Credits $ 2,981,334.00 $ 2,981,334.00
TOTAL SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 1,935,859.40 $ 21981,334.00 $ 4,917,193.40
SECTION I I RESIDENTIAL BART PARKING IMPROVEMENT
$ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 {
I
TOTAL SECTION I RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 6,000,000.00 $ $ 6,000,000.00 '[
[GRAND TOTAL ALL IMPROVEMENTS I$ 127,872,334,31 [$ 68,619,846.57 [ $ 196,492,180.88I
Attachment 1 - Cost Estimate Summary
Dou~lher~ ROad - Segment 1
4,300 feet, 104 feet curb to curb
City Limits to Amador Valley tWidenin~)
Portion of Existing Improvements to be Re-Used
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Eastern Portion 4300 feet to be widened $ , ,2,~5,'?0,022.,0.0..,
Intersection Improvements
$ .......... ,2_op,9,90,.,po
; Right-o~:_W..a..y.
None $
............. S'u'btoial $ ................. 2,770,022.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Ma,,~,e,mei,nt.;,,,ROW Acq,uisition, 20.0% $ 554,004.40
Contincjency (Irn[~ovement, Ri~ht-of-Wa¥1, 10.0% $ 277,002.20
'' Subtotal $ ",i", .......... 3,601,,9.2.~'60
Downtown Traffic Miti~lation Fees $ (362,498.00)
$ 3,238,530.60
Zone 7 Fees $ 109,985.40
Total $ 3,348,516.00
DOu~lhe~ Road - Sediment 2 ........................
4,150 feet, 104 feet curb to curb
Amador Valley Bouldevard to Houston Place
Portion of Existinl~ Improvements to be Re-Used ......................
Totals for T'I'F Share"
Civil Improvements
3300 feet to be widened $ 1,972,058.40
Intersection Improvemen{~
$ ' ~3'07,604.05"
Ri~lht-of-Way
None $
Subtotal $ 2,479,662.40
(~i~ Administration, Desitin, Construction Mana~lement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% .................. $ .4.,9,5,93,2.48-
Contin~lency (Improvement, Ri~lht-of-WayI, 10.0% $ 247,966.24
Subtotal $ 3,223,561.12
Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees $ (161,953.00)
$ 3,061 ,§08.12
~0ne 7 Fees .................... $ 106,148.70
Total $ 3,167,756.82
Dou~hert¥ Road - Segment 3 .........................
Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900')
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
included Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvements .....
Dublin Boulevard to Sierra Lane, per City CIP $ 343,850.00
Ricjht-of-Way
per City CIP ...................... $ 138,690.00
Subtotal $ 482,540.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 12.0% ............................ $ 57,277.50
Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Way), &0% $
Subtotal $ 539,817.50
Zone 7 Fees $ ...... ..23.,0.2.9.2.O
Total $ 562,837.70
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 1 of 16, 6/9/2004
Dougherty .Road - Segment 4
550 feet
Dublin Boulevard to Norti~ of 1-580 Off-Ramp
Widen Roadway ..
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements ........
Westbound On-Ramp Improvements ....... $ 1,500,000.00
Intersection Improvements ...........
South Leg, per City CIP . . $ 1,028,300.00
Right-of-Way
South Leg, per City CIP ............ $ 2,957,420.00
Subt'ota'i $ 5,485,720.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW' ~,cquisit!o.n. ,_.12% $ 651,154.96
Cont!ngency (Improvement, Right-of-Way) 0% $
Subtotal $ "6,136,874.~'"
Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees .......... $ (563,935.00)
$ 5,572,939.96
Zone 7 Fees $ 14,067.90
Total $ 5,587,007.86
Dou~hert¥ Road Subtotal (~i'~'h0~ F~vay Interchange) (Segments 1, 2, 3 & 4) .......... . $ 12,412,896.t8
(Note that the City of San I~amon and con{r~'C6sta c(~uh{y a~e responsible fo~that portion of'
Dou~herty Road from the City Limits no~h .t..o...O..Id Ranch Road)
Zone 7 Fees (Segments 1, 2, 3 & 4) $ 253,222.20
Subtotal $ 12,666,118.38
' D~'~Ji'r{' Boulevar,d,,,? Segment 5 .............. . ...........
1,800 feet, 108 Right.of-way, 6 Lanes
East. of Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
Under Construction (C...I.!y Capital Improvement Proiect) ....
...... Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements .....
Additional Construction Costs $
Intersection Improvements with right of way
$
$
Bridge Widening ............... $
Ri~lht-of-Wa¥ and Demo .........
$
Subtotal $
City Administration, Design, C0'r~structi~'~"'l~anagement, ROW Acquisition, 20% ............... $
Contingency (Improvement, Right-of-Wa)/) 10% $
....... Subtotal ~
Zone 7 Fees $
Total $ 1,138,400.00,
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 2 of 16, 6/9/2004
Dublin Boulevard - S.e~l...m.ent 6
2,030 feet, 108 Right-of.-W.a.~..6 Lanes
Sierra Court to Doughert¥ Road (Wldenln~l)..
Future Improvements Will be Similar to Segment 5 ....
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Sierra Court to DUblin Court, per City CIP $ 1,138,700.00
Intersection Improvements ................
Dublin Court to Dougherty Roa.d., per City.ClP $ 702,000.00
Dublin Court to Dougherty Road, Construct Double EIB left Turn La.n._e..(Rebuild MedianI $ 150,000,00
Right-of-Way
Sierra Court to Dublin Court, per City CIP ................. $ 496,500.00
$ 439,1'39.00
Dublin Court to Dougherty Road, per City CIP .............
Subtotal $ 2,926,3'~'9.0b
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, i2% $ 347,356,44
Contingenc¥ I~/mprovement~Right-of-Way) 0% $
.............. Subtotal $ 3,273,695.44
Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees ...... $ .. (5.78;4...5..0;.0...0.
$ 2,695,245.44
Zone 7 Fees $ 51,923,34
Total $ 2,747,168.78
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 7
1,65'0 feet, 6 Lanes
Doughert¥ to Southern Pacific Ri~lht-of-.W. ay .....................
(Capital Improvement Project)
....... Totals for Tl'lE'Share
Intersection Improvements ..........
East Leg, per City ClP $ 948,620;00
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, R0W 'i~,cclu. Ls.j.ti.on, 12% $ 112,601.19
Total $ 1,061,2~'1',1'9
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific R!.~lht-of-Way) (Segments 5, 6 and 7) $ 4,894,866~63
Zone 7 Fees {Segments 5, 6 and 7) ........ $ 5t,923.34
Subtotal $ 4,946,789.97
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 8 .............
1,950 fee. tr. 6 L..a..n. es ...........
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to East BART Acce, s~ .....
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements ........
800 ff median island, path and path right of wa)/on north side ............ $ .149,904.0,0
intersection Improvements ...............
$ 54,208.00
Right-0f~Wa)/ ..................
None $ -
Subtotal $ 204,112.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistion, 2~/o .... . ..... $ 40,822.40
Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Wa)/) 10% $ 20,411.20
............. Subtotal $ 265,345.6d
Zone 7 Fees N/A
Total $ 265,345,60
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 3 of 16, 6/9/2004
Dublin Boulevard Extensi'~)~.~.S,e.,g.m. ~i.n.t.,8A
2,650 feet, 6 Lanes
East BART Access (Iron Horse Parkway) to Hacienda Drive .......
Totals for TiF Share
Civil Improven~ents ._
Path o? north side (no ~ther roadway improvementsI ......... $ 307,824.00
Intersection Improvemnts .............
$ 15o,~56.ob'
Right:of-Way
none $ .......... -
Subtotal $ 458,074.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 91,614.80
Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 45,807.40
Subtotal $ 595,496.20
Zone 7 Fees $ 16,599.60
......... Total $ 612,095.8..0'
Dublin Boulevard - Se~l .merit' 9 ....................
4,600 feet, 6 Lanes
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
Complete
" Totals for TIF share
civil Improvements ...................................
$
Intersection I~provements with ri~lht of wax
$ 150,250,00
Bridge ....... $
Right-of-Way .............
$
$~][Ji~t~i' $ ,150,250.00
Cib/Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acq. uis,,ti,tion, 20% $ 30,050.00
Contingenc)/I~pr0vem?tst Right-of:Way) 10% ........... $ 15,025.00
Total $ 195,325.00
Dublin Boulevard -Segment 10
.... 6;3,20 feet, 6 Lanes ..................
Tassaiara Road to Fallon
Tassajara Road to Keegan Street is Complete, Keegan ~'treet to Lockhart Way Is Under Construction
.............. Totals for TIF'Sha'r~ ....................
Civil Improvements
Tassajara Road to Keegan Street: Overlay, Striping, Markings, Median Landscaping (3645 feet) $ 239,754,00
Keegan Street to Lockhart Way: Overlay, Striping, Markings (700 feet) ........................... $ 9,677.00
Lockhart Way to Fallon Road:$885/If and 50% (cl to cl), (1 ff grading inclu.de.d..).;...(...1.;...9..75 feet) $ 873,937.50
Intersection Improvements ................... $ 437,990,00
Box Culvert ........... $ ...... .1....2.0.;...000.00
Right-of-Wa)/ ........ ' ................. $ 3,490,305.0.0....
Subtotal $ 5,171,663.50
Cib/Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW ~.cq..u.i..s..!.!!0n, 20% $ 1,034,332,70 ...........
$ 517,166.35
Contingency {!mprovements~ Ri~lht,of-W~ ~ 0% .........
Subtotal $ ......... 6,723,162,55
~:~)ne 7 Fees .... $ 50,516.55
........... Total $ 6,77,3,6,7,,9,10
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 4 of 16, 6/9/2004
Dublin Boulevard Extension -Segment 11 .................
8,000 feet, 6 Lanes
Fallon Road to Airway
........ All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
$885/If; 50% (cl to cl), (1 ft grading included), 5,000 If; 100%, 3,000 If $ 4,867,500.00
Intersection Improvements
$ 622,660.00
.Brid~le
$ 1,~o,ooo.o9
Right-of-way ............... . ..........
$ 4,890,240.00
..................... Subt~i~l $ ...... 12,000,400.00
C...!ty Administr~iion, Design, Construction Mana~lement, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ .............. 2,400,080.00
Contin~lenc7 (Improvements, Right-of-Wa),) 10% $ 1,200,040.00
Subtotal $ 15,600,520.0(~
City of Livermore Contribution
Civil Improvements ......................
$885!1f, 50%, 3,000 If $ ........ (1,327,500.00)
Right-of-Way ......... $ (1,152,000.00)
City Administration and Contingency (30%) $ (743,850.00)
Total City of Livermore Contribution $ (3,223,350,00)
Subtotal $ 12,377,170,00
Zone 7 Fees $ 242,991.00
Total $ ................. 12,620,161,00
Dublin Boulevard Extension (SP R/W to Alrwa.~.}...S..ubtotal (without Freeway Interchan~le) $ 20,156,499.35
(The City of D~Jblin borrowed $2,408,955 from the City of Pleasanton to build the 40 ft width of
Dublin Boulevard Extension from SPRW to Tassajara Road; loan is included under credits) $ .........
Subtotal $ 20,156,499.35
Zone 7 Fees (Sediments 8, SA, 9, 10 and tt) .................... $ 310,107.t5
Subtotal $ 20,466,606.50
Freeway Interchan~le .~ Se~Lment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 (Airway Boulevard)
.................. Complete
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improven~'ents ....... ' ................... . .....
n/a
Ri~ht-Of-Wa¥ n/a
"s,btotal"$
cib/Administration, Desitin, Construction Man,,a~tement, ROW AccluiStition, 20% n/a
Contingency (Improvements, Ril~lht-of-Wa¥) 10% ....... n/a
Total $
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 5 of 16, 6/9/2004
............. Hacienda - Sediment 13
1,525 feet, 6 Lanes
1-580_(..N.,0t Includin~l interchan~le) to Dublin Boulevard Extension
Complete
Totals for TIF Share
~'iv'ii"lm provements .......
$
;intersection Improvements
$
R,i~ibt-of-Wa¥ , , .......
$
Subtotal $
CitY Administration, Design, Construction Managementl ROW Acquistition, 20% $ -
Contingency/Improvements, Right-of*Way) 10% $
Total $
Hacienda - Segment 14
2,640 feet, 6 Lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to GleaS°n Drive
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
800 ft and 1800 ft lengths $ 298,609.20
Intersection Improvements
$ 31,250.OO
Rio, Iht-of-Wa¥
none $
Subtotal $ 329,859.20
C!tYAdministr~tion, Design, C0nStruction~anagement, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 65,971.84
.C0n.tingenc¥ (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 32,985.92
Subtotal $ 4~8,816.96
Zone 7 Fees $ 16,536,96
Total ~ 445,353.92
Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchange) ISe~lments 13 and 14) $ 428,816.96
Zone 7 Fees (Segments 13 and 14) $ 16,536.96
Subtotal $ 445,353.92
.... Freeway Interchange - Sediment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
W,,.[.den Offramps and Overcrossing per EDPO EIR
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
EIB Offramp IAdditional Lane) $ 1,435,000.00
W/B Offramp (Additional LaneI and NIB Overcrossing (Additional Lane) $ 4,265,000.00
Subtotal $ 5,700,000,00
Ci~ Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition,/Included in A~'~ve) $
Contincjenc¥ (Improvements, Rio. Iht-of-WayI (Included in Above) $
Total $ 5,700,000.00
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 6 of 16, 6/9/2004
Arnold Road,. ~.Se~lment 16
2,640 feet, 4 Lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason
~i i (Camp Parks is on one side of Roadw~y~
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
$ 2,427,578.21
IntersectiOn impr0Vemen{~
$ 445,000.00
Right-of-Way
$
Subtotal $ 2,872,578.21
City Administration, Desitin, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 574,515.64
~ontin~lenc¥ I~prov~ments~ IRi~lh~-of-Wa)/)? 0% $ 287,257.82
Subtotal $ 3,734,351,67
Zone 7 Fees $ 38,586.24
Total $ 3,772,937,91
Central Parkway - Segment 16A ...................................
t,400 feet, 4 Lanes
Arnold to Hacienda
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
(one 12ft lane and 16 ft median) $ 229,694.40
Intersection ImProvements
$ 31,250,00
Ri~lht-of-Wa¥
none $
Subtotal $ 260,944.40
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 52,188,88
Contingency (Improvements, Right;0f-Way) 10% $ 26,094,44
Subtotal $ 339,227,72
Zone 7 Fees $ 18,270,00
Total $ 357,497.72
Central Parkway - Segment 17
4,575 feet, 4 Lanes
Hacienda to Tassa. iara
............ m(~iais '~0r TIF Share
Civil Improvements
2500 feet of remodeled median $ 299,862.00
2000 feet of median and #1 lane in each direction; Ino pa[k improvements) $ 464,682,40
Intersection Improvements $
$ .93,750.0,,,,0,
iBrid~le
$ 640,000.00
Ri~lht-of-Wa¥
none, paid by park fees $ -
Subtotal $ 1,418,294.40
~!ty Administrati0nl Design~ ConstructiOn Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 283,658~88
Contingency (Improvements, Ri~lht-of-Wa¥) 10% $ 141,829..4.4,.
Subtotal $ 1,843,782.72
Zone 7 Fees $ 59,703.75
Total $ 1,903,486.47
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 7 of 16, 6/9/2004
Central Parkway -Sediment 18
4 Lanes
Tassajara to Keegan Street, Western 3,640 feet
All New Roadway
Complete
Civil Improvements (Overlay, Striping, Markings)
Median Landscapin~l
Totals for TIF Share
$ 30,158.00
$ 86,048.00
Sports Park
$
Right-of-Way
$
Subtotal $ 116,206.00
Total
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20%
Contingency (Improvements, Ri~iht-of-Wa¥1 10%
$ 23,241.20
$ 11,620.60
$ 151,067.80
Central Parkway - Segment 18A
4 Lanes
Kee~lan Street to Fallon, 2,230 feet
Road Is Under Construction Between Kee~an Street and Lockhart Way (800'), Remainder is New
(Fallon Road Is Located on Extstin~l Old Fallon Road Alignment)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
$ 464,064.00
770 + 84 (~6 ff 9radin~)~erlinear foot ~;~ 38% (1~430'~
Keegan Street to Lockhart Way: Overlay, Striping, Markings
Intersection Improvements
$ 7,655,00
$ 159,560.00
Sports Park
$ 246,346.00
Ri~lht-.of-W,a¥
$ 2,668,380.00
Subtotal $ 3,546,005.00
$ 709,201.00
City Administration, Desitin, Construction Mana~lement, ROW Acquistition, 20%
Contin~lenc¥ (Improvemen!~, Ri~lht-of-Wa¥) 10%
$ 354,600.50
Subtotal $
Zone 7 Fees
Central Parkway and Arnold Drive Subtotal (Segments 16, 16A, 17, t8 and 18A)
Total
4,609,806.50
$ 18,661.50
$ 4,628,468.00
10,678,236.41
Zone 7 Fees (Sediments 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 18A)
I $ 135r221.49
Subtotal $ 10~813~457.90
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 8 of 16, 6/9/2004
Gleason -....S.~gment 19 .....
1,600 feet, 4 Lanes
Arnold Road to Hacienda
Roadway Complete, Future Traffic Signal at Arnold..D.r.!.ve
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
none $
Intersection Improvements
$ 6.2.,.5.oo.o0
Right_of_Way .....
none $
Subtotal $ 62,500.00
City Administration, Design, Construction M~nag~,rnent, ROW Acc[uistition, 20% $ 12,500.00
Cont!n~lenc¥ (Improvements! Ri h~t-of:~a)/) 10% $ 6,250.00
Total $ 81,250.00
Gleason. Segment 19A ...............
4,650 feet, 4 Lanes
Hacienda to Taasajara
, ,_c.,.o..,..m.,p!~.t.~. ......
Totals for TIF Share
'Civil Improvements .
Cross-over work , $
Median and #1 lanes for !,,750 feet ........ $ -
Park work $
Intersection Improvements .............
$
$
Bridge ...........................
$
RiC, lht-of-Wa¥ ....................
$
Suhi~t'~;i'$
Cib/Administration, Design, Construction M'an'~nent, ROW Accluistition, 20% ............... $
C0nt!n~enc~/(Impr°Vements~ Right:of-~a~v) 10% ...... $
Total $
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 9 of 16, 6/9/2004
Gleason - Segment 20 ....................
4,800 feet, 4 Lanes
Tassajara to Fallon
... Construction Underway, R/W Dedlcat. ion.._P.:.r!0.r..to Aul~ust ~..,....2.004
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Diuanto Frontage: Me~!an Landscaping, Overlay, Striping and Markings $ 292,091.00
Intersection Improvemen. ts .............................
$
Sports Park $
$
Right-of-Way
$
Subtotal $ 292,091.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Mana~lement, ROW ACquistition, 20% $ 58,418.20
Cont!ngency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 29,209.10
Subtotal $ 379,718.30
Zone 7 Fees ....... $ ..........................
Total $ 379,718,30
Gleason Drive Subtotal (Segments 19, 19A and 20) ] $ 460,968.30
(Note the portion of Gleason Drive from Fallon Road to Doolan Road is not included because no developm6nt is proposed for
Doo!an Canyon es part of the Dublin General Plan Amendment)
$
Zone 7 Fees (Segments 19, 19A and 20)
Subtotal $ 460,968.30
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21
... 2,400 feet, 52 feet curb to curb, 80 ft R/W ..........................
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
;'~JJ Improvements .........................
$864/If @ 100% @ 1000', 1400' Complete @50% (south half complete) $ 1,469,102.40
Intersection Improvements
$ 195,700.00
i Miscellaneous Costs
$ 1,805,400.00
Right-of-Way
$ 4,700,000.00
Subtotal $ 8,170,202.40
Cib/Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 1,634,040.48
Contingency (Improvements, Right-of;WaY)i0% $ 817,020.24
Subtotal $ 10,621,263.12
Zone 7 Fees $ 20,880.00
bowntown Traffic Impact Fees ...................... ~ ..... "'~". .... (..304~..0.,,0.,6,.0_0,)
Total $ 10,338,137.12
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 10 of 16, 6/9/2004
Tassaiara Road - Segm~'nt '22 ............ , ...................
5,660 feet, 6 Lanes
5000 ft north of Gleason to COntra Costa County Line
All New Roadway
......... :l'otsls for TIF Share
Civil Improvements ..........................
median and 2 lanes, each direction $ 2,899,406.88
Intersection Improvements ........
$ 208,000.00
Miscellaneous Improvements
$ 778,400.00
Bridge .........................
$' 4,820,000,00
Right-of-Way
$ 3,460,819.00
Subtotal $ ......... 1...2.., 1_.6.6.~.6...2.5.88
City Adrnini~trati0n, D~sign, Construction Man..a~lement, ROW Accluistition, 20% $ 2,433,325.18
Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% ................ $ 1,216,662.59
. Sub!0.tal. $ 15,816,613.64
Zone 7 Fees $ 144,771.48
' Total' $ ..... 15,961,385.12
Tassaiara Road - Segment 22A .................................
5,000 feet, 6 Lanes
Gleason to 5,000 ft north of Gleason
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements ..............
1 lane, each direction, Gleason to North Dublin Ranch Drive (1300'); median and 2 lanes, each
direction, North Dublin Ranch Drive to north (3700') $ 1,821,744.00
Intersection Improvements ........................
$ ....................... ._5.3,~'~0.00
Miscellaneous Improvements
$ 160,078.00
Right-of-Way
$ 693,693.00
'Subtotal $ ................ 2,728,765.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Manp~.e._m..ent, ROW Accluistition, 20% $ 545,753.00
Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Wa),) 10% .................... $ 272,876.50
Subtotal $ 3,647,394.50
Zone 7 Fees $ 127,890.00
Total $ 3,675,284.50
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 11 of 16, 6/9/2004
.......... Tassa.iara Road - Sediment 23 ...........
2,470 feet, 6 and 8 Lanes
Dubiln Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road
.................... ' ....... All New RoadWay. ........ ' ......... , ....
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
1 lane in each direction $ 331,577.28
$
Intersection I m'p'~,'em~nts ..............
$ 159,750.00
Right-of-Way . ..
$
Subtotal $ 491,327.28
Cit~"A'dr~i~i~i'ration, Design, Construction Management, ROW ,~quistition, 20% $ 98,265.46
Contin~lency (Improvements, Ri~lht-of-Wa¥~ 10% $ 49,132.73
Subtotal $ 638,725.46
Zone 7 Fees $ 32,233.50
Total $ 670,9.58.96
Tassajara Road - Segment 24
800 feet, 8 Lanes
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1-580 (not in~i~di~l~l Inte'~l~r~e) ......................
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Add I 12foot lane ............... ~ 52,800.00
Intersection improvements .... ................
$ 53,250.00
Right-of-Way
$
.............................. Subtotal $ 106,050.00
City Administration, Desitin, Construction Mana~lement, ROW Acquistition, 20% $ 21,210,00
contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 10,605.00
Subtotal $ 137,865,00
Zone 7 Fees $ 5,011.20
Total $ 142,876.20
Tass~j~'~:~"~'~a~l' Sub~'otal (w'i'l[ho'ut Freeway Interchange) (~egments 22, 22A, 23 and 24). $ 20,140,598.61
Zone 7 Fees (Sediments 22, 22A? 23 and 2~l $. .............. 309,906.18
Total $ 20,450,504.79
TasSajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchan~te .............
Complete
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Intersection Improvements
Included
Right-of-Way
Excess Develope~ Contribution (to be refunded) $
State Grants $
Subtotal $
..C.!.!y..Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistitio. n, 20% ........ Included
Contin~lency (Improvements, Ri~lht-of-Wa¥) 10% $ -
Total $
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 12 of 16, 6/9/2004
....... Fallon Road - Sediment 26 ...........
8,080 feet, 4 Lanes
Tassaiara to Gleason
........................... Road Is Exlsti~l From Sl~lnal Hill Drive to Gleason Drive, R,e, mainder is New
Totals for TIF Share
~ii' I~p~0v'eme'~'is '"
Antone Wa), to Gleason, Drive: Median Landscaping, Striping,.,..M_a/kin~ls $ ' 2o,'~b'7.0b
Lin Propert)' (2000'), $770 per LF $ ........... 1,..5:4. 0;00.0.00
Silveria Propert7 (17001)? $770 per L~ $ 1,309,000.00
Intersection Improvements (South Leg at Tassajara Road)
$ 84,500.00
Bridge
$135*83W*125L $ 1,604,625.00
Right-of-Wa),
$ 1,049,400.00
Subtotal $ 5,608,432.00
Cit)' Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquistition, 20% ........ $ .................. 1,121,686.40
Contin~lency (Improvements, Rio. Iht-of-Wa),) 10% $ 560,843.20
Subtotal $ 7,290,961.60
Zone 7 Fees $ 105,444,00
Total $ 7,396,405.60
Fallon ROad. Sediment 26A
4,840 feet, 6 Lanes
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension
....... Street is Existing or Under Construction From Gleason Drive to Bent Tree"Drive (6'~;i'," I~malnder,!,s, N, ew .....................
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements
Gleason Drive to Bent Tree Driv~,, ,M, .edian Landscapincj, Median Curbs, Transition Pavement
Bent Tree Drive to Dul~ii'n Blvd: Full Improvements (Includes Reconstruct,ion,Alon~l, T, r,,act 7142; $ 1,219,919,00
also includes Fire Stn. 18 Frontage improvements at $82,448.36)
Intersection Improvements
$ 559,300.00
Sports Park
.................... ~'i ...... '~ ................ 470,156.00
Right-of-Wa)'
$ 4,368,240.00
Subtotal $ 6,617,615.00
Cit)' Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW ACCluistition, 20% $ 1,323,523.00
Contingency (Improvements, Right-of-Way) 10% $ 661,761.50
Subtotal $ 8,602,899.50
Zone 7 Fees $ 123,797.52
Total $ 8,726,697.02
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 13 of 16, 6/9/2004
Fallon Road - Segment 27 ...
680 fe.et, 8 Lanes
...................... Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580
All New Roadway ..........................
Totals for TIF Share
.Civil Improvements
$579/If for 6 inside lanes & 28ft median (r/w to r/w), (1 ft grading) ............. $ ......... 393,720.00
Intersection improvements ........................
$ 151,220.00
Ri~'hi'-o'~-Way" , ,,,
$ 680,680..0.,0,,,,
$
Subtotal $ 1,225,620.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Mana~'em,,.ent, ROW Acquistition, 20% ~ 245,124.00
Contingency (Improvements, Ri~lh.t-of-Wa¥) 10% ,,, $ 122,562,00
Subtotal $ 1,593,306.00
Zone 7 Fees $ 17,393,64
...... Total $ 1,610,699.0~'
Fallon Road Subtotai"(witho'u~ .Freeway Interchange) (Segments":56, 2...6A and 27) $ ...... '17','~,~,167.10
[one 7 Fees (Sediments 26, 26A and 27) ...... $ 246,634.56
Total $ 17,733,801.66
................ Fallon & 1-580 Free~a~;"i~.t.erchan~le with Si~lnals - Segment 28 ......
..... Totals for TI'F §hare
Freeway Interchan~le ...............
new 6 In Br; Ph1=$17,649,782',~' Ph2=$1.1.,182,999 ........ $ 28,832,781.00
Right-of-Way
$ 1,787,617.00
........... Subtotal $ ............ .~0,620,398.00
City Administration, Design, Constru'ci!on Uana~lement, ROW Acquistition, 20% '"'i,"i', ............. included ......
Zone 7 Fees $ 109,074.73
Total $ 30,729,472.73
Dublin pays 50% of cost; Livermore and Pleasant0~ will contribu!,9, $ 15,364,736,37
T,,assaiara Creek Bil~"~th - Segment 29 ..............
7,100 feet
............ Greenbrier Property I"ine to Contra C0s. t...a.....County Line ............ . .........
TOtals for TIF Share
Bike Path ................
12ft (~ $8/st (~ ld0% ...... . ........ ' ................. .... $ ......... .6..8.~.;..600,00
Brid~le ...........
$ 101,250.00
Right-of-Wa)/ ........
none $
Subtotal $ 782,850.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Ma'na~'ement, ROW Acquistition, 20% ............ $ 156,570.00
Contingency (improvements, Right-of-Way).~0% .............. $ 78,285.00
Subtotal $ 1,017,705.00
Zon~ '~ "Fees .......... ~ 44,474,40
......... ' ........ , ..... " Total $ ........ 1 ,'~'~;~, 179,40
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 14 of 16, 6/9/2004
Park & Ride
............................................ 40,..000 sf for 150 cars ........
T°tals foPri~sh~ie
Fallon Road Park and Ride
40,000 sf (~ $4.40 i .m..pr. ovements $ 176,000.00
Ri~ht-of-Wa¥ ......
$ 480,000.00
Subtotal $ 656,000.00
City Administration, Design, Construction Manageme. n.t.~.. ROW .AC.quistition, 20% $ 1.31,200.00
Contincjency (Improvements, RiC, lht-ofTWay/ 10% $ 65,600.00
Subtotal $ 852,800.00
Zone 7 Fees $ 20,880.00
................................... Total $ 873,680.00
Transit Center BART P.a..rkln~ S.t..r.u.~t. ure (Cost....Al!.ocat.lo.n for..~.0.0 SD..a. ces) ...............
Totals for TIF Share
Parkin~l Structure (1680 Spaces) $ 20,000,000:00
Alameda County Contribution For Replacement.0.f...Existin~..1,180 Park!...ng.Spaces in BART Lot) $ 14,000,000.00
EDTIF Cost (Proportionate Share of Cost for Additional 500 Spaces Used By Eastern Dublin) ........ $ 6,000,000.00
Total $ 6,000,000.00
Report Update
Totals for TIF Share
.Rep°rt Update .....
Total $ 100,000.00
I Totals for TIF Share
i OTHER COSTS
Section i
i Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road - Realignmen'i"~tudy $ 100,000.00
ICity Entrance Signs at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road $ ......... '["00,600.00
11-580 Corridor Impact Study $ 100,000.00
$
Total of Other Section I Costs $ 300,000.00
Section II
Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard S/B left Turn Lane Modifications $ 150,000.00
$
$
Total of Other Section II Costs $ 150,000.00
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- COSt Estimate Sum Page 15 of 16, 6/9/2004
Table 1; Category One Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL FEE
Dublin Boulevard Extension; SP r/w to Airway Boulevard
Hacienda Drive; excluding 1-580 Interchange
Hacienda Drive 1-580 Interchan~le; 100% Of cost, excluding $3.7.62M AlamedaCount¥ Loan
Central Parkway and Arnold Drive
$ 20,466,606.50
$ 445,353.92
$ 5,700,000.00
$ 10,813,457.90
Gleason Drive $ 460,968.30
Tassajara Road $ 20,450,504,79
$
$ 17,733,801.66
$ 100,000.00
$ 300,000.00
$ 76,470,693.07
Tassaiara Road 1-580 Interchangei 100% of cost
Fallon Road
PSR Reports (included in segment take-off)
Report Update
Other Costs
SUBTOTAL Of TABLE I
Table 2; Cate~lory Two Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL FEE/COMMERCIAL FEE
Dublin Boulevard; Village Parkway to Southern Pacific Right of Wa,[/.
Scarlet Drive; Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road; 1-580 to CCCo
1-580 Fallon/EI Charm Interchan~ie (50% of cost to reflect Dublin's share)
1-580/Airwa~/Boulevard Interchan~le ~COMPLETE)
Other Costs
SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 2
$ 4,946,789.97
$ 10,338,137.12
$ 12,666,118.38
$ 15,364,736.37
$ 150,000.00
$ 43,465,781.84
Table 3; Category.O.n_e AdJustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL SURCHARGE FEE
Tassajara Creek Bike Path
Park and Ride Lots
SUBTOTAL OF TABLE
$ 1,062,179.40
$ 873,680.00
$ 1,935,859.40
Table 4; Catego. ry Two Adjustment Costs used to determine RESIDENTIAL BART PARKING SURCHARGE FEE
Transit Center BART Parking Structu[ .e...(.5.00 Space Cost Allocation) I $
I
$
SUBTOTAL OF TABLE 4 $
6,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
Summation of Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 '1 $
......... ~7,872,334.31
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Feesl/Attachment 1- Cost Estimate Sum Page 16 of 16, 6/9/2004
Attachment~2._- Co~st_E__st) mate....D_ e_tai! ...................... _~__
.... Dg~gherty Dougl]_er~y D0ugh-e~y .... Do ~__~_.._~- -~-u~ ii-n -~-u b-l-i~ ...........
Road Road Road Road Boulevard Boulevard
SEGM'T 1 SEGM'T 1 SEGM~T 2 sE'~I~'-~'-~ .... ~F~I;vI'T-8 ~:I' 8
DESCRIPTION PRICES 0-~-ITS QUANTITY- COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 4,300 $4,300 ........ 9~9~- ....... $9,900 i 1-:~)-6 $1,600
Grind $ 1.50' LF 17,200 $25,800 0 ................. $__0 ........... ~,~000_ $6,00~-
Rem°Ye is~-P~}r~;~/sw $ :I-:0b SF ....... 30,100 $30;100 46,200 $46,200 12,800 $12,800
Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF 189,200 $794,640 108,900 $457,380 ~0 ...... $0
Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 4,300 $56,760 3,300 $43,560 0 $0
Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF .............. ~i4~)b -$-~'~;J,(~(~ 26;4~[3~)' $92,400 ..... 0' $0
Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF 8,600 $94,600 6,600 $72,600 1,600 $17,600
Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 '$0 0 $0
Overlay $ 1,40 SF 189,200 $264,880 184,800 $258,720 8,000 $11,200
Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 6,667 $66,670 5,452 $54,520 0 $0-
Drop Inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 EA ......... -'J'~.'-~$2~'b~'(~ .................. ~T $22,000 --0 $0
Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00 LF 4,500 $337,500 4,500 $337,500 0 $0
Stdping (2~___ $ 1.50 LF 32,000 $48,000 25,600 $38,400 0 $0
. _M_a_ ~-~.!_n_g_s~ ........................ _$__ .... ! 0._0_:.0.0_ _EA~ 32 $3,200 .......... 28 $2,800
Signs (3) $ 100,00 EA 40 $4,000 32 $3,200 0 $0
Electroliers (4) $ 2,~00.00 EA _1--4 $2~,000 11 $22,000 0 $0
~i_g.n_~! Interconne~!.i ............ $_ 1.5:~)_0. LF .............. 4,000 $60,000 3,2(~- $48,000 0 $0
New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0
Existing Utilities $ - LF ............ ~ .............. $0- -0 $0 0 $0
Landscape & irri~ (5) $ 4.00' s'F 1031200 ........ $~;~00 ....... 7§':~00' $316,800 ___ 12,800 __ $~5..1,_2_0.(~.'
G radi ng.. _D_e_p.!h~ ! $0 I ............$__0 1 $0
Signal Legs 1 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Signal Pdce (n0t !ncluded) 0._ .......... _$0 0 $0 0 $0-
Bridges (not included) SF 0 $0 0 $0 0
Demolition $0
~i~i~iiding (not_in_~_l'~de~_i_-~ i~;'-"_-_~-""i-~--F~,~ ....... _~_ 0 $0 0 $0 1 $0
! Median Gut $ 3,00 SE 0 '$0 0 '"'-'~'~' "~i.$~C~ ~i"~i.~1_-~;800 ..... _$38_,400
/ Ex!~L~:._u~b. .~._ 7,00. _L_F_ .... 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0_
R/W Cost (not included) SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 n/a
Other
R/W C0St?S¢ 0
Length I 4,000 ..........;~_,2_0_0.
Curb-to-Curb Width 104 104
.............................
TIF width n/a
Subtotal $2,379,650 $1,825,980 $138,800
'$un/ey 1% $23,797 $18,260 $1,388
Mobilization 3% $71,390 $54,779 $4,164
Traffi~"~nt~;0i 2% $47,593 ~.3_6:5_2.0- ......... $2,776
;lear& Grub 2% $47,593 $36,520 $2,776
iTotal, civil only $2,570,022 $0.00 $1,972,058 $'~._4.9~4_..
' D, OST/LF
Footnotes:
[_!) @200 ft. Intervals along length of roadway
[2) per strip T
[3) @ 50 ft. i~-~-~Tals along all lanes ~_-_--_- ......
4~)__~ 150 fl. intervals along all lane_s, inc_!u~!ng co_ndu_.!~--
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 1 of 7, 6/9/2004
Attachment 2; COS! Estimate Detail ..............
R~ie'n d-a- ...... i~i~(~i~n-(Ja' Arnold Amold Arnold .... i~A-m°ld
Road Road Road I~0ad Road Road
SEGM'T 14 SEGM'T 14 SEGM'T 16 SEGM'T 16 SEGM'T 16A SEGM'T 16A
[~E~'(~I~T~I~ ............ PR~C'i~ ....... UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 2,600 $2,600 2,326 $2,326 0
Grind $ 1.50 LF 2,600 $3,900 (~ $0 0 ................... 0
Remove Ex Pvrn't/sw- $ 1.00 SF 1~,-6~)-0- .......... -~'.7_,_6_00 32,564 $32,564 0 0
Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 s-F 39,200 $164,640 ....... _74:4_~2 $_;~_1.~6!4 ._' ........... 16,800 70,5~
Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 800 $10~550 ........... _2,_326 $30,703 0: ................... 0
Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 0 $0 18,608 $65,128 0 0
Median Curb. Std ..... -$ .......... -1~.00-" LF ~1-,-800 $19,800 4,.6~~ .... -' $5i,1~'2 1,400 15,40(]
Me~ian Curl~'GlU~ $ 8.00 LF -----0 ................ $0 0 $0 0
Overlay $ 1.40 s-F 0 $0 see x-sect ........ $4~3_,_C)-9-9.- ......... 01 0
EarthwOrk $ 10.00 CY 2,119 $2!_,!90 0 $0 1~452_i !4,52C)
_Dr0p./n_let~s &_MH'~s..(1) $. 2~0C~).00 E~ ........ 5 $10,000 8 $16,ooo 0 0
Storm Drain Pipe $ 75~00 LF 100 $7,500 see x-s~:-t- ........... $,1,500,000 0
Stripir!g.(~) $ 1.50 LF ............ 61600 $9,900 18,608 $27,912 2,~00 .........
Markings $ 100.00 EA 6 $600 14 $1,400 4 ............. __400
Signs (3) ~; 100.00 EA" 26 $2,600 24 $2,400 .... 0
.E_~ci~-.e.rs_--_-~ .......... $ .. 2,000.00 E-A--- 0 $0 --:.8_' $~'~,000 9 ..~§_,.o_0a
Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 -9_ 0
New Utilities ...... $ ............ --_LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 a
Existing Utilities $ LF 0 ~.(~ ....... 0 $0 0
Landscape & Irrig (5) ....... _$_ ........... _4.C~- ~SF (~ ......... .................... $0 32,564 $_-1"~0~,~- 22,400 89,60(3
Grading Depth I ....... $0 0 $0 1 .(}
Signal Legs 0 $0 0 ............ ~C)_ ';" '"-0 .....
Signal Price (not included) 0 $0 0 $0 · 0 C
Bridges (not included) §'F~ 0 ........... $0 0 ........... ~_0.....~ ......... 0
Demolition
Building (not included) -- EA 0 $0 0 $0 0
Exist curb $ 7.00 I~_F_ ............ 800 _$5,~600 2,326 $16,282 0. _0.
PJW Cg~_t ~n. ot i. nclud.ed) .S_F_ 0 n/a 7_4.,_4__3~ ..n/a ~-i.-~ ....... 0 n/a
O{her
R/W Cost/SF nla 20
Length 800 2,326 ' 1,400
Curb-to-Curb Width n/a 104
TIF width 28
Subtotal $27~',4~0.~00_ $2,247~,757.60 -- ........... $212,680.00
Survey 1% $._2_,_7.64.90 $22,477.58 $2,1~6.~0-
Mobilization _3~ $8,294.7_0_ $67_~43~2~.7_.3._ .. $6,380.40
Traffic Control 2% $§,.529.~80 $44,955.15 .................. $4,253.~-9_..
Clear & Grub 2% $5,529.80 $44,955.15 $4,253.60
:Total, civil only $298,60__9_.20 $2,427,578.21 ...... $229,694.40_
COST/LF
iFootnotes:
[1) @200 ff. Intervals along length of roadway
i~-)'"p~-r strip ............. ~ ........................ _
I3) @ 50 ft. intervals along all lanes
I4) @ 150 fi. intervals along all lanes, including conduit
[5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration i ....................
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 2 of 7, 6/9/2004
Attachment 2. Cost Estimate Detail ........................
........... cept?~!.Pkwy_.. C.e_ntral Pkwy Central Pkwy Central P_kwy .. scarlet ..... Scarlet
2250 2250 2000 ft 2000 ft Drive Drive
~-E~k/I~¥-';I~A ~I~GM'T'17A SEGM'T 17B SEGM'T 17B SEGM'T 21 SEGM'T 21
DESCRIPTION PRICES "UNIT~ QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF ........................ -4~_5_0_0._ $4,500 0 $0 1,400 $1,400
Grind $ 1.50 LF 4,500 $6,750 0 $0 2,800 $4,200
Remove E~-[Svm't/--S'W- ........ ~ ......... I~D0 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
#ull'Pavem'i'$ecti°~ ......... ~- 4,20 SF ..... 3-~i0d0 $i51,200 _48,000 $201,600 120,000 $504,000
Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 0 $0 0 $0 3,400 $44,880
Sidewalk -- $ 3.50- SF ..... 0 $01 ~ $~) ...... 8,000 $28,000
j~l-~;~-'~;~ $~- $- 11.00 LF 0 $0 4,000 $44,00O 4,80_p $52,800
Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF-- ~ .... $0 0 $0 0 $0
~_.d_ay..._..,-"'-__~ $ 1,40 SF .... 0 .$_0_ 0 ~_0_ ...... 60,000 ........ _$._84,0~00_
Earthwork $ 10.00 CY 0 $0 ..... 1 ,_7_7__8_ _ $17,780 7,00_0_ ...... $70,000
D~:op !nietS'&MJ~-'s (1) ' ' $ '~b00.00 EA ._ ................. ..... -0 .................. $0 0 $0 ...... 20 $40,000
Storm Drain Pipe _$_....~7_5.00 ................ LF 0 $0 ...... 0 $0 .... 3__,_400 ..... $255,000
Stdping (2) $ 1.50 LF 9,000 $13,500 8,000 $1~,_0__0.0 12,000 $18,000
M__a__rk i_n g~s .......... $ 100.~(J- 'EA 6 $600 .... ,~ $400 10 $1,000
_Si_g_.n__s(.3_)___. $' 100,00 EA 11 ......... _$_1_,_1_.00 10 $1,000 40 $4,000
Electroliers (4) $ 2,000.00 .EA ......... 4 $8,000 15 ........ $30.~000 15 $30,000
Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 0 $0 2,000 $30,000 _..1_,000 ..... $15,p_0.0-
New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Existing Utilitie_.s~ ............. $ - LF 0 $0 ...... 0 $0 0 $0
Landscape & Irrig (5) $ 4.00 sE 10,.~0.0_. $42,000 28,000 $_'~:!.2,000 4_0_,0001 "$16~;(~0-(~
~d[n_g_l~el~th '--' 1 $0 1 $0 1; $0
Signal Legs 0 $0 0 _$_0... _ 0: $0
Signal Price (~0t ii3.(~!ude_d._)_. '---'--~- ~_ ................. 0 $0 ....... --0 $0 .$0_
_B_rid~ge~s (n~o.t_..!n~lu_ded) S__F_ ............. _$_0. ........... 0 $0 n/a n/a
Demolition 1 $50,000 $0 $0
Buildir~g (not.!nCluded) EA 0 $0 $0 $0
Median Gut ' '$ .......... ~.00 S__F. ......... "~) .................... $0 ...... $0 ........ - ....... $0
Ex st curb $ 7.00 LF 0 $0 $0 $0
RfVV Cost (n~t. inc!_u.d_ed) ..... SF 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other trail $48,000
R/W Cost/SF 0
Leng{'~ 2,250 2,000 ._ 2,400
Curb-to-Curb Width
TIF width
§~J~tota--I~ ...................... ............. _$2~77,650.00 $448,780.00 ..............$1,360,280.00
Survey 1% $2,776.50 ........ $4,487.80 .......... $ .13,6Q2~80
Mobilization 3% $8,329.50 $13,-463.40 $40,808.40
Traffic Control ......... ~% .$5,553_:0.0_ _. $8,97_~.60- $27,205,6~-
Clear & Grub 2% $5,553.00 $8,975.60 $27,205.60
Total, civil only $299,862.00 $48_-4~682,40 $1,469,102.40_
COST/LF
FOotnotes:
(1 ) @200 ff. Intervals along length of roadway
~)_-~-r.-i~'-' '-ii- I ......... 1-
(3) @ 50 ft. intervals alo0g..a!l panes I.
(_-4)._~ _150._ft. intervals along all lanes, including conduit
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 3 of 7, 6/9/2004
Attachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail .................... ._ ._ _ ............ .....................
Tas_s_a_i~ .. Tass..ajara - '~ssej~Jra Ta_s_sajara Tassajara Tassajara_ ....
Road Road Road Road Road Road
............. SEGM'T 22 SEGM'T 22 SEGM'T 22A SEGM'T 22A SEGM'T 23 SEGM'T 23
DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut .............. $ ........ 1.00 LF --0 ......... ~;0 0 .... $0 " 4,940 $4,9,~(~
~ri~d $ 1.50 LF ...... 0 -- $0 ~ $0 4,940 ...... $7,410
~e m~/-~-i=~-~,~'t/s~w ........ -$ ..... i.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 SC
~:~11Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF ......... 271,'680 $1,141,056 208,800 ..... $876,960 59,280 .... $248,976
Curb & Gutter $ 13.2(~--'~_F .............. 0 $~- ................... 0" $0 -0- .... ~3~
'~idewalk ..... $....... ;~50 SF .... ~ .......... -~0-- 0 .... $0 0 $0
Medi~'~d - $ 11.00 LF ........ 11,320 $124,520 7,400 -" $8~,~0~ 0 ...... -$0
Median Curb. Glue $ 8,00" LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
~_v_.e_ d a y $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Earthwork $ 10.00 CY ...... 80,498 $804,980 30,934 $309,340 2,927 $29,270
Drop Inlets & 'UH's (1) ....... $-'" ~,-00~0.00__EA_ ............. ~' _ 0 $0 ............ 0 ........ $0 0 _. $0
Storm. ~[.a_!.n_ Pip.e- ..... $ 75.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Stdping (2) $ 1.50 LF '- 33,960 $50,940 .............. 3__0_,000 $45,500 ..... 9,880 .. $14,820
Markings "$ .... 100.00 EA 160 ._. _$16,000 18 .... $1,800 4 $400
~ig~s (3) .......... $ ...... 100.00 EA ........ 0 $0 0 $0 ............ 12 .. $_1.,_2_00-
E.lectrolj__e_.m_.~4) ........ $ 2,0~(~-(~0_'_i EA 50 ...... $100,000 ..... 40 $80,000 ............... ...... 0. $0
S_ig_na_l Interconnect $ 15.00 LF .... 5~66_0 $84,900 3,700_ ...... $55,500 0 ........... $0
New Utilities $ - LF 0 ....... $o .0 $o ................ 0 ...... $0
Existing Util ti_es $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Landscape & Irrig (5) ..... $ 4.00 SF .......... ..... 90,560 $362,240 59,200 ....... $236,800 ' ......... 0 ........... $(~
Grading Depth ..... 6 ......... $0 1.0 ..... $0 1 $0
Signal Legs .................... 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Signal Pdce .(.n_ ot tnclu(~l-~ ........................... _ ....... 0 ........ $0 0 $0 0 $0
_9.[!~l.ges.(not incl_u..d?d) ......... SF 2_... '"i' $~)_ I .... ..~'.'ii'".$~ iii- . ...... '_. 0 $-0
Demolition
Building. (n_~)~..incl_u_de_d) EA 2 houses .... $0 .....................
Median Gut ....... $ ........... 3.00 SF_ ...... - ....... 0 .......... $0 .......... 0 $0 0 .. $0
_. Ex st curb ....... $_ ...... 7,00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
RNV Cost (not included) SF 0 $0 0 .... $0 ..0_ .. $0-
Other
PAN Cost/SF
Lengi'~ ............ 5,660--' _ ...... 5,00~' ' _ ...... 2,470
~-~'r~-to;Curb WidiSh
TIF width
§ u~i~)-~i ........... $2,684,636.00 $1,686,800~00 __$307,016.00
Survey 1% ...................... $26,846~36 ..... $16,868.00 ......... $3,070.16
~l(~iliza~ion .................... 3% $80,539.08 $50,604.00 $9,210.48
Traffic Control .......... 2% .... ~6~692.~2 $33,736.00 $6~_1.~0.32
C- i~-r-~-G rub 2% .............. .. _$_5_;~6_92.72 .... _$_3_~,736.00 ..... $6,140.32
TOt al__c_iviLo_ q!~ ............ ~_2~99,406.86_ $1,821,74~:0.0 ............... $331,577.28
COST/LF
Footnotes:
i~i.~_2_-0_0 fl, Intervals along length-of roadway ....... i'i..~i ..................
(2} per strip ............... I ........ ~ .............................
(_3)~_5_0__ff_. intervals along all lanes] ......................
(4) @ 150 ff. intervals along all lanes, including cond~![_~ '~' . ..........................
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration .......
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 4 of 7, 6/9/2004
AffAchment 2, Cost Estimate_Detail ................................... [ ........
........... ....... - ..... sP0r~-s- ......... Spq~s ........ sports ..... ._. S.po~s! S_p_.o_rt~ ' Sl~rt_s
Park Park Park Park Park Park
...... atSeg'lB-'-__-_atSeg ]8_ --~t'§~g20 ..... ~Se~g. 20 atSeg~6~-'-"'atSeg26A_
[~ESCRIPTION PRICE~ ...... UNITS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut ....... $' ' 1.00 LF ..... 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
G ri--nd $ 1'150 I~-- (~ ..... $0 0 $0 0 $0
R e m o-v-e- E--~ - P{/~ ~J s w -$ 1.00 SF - 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
~-~'l]-Pavem't Section ......... $ 4.20 si~ 30,000 $_126-,~00 ~0-00 ......... $21,000 .- '62,000 $260,400 .........
C-~'rb & Gutter $ 13.20 L-F ~i~00 $19,800 ....... 250 ...... $3,300 3,1001 $40~.9_2_p_
Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF ..... 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Median cU~'§~'~I $ 11.0~)- LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
U~dian Curb. Glue $' 8.00 LF 0 -- $0 '-b $0 0 $0
O~ea~::~i~i $ 1.4o SF ................ ........ o '~b o $o o .... $o
Earthwork $ ';~ 0-.00 CY ....... 1,--111 $11,110 ........ 185 ...... $1,850 13,77_8. $..~1.37.,__78__0
D?~p_!.[~/ets & ~I'-S'(1) $"' 2,000.00 EA 14 $28,000 2 $4,000 31 $6_2_,_0.00-
Storm Drain Pipe $ .... 75.00 E-~ .... '~::1!::_500 .... $-~':1-2,500 ...... 25~"-_:~::$18,750 3,100 $2_3 ~.5_00
Strip!n.g._(2_) ........ $ .... 1.50 LF ....... 3,000 ...... $,~ ,_5_0_0 500 $750 6,200 $9,300
Marki.n_g~ $ I-~0',00 EA ..... -0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
S!gD..s__.(3) $ 100.00 EA 14 $1,400 2 $200 62 $6,200
Electroliem (4) $ 2~,~d00-:00 EX _ _sPecia! .....-_.-_' $30,000 specia_! '$6,000 special .....
Signa/..!n~rconnec~ ............ $ 15.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
New Utilities $ - LF ...... 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
~isting Ut__i!.i~! _e.~ ..... $- .... LF .......... ......... 0 $0 0 $0 0 ...... $0
Lands~p_e_& Irrig (5) ...... ~- 4.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Grading De_pt_h_ ..... ' _ I .......... $'(~- . _!. -- ...... $0 6
0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Jignal Legs
..... 0 ....... $0 0 $0 0 $0
Si~gn_a_/?dc~_. (no!include_d)
EIddg~.s_._(__n. ot included) ..... SF ._.~- __.0 ........ _$0 o ..... $0 0 ....
Demolition .....
Bd~n-g' in0~ i'ncluded)- EA .... 0 $0 0 $__0 0
Medi~r~._G_.ut ._ '-- $ ..... 3'.~0 SE 0 $0__ 0 .... $0 0 $0
E~ _.s.t_~rb $ --7~00 LF 0 ...... $0 0 $0 0 $0
RAN Cost (_n_ot !_n. cluded) .... SF --::::__ o $~).... 0 $0 ....... 0 _$0_
Other 0
PJW Cost/SF 0 0
Length .............. ........ !~_500 ...... 250 3,100
Curb-to-Curb Width 0 0
TIF width 0 0
Subtotal $333,310.00 - ....... $5.~i~50.0~ '-" $80~,'~ 06.00
Survey 1"/~ $31333.10 ...... $558,50 . $8,__0_9_1.00
Mobilization 3% .......... $9,999.30 $1,675.50 $24,273.00
TraffiC'(~-0ntrol ..... 12% ........ $6,666.20 $1,11-~i00 ....... $.16,--182,00
Clear & Gr~) ........ 2°~, ....... $6.,6.6§._20 ...... $1~1_.~7.00 $16_, 18__2:.00
Total, civil only $359,974.80 $60,318.00 $873,828.00
COST/LF
Footnotes:
!l)__~..~?_0. ff. Interva!~ .~!.o__ng length of roadway
(2) per strip
(3) @_ 5__0..~: intervals a!o[~_ali [~,nes ..... . .....
(4) ~ 150 ft, intervals along all lanes, includ_ing co~uit
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of fr0~,~e restoration ....................
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 5 of 7, 6/9/2004
_Attachmen{
~ost
2-
Estim_at.e
D~e..!_ai/
~_ ...... 4 !n~i.c~e_..!a Es_. 4_ 'n_s.!d~.l~eS
. ...... ii ii~.~..-._.. '-"'. ........... -- ~._.._'ii'. ........................
l ' of typical of typical
_4 Lan~-I~'" ~'La~-Rdwy 6 Lane Rdwy 6 La_n.e__Rd_ _w~... ........ 6 Lane Rdwy .. 6. Lane Rdwy
Typical .............. .j.~ypical Typical Typical w/28ft median w/28ft median
_DESCR/P_~!0N ......... PRICES UNITS QUANTITY 'COST QUANTITY COS_T~ ....... _Q. qA_N_T_~~ ....... _C_O~- ..............
Saw Cut $ 1,00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Grind $ 1.50 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0. $0
Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
...........Full Pavem't Section $ '4.20 SF .... !~8,~0~ ....... $537,600 ............ 17610~'0 $739,200 96,000 $403,200
Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 4,000 $52,800 4,000 $52,800 0 $0
Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 32,000 $1!2,000 ........... 32,000 $112,000 0' $0
Median Curb. St~ ...... -$ ...... -1.~)-0--'LF 4,000 $44,000 4,000 ....... $~,-~0-(~ 4,000
Median Curb. Glue $ 8.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0i $0
~¥_e[!~y $ 1.40 SF 0 $0 0 $0 O' $0
Earthwork $ 10.00 CY ......... ~,.704 $77,040 9,481
Drop Inlets & MH;~-i~)' $ 2,000.00 EA 10 $201000 10 $20,000 0 $0
Storm DLa. i.n_._._PiPe $ 75.00 LF 4,000 $300,000 4,000 $300,000 500 $37,500
Striping. (2_~_- $ .......... ~.50'- El~ 12,000 $'J 8160'0 ......... :1-210~ $18,000 12,000 $i~,0~J
_M__a. rk_i_ng s $ 100.00 EA 80 $8,000 8 $800 6 $600
Signs (3) .......... ,--$--~)'0 EA , 40 $4,000 40 ....... $;{ib-00- .................. 20 .............. -$-~,-~0~
Elect~oliers (4) _-'_-" tS '~'~00:~'~ EA 14 $28,000 14 $':~8;~3~0 ......... 14 "~$~81'(~00
Signal Interconn_ect $ 15.00 LF .... 2~000 $30,000 . 2,000 $~30,000 ~-~2_';__0.'00 .._-.~_.~.~$30,000
New Utilities $ LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Existing Utilities $ - LF 0 $0 0 $0 .......... 0 $0
.andscape & Irrig~(_5) $ 4.00 SE "] 48,000 $1921000 48,000 $192,000 56,000 ...... ~"~4-,~)00
Grading Depth I $0 I $0 1 $0
§ignal Legs_ .... - ................. ~ ......... $0 0 $0 0 $0
Signal Pr~e.(not in~:iuded) 0 $0 ........................ ~ $0 0
I~ ridges__(r)_o_.t_.included ) .......................... SF ......... 0 ....... $_0_ .......... ~0 ............... $0_ 0 .................. _$0
Demolition
B'~iic~ing (~ot included) EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Median G~t $ 3.00" S¢ -~ ................ -$C~ -~ $0 ' 0 $0'
E)~!_s_t C~Jrb' ~ iii~-_7~_~)- ~L_'F ....... ~ ~ ' 0 .... $0 0 $0 .................. -~ ............. $0
R/VV Cost (not included) SF ......... 0 $~ 0 .$_0 0 .................. $0
Other
~/v~-(~SF
~'eng_t~ .... - ........ 21060 .............. 2,000 S0 2,000
Curb-to-Curb Width 104 128 ~4'~ ..............
TIF Width ...... 40 64 76
Subtotal ........ $1,423,440.00 $1,635,610.00 $843,60(~:00
Survey ........ 1% _.~-i $14,234,40 $16,356.10' $8,436,00
Mobilization 3% $42,703,20 $49,068.30 $25,308.00
T__ra_ffic Control 2% _$_2__8 ,_46_8:_80 ....$32,712.20 $16,872.00_
Clear & Grub 2% $28,468,80 $32,712.20 $16,872.00
_T(~!p!, Civil only ............ $1,537,315.20 $1,766,458.80 $911,088.00
COST/LF $768.66 $883.23 $455.54
Footnotes: u~e $770 use $885 us~ $455
(1 ) @200 ft, Intervals along length of roadway
(2) p~_r., strip ......... 1
(3) @ 50 ft, inte~._.als .a_!~ng all lanes
(4) @.!.~.0__ft. intervals along ell lanes, including ~°nduit
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/,o.,r.,,are~ of frontage restoration
TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 o Cost Detail Page 6 of 7, 6/9/2004
Attachment 2 - Cost Estimate Detail
6 inside lanes 6 inside lanes
of typical of typical
8..Lane RdWY._._- _8_L._ane' Rdwy
w/28ft median w/28ft median
DESCRIPTION PRICES UNITS QUANTITY COST
Saw Cut $ 1.00 LF 0 $0
Grind $ 1.50 LF 0 $0
Remove Ex Pvm't/sw $ 1.00 SF 0 $0
Full Pavem't Section $ 4.20 SF .... 144,000 ....... $__6_0_4,8__0__0
Curb & Gutter $ 13.20 LF 0 $0
Sidewalk $ 3.50 SF 0 $0
Median Curb. Std $ 11.00 LF .~_,_0.0_(~ ..... $44,000
Median ct~r~i"~id~ $ ..... 8~00 LF 0 $0
Oveday $ 1.40 SF 0 $0
__Ear~_h_w.o_r~ $ 1.0_:q0 CY -"-'"'. '"i i i .i'i._. 'i 7.,i~0~ iii ..... "$74,07~
Drop Inlets & MH's (1) $ 2,000.00 EA 0 $0
Storm Drain Pipe $ 75.00 LF 500 ........ ~,500
~_~[ip!~..(~). ..................... $_ ........ _1~0_ _L_F 18,000 $27,000
Markings $ 100.00 EA 6 $600
Signs (3) $ !00.0(~ EA. ....... 20 $2,000
Electmliers (4) $ 2,000.00 EA 14
Signal Interconnect $ 15.00 LF 2,000 $30,000
New Utilities $ - . LF 0 $0
!i~xisting otiii{i~s .... $ LF ~ ....... $0
Landscape & Irrig (5) $ 4.00 SF 56,000 _$224,~)-0_'
Grading Depth I $0
Signal Legs 0 $0
~!gnal Price (not inclu_d.~l.). 0 $0
Bridges (not included) SF 0 $0
Demolition $0
Building (n0['ir~cluded) ....... EA ...... 0_ ............ $0
· Median Gut $ 3.00 SF ............... 0 $0
Exst curb $ 7.00 LF 0 S0
p, Jv~_.,c_...o__st (_n_o_.t_!,_n.~! u d ed ) ................ S__F__ 0 $0
Other
~ Cost/SF
Length _2_,_0.._0.0 __
Curb-to-Curb width 140
TIF width 76
Subtotal $1,071,970.00
Survey 1% $10,719.70
Mobilization 3% $32,159.10
Traffic Control 2% $21,439.40
Clear & Grub 2% $21,439,40
Total, civil 0n!y $1,157,727.60
COST/LF $578.86
Footnotes: use $579
(!) @200 ff. I~terv~ s_aleng length of roadway .....
(2) per strip ]
!~ )_~...~0_ .ff:_!~_als a!_ong _a_/l_!a_~__e~ .............
(4) @ 150 ft. intervals along all lanes, including_conduit
(5) 16'+4'+4' and/or area of frontage restoration
TiF spreadsheet Zone 7 Fees/Attachment 2 - Cost Detail Page 7 of 7, 6/9/2004
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 16
May 25,
Eastem Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Intersection, Bridge and Miscellaneous Costs
A. Intersection Costs:
Signal Costs: 1999 Update used $225,000 per intersection or $56,250 per leg; add
approximately 10%; use $62,500 per leg or $250,000
R/W Costs: 1999 Update used 5,560 sfper leg; use adjoining R/W cost to determine cost
Civil/Grading Costs: 1999 Update used $1,029 for grading and $18,750 for civil per leg;
add approximately 10%; use $22,000 per leg; for retrofit projects, curb and gutter,
drainage, landscaping, etc., needs to be replaced, use $44,000
B. Bridge Costs:
1999 Update used $120/sf for bridges; add approximately 10%; use $135/sf
C. Miscellaneous Costs
Miscellaneous costs include all additional costs not included in TIF cost spreadsheet and
are detailed by each road segment
In some cases, an allowance has been provided in the TIF for construction of frontage
improvements that would norma!ly be constructed by the abutting property owner upon
development of the property. In these cases, the abutting properties have limited
development potential and it may be necessary for the City or other developers to install
some or all of the frontage improvements in order to provide for the safe and orderly
development of the roadway. Inclusion of these costs in the TIF does not relieve the
property owner of the responsibility for these costs or obligate the City to install them at
public cost, nor does it prohibit the City from recouping these costs at a later date.
Segment 1 - Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard
Traffic signals are existing at Amador Valley Boulevard and Willow Creek Drive (a
traffic signal was recently installed at Willow Creek Drive using $195,000 of Dougherty
Valley mitigation funds); modification will be needed to accommodate street widening
from four to six lanes; allow 100% of full signal costs per leg at each intersection for
modification
Costs = 2 x $200,000 = $400,000
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 16
May 25, 2004
Segment 2 - Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place
Intersection improvements exist at Scarlett Drive and Houston Place. Intersection
modifications are needed at the Scarlett Drive intersection to accommodate a second
southbound left turn lane. The northbound approach will need to be modified to
accommodate the lane shifts; the existing northbound right turn lane will also need to be
modified. Both legs will require signal modifications. The 1999 Update used $22.00/sf
for right-of-way; add 10%; use $24.20/sf. The standard civil costs have been inflated to
account for traffic control on an existing street.
Cost;
2 legs x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% =
2 legs x 5,560 x $24.20 =
2 legs x $22,000 for civil costs x 400% =
$62,500
$269,104
$176,000
$507,604
Segment 3 - Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard
Intersection costs of $343,850 are used per the City CIP.
Cost: $343,850
Segment 4 - Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp
intersection costs of $1,028,300 are used per the City CIP.
Cost: $1,028,300
Segment 5 - Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
Project is currently funded under CIP and is under construction. The project has incurred
additional costs not included in the current budget, and an additional $400,000 is needed
to cover these costs.
Cost= $400,000
Segment 6 - Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road
Costs for intersection improvements on the west leg of the intersection (Dublin Court to
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 16
May 25, 2004
Dougherty Road) are $702,000 for improvement costs and $496,500 for R/W costs per
the City CIP.
Costs for the widening between Sierra Court and Dublin Court are $1,138,700 for civil
costs and $439,139 for R/W costs per the City CIP.
Reconstruction of the existing median is needed between Dublin Court and Dougherty
Road to accommodate a double eastbound lef~ turn lane onto Dougherty Road. The cost
of this work is not currently included in the CIP and must be added to the total project
cost.
Cost:
Sawcut pavement:
Remove existing landscaping:
Remove existing electrolier:
Remove existing median curb:
Excavation:
Install new median curb:
Install new pavement:
Install subdrains:
Install new electroliers:
Install new landscaping and irrigation:
Use $150,000
1,5401fx $1/sf = $1,540
8,000 slx $1/sf = $8,000
3 Ea. x $1,000/ea. = $3,000
1,540 lfx $3/if = $4,620
8,000 sfx $3/sf = $24,000
1,540 lfx $11/If =$16,940
2,000 sfx $5/sf = $10,000
770 lfx $20/If = $15,400
3 Ea. x $2,000/ea. = $6,000
8,000 sfx $4/sf = $32,000
$121,500
Segment 7 - Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P Right-of-Way
Costs for intersection improvements on the east leg of the intersection are $692,900
for improvements and $255,720 for right-of-way per the City CIP.
Segment 8 - Dublin Boulevard, S/P Right-of-Way to Iron Horse Parkway
Street improvements exist. Intersection improvements are needed at the Dublin
Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection to allow opening of the east (northbound) side of
the road and to provide a crosswalk on the east side of the intersection in alignment with
the Iron Horse Trail. The cost for this work is $54,208 per the City CIP.
Segment 8A - Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive
Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary. A second
eastbound left turn lane is needed within the existing landscaped median at Arnold
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 16
May 25, 2004
Drive; work will require civil and signal modifications.
account for traffic control on an existing street.
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% = $31,250
1 leg x $22,000 x 200% = $44,000
Landscaping $50,000
$125,250
Civil costs have been inflated to
Segment 9 - Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Street improvements exist. A right turn lane is needed westbound at Hacienda Drive.
Right-of-way for the turn lane exists. Signal modific~/tions will be necessary.
Civil costs have been inflated to account for traffic control on an existing street.
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% = $31,250
1 leg x $22,000 per leg x 200% =
Landscaping
Demolition
$44,000
$50,000
$25,000
$150,250
Segment 10- Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Complete improvements are needed on west legof Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road
intersection. Partial improvements are needed at Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road
intersection (civil and r/w, signal modification)
Cost = 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal =
1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification =
1 leg x 5,560 x ($28.00 + $38.00/2) =
1 leg x 5,560 x $21.00 =
2 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil work =
$62,500
$31,250
$183,480
$116,760
$44,000
$437,990
Street improvements require drainage work not included in TIF spreadsheet. A 10' x 8'
box culvert and 84" pipe are needed to convey flows across the road as shown on the
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 16
May 25, 2004
Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Plan. Each structure will be 140' long. The 1999 Update
used $106,900; add approximately 10%; use $120,000
Cost= $120,000
Segment 11 - Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Complete improvements are needed at Fallon Road (east leg), and Doolan Road (four
legs).
Cost = 5 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal =
1 leg x 5,560 x $12.00 --
4 legs x 5,560 x $6.00 =
$312,500
$66,720
$133,440
5 legs x $22,000 =
$110,000
$622,660
A bridge is needed at the Doolan Canyon Creek crossing. Bridge will be 100' long x 120'
wide.
Cost = 100 x 120 x $135.00/sf=
$1,620,000
Civil costs are based on construction of the TIF improvements (64') from Fallon Road to
the east edge of the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Area (5,000') and full street
improvements (128') easterly to the Livermore city limit (3,000'), to the current west end
of North Canyons Parkway. This presumes that no deVeloper will be build the abutting
frontage improvements for the easterly portion, and this cost will be borne by the TIF.
Segment 12 - Airway Boulevard/1-580 Interchange
Interchange improvements exist; no additional improvements are necessary.
Segment 13 - Hacienda Drive, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard
Street improvements exist; no intersection improvements are necessary.
Segment 14 - Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive
Street improvements exist except for interior traffic lanes. Signal modification is
Attachment 3
· Page 6 of 16
May 25, 2004
needed on the south leg of the Gleason Drive intersection to conform to the added lane.
Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250
Segment 15- Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange
Interchange improvements are complete. Per Eastern Dublin Property Owners' (EDPO)
EIR, further interchange improvements are needed to (1) widen the eastbound off-ramp
approach at Hacienda Drive to provide a third eastbound left tum lane, (2) widen the
northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes, striped to provide three
through lanes and an exclusive auxiliary lane for the westbound on-ramp, (3) modify the
westbound loop on-ramp as needed, and (4) widen the westbound off ramp approach to
provide a third westbound left-turn lane.
1) Widen E/B Offramp:
$1,435,000
2) Widen W/B Offramp
$1,245,000
3) Widen N/B Overcrossing:
$3,020,000
4) Modify W/B Onramp Loop:
:
(Costs included under overcrossing)
Cost: $5,700,000
Segment 16- Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive
Street will be widened to provide two additional lanes on west side; east side is existing;
widening will require replacement of signal on north and south legs of Central Parkway
and new signal on north and south legs of Gleason Drive. A separate southbound right
turn lane will need to be added at Dublin Boulevard, requiring right-of-way, civil, and
signal work.
Cost: 4 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% for replacement = $250,000
Arnold Drive S/B Right Turn Lane ~ Dublin Blvd. = $195,000
$445,000
Segment 16A - Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive
Street improvements are existing except for inside lanes; intersections and signals are
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 16
May 25, 2004
existing; signal modifications will be needed on the east leg of the Arnold Drive/Central
Parkway intersection.
Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% = $31,250
'Segment 17 - Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Street improvements exist except for inside lanes; intersections and signals exist; signal
modifications will be needed on the west leg of the Tassajara Road intersection. A new
signal is needed at the entrance to the second phase of Emerald Glen Park (TIF pays for
north leg only).
Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% =
1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 100% =
$31,250
$62,500
$93,750
The Tassajara Creek bridge will need to be widened from two to four lanes. The bridge is
100' long; two 12' travel lanes and a 16' median will be required.
Cost: 100 x 40 x $135.00/sf =
$540,000
Segment 18 - Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street
Intersection improvements exist at Tassajara Road.
Segment 18A- Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road
The street is currently under construction between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way
(800'). The remainder of the street does not currently exist. Full intersection
improvements are needed on the west leg of the Fallon Road intersection.
Per ARWS Fee Impact Study
Area C-5 (west side of intersection) R/W -- $13.50/sf
Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal =
1 leg x 5,560 x $13.50'sf for R/W =
1 leg x $22,000 =
$62,500
$75,o6o
$22,000
$159,56o
Attachment 3
Page 8 of 16
May 25, 2004
Frontage improvements are needed along 1500' of the Community Park frontage. This
presumes that the west end of the park is relocated 600' west of the location shown on the
current General Plan, at the extension of Lockhart Way, and the east end of the park will
be located 600' west of the location shown on the current General Plan, at the revised
Fallon Road alignment which will follow the Old Fallon Road right-of-way. Frontage
improvements consist of curb and gutter, 12' travel lane, and 8' shoulder. Sidewalk and
landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park costs. Cost for street
improvements is $770/lf + $84/lf for grading, or $854/lf; right-of-way width = 104'
Cost: 1500 x 20/104 x $854 =
$246,346
Segment 19 - Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive
Street improvements exist. Future signal is needed at Gleason Drive and Arnold Drive;
right-of-way and civil improvements are existing
Cost: 1 leg x $62,500 per signal leg x 100% = $62,500
Segment 19A- Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Street improvements are existing
Segment 20 - Gieason Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Street is under construction. Credit agreement will be executed prior to new T~ rates
going into effect on August 1, 2004. Credit will be provided at old rates. Pending credits
are included in total credit amounts.
Per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area C-4 (Southwest comer of intersection) R/W = $13.50/sf
Cost:
2 legs x $62,500 per signal leg x 100%
1 leg x 5,560 x $13.50 =
2 legs x $22,000 per leg =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Frontage improvements are needed along 650' of the Community Park frontage. Frontage
Attachment 3
Page 9 of 16
May 25, 2004
improvements consist of curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane and an 8' shoulder. Sidewalk
and landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park costs. Cost for street
improvements is $770/lf plus $146/lf for grading, or $916/If; right-of-way width = 104'
Cost; 650' x 20/104 x $916 =
N/A
Segment 21 - Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard
Northerly portion of street from Dougherty Road to Houston Place exists; intersection
improvements exist. Extension of street south to Dublin Boulevard is necessary; full
intersection improvements on north leg of Dublin Boulevard intersection are required.
1999 Update used $15.00/sffor right-of-way; use $20.00 for update based on recent
acquisitions along Dublin Boulevard.
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% =
1 leg x 5,560 x $20.00 =
1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil costs =
$62,500
$111,200
$22,000
$195,700
Miscellaneous Costs
A box culvert will need to be constructed over the existing G-1 flood control channel.
The culvert extension will be approximately 200 feet long. The cost is estimated at
$2,000 per foot.
Cost: 200' x $2,000/If =
$400,000
The culvert construction will result in the loss of an existing open channel. If the channel
is determined to be a jurisdictional wetland, construction of replacement wetlands may be
required. An estimate of $100,000 is allowed for permitting and construction.
Cost: $100,000
The Iron Horse Trail will need to be reconstructed for the entire length of the project.
The existing trail is 12' wide with 2' gravel shoulders on either side. Use $8.00/sf.
A new bridge will be needed over the G-1 channel; the bridge will be 50' long; use
$75,000.
Attachment 3
Page 10 of 16
May 25, 2004
Cost: 2400' x 12' x $8.00/sf=
Bridge:
$230,400
$75,000
$305,400
An existing oil pipeline, fiber optics line, and recycled water line are located in the
railroad fight-of-way. Relocation of these utilities may be needed at the new culvert
crossing, and/or additional protection may be needed if the lines are to remain as
longitudinal encroachments under the new road. In addition, an existing pole on an
overhead 60kv transmission line is in conflict with the road extension. Portions of an
overhead distribution line may need to be relocated. A number of existing pole line guy
wires are located in the fight-of-way. These utilities have prior fights and any relocation
costs will be the cost of the project. A cost of $1,000,000 is allowed for the various
utilities.
Total Miscellaneous Costs:
Trail:
Box Culvert
Wetland Mitigation:
Utilities:
$305,400
$400,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$1,805,400
Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line
Ultimate street improvements do not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are
needed on the south and north legs of the Fallon Road intersection. Right-of-way costs
for the intersection are included in the total fight-of-way quantitY. The fourth (eastern)
leg of the intersection is a local road into the Mission Peak property and will be the
responsibility of that developer.
Intersection improvements include a free-fight turn lane southbound on Tassajara Road
through the intersection. The lanes are 34' in width and 400' long. Cost of street
improvements is $512/lf for the 64' TIF improvements.
Cost: 400 x (34/64) x $512 = $108,800
A pedestrian/bicycle bridge is needed to carry pedestrians and bicycles over the free-
fight turn lane. The bridge is 8' wide by 60' long.
Cost: $100,000
Attachment 3
Page 11 of 16
May 25, 2004
Total intersection costs:
Pedestrian Bridge:
$108,800
$100,000
$208,800
Several properties have limited development potential and may not develop. An
allowance is needed in the TIF to pay for the cost of frontage improvements that may be
necessary for the orderly construction of the road.
Bragg-Silva Property:
Tipper Property:
Kobold Property:
Nielsen Property:
ll001f
6001f
3001f
6001f
26001f
Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, an 8' shoulder and a 12'travel lane. Cost
of improvements is $512/lf for the 64' TIF improvements.
Cost: 2600 x (20/64) x $512 = $416,000
A Class I bicycle/pedestrian trail is needed along the Bragg-Silva frontage. The trail is 8'
wide by 1100' long. Cost is $8/sf (consistent with the Tassajara Creek trail, Segment 29).
Cost: 1100 x 8 x 8 = $70,400
Sidewalk is needed along the Tipper, Kobold, and Nielsen frontages. Sidewalk width is
6'; total length is 2000. Cost is $3.50' sf (consistent with detailed cost estimate)
Cost: 2000 x 6 x $3.50 = $42,000
A retaining wall is needed along the west side of the road at the border of the Lin and
Bragg-Silva properties, with a second wall needed at the south end of the Tipper
property. The walls are needed to avoid placing fill within the creek setback zone. The
approximate length of the walls is 500', with an average height of 10'.
Cost: 500' x 10' x $50/sf= $250,000
Total Miscellaneous Costs:S416,000
$70,400
$42,000
$250,000
$778,400
Attachment 3
Page 12 of 16
May 25, 2004
Two bridges are needed, at the Northern Drainage (Kobold property) and the Moiler
Drainage (Moller property). Each bridge is 128' wide; southerly bridge is 100' long and
northerly bridge is 150' long. Cost is $135/sf
Cost: (100 + 150) x 128 x $135 = $4,320,000
Streambed stabilization work (drop structures or other provisions) is needed at the
northern bridge to prevent upward channel bed downcutting after the existing culvert is
removed. An allowance is needed for stabilization work and possible habitat mitigation.
Cost: $500,000
Total bridge costs: $4,820,000
Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gieason Drive
Existing improvements include one TIF travel lane and a landscaped median in each
direction from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north; full frontage improvements on the
east side of the street, and full frontage improvements along the west side of the street
from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north. Future improvements include the construction
of one TIF travel lane in each direction from Gleason Drive to a point 1300' north and
full TIF improvements from this point to a point 5000' north of Gleason Drive (the
Northern Drainage creek crossing). It is anticipated that frontage improvements will be
obtained along the Adams property (west side) as a result of future development.
Intersection improvements at Gleason Drive will include modification of the traffic signal
and installation of a second left turn lane on the north leg; right-of-way is existing.
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg x 50% for modification = $31,250
1 leg x $22,000 for civil work = $22,000
Total Intersection Costs: $53,250
Several properties on the west side have limited development and/or are publicly owned;
an allowance is needed in the TIF to pay for frontage improvements that may be needed
for the orderly development of the road.
EBRPD Property:
Goodwin Property:
United States of America (Camp Parks):
Spferflage:
Total:
17O If
215 If
100 If
520 If
1,005 If
Attachment 3
Page 13 of 16
May 25, 2004
Frontage improvements include curb and gutter, a 12' travel lane, an 8' shoulder and a 6'
sidewalk. Cost of improvements is $885/If for a typical 128' wide six-lane street.
Sidewalk cost is $3.50/sf, or $21/lf for a 6' sidewalk.
Total Frontage Costs: 1005 x ((885 x 20/128) + 21) = $160,078
Segment 23 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gieason Drive
Intersections are existing. Right-of-way is existing. North leg of Gleason Drive
intersection will require signal and civil modification to accommodate second le~ turn
lane. Both legs of Central Parkway intersection will require signal and civil modifications
for second left turn lanes.
Cost:
3 legs x $62,500 per leg for signals x 50% for modification = $93,750
3 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil work = $66,000
$159,750
Segment 24 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580
Intersection improvements are existing. Right-of-way is existing. Northbound right turn
lane is needed at Dublin Boulevard (existing right turn lane will become #3 travel lane).
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 50% for modification
1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil work =
$31,250
$22,000
$53,250
Segment 25 - Tassajara Road/1-580 Interchange
Interchange improvements are existing
Segment 26 - Fallon Road, Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive
Street is existing from Signal Hill Drive to Antone Way, and is under construction
between Antone Way and Gleason Drive. Intersection improvements are needed on south
leg of the Tassajara Road intersection.
Attachment 3
Page 14 of 16
May 25, 2004
Cost:
1 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% =
1 leg x $22,000 per leg for civil improvements =
$62,500
$22,000
$84,500
A bridge is needed at the Northern Drainage crossing. Per plans and estimates prepared
by MacKay and Somps, the bridge is 83' wide by 125' long. Grading for the approach fill
and the slide repair to the north of the bridge requires 120,000 cy of material. MacKay
and Somps estimated the grading cost as $1.70/cy.
Cost: 83' x 125' x $135
120,000 x $1.70 =
$1,400,625
$204,000
$1,604,625
Segment 26A - Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension
Street improvements exist on north side of street from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon Road
(1600'). Improvements are under construction between Gleason Drive and Bent Tree
Drive (694') and will be credited at the existing TIF rate (pending credits are included in
the total credit amount). Street does not currently exist south of Old Fallon Road.
Intersection improvements are under construction at the Gleason Drive intersection.
Full intersection improvements are needed at both legs of Central Parkway and on the
north leg of the Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Area B-4 (north leg Dublin Blvd.) -- $28.00/sf
Area B5b (south leg Central) = $3,000/acre (use $13.50
Area C-5 (north leg of Central) = $13.50/sf
Cost:
3 legs x $62,500 per leg for signal costs x 100% =
2 legs x 5,560 x $13.50 =
1 leg x 5,560 x $28.00 =
3 legs x $22,000 per leg for civil costs x 100% =
$187,500
$150,120
$155,680
$66,000
$559,300
Attachment 3
Page i 5 of 16
May 25, 2004
Frontage improvements are needed along the Community Park frontage from Gleason
Drive to Central Parkway. The length of the park frontage is 3,400 lf. Frontage
improvements consist of curb and gutter, an 8' shoulder and a 12' travel lane. Sidewalk
and landscaping are considered to be included in the adjoining park improvements. Cost
of the improvements is $885/lffor 128' wide street.
Cost:
3,400 x (20/128) x $885 =
$470,156
Segment 27 - Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580
Street improvements do not currently exist. Full intersection improvements are needed on
the south leg of the Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Area A-4 (south of Dublin Boulevard) = $12.00
Cost:
1 leg x $62,500 per leg for signal x 100% =
1 leg x 5,560 x $12 =
1 leg x $22,000 for civil costs =
$62,500
$66,720
$22,000
$151,220
Segment 28 - Fallon Road/1-580 Interchange
Interchange costs are based on the estimate in the 1999 update; 10% is added for
inflation.
Under a current agreement between the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore,
Dublin will pay 50% of the cost and Pleasanton and Livermore will each pay 25% of the
cost.
Segment 29 - Tassajara Creek Bike Path
A bridge is needed across Tassajara Creek at the extension of Somerset Drive. The width
of the pathway will be 8', with an additional 2' to allow a concrete barrier between the
path and the adjoining vehicle lanes. This is 5' wider than the 4' sidewalk that would
otherwise be allowed. Length of the bridge is 150'.
Attachment 3
Page 16 of 16
May 25, 2004
Cost:
5' x 150' x $135/If=
$101,250
Park and Ride Facility
The Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road lots are existing. Cost of the Fallon Road lots is
estimated at $4.40/sf.
Cost:
40,000 x $4.40/sf=
$176,000
Other Costs
A cost of $6,000,000 is allowed for construction of a new parking structure at the BART
station to replace the existing parking lot, which will be developed as part of the Transit
Center. The structure will provide a total of 1,680 parking spaces and will cost
$20,000,000. The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority will pay for replacement
of the existing 1,180 spaces on the surface lot, at a cost of $14,000,000. The TIF fee will
pay for an additional 500 spaces, intended to serve new growth in Eastern Dublin, at a
cost of $6,000,000. A new fee section, the Section II Residential BART Parking
Surcharge Fee, will pay this cost to be paid only by residential development.
An allowance of $100,000 is provided for the fee update. This will be a Section I cost.
A cost of $100,000 is allowed for three City entry signs at the 1-580 interchanges on
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. These will be a Section I cost.
A cost of $200,000 is allowed for miscellaneous traffic and alignment studies associated
with TIF improvements. These are Section I costs.
Traffic studies indicate that the existing southbound left tum lane at the intersection of
Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard will need to be lengthened to provide
210' of storage (plus a 90' taper) to accommodate increased left tums utilizing Amador
Valley Boulevard to reach Eastern Dublin. Cost is estimated at $150,000. This will be a
Section II cost.
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 12
May 25, 2004
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Right-of-Way Costs
Note: All right-of-way costs are for planning and estimating purposes only, and are not a
commitment to reimburse property owners or provide TIF credits in the amounts shown
in the estimates. Reimbursements or credits will be based on actual square footages of
R/W, which are acquired or dedicated.
Segment 1 - Dougherty Road, City Limits to Amador Valley Boulevard
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 2 - Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard to Houston Place
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 3 - Dougherty Road, Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard
Right-of-way costs of $138,690 are used per the City CIP
Cost: $138,690
Segment 4 - Dougherty Road to North of 1-580 Off-Ramp
Right-of-way costs of $2,957,420 are used per the City CIP
Cost: $2,957,420
Segment 5 - Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 6 - Dublin Boulevard, Sierra Court to Dougherty Road
Right-of-way costs of $439,139 are used per the City CIP
Cost: $439,139
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 12
May 25, 2004
Segment 7 - Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road to S/P R/W
Right-of-way costs of $255,720 are used per the City CiP
Cost: $255,720
Segment 8 - Dublin Boulevard, S/P R/W to Iron Horse Parkway
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 8A - Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 9 - Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 10 - Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Right-of-Way exists Tassajara Road to Keegan Street (3600') and Keegan Street to
Lockhart Way (775')
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003)
Area A-2
Area A-3
Area B-3
Area B-4
(southside, Keegan to 1300' east) R/W: $13.00/sf
(southside, 1300' e/o Keegan to Fallon Road, 1420') R/W = $13.00/sf
(northside, Keegan to 1750'east) R/W = $38.00/sf
(northside, 1750' e/o Keegan to Fallon Road, 970') = $28.00/sf
TIF = 30' median plus four 12' lanes -- 78' (39' each side) (six lanes total)
Right-of-Way Costs =
525' x 39' x $13.00
1420' x 39' x $13.00
975' x 39' x $38.00
970' x 39' x $28.00
$266,175
$719,940
$1,444,950
$1,059,240
$3,490,305
Attachment 4
Page 3 of 12
May 25, 2004
Segment 11 - Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted
Area A-4 (southside, Fallon Road to 2640' east) R/W = $12.00/sf
Area A-5 (southside, 2640' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 2400') R/W = $6.00/sf
Area B-5a (northside, Fallon Road to 900' east) R/W = $11.00/sf
Area B-Sb (northside, 900' e/o to 2640' e/o Fallon Road, 1740') R/W = $3,000/acre =
$0.07/sf, use $6.00/sf
Area B-6a (northside, 2640' e/o Fallon Road to City limits, 2400') R/W -- $3,000/acre =
$0.07/sf, use $6.00/sf
City Limits to Airway Boulevard (3000')
1999 Update used $12.00/sf; use $.6..00/sf per ARWS Study
TIF = 16' median plus four 12' lanes = 128' (64' each side) (six lane roadway, City of
Livermore will contribute 50% of cost)
Right-of-Way Costs =
2640' x 32' x $12.00 =
2400' x 32' x $6.00 =
900' x 32' x $11.00 =
1740' x 32' x $6.00 =
2400' x 32' x $6.00 =
3000' x 128' x $6.00 x 50%
$1,013,760
$460,800
$316,800
$334,080
$460,800
$1,152,000
$3,738,240
Segment 12 - Airway Boulevard/1-580 Interchange
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 13 - Hacienda Drive, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 14 - Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Drive
Right-of-Way is existing
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 12
May 25, 2004
Segment 15 - Hacienda Drive/1-580 Interchange
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 16 - Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive
Right-of-way is needed along the west side of Arnold Drive. It is anticipated that Camp
Parks will dedicate the needed right-of-way at no cost to the City as a condition of
redeveloping the southerly portion of the property.
Segment 16A- Central Parkway, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 17 - Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 18 - Central Parkway, Tassajara to Keegan Street
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 18A- Central Parkway, Keegan Street to Fallon Road
The street segment is presumed to terminate at the revised alignment of Fallon Road,
which follows the existing Old Fallon Road right-of-way 600' west of the alignment
shown on the current General Plan. This shortens the length of the road by 600'. The
westerly end of the Community Park is also presumed to move 600' west of its current
location to the extension of Lockhart Way. The length of park frontage remains at 1500'.
Right-of-way was dedicated between Keegan Street and Lockhart Way (800') as part of
the Fairway Ranch project.
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area B-3 (southside, Keegan Street to 1200' east) R/W = $38.00/sf
Area B-4 (southside, 1200' to 2230' e/o Keegan Street, 1030') R/W = $28.00
Area C-3 (northside, Keegan Street to 1500' east) R/W = $33.00
Attachment 4
Page 5 of 12
May 25, 2004
Area C-4 (northside, 1500' to 2230' e/o Keegan Street, 730') R/W = $13.50
TIF = 16' median plus two 12' lanes = 40' (20' each side) (four lanes total)
Community Park Frontage Width = 12' lane, 8' shoulder, 12' parkway = 32'
Right-of-Way Costs =
400' x 20' x $38.00 =
1030' x 20' x $28.00 =
700' x 20' x $33.00 =
730' x 20' x $13.50 =
770 x 32' x $33.00 =
730' x 32' x $13.50 --
$304,000
$576,800
$462,000
$197,100
$813,120(CommunityPark)
$315,360(CommunityPark)
$2,668,380
Segment 19 - Gleason Drive, Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 19A - Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 20 - Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Right-of-Way is existing, Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street, 1000'
Remainder of right-of-way from Brannigan Street to Fallon Road will be dedicated prior
to August 1, 2004, and will receive TIF credits at existing TIF rates. Pending credits are
included in total credit amounts.
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted
Area C-2 (southside, Brannigan Street to 1400' east) R/W = $35.00
Area C-3 (southside, 1400' to 3000' e/o Brannigan, 1600') R/W = $33.00
Area C-4 (southside, 3000' e/o Brannigan to Fallon Road, 800') R/W -- $13.50
1999 Update (northside, Brannigan Street to 1400' east) R/W = $13.90 + 10% =
$15.29/sf
Attachment 4
Page 6 of 12
May25,2004
Area C-3 (northside, 1400' to Fallon Road, 2400') R/W = $33.00
TIF Width: 16' median plus two 12' lanes = 40' (20' each side) (four lanes total)
Right-of-Way Costs:
1400' x 20'x $35.00 =
160ff x 20' x $33.00 =
800,x 20'x $13.50 =
140fix 20'x $15.29 =
2400, x 20, x $33.00 =
650,x 32'x $13.50=
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A (Community Park)
N/A
Segment 21 - Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard
Scarlett Drive currently exists as a two lane facility from Dougherty Road to Houston
Place, a distance of 1400 lineal feet. Improvements are located in the southerly 50' of the
100' railroad right-of-way, which was dedicated by a developer as part of an adjoining
apartment project.
Between Houston Place and Dublin Boulevard, a distance of 1000 lineal feet, the road
does not currently exist. The southerly 50' is still owned by the developer and will need to
be acquired. Although portions of the land may not be needed for the road, it is presumed
that the entire parcel will need to be acquired.
The northerly half of the 100' railroad right-of-way is owned by Alameda County from
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard. The entire 2400' length will need to be acquired
from the County. Although portions of the land may not be needed for the road, it is
presumed that the entire parcel will need to be acquired.
A portion of the new road must swing out of the Alameda County right-of-way onto the
Camp Parks property. The estimated area needed for the road is 40,000 sf.
An additional 20-50' right-of-way acquisition from Camp Parks along the length of the
road is needed to in order to maintain the right-of-way for the future Alameda County
Transit Corridor. It is presumed that the County would trade this new right-of-way for the
existing right-of-way which it owns, and would credit the purchase by the City of the
existing right-of-way in return for the replacement land. Therefore, no additional cost is
assigned to this property, except for potential utility relocations. A cost of $500,000 is
allowed for the relocation of the existing oil pipeline pumping station.
Attachment 4
Page 7 of 12
May 25, 2004 '7~
The 1999 Update used $15.00/sf; use $20.00 for the update based on recent acquisitions
along Dublin Boulevard:
50' x 1000' x $20 =
50' x 2400' x $20 =
40,000 sf x $20 =
20-50' x 2400' x $20 =
Camp Parks Utility Relocation
$1,000,000
$2,400,000
$800,000
N/A
$500,000
$4,700,000
Segment 22 - Tassajara Road, 5000' North of Gleason Drive to CC County Line
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study (May, 2003) unless otherwise noted
Area F-1 (westside, 5000' n/o Gleason to CC County Line, 5660') IWW = $17.00/sf
1999 Update (eastside, 5000' n/o Gleason to Silveria, 2500') IWW = $11.00/sf+ 10% =
$12.10/sf
Area F-2 (eastside, Silveria and Mission Peak frontage, 1500') IWW -- $6.00/sf
1999 Update (eastside, Mission Peak to CC County Line, 1660') R/W = $11.00/sf+ 10%
= $12.10/sf
TIF R/W is existing (TIF width = 64', existing IWW = 66'); T~ IWW needed for portions
of road which shif~ from existing centerline; non-TIF IWW will need to be acquired along
frontages of property without development potential (six lanes total)
Wallis Ranch Frontage: Total/W needed
Non-TIF: 32' x 2300'
Net TIF R/W
132,376 sf (.per RJA Precise Plan Alignment)
( 73,600 sf)
58,776 slx $17.00/sf = $999,192
Bragg/Silva Frontage: Total IWW needed
Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire
Remainder of Parcel (to be acquired)
30,844 sf(per RJA)
0 sf
45,000 sf
75,844 sfx $17.00/sf=
Net TIF R/W $1,289,348
Attachment 4
Page 8 of 12
May 25, 2004
Fredrich Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF: 32' x 685'
Net TIF R/W
Vargas Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF: 32' x 325'
32' x 600 x 1/2
Net TIF R/W
13,039 sf(Parcel 1 per RJA)
10,614 sf (Parcel 2 per RJA)
(21,920 sf)
1,733 sfx $17.00/sf= $29,461
21,488 sf(per RJA)
(10,400 sf)
(9,600 sf)
1,488 sfx $17.00/sf=
$25,296
Tipper Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire
Net TIF R/W
Kobold Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF: N/A, will need to acquire
Net TIF R/W
Quarry Lane School: Total R/W needed
Neilsen Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF; N/A, will need to acquire
Net TIF R/W
Silveria Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF R/W 32' x 15'
Net TIF R/W Allow 3,000 sf at north end'
Haight Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF R/W 32' x 750'
Fallon Road R/W included in total
Net TIF R/W
18,995 sf (per ILIA)
(osO
18,995 sfx $17.00/sf=
$322,915
3,228 sf (per RJA)
(0sf)
3,228 sfx $12.10/sf=
$39,059
0 sf (per RJA)
961 sf(per ILIA)
(o sf)
961 sfx $12.10/sf=
$11,628
31,105 sf (Parcel 2 per RJA)
(48,000 sf)
3,000 sfx $6.00/sf= $18,000
78,722 sf (per RJA)
(24,000 sf)
(24,000sf)
30,722 sfx $6.00/sf= $184,332
Attachment 4
Page 9 of 12
$0o 18;;
May 25, 2004
Mission Peak Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF R/W 32' x 400'
Net TIF R/W
Moller Frontage: Total R/W needed
Non-TIF R/W 32' x 1200'
Net TIF R/W
Total R/W Costs
21,680 sf (per RJA)
(12,800 sO
8,880 slx $6.00/sf= $53,280
78,756 sf (per RJA)
(38,400 sf)
40,356 slx $12.10/sf= $488,308
= $3,460,819
Segment 22A - Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive to 5000' North of Gleason Drive
TIF R/W is existing (TIF width -- 64', existing R/W = 66'); non-TIF R/W will need to be
acquired from parcels without development potential (six lanes total)
1999 Update used $18.00/sfon east side of road; add 10%; use $19.80/sf
EBRPD Frontage: 31' x 170'
Goodwin Frontage 31' x 215'
USA (Camp Parks) 31' x 100'
Sperfslage: per RJA
Total R/W Costs
5,270 sfx $19.80 = $104,346
6,665 sfx $19.80 = $131,967
3,100sfx $19.80= $61,380
20,000 slx $19.80 = $396,000
$693,693
Segment 23 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 24 - Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580
Right-of-Way is existing
Segment 25 - Tassajara Road/1-580 Interchange
Right-of-Way is existing
Attachment 4
Page 10 of 12
May 25, 2004
Segment 26 - Fallon Road, Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study unless otherwise noted
Area F-2 (westside and eastside, Tassajara Road to 1550' east) R/W = $6.00, Use $9.00
per 1999 Update; add 10%; use $9.90/sf (Silveria Ranch)
1999 Update (westside and eastside, 1550' to 2650' east of Tassajara Road, 1100') R/W
= $9.00/sf+ 10% -- $9.90/sf (Dublin Ranch Area D)*
Right-of-Way is existing through Dublin Ranch Area A south to Gleason Drive
TIF Width = 16' median plus two 12' travel lanes = 40' (four lanes total)
Right-of-Way Costs:
40' x 1550' x $9.90/sf=
40' x 1100' x $9.90/sf=
Total Right-of-Way Costs
$613,800
$435,600
$1,049,400
* Fallon Road R/W through Area D was previously offered for dedication, but credits
have not been issued pending acceptance of R/W by City
Segment 26A - Fallon Road, Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard Extension
Right-of-Way is existing from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon Road, 1660'
(Note: Non-TIF R/W dedicated along Community Park frontage received Parkland Fee
Credits and is not included in TIF credits)
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area C-5 (westside, Old Fallon Road to 2000' south) R/W = $13.50/sf
Area B-4 (westside, 2000' s/o Old Fallon Road to Dublin Blvd, 1200') R/W = $28.00/sf
Area C-5 (eastside, Old Fallon Road to 2000' south) R/W = $13.50/sf
Area B-5b (eastside, 2000' to 2600' s/o Old Fallon Rd, 600') R/W = $3,000/acre or
$0.07/sf; use $11.00/sf
Area B-5a (eastside, 2600' s/o Old Fallon Road to Dulbin Blvd, 600') R/W = $11.00'sf
TIF Width = 16' median plus four 12' travel lanes = 64' (32' each side) (six lanes total)
Community Park Frontage -- 12' travel lane + 8' shoulder + 12' parkway = 32'
Attachment 4
Page 11 of 12
May 25, 2004
Prior dedication by Lin Family of six lane roadway from Gleason Drive to Old Fallon
Road provided credit for four lanes; cost of additional two lanes needs to be added so that
credit can be issued; use ARWS Fee Impact Study Area C-4 = $13.50'sf; width = two
lanes at 12' = 24'
Right-of-Way Costs:
32' x 2000' x $13.50 = $864,000
32' x 1200' x $28.00 = $1,075,200
32' x 2000' x $13.50 -- $864,000
32' x 600' x $11.00 = $211,200
32' x 600' x $11.00 = $211,200
32' x 1400' x $13.50 (Park) = $604,800
24' x 1660' x $13.50 = $537,840
$4,368,240
Segment 27 - Failon Road, Dublin Boulevard to 1-580
Costs per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area A-3 (eastside, Dublin Blvd to 1-580, 680') R/W = $13.00/sf
Area A-4 (eastside, Dublin Blvd to 1-580, 680') R/W = $12.00/sf
TIF Width = 28' median plus six 12' lanes = 100' (eight lane roadway)
60' R/W exists on eastside, overlaps TIF;
Area = (94' + 80'/2) x 430' = 37,410 sf+
(70' + 60'/2) x 230' = 14,950 sf
52,360 sfx $13.00 = $680,680
Segment 28 - Fallon Road/1-580 Interchange
Per Cordoba Consulting, Inc., cost estimate of October, 1999 (prepared for 1999 EDTID
Update), R/W = 3.2 acres (137,509 sO
Per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area A-2 (westside) = $13.00/sf
R/W costs = 137,509 x $13.00 = $1,787,617
Attachment 4
Page 12 of 12
May 25, 2004
Segment 29 - Tassajara Creek Bike Path
Path is located within Tassajara Creek setback open space parcels; no TIF credit will be
given
Park and Ride Facility
Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road lots are existing; Right-of-way is needed for Fallon
Road lot (east side of road); per 1999 Update, lot is 40,000 sf
Per ARWS Impact Fee Study
Area A-4 (eastside) R/W = $12.00'sf
R/W costs = 40,000 x $12.00 = $480,000
ZONE 7 FEES
TIF AREA
Attachment 5 - Zone 7 Fees
Iii-
Price Length width in Quantity Cost:
Road Segment per ft2 in ft ft in ft2 Zone 7 Fee
Dougherty Road - Segment 1 $0.522 4,300 49 210,700 $109,985.40
Dougherty Road - Segment 2 $0.522 4,150 49 203,350 $106,148.70
Dougherty Road - Segment 3 $0.522 900 49 44,100 $23,020.20
Dougherty Road - Segment 4 $0.522 550 49 26,950 .... $14,067.9..0
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 5 $0.522 1,800 Under Construction
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 6 ....$0.522 2,030 49 I 99,470 I $51,923.34
Dublin B~)ulevard - Segment 7 $0.522 1,6~'0 .....Completed
Dublin Boulevard Extension- Segment 8 $0.522 1,950 Landscaping N/A
Dublin Boulevard Extensi0m Segment 8A $0.522 2,650 12 I 31,800 I $16,599.60
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9 $0.522 4,600 Completed
Dublin Boulevard-Segment 10 $0.522 1,975 49 I 96,775 I $50,516.55
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 11 $0.522 9,500 49I 465,500I $242,991.00
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12 I $0.5221 I I 0 I $0.00
Haciend~ ~ Segrn~nt 13 ~ $015221 i525 ~ Completed
Hacienda- Segment 14 I $0.5221 2640 I 12 I 31,680 I $16,536.96
Freeway Interchange - Segment 15 I $0.5221 I Completed I
'"Arnold Drive- Segment 16 (all TIE) I $0'5221 2640 I 28 I 73,920 ! $38,586'~4
Central Parkway- Segment 16A $0.522 1400 25 I 35,000 $18,270.00
Central Parkway ~ Se~_ment 17 $0.522 4575 25I 114,375 $59,703.75
Central Parkway - Segment 18 $0.522 3640 Completed
'-(3entral Parkway~ Segment 18A $0.522 1430 25 ! 35,750 ..... $'i'~1661.~0
'"~l'eas0n. Segment 19 $0.522 1600 Completed ......
Gleason - Segment 19A $0.522 4650 Completed
.... ..G!.eason - S.egment 20 $0.522 4800 Completed $0.0.0
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21 I $0'5221 - I - I 40,000 I $20,880.00
Ta$~ajara Road- Segment 22 $0.522 5660 49 277,340 $144,771.48
Tassajara Road - Segment 22A $0.522 5000 49 245,000 $127,890.00
Tassajara Road - Segment 23 $0.522 2470 25 61,750 . $32,233.50
~assajara Road - Segment 24 $0.522 800 12 9,600 $5,011.20
Tassaiara Road - Segment 25 $0.522 0 0 $0.00
Fallon Road - Segment 26 $0.522 8080 25 202,000 $105,444~00
Fallon Road - Segment 26A $0.522 4840 49 237,160 $123,797.52
Fallon Road - Segment 27 $0.522 680 49 33,320 $17,393.04
Fallon Road & 1-580 Freeway Interch. W/
Signals - Segment 28 $0.522 - - 208,955 $109,074.73
Tassajara.......Creek Bike Path - Segment 29 I $0.5221 7100 I 12 I 85,200 I ..... $.4._4.,.474.40
Park & Ride 15o.5221 ' I ' I 40,000 I $20,880.00
f
.......... TOT.A..,L. ,,$1,51S,8G1,01
6/9/2004 TIF spreadsheet Zone 7 FeeslAttachment 5 - Zone 7 Fees
Attachment 6
25-May-04
Summary of Outstanding Credits
Developer Date Section I S'ecti0n i'i ...................
*ACSPA Assumption of Shod-Term Bad Advance (5%) 3/4/2004 $ 2,196,012.00
Interest on Advance, 8 years 3/i9/2004 $ 495,586.82
*Bart Advance (2.4%) 3/4/2004 $ 2,032,636.89
Interest on Advance, 8 years 3/19/2004 $ 18i ,3,,01.81,,
City of Pleasanton Advance (7.75%) 3/4/2004 $ 3,031,653.00
Interest on Advance, 8~years 3/19/2004 $ 1,197,042.!7 .................
ACSPA, Emerald Point/Opus 11/10/2003 $ 3,603,314.32
ACSPA, Tassajara Meadows II 11/10/2003 , $ ..... 3,,:,'77,'/',,~,93.47
ACSPA, Toll Brothers 11/10/2003 $ 11,754,439.21
ACSPA, Koll Park and Ride 3/4/2004 $ 358,818,00
ACSPA, Parkand Ride 11/10/2003 $ 867,188.14
ACSPA, Hacienda Drive Interchange 11/10/2003 $ 1,677,025.00
ACSPA, Tassajara Road Interchange .............. 11/10/2003 $ 4,543,128.00
ACSPA, Sybase Traffic Signals 11/10/2003 $ 658,,!2,,,5':,,0.0_
Subtotals AC~PA .... $ 31,468,626.31 $ 4,905,537.52
DR A~uisitions I 3/4/2004 $ 2,037,420.00 N/A
DR Acquisitions II 3/4/2004 $ 5,463,417.00 ............ N/,~
Greenbriar 3/4/2004 $ 76,517.00 $
Lin Family 3/4/2004 $ 14,496,907.06 $ 421,663.15
Mission Peak 3/4/2004 $ .... 1,6,0.,:,7.73.00 $
MSSH Development 3/4/2004 $ 1,625,728.00 $
Toll CA II 3/4/2004 $ 985,35,2;.5,3.,' $ 114,704.29
T°ll DUblin LLc 3/4/2004 $ (502,776,67) $ 316,805,38
'Toll Dublin LLC (Pending Signed Agreement) 3/10/2004 $ ....... 4,.6,.2,747.00
Lin Family, Fallon Rd: I/~ (Pend!ng Signed Agreement) 3/10/2004 ....... ,$, ......... ..210,559.00
Subtotal Miscellaneous ............. $ 24,806,084.92 $ 1,063,731.82
Adjustment for Residential Improvements $ (2!9',~,1,;,~34.00I
Excess Tass:Rd: I!C Develo~per Con~rib~!on to be Refunded $ (1,700,000.00) ............
Total Credits (Existing Credit Agreement) $ 51,593,377.23 $ 5,969,269,34
P~nding C~dits
Quarry Lane School Contribution (No Agreement) $ 409,500.00 .....................
Lin Family, Gleason Drive, Sediment 20 I" "1 $ 4,688,254.00 .........
Lin Family, Fallon Road, Segment 26 (" ") $ 238,,,,6,,12.00
El? Fa?!Y~ F~!!on Road, ~e~qment 2~A (~,i) $ 361,119.00 .............
L.in Family, Central Pkwy.? Fai..r~. y...~an~h, Segment 18A (" ") $ 1,009,226.00
Lin Family, Dublin Blvd., Fairway Ranch, Segment 10 (" ") ...... $ 1,369,155.00
Total Credits $ 59,669,243.23 $ 5,969,269.34
Attachment 6a
Eastern Dublin TIF Update
May 25, 2004
Section I Residential Fee Adjustments
The 1999 Update listed credits in the amount of $2,802,460 for the Section I Residential
surcharge. This included the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road Park and Ride Lots and
portions of the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail through the Greenbrier Homes Phase I
project. Since that time, Greenbrier Homes has completed an additional section of the
trail through the Phase II development. Credits are given for 1800 If of the 12' trail at
$178,874.
This amount needs to be added to the current credit amount, for a new credit amount of
$2,981,334.
The Section I Residential surcharge is collected with the Section I fee, but has not been
segregated from the balance of Section I fees. Credit should be given to the Surcharge
account for the portion of fees collected to date.
Attachment 7 May 25, 2004
Eastern Dublin TIF Credit/Fee Balance Summary
TIF Category Section I Section II Section I Total.
Residential
SectiOn 1 Fee
Account Balance . $53,731.80 ........ 7-~-_77 ...................... $53,731.80
Section 2 Fee
Account Balance .................... $4,609,182.00 ................... $4,609,182.00
Dougherty
Valley Traffic
Mitigation Fee
Account Balance $1,145,420.50 $1,145,420.50 $2,290,841.00
Remaining $6,736,730.00 $6,736,730.00 $13,473,460.00
Dougherty ($1,145,420.50) ($1,145,420.50) ($2,290,841.00)
Valley Fees to be ($97,380.11) ($97,380.11) ($194,760.22)
Collected (Total = = =
Contra Costa $5,493,929.39 $5,493,929.39 $10,987,858.78
County +8.48% +8.48% +8.48%
Contribution = = =
Minus Fees Used $5,959,814.60 $5,959,814.60 $11,919,629.20
to Date and
Current Account
Balance) .......
*Account balances are of 2/29/04
Notes on Dougherty Valley Fees:
Per agreement w/CC County, City will receive $13,473,460. Per Finance, City has
transferred out $194,760.22 in funds received to date from CC County for the Willow
Creek traffic signal project. There is currently $2,290,841.00 in unencumbered DV fees
in the account for use on TI]F projects. Subtracting these amounts from the $13,374,460
leaves $10,987,858.78 still to be collected, which is treated as revenue to the TIF. The
remaining fees must be adjusted upward by 8.48%, to reflect the inflation factor used in
the EDTIF. This increases the remaining fees to $11,919,629.20.
o
Both the current fee balance and the remaining fees to be collected were split equally
between the Section I and Section II projects. The fees are interchangeable between the
two categories and could be assigned in different proportions.
Attachment 8
May 25,2004
Eastern Dublin TIF
Residential Surcharge Balance Estimate
The Section I fee includes a surcharge on residential development to pay for the cost of
three park and ride lots and the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail. The 1996 update set the
fee at $26/trip and the 1999 update set the fee at $44/trip. The surcharge is collected
with residential building permits but has not been separately tracked. The amount of the
surcharge collected to date can be estimated by the number of building permits issued to
date.
Dates Applicable Fee Fee Estimate of Surcharge
Update Trips Due to Collected
Building
Permits Issued
June, 1996 to 1996 $26 11,775 $306,150
June, 1999
July, 1999 to 1999 $44 23,590 $1,037,960
August, 2003
Total 35,365 $1,344,110
The above amount can be applied as an existing balance for the Section I residential
surcharge, resulting in a decrease of the remaining cost of the residential projects.
Since these surcharge is being segregated from the total Section I fees collected to date,
this amount must be deducted from the overall Section I balance, resulting in an increase
in the remaining cost of the Section I improvements.
88~¢888~8~¢~888888~88888.8.8. g8.~. 8.88:88~8
~ ~ ' 5 ............ ~ ' '
0 ~ .-
= ~ ~.-sg$ ~ ooo= .- ~ ~e~B~~
E ~ o ~ ~ 'E ~ c c cO 9 -
imm
0
Attachment 12
May25,2004
Eastem Dublin TIF Update
City of Pleasanton Loan Payoff
The City of Dublin has obtained three loans or cash advances from other agencies for the
construction of TIF improvements, which must be paid back through TIF fee revenues.
The current value of these loans or debits (as of 3/29/04) is shown on Attachment 6, and
is added to the total cost of existing credits. Also added is the estimated cost of interest
that will accrue on the loans prior to full payment of the principal. The cost of the interest
is based on an eight-year repayment of the loans. Loan/advance balances and estimated
interest is shown below:
Section LOan BalanCe ............. Interest 8-YearInterest
..! q.![.zofPle~santqn $3,031,653 7.75% $1,19.7,042
II ACSPA $2,196,012 5.00% $495,587
II BART $2,032,637 2.40% $181,302
The City currently requires that developers pay 3% of Section I fees in cash for use in
paying off loans. Since the 1999 Update of the TIF, new development has resulted in an
estimated 75,000 trips, or 20,000 trips per year. This generated roughly $7.8 Million in
Section I fees, of which 3% or $230,000 was collected in cash to pay off the loan. Interest
on the loan at 7.75% is $234,953. The revenue is therefore able to pay only the interest
and cannot reduce the principal. Under this situation, the interest payments will continue
indefinitely. Further, the City will be unable to accrue Section i fees for use on TIF-
related projects.
A similar situation exists for the Section II loans. Therefore, the minimum cash payment
will need to be increased.
The loan repayment plan is based on an estimate of funds that woUld be raised by
increasing the minimum cash payment from 3% to 11% for Section I fees, and the
minimum payment for Section II fees from 12.4% to 25%. The revenues are projected
over the next eight years. The projections for the first five years are based on
development projections from the Community Development Department, which estimate
79,843 trips from approved or pending projects that are expected to take out building
permits over the next five years. The projections from the last three years are based on an
estimated 15,000 new trips per year from development. Projects with an approved
development that sets the minimum cash payment rate will pay the fee at the rate in the
agreement (3-5% for Section I and 12.4% for Section II). Certain projects not covered by
a development agreement and without existing TIF credits will pay a higher proportion of
the fee in cash (this is only for the purpose of estimating cash revenue; actual payment
will be governed by the 11% and 25% minimum).
The Section I 11% minimum payment would be an increase of 8% over the existing 3%
cash payment, and would result in a cash payment of $47 per trip instead of $13 per trip
if the 3% rate were continued (using a fee of $425/trip for the update). The Section ii
25% minimum payment would be an increase of 12.6% over the existing 12.4% cash
payment, and would result in a cash payment of $31 per trip instead of $15 per trip if the
12.4% rate were continued (using a fee of$124/trip for the update).
Many developments are currently faced with the dilemma of installing TIF improvements
that exceed available credits, resulting in the developers carrying excess credits.
Increasing the minimum cash payment for Section I fees would likely result in a higher
cash payment and greater excess credits for most developers. The cash outlay for a
single-family house would increase roughly $34/trip (or $340) for Section I fees and
$16/trip (or $160) for Section II fees, or a total of $500.
Increasing the minimum payment to a higher percentage than the proposed rates in the
update would accelerate loan payment and decrease the total interest paid on the loans.
Increasing the minimum cash payment any higher than the proposed rates was not
considered due to the hardship placed on existing developers who have advanced the
.construction of other improvements and are currently holding TIF credits. Requiring that
a large portion of the fee be paid in cash would prevent the use of existing credits, in
effect depriving the credit holders of a means of being reimbursed for prior cash
advances.
The proposed minimum payments would not apply to the existing Section I Residential
Surcharge and the proposed Section II Residential BART Parking Surcharge, as the
credits for these categories do not bear interest. Credit holders for the Section I surcharge
could utilize existing credits up to the full amount of the fee. The Section II surcharge
fees would be paid 100% in cash, except for any potential residential development by the
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority outside of the Transit Center (ACSPA
would be the only credit holder, having constructed the BART parking structure).
Exhibit C
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Effective August 15, 2004
Residential {Within Transit Center)
High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)
Residential (Outside of Transit Center)
Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)
Non-Residential
Development Other Than Residential
$3,564/unit
$6,950/unit
$6,950/unit
$4,865/unit
$4,170/unit
$ 549/trip
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE*
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
RECREATION:
1 O/room
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
Recreation Community Center 26/1,000 sf
Health Club 40/1,000 sf
Bowling Center 33/1,000 sf
Golf Course 8/acre
Tennis Courts 33/court
Theaters:
Movie 220/screen
Live 0.2/seat
Video Arcade 96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
HOSPITAL:
1,5/student
General 12/bed
Convalescent/Nursing 3/bed
Clinic 24/1,000 sf
CHURCH: 9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
8/1,000 sf
* Sources of information for Trip Generation Rates: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). These trip generation rates are based
on averages. Most retail uses are given a 35% pass-by reduction.
6/9/2004
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Effective August 15, 2004
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-BY)
RESTAU RANT:
Quality (leisure) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Bar/Tavern See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Fast Food (with or without drive through) 465/1,000 sf
AUTOMOTIVE:
Car Wash:
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire Store/Oil, Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
FINANCIAL:
Bank/Savings and Loan
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops:
Retail/Strip Commercial (no major store)
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
5851site
70/wash stall
97/pump
281service bay
(no pass-bys) 4811,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 801acre
See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
22/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
26/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
Land uses marked in BOLD will always pay at the individual trip rate as these uses tend to
generate destination trips. Commercial/retail and certain recreation uses will pay at the individual
trip rate if the site is a stand-alone land use; if the land use is part of a larger shopping center, the
appropriate shopping center trip rate will apply.
Page 2 of 2
6/9/2004 g:~EDTIF UPDA TE~Exhibit C - Fee Rates
Exhibit D
AREA Of BENEFIT
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
*Cost of Roadway *Cost of Bridge
Improvements Improvements
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive
Central Parkway
Gleason Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road
Street Alignment Study
Extend and widen to 6 lanes from the Southern Pacific
Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the
DKS revised report form December 15, 1992 and
mitigation measure 3.3/10).
Widen and extend as 4 lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Gleason Drive and to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin
Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of
Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised
report).
Construct new 4-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive
to Fallon road (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report). (The
project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to
Doolan Road due to no development proposed in the
future study area.)
Widen to 4 lanes over a 6-lane right-of-way from Dublin
Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to 6
lanes over an 8-lane right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard
to 1-580 from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and
mitigation measure 3.3/14.0
Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to 4 lanes over a 6-
lane right-of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara road (from the
EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of
the DKS revised report).
A study is required to specify the exact street alignments
in the Eastern Dublin area.
$ 18,846,606.50 $ 1,620,000.00
$ 445,353.92 $
$10,273,457.90 $ 540,000.00
$ 460,968.3O $
$ 15,630,504.79 $ 4,820,000.00
$16,129,176.66 $ 1,604,625.00
$ 100,000.00
Right-of-Way Contingency
Funds are required to acquire land in the event that right-
of-way must be obtained through condemnation and 0
value of land is greater than the appraised value.
Total $ 61,886,068.07 $ 8,584,625.00
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 68,257 related trips for residential and 228,579 trips for non-
residential is $2,080/unit for Low Density (1-6 units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (7-14 units per acre), $1,456
for Medium/High Density Residential (15-25 units per acre), and $1,248 for High Density Residential (more than 25 units);
and $208/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for bridge improvements for Low and Medium Density Residential is $290/unit, for Medium/High
Density Residential is $203/unit, and for High Density Residential is $174/unit, and non-residential is $29/trip.
The eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 3,916 Low Density units; 4,863 Medium Density units; 2,680 Medium/High
Density units;and 3,952 High Density units.
* These cost estimates do not include credits due for construction of portions of these major thoroughfares and bridges. In
the event that the Area of Benefit Fee becomes effective, the appropriate credit amounts will be calculated and the Area of
Benefit Fee will be adjusted accordingly.
Attachment 2, Staff Report
2004 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
Allocation Between Land Acquisition and Construction Costs
Land Including
Sediment Description R!ght.Of:Wa~, Ov~.r.~.ea._d TOtal Project Cost
1 DOu~lherty Road - City Limits to Amador Valle)' Widenin~l $ $ , , $ 3.348.516,00
2 D0u~hert,/ Road - Amador Valle), boulevard to Houston Place ..................... ~ .... $ $ 3.167,756.82
3 D0ugherty Road - Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard $ 138.690.00 $ 180,297.00 $ 562,837.70
4 Doughefej Road - Dublin Boulevard to N°rtl~ Of 1-580 Off Ramp $ 2.957,420,00 $ 3 844 646.00 ,,~ ,, 5,587,007.86
5 Dublin Boulevard - East of Villa~le Parkway to Sierra Court Widenin~l $ ............................ - $ $ 1.138.400.00
~ D~b!in Boulevard T ~ierra C°urtt0 D0ughert~/ ROad .Wldenln~ ......... $ 935.639.00 $ 1.216,330,70 $ 2,747,168,78
7 Dublin Boulevard - Doughem~ to Southern Pacific Right-of-Wa)' $ 255,720,00 $ 332 436.00 $ ,, 1 061 221.19
8 Dublin Boulevard Extension -Southern Pacific R/W to East BART Access ,, $ ................... - $ $ 265,345.60
8A Dublin Boulevard Extension - East BART Access to Hacienda Drive $ ......... - ..... $ $ 612,095.80
9 Dublin Boulevard - Hacienda to Tassajara Road ...... $ .... $ $ 195.325.00
10 Dublin Boulevard - Tassajara Road to Fallon Road ........... $ ..... 3~490.305,00 $ 4,537,396,50 $ 6.773.679.10
11 Dublin Boulevard Extension- Fallon Road to Airway ........................ ~ 3.738,240,00 $ 4,859,712,00 $ 12,620,161.00
Pdor Grant/Loan Revenue for Dublin Boulevard $
12 Freeway Intemhan~e - Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 [Alrw;~y_.B, Ivd) $
13 Hacienda - 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard Extension $ $ $
' 14 Hacienrle "-' Dublin Bouleva~'~' Ext(~lsio~ to Gleas~"'D-~iv~ ..... $ - $ ........... $ ,, 445~353.92
15 Freeway Intemhan~le - Hacienda Road with 1-580 ,, $ ..................... - $ ............. $ 5,700,000.00
16 Arnold Drive - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason $ $ $ 3,772,937,91
16A Central Parkwa)' - Arnold to Hacienda $ $ ,- ...... $ ........ ~57~497,:72
17 Central Parkwa)' - Hacienda to Tassajara $ ....... - ......... $ .......... $ 1.903,486,47
18 :Central Parkway - Tassajara to Ke~Qan ~treet, Wesfem 3~640 feet $ $ $ 151.067,80
18A Central Parkwa)' - Keegan Street to Fallon. 2,230 feet $ 2,668,380.00 $ 3 468.~894.00 $ 3.953.612,00
19, iGleason-Arnold Road to Hacienda $ - ,, ,$ , , $ 81.250,00
19A Gleason - Hacienda to Tassajara $ $ $
20 Gleason - Tassajara to Fallon ........ [:[......~i......¢ .... $ $ 379.718.30
21 Scarlet Drive - Doughert)' Rqad t~.Dublln B0ule~..a.~...E.~t~n.s.!0n... $ 4.700,000.00 $ 6,110,000.00 $ 10,338,137.12
22 Tasaaj~a Road - 5.000 feet north of Gleason to Contra Costa County Line $ 3,460,819.00 $ 4,499,064.70 $ 15,961,385.12
22A Tassajara Road - Gleason Road to 5.000 feet north of Gleason Road $ 693,693.00 $ 901,800.90 $ 3,675~284.50
23 Tassajam Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to Gleason Road , , $ $ $ 670,958.96
24 Tassajara Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1-580 ....................... $ $ $ 142,876,20
25 TassaJara Road - Freeway Interchange $ $ -, ........ $ ............................ .- .....
26 Fallon Road ~ Tassajara to Gleason , , $ .... lt0.4_~:4._0_0.00 $ 1.364,220,00 $ 7,396,405.60
26A Fallon Road - Gleason to Dublin Boulevard Extension $ 4.368,240,00 $ 5,678,712.00 $ 8,726,697,02
27 Fallon Road - Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580 $ 680,680,00 $ 8~,~,.884.00 $ __1;610~699.04
28 Fallon and 1-580 Freeway Interchan~le with Si~lnals $ 1.787,617.00 $ 2.323,902.10 $ 15,364,736,37
29 Tassa~ara Creek Bike Path- Greenbriar Property Line to Contra Costa COUnty I~[~ ', .,$. $ $ 1,062,179,40
30 Parkand Ride $ 480,000.00 $ 624,000.00 $ 873 680.00
::":" : Transit Center'BART P~rkir~"$tm'ctu~ ....................... $ $ $ . 6 000,000.00
TIF Update $ $ $ 100,000.00
Other Costs (Section I) $ $ $ 300,000.00
Other Costs $ - $ $ 150,000.00
TOTAL $ 31,404,843.00 $ 40,826,295.90 $ 127,197,478.31
% Right-of-Wa), ...................... 32%
.......... % Improvements ................................ 68"/,
Attachment 3
Analysis of East Dublin Residents Parking at the Dublin BART Station,
Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, October 11, 2002
omn .means
I~ N Gl N E E RS . PLANNERS
October 11, 2002
Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Traffic Engineer
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Analysis of East Dublin Residents Parking at the Dublin BART Station
Dear-Mr. Kuzbari:
This letter report summarizes our analysis of resident parking characteristics at the Dublin BART
station. Specifically, we have identified the residence locations for the existing BART station
parkers and projected how those patterns are likely to change in the future.
1. Existing Dublin BART Parking Characteristics
The existing Dublin BART station parking consists of surface parking within lots and along
streets in the BART station area. In order to establish the residence locations for the current
BART users, a license plate survey was conducted at the BART station.<~ This survey recorded
a total of 1,440 license plates of the vehicles parked at the station. These plates were processed
by the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to identify addresses for the parked vehicles.
The results of the survey are listed in Table 1. As indicated, about 25 % of the current BART
users are Dublin residents. Of this total, 9.4% currently reside within the East Dublin area (east
of Arnold'Drive and north of 1-580). The East Dublin area currently has about 2,570 occupied
dwelling units? The 135 BART users from East Dublin therefore represent about 5% of the
current dwelling units.
The survey results suggest that a high proportion of the BART users are from outside the City
of Dublin. In particular, the combined use by san Ramon, Livermore and Central Valley
residents is 53 % of all the BART users. This statistic suggests that "end-of-line" stations such
as Dublin are significantly affected by demand from areas beyond the City limits.
2. Projected BART Use By East Dublin Residents
As noted above, 9.4% of the current BART users represent East Dublin households. However,
the number of East Dublin dwelling units will increase significantly. At buildout, an additional
1901 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 120 · Walnut Creek, CA 94596 · (925) 935-2230 fax: (925) 935~2247
PC')fiF\/II I g PFF3fblN~ \/t.~AI IA. WAI BilIT ~_DI;I;:I(
October 11, 2002
Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Page 2
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESIDENCE PATTERNS FOR
CURRENT DUBLIN BART PARKING
Residence Location
Dublin
(East Dublin 9.4%; other Dublin 15.6%)
San Ramon
Central Valley
Livermore
Pleasanton
Danville
Other Locations
P~rcent of BART Parking
25.0%
23.8%
15.8%
13.4%
6.5%
4.9%
10.6%
100%
October 11, 2002
'Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Page 3
12,300 units will be occupied and added to the current 2,570 unit count.® The eventual 14,900
East Dublin units will represent nearly six times the current housing in the area. With this very
large increase in housing, it is likely that the BART ridershiP from East Dublin residents would
also increase.
It would be tenuous to assume that the very large increase in East Dublin dwelling units would
result in a proportional increase in BART ridership from that area. The BART station parking
spaces would continue to be available for riders on a "first come - first served" basis. Thus, a
rider from outside the City of Dublin would have the same opportunity for parking at Dublin
BART as an. East Dublin resident. However, it is expected that with the very large increase in
East Dublin residents, the proportion of BART use by those residents would increase somewhat.
The potential for this increase has been assessed based on several data sources.
With construction of the West Dublin BART station, it is likely that a substantial portion of West
Dublin and San Ramon patrons would shift to that station. With that shift, a greater number of
the existing stations users would be East Dublin residents. If one-half of the current San Ramon
and West Dublin patrons shift to the new West Dublin BART station, about 283 East Dublin
BART spaces would, in theory, be available for East Dublin residents. The total BART use by
East Dublin residents could increase to about 418 vehicles (135 existing vehicles plus 283
vehicles). With a proportional increase to account for an increased parking supply (2,200 future
spaces vs. 1,680 current spaces), the East Dublin BART usage could increase to about 550
spaces. It is, however, also recognized that the greater availability of parking at the East Dublin
BART station could attract patrons from the substantial population growth of the Central Valley
and Dougherty Valley areas.
Based on 2000 Census survey information, about 5.8% of East Dublin households use BART as
their primary commute mode? This ratio is measurably higher than the 3.4% factor for other
Dublin residents taken from the same Year 2000 Census survey data.(5) Applying the 5.8 % factor
to the eventual 14,900 East Dublin dwelling units could yield a total of about 860 BART riders
from the East Dublin area. Again, these residents would be competing with other BART patrons
from outside the City, and the actual proportion of East Dublin BART users could be lower.
Finally, we have discussed the potential for East Dublin BART usage with Mr. Robert Cervero,
a Professor with the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. Mr. Cervero
indicates that in increasing numbers, people are choosing their housing location based upon its
proximity to BART. Thus, it could be expected that East Dublin would attract a greater number
of potential BART users. In fact, the relative BART usage by East Dublin residents (described
above) appears to validate this premise.
October 11, 2002
Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Page 4
3. Summary and Conclusions
As determined from the license plate surveys, use of the existing BART station is widespread
geographically with only 25 % of the users representing Dublin residents. Substantial use (53 %
of the total) is generated by residents of San Ramon, Livermore and the Central Valley'.
While it is tenuous to precisely predict future BART use by Dublin residents, it is likely that a
greater number of the East Dublin' BART patrons would represent East Dublin residents. First,
applying the current commute patterns to the East Dublin dwelling units would yield an East
Dublin demand for about 860 BART parking spaces (14,900 total East Dublin dwelling units x
5.8 % BART usage). In light of people choosing to live in East Dublin because of its proximity
to BART, this appears to be a reasonable estimate. In addition, construction of the West Dublin
BART station would be expected to attract a substantial portion of the San Ramon and West
Dublin residents, resulting in more parking spaces being available at the existing East Dublin
BART station. If one-half of the San Ramon and West Dublin BART users shift to the new
station, about 550 East Dublin residents would have spaces available within the expanded East
Dublin BART parking. However, Dublin residents would continue to compete with non-Dublin
residents for parking spaces. In light of this fact, a more conservative estimate would be that
400-500 of the future East Dublin BART parking spaces would be used by East Dublin residents.
I trust that this report responds to your needs.
questions or comments.
Si~rely, .
George W'7'Nicke~
Branch Manager
Omni-Means, Ltd.
Please review our analyses and call me with any
cc: Nicole Brown, EPS
October 11, 2002
Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Page 5
(1) Parking survey by Omni-Means, Ltd. 'on September 30, 2002.
(2)
Dwelling unit statistics provided by Mr. Eddie Peabody, Dublin Community Development
Director, on September 30, 2002.
(3) Mr Eddie Peabody, Ibid...
(4)
Year 2000 census data provided by Ms. Janet Harbin, Dublin Community Development
Department, October 8, 2002.
(5)
Year 2000 census data, East Dublin Residents Using BART (104 workers / 1,803 total
workers -- 5.8 %), Remaining [other] Dublin Residents (437 workers / 12,696 workers
-- 3.4%), Table P30, Means of Transportation to Work for Workers 16 Years and Over,
Census 2000 Summary File.
Attachment 4
Transit Center Staff Report (PA 00-013),
November 19, 2002
(without attachments)
CiTY CLERK
File #1
12JlO
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 00-013 known as the Dublin Transit
Village Center Planning Area submitted by the Alameda County
Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) to consider an Amendment to
the General Plan; Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
Planned Development (PD) Rezone/Stage I Development Plan for
the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area; and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(Report prepared by: Michael Porto, Project Planner)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Exhibit A. Adopting Findings Concerning Significant'
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Exhibit B. Adopting Findings Regarding Alternatives
Exhibit C. Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Consideration
Exhibit D. Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Resolution Adopting Amendments to the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Exhibit A. Land Use Summary
Exhibit B. General Plan Map 1-2B
Exhibit C. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Map Figure 4.1
3. Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Zoning Ordinance
4. Draft EIR dated July 2001 and Final EIR dated September 2002
for the Dublin Transit Center (sent previously under separate
cover)
5. Booklet: "Dublin Transit Center General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning" (sent
previously under separate cover)
6. EPS Study entitled" Recommendations for Transit Center
Financing, East Dublin FFIC Impact Fee Analysis EPS #12038",
dated October 17, 2002 with attached OMNI Means Traffic
Study, dated October 11, 2002
7. Planning Commission Staff Report
8. October 22, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-40 approving Tentative
Parcel Map with Conditions of Approval
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open public hearing and hear Slaffpresentation
2. Question Staff
3. Take testimony from the applicant and the public
G':~PA#~2000\00-013\CCSRI 1-19-02.DOC
COPIES TO: In-House Distribution
Applicant/Property Owner
ITEM NO. _~
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
4. Close public hearing and deliberate I OC~ ~) 1 .~ 7_..
5. Adopt the following resolutions:
· Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and Adopting Findings Concerning Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Findings Regarding
Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 1)
· Resolution Approving Amendments to the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 2)
6. Waive the Reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3)
approving the PD - Planned Development Rezoning and related
Stage 1 Development Plan
See below
BACKGROUND:
The subject property of this Application is referred to as the Transit Village Center Planning Area. The
Applicant is the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), as the primary property owner, in
cooperation with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Until several years ago, the area was
owned by the U. S. Army as part of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA), but
came under ownership of the ACSPA as a result of several land exchanges. Total area within the Transit
Village Center boundaries is approximately 91 acres (actual 90.65 acres) with ownership divided as
follows: a) ACSPA = approximately 61.5 acres, b) BART = 15 acres, c) public roads and right-of-way =
approximately 14 acres
This 90.65-acre area generally is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard and the southerly portion of
the Parks RFTA complex, on the south by 1-580 and existing BART station, on the east by Arnold Road,
and on the west by the Iron Horse' Trail which is a recreational greenbelt along an abandoned railroad
fight-of'way. Other than the existing public streets, transit-related improvements, and associated parking
lots, the area currently is undeveloped with a flat topography that gently slopes to the south and west.
The Dublin Transit Village Center is not 'located within any of the City's Specific Plan areas, but is
situated immediately to the west of the 3,300-acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and east of the City's
"Primary Planning Area." Due to its history as part of Parks RFTA, the area retains a General Plan Land
Use designation as Public Lands. Portions of the area also are designated Business Parlorlndustrial and
BuSiness Park: Low Coverage. Aside from the transit related uses, the area currently is zoned for
Agriculture.
A planning study was conducted by ACSPA and concluded in September 2001. According to the
Applicant, no other BART station has as much adjacent vacant land under one ownership with major
streets and utilities in place. The proposed plan reflects the results of that study with consideration given
to opportunities for planning and developing a mixed-use project from the ground up which provides
convenient access to mass transit use as a primary means of transportation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed as a new neighborhood of mixed
uses arranged around a village green, a series of open space corridors, and plazas connecting to the
entrance of the East DublinfPleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. The project is
anticipated to include approximately 1,500 high-density residential units and approximately 2 million
square feet of campus office ranging in height from 8 to 10 stories. Ground .floors of both the residential
and campus office developments are proposed to include ancillary retail for providing convenient goods
and services to residents, workers, and rail commuters. Approximately 490,000 sf or up to 24% of this
campus office space is "flex" 'space meaning that it may be replaced with up to 300 additi0Iial residential
units or a combination of housing and hotel uses depending upon the market and developer interest.
A key element of the proposed plan is the BART station and reconfiguration of the parking, which serves
that station. The existing BART 'facility, which opened in 1995, is located in the median of the 1-580
freeway on the south side and just outside of the Dublin Transit Village Center project area. Transit-
related improvements on site include a traction station/access platform, a utility substation that supplies
power to the BART station, a bus transfer station, and surface parking lot of approximately 1,326 spaces.
Parking and access to this station also is provided in surface lots south of 1-580 within the City of
Pleasanton.
The most significant change in the current operation of the existing improvements resulting from the
requested approvals would be the construction of an above-grade parking stmcture of approximately
1,700+ spaces to replace the existing surface parking. The structure is proposed to be designed to allow
for increased capacitY in response to furore needs. Subterranean parking has been determined to be
infeasible due to the high-level of the groundwater table beneath the site. The over all objective of the
Transit Village Center is to provide a pedestrian-friendly environment for high-densitY residential and
campus office land uses with access to multi-modal transportation options in order to encourage mass
transit ridership and allow for reduced dependence automobile use.
Also important to the layout of this Planning Area are the proposed street and circulation improvements
and recreational components to include a new neighborhood park and access to the Iron Horse Trail
greenbelt which has bbeen improved with pedestrian and bicycle corridors.
Reauested/Reauired Actions: The Property Owner/Applicant has applied to the City for a number of
planning actions and approvals necessary for marketing and developing the property within the Transit
Village Center area. These actions collectively comprise PA 00-013 and include:
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared, circulated, and reviewed for the
Transit Village Center along with adoption of findings concerning significant impacts, adopting
findings regarding alternatives, adopting a statement of overriding considerations' and adopting a
mitigation monitoring plan;.
An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the proposed land uses;
,, An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would annex or incorporate the 91-acre
Transit Village Center as a subarea of this Specific Plan;
A Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 Development Plan to establish zoning uses and
development standards; and
· Subsequent to the approvals this evening, the Applicant will be applying for a development
agreement that will identify the timing of infrastmcture construction as well as other items.
Proposed Development: The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area is proposed to have
nine development sites and public right-of-way serving as the circulation system for the area. As a
subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, development standards pertaining to density are
applied to gross area or acreage. The gross area of each Development Site within the boundaries
of the Dublin Transit Village Center includes property that has been or will be dedicated for public
space including rights-of-way or common public space.
In depth details regarding a summary of land uses, analysis of land use density per development area and
acreage comparisons are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report attached hereto as
Attachment 7. Please refer to that document for detailed analysis.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan Amendment: The proposed General Plan Amendment represents the fourth General Plan
Amendment of 2002. State law limits General Plan amendments to four per calendar year.
Addition to the Eastern Extended Planning Area - The 91 acres of the Dublin TI~ansit Village
Center is proposed to be added to the Eastern Extended Planning Area. This addition· would
increase the size of the Eastern Extended Planning Area from'4,200 acres to 4,291. The following
Sections, Tables, and Figures would require amendment or revision due to this increase:
a) Section 1.4, Primary Planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Area;
b) Table 2.1, Land Use. Smmnary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area;
c) Figures: 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2 and any other figures or tables ...that make reference to this area
Land Uses - The current General Plan land uses described in the Background section above and
shown on Figure 1-2B [which will be Figure l-la when the new Dublin General Plan Land Use
Map approved on November 5, 2002 becomes effective December 5, 2002] of the General Plan
are proposed to be replaced by High-Density Residential, Campus Office, Public/Semi-Public, and
Parks/Public Recreation corresponding to the proposed uses shown Exhibit C of the Planning
Commission Resolution recommending City. Council approval of this amendment and
corresponding to the proposed development plan.
The Transit Center is currently outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and because of
this, the Transit Center is not included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee area (City Council
Resolution 225-99). Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), the owner of the
Transit Center property and the applicant for the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
Amendment and Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezoning has requested that the project area
be annexed into the EDSP and that the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee area be expanded to
include the Transit Center area. An extensive Fiscal Analysis backed by a specific traffic study to
determine impact from Eastern Dublin was conducted and is included herein as Attachment 6.
Allowance of Ancillary Uses - A mixed-use area by definition includes a variety of uses on one
site generally in a vertical configuration. Also, certain land use designations of the General Plan
allow uses that are incidental or ancillary to the designated use. Of the land use designations
proposed for Dublin Transit Village Center, only Campus Office allows ancillary uses, which
provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area. However, as a mixed-
use project, the High-Density Residential and Public/Semi-Public uses also are proposed to
include ancillary retail and services uses at the ground floor level.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the High-Density Residential and
Public/Semi-Public uses to include ancillary retail and service uses for residents, workers, and
businesses when they are part of a transit village center or other mixed-use project. Such uses
would be limited to ground floor space oriented towards Iron Horse Parkway. Examples of those
uses would be similar to those allowed in the Campus Office designation as stated in the General'
Plan.
Flex Uses on Sites D-I and E-1 - The land use designation for Sites D and E is proposed as
Campus Office, with ancillary retail on the ground floor of Sites D-1 and E-1. Approximately
490,000 sf of office space is proposed for these two sites. The plan also proposes an optional or
"flex" use of these sites in place of the office space depending upon market conditions and
developer interest.
· The Campus Office space designation allows a maximum of 50% of the site to be developed as
residential use. The gross acreage for Sites D and E is 38.3 acres; Sites D-1 and E-1 together are
9.78 gross acres, or about 26% of the site. Additionally, the campus office space of 490,000 sf
proposed for these two sites represent approximately 25% of the 2 million sf total proposed for the
Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area. Therefore, a land use amendment would not be
required to allow the optional high-density residential use.
The proposed plan also provides Site D~I with a development option as a hotel. A'fiotel use also
is an allowable use under the Campus Office land use designation and would not require a land
use amendment to exercise that development option.
Structured Parking for High-Densi .ty: Housing - Parking for the Campus Office space and high-
density housing is proposed to be accommodated in multi-level parking structures below or
adjacent to these uses. Street-level frontages woUld be screened or wrapped by ancillary retail and
service uses. However, the General Plan directs the majority of multi-level, non-surface parking ·
to be provided "under-structure." As an example, it suggests a high-density residential
development of up to 80 units per acre is possible in 4-stories if carefully designed.
It has been determined that subterranean parking is infeasible due to the high water table in this
area. Therefore, the proposed PD Rezone/Stage I Development Plan discussed below indicates
that the height limit next to the transit center would be between 8 and 10 stories or up to 120 feet.
Residential building height would be established at a maximum of five stories above the parking
levels and campus office uses would be established at a height of eight to ten stories, inclusive of
parking levels. The exteriors of buildings with above-grade parkinglevel will need to be designed
with materials and architectural elements that fie together parking levels with office or residential
uses on the upper stories.
Amendment to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently is divided
into ten subareas, each. with its own land use' concept and community design guidelines. The 91~acre
Dublin Transit Village Center is proposed to be incorporated or annexed into the 3,300-acre Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan ~krea as the 11t~ subarea. The Specific Plan text would be amended beginning with
the addition of "Chapter 4.9.10': "Transit Village Center" under "Chapter 4: Land Uses" which would
describe the location, land use concept, and subarea development potential. The addition of this subarea
also would require appending "Chapter 7: Community Design" with "Chapter 7.6: Transit Village
Center." This new chapter would establish the building types and form as well as the policies for open
space and public facilities. The proposed text amendments are set forth in the draft resolution
recommended for City Council approval. Unless otherwise stated'in this Specific Plan Amendment, all
provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are applicable to this Subarea, and all figures and maps:
included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would need to be amended to be consistent with the
newly-established boundary.
This new subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan generally has been designed in conformance with
the standards required for designation as a transit village plan pursuant to the Transit Village
Development Planning Act of 1994 (Section 65460 et seq. of Government Code). The Applicant has
requested that designation. However, at this time staff recommends that the Planning Commission and
City Council postpone any action to adopt the Dublin Transit Village Center as a transit village plan until
conformance with the requirements can be confirmed and further analysis is conducted regarding the
benefits of this designation. ~
PD Rezone/Stage I Development Plan: At this time, the Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area
(Subarea 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) is proposed to. be rezoned from Agriculture and
Public/Semi-Public to PD Planned Development pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. The uses are consistent with the land uses proposed in the Amendments to the General Plan
and .to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with development
standards adopted in a Stage 1 Development Plan will need to be approved prior to development project
approval along with any required Site Design Reviews.
A number of other requirements would be adopted as part of the Stage I Development Plans as follows:
* Aovlicabilitv of the Eastern Dublin Svecific Plan ~ As with the amendment to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, all of the standards and requirements in that document would be applicable to the
PD Rezone and Stage i Development Plan for the Dublin Transit Village Center except as
otherwise stated in that Amendment.
Permitted Uses - Permitted uses within the area designated for Campus Office allow up to 300
optional residential units on Sites D-1 and E-1 in place of the 490,000 sfof Campus Office space
proposed, in addition, Site D-1 may be developed as hotel in place of either Campus Office or
High-Density residential use. Adjustments regarding required park acreage will be addressed
within a subsequent development agreement.
. ..Affordable/Inclusionar¥ Housing - The City's Zoning Ordinance requires Stage I Development
Plans to include an Affordable or inclusionary Housing component. The ACSPA has stated that
Transit Center housing will be more affordable by virtue of its proximity to a major multi-modal
transit hub. To assist in meeting the State requirement for providing very low, low, and moderate
income housing, the ACSPA is proposing that 15% of the units in the Dublin Transit Village
Center be available as affordable. The ACSPA has stated in its application materials that it is
'willing to significantly write down the Value of the underlying land and work with interested non-
profit and for-profit developers to create and manage the affordable units in as efficient manner as
possible
Traffi..c... Impact Fee Area - The uses established by the Stage I Development Plan allow planning
for infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate the traffic anticipated from new development.
The approved uses also are factored into the estimated financing requirements for constructing
those improvements. Specific development proposals would be considered only after approval of
a Stage 2 Development Plan with site-specific development standards established for evaluating
new construction.
Public Realm Approval of the proposed Dublin Transit Village Center would include conceptual
design of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system within this Planning Area, such as street
widths, fight-of-way improvements, lighting, and.landscaping. The plan submitted by the ACSPA
provides a detailed discussion of the proposed improvements for the areas within the public realm.
The design concept statement discusses the principles, goals, and objectives for the streetscape,
open space, and landscaping. As a multi-modal transportation hub, functional improvements and
aesthetic appeal are essential to the operation and success of this project. In addition to creating a
transit-Oriented development in a village-like neighborhood, the plan has been designed to provide
a comprehensive open space system, maximize pedestrian circulation, and create distinctive and
attractive streetscapes.
Irt addition to the over all concept, the Plan also establishes specific guidelines and criteria for
non-auto circulation, lighting, and landscaping. The proposed "Circulation Diagram" (Non-Auto)
identifies the pedestrian circulation routes to transit connections and multi-use trails, along with
the walking radii shown in minutes and (portions of) miles. To achieve these objectives, the plan
provides specific design standards for each street and intersection within the project area
appropriate to the type of circulation needs anticipated. Plazas and open space designed for
residents, workers, and commuters also have been integrated auto routes.
The main focal point of design is the oval-shaped Village Green with generous sidewalks linking
this public space to Iron Horse Parkway on the east and DeMarcus Boulevard on the west. The
plan proposes specific design elements for the entry plazas and entry nodes to the Village Green to
include decorative paving, special landscape treatment, and public art or water features. A mid-
block pedestrian pathway links the Village Green with Iron Horse Pla2a across from the entry to
the BART station.
For vehicular traffic, visual focal points would include pedestrian plazas and opportunities for
landmarks in the form of public art. In keeping with the agricultural-based history of the area,
6¥¢
plantings are proposed to represent patterns found in orchards, groves, and hedgerows. A grid of
trees planted in an orchard motif is the proposed landscaping for designated comers. As traffic
moves westward from the intersection of Arnold Road and Digital Drive, the street narrows which
indicates that the area is becoming more oriented towards pedestrians. Hardscape materials would
identify areas distinctly for pedestrians including Paving materials and patterns. Depressed corner
ramps with bollards would be designed to be compatible with access standards established by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact. Fee Area: The Developer has requested that following approval of the
project the Eastern Dublin TIF be amended to include the Transit Center area and that certain
improvements required by the conditions of approval of the parcel map (Attachment 9) be included in the
Eastern Dublin TIF program. These improvements are estimated to cost $8.4 million and include (1)
Dublin/Dougherty intersection [Dougherty Road north leg and south leg and Dublin Blvd. west leg and
east leg]; (2) Scarlett Drive extension; and (3) Hacienda Drivefl-580 Interchange (included as Conditions
26, 27 and 29 respectively of the conditions of approval of the Parcel Map). In addition, the Developer
has requested that the City consider including certain parking spaces, estimated to cost $6 million, in the
proposed BART.parking garage in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. Staff contracted with Economic and
Planni'ng Systems to do a study to assess whether these improvements could be included in the Eastern
Dublin TIF program. That study (Attachment 6) indicates that there is a need for parking stalls at the
DublinfPleasanton BART station and that the need will continue to grow as Eastern Dublin develops.
The parcel map approval includes various conditions requiring either construction or funding of certain
traffic improvements (see conditions 19 to 29 of Attachment 9). Condition 7 requires the Developer to
construct or fund 'all such improvements specified in the. conditions of approval unless the City amends
the Eastern Dublin TIF to include the Transit Center area. If the Council includes the Transit Center area
in the Eastern Dublin TIF area, condition 7 allows the Developer to pay the Eastern Dublin TIF in lieu of
constructing or contributing directly to those new improvements identified in the parcel map conditions
which are later determined to be appropriate for inclusion in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. Although
the EPS study (Attachment 6) anticipates that the improvements identified in Conditions 26, 27 and 29
(Attachment 9) are appropriate for inclusion in the Eastern Dublin TIF, that decision is not before the
Council now. Regardless of whether the Transit Center area is included in the Eastern Dublin TIF area,
the Developer will be required to construct or fund the improvements identified in Conditions 19, 20, 21,
22 23, 24, 25 and 28 (Attachment 9) because those improvements are either not appropriate for inclusion
in the TIF program because they are local improvements or are already in the TIF program (Condition 28
of Attachment 9).
If the Transit Center project is approved, Staff will return to the Council with a proposed amendment to '
the Eastern Dublin TIF to include those improvements required by the Transit Center which are
appropriate for inclusion in the TIF program. As noted, Staff believes these include the improvements
included in conditions 26,. 27 and 29) [estimated to cost $8.4 million] and a portion of the BART parking
garage [estimated to cost $6 million].
If the Transit Center area is included in the Eastem Dublin TIF, the Surplus Property Authority could use
certain of its existing credits towards payment of the TIF for the Transit Center project if the Authority ·
entered into a erediff reimbursement agreement with the City (TIF Guidelines, V.B.).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City prepared a Notice of Preparation dated November 13, 2000, and circulated a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Dublin Transit Center Project. It was assigned the State
Clearinghouse number SCH 20001120395, and the 45-day review period ran from July 6, 2001 to August
21, 2001. During the course of preparing the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, an additional
traffic impact was identified that had not been analyzed previously. Also, subsequent to Ibis rewew
period and after the preparation of the response to comments, the proposed plan was revised to designate
Site F as a neighborhood'park. An analysis of the newly-identified traffic impact was reeireulated for a
new 45-day review period from July 16, 2002 to August 30, 2002. The written responses to comments
and the related revisions to the Draft EIR are contained in a separately bound Final EIR dated September
2002.
Therefore in conjunction with this application, the City Council will consider certifying the
Environmental Impact Report and adopting findings regarding mitigation of significant impacts, findings
regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring plan.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 2002, considered the EIR, the General Plan
Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezone and
a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a portion of the property. The Planning Commission discussed items
such as parking, future review potential, park size and affordable housing. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended to the City Council certification of the EIR, adoption of the General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments approval of the Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezone and approved the
Tentative Parcel Map contingent upon Council approval of the companion applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2)
question Staff; 3) take testimony from the applicant and the public; 4) close the public hearing and
deliberate; 5) adopt resolutions certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and' adopting the
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments; and 6) Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance
(Attachment 3) approving the Stage 1 P.D. Planned Development Rezoning.
Attachment 5
Written Comments From Public
I9~9-10A
IiiAOKAY& $01flPS
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
FIECEWED
MaY 12, 2004
C!ty of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublir~ CA 94568
Arm: Ray Kuzbari - City Traffic Engineer
MAY 1 8 2OO4
PUBLIC WORKS
Re: Written cOmments on City's proposed Eastern Dublin T.LF. update
Dear Mr. Kuzbari,
Subsequent ~o the .City's informational meeting on May 10, 2004, I am formalizing my verbal comments given at the
meeting with the following written comments for City record.
The proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic' Impa~t Fee program update does not currently include that portion of Central Parkway
east of Fallon Road to the Dublin City limits. This portion of Central parkway is approximately 5,800 feet long and is
specified in th~ City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as a major east-west circulation element,
along with the rest of Central Parkway.' The General 'Plan and. Specific Plan also speci~ Central Paxkway east of Fulton
Road as a. ~lane c~llgctor. As such, it would seem appropriate that this portion of' Central Parkway be included in the
EDTIF program, particularly in light of the City's current opinion that Central Parkway should extend through the Eastern
Dublin P.rope.,.~..~ oWners anx/exation area and connect to Dublin Boulevard.
it was explained by City representatives at the May 10t~ informational meeting that this portion of Central Parkway was
omitted .due to the maeertalnties of its precise size and configuration as. part Of the on-going planning and'entitlements for
the EDPO annexation .area~ While we agree that there are uncertainties regarding this portion of CenWal Parkway, we would
also submit that if the General Plan and Specific Plan size/configuration for this major collectOr hold true, as the City has
indicated, it would certainly be reasonable for its inclusion in the EDTIF progr~ .am.
Secondly, the proposed EDTIF program includes the portion of future Dublin Boulevard east of Fa~l. on ROad, connecting to
North Canyons Parkway and Airway Boulevard in Livermore. It. was noted at the informational meeting that the City of
Dublin should coordinate with the City'of Livermore regarding an "overlap" of Traffic Impact Fees for this portion of'
Dublin Boulevard - more precisely the portion from the City of Dublin limits to the City of Livermore limits. The City of
Livermore is currently in the process cfa T~F program update as well, and this section of North Canyons Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard is, Tep. ogedly being included .in the .program Update~ .The City representatives present stated that they would
certainly res.ear.ch~ .t1~S possible "OVerlap, and adjust the EDTIF: Program fipdate adb~i~difigly.'
LaStly, questions were raised'at the informational meeting about the proposed increase in the "minimum caSh payment"
amounts for Section 1 and Section 2 fees. While the City representatives presented the. justification for such increases, we
would still wish to formally voice our concern over such significant increaSes being proposed aY such a "late stage" of the,
EDTIF program's lifespan.
If you have any questions regarding the comments above please contact our office.
a's i
M~k .iyl~cClellan
'CC: Jeff L~v~c~
Ted Fairfield
Bob
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B
OFFICES: PLEASANTON
-- SINCE 1953 --
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94558-3~55 PHONE (925) 225-069{~,
· RENQ / SPARKS ROSEVILLE SACRAMEN;O SAN JOSE
www, msce.com
FAX (925) 225-0698
SAN RAMON
MARTIN W. IN'DERBITZEN
Attorney at Law
Melissa Morton
City Engineer
Public Works
City of Dublin
100 CiVic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
May12,2004
RECEIVED
MAY 1. 4 2004
PUBLIC WORK
Re: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update
· Dear Melissa:
Thank you for providing the informational meeting and supporting docUmentation
for the City's proposed update of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program.
While I was unable to attend the informational meeting held on Monday, May 10,
2004, it is my understanding that a number of issues were raised for which the staff has
agreed to prOvide' response prior to the City Council hearing scheduled for June 1, 2004.
One issue rises 'to the level of formal comment in this letter:
The City proposes the continued use of its administrative guidelines for the Fee
Program under Resolution 23-99. We' have long disputed the limitations included in
these guidelines for recovery of credits for the construction of improvements under the
TIF program. We believe that the current "life of the credits/reimbursements" be
extended beyond the 20-year limitation for at least an additional ten years and that this
modification.be retroactive to existing credits.
I look forward to your comments.
Very truly yours,
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
MWIAmh
cc: :. Jim Tong
Rod .An." .drade
-:.
7077 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 120, Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925 485-1060 Fax 925 485-1065
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
James E. Sorensen
Agency Director
Patrick Cashman
Project Director
224
West Winton Avenue
Room 110
Hayward
California
94544-1215
phone
510.670.5333
~x
510.670.6374
WWW,
co,alameda.ca.us/cda
May 14, 2004
Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer
.City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: EDTH~ 2004 Update
Dear l~y:
RECEIVED
MAY 1 7 Z004
PUBUC WORKS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft proposal to update the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDT~) program that we received April 30, 2004. We
also appreciated the public information meeting held on May 10, which we found
very informative.
The purpose °fthis letter is to provide you with written comments, as you requested
at the May 10 meeting, so that the draft update can be modified prior to the planned
3une 15 City Council meeting.
First, we would like to verify that we correctly understood the following points that
you made at the May l0 meeting regarding the update, since these points are very
important to our understanding of the program's future effect on Surplus Property
Authority holdings in the City of Dublin:
Transit Center Retail: You stated that, because the Transit Center EIR indicated no
additional traffic trips, from the 70,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, these Transit
Center retail uses will not be subject to the TiF. This is consistent with. Attachment
10, which calculates the total number of'new trips projected at build out. Because
this is not entirely apparent from the update, which states that all non-public uses are
. subject to the TiF, we would like to make sure that this exemption is explicitly stated
'in the update..
BART Garage: As you are aware, the Surplus Property Authority has more than
enough Section I credits, and. it is doubtful that we will be able to "consume" all of
these credits before they expire. It is our understanding from the meeting that the
new Section I residential fee for the BART garage of $101 will be collected as a
separate cash payment and that this collected money could then flow back to the
County to pay. offthe $6 million credit. We would like to have this arrangement
clarified so that we can more accurately project out the cash-flow we may require
following construction of the BART garage.
Ray Kuzbari
May 14, 2004
Page 2
Existing Loans As Section H Credits: The 2004 Update lists the Alameda County and BART
loans as "Section II Credits" (see Table 1). As discussed at the meeting, we would like the City
to clarify if this means that we are entitled to use some or all of the remaining loan balances due
to the Surplus Property A~thority as Section II credits that we can apply against TIF fees owed
by Surplus property development. In the past, we have never been able to apply these "credits"
against fees owed. Doing so could be beneficial toboth the Authority and the City by drawing
down the remaining principal owed on these loans.
Although we are generally pleased with the 2004 TIF Update, we do request, that the City
consider making several changes to the program. Specifically, we believe that Exhibit C should
be substantially modified. We also believe that the value for the County right-of-way along the
proposed Scarlett Drive corridor needs to be updated.
Exhibit C: We Continue to believe that Exhibit C, which establishes trip rates as the basis of
assessing new projects, is flawed and should be substantially revised in regards to non-residential
uses, .particularly retail uses. Continued reliance on the exhibit as currently written will result in
vastly different and therefore unfair fee assessments on similar land uses, and will make some
potential individual retail uses uneconomic. For instance; the Exhibit now results in more than
double the TIt* on a "bank" versus a "savings and loan" or a "quality" restaurant versus a "sit-
down, high-turnover" restaurant. Smaller, individual projects are unfairly penalized. For an
individual fast-food restaurant, the current Exhibit results in a fee of over $287/square foot.
However, the same fast-food restaurant that's part of a neighborhood shopping center would
only pay $18.54/square foot. Furthermore, the Exhibit over-emphasizes average daily trip rates
while the TiF prOgram is funding a road system designed to handle peak hour trips. For
instance,. Exhibit C results in a fee orS11.24/square foot for "office" but $19.11/square foot for
"medical office" uses, based on average daily trip rates. However, medical office trips are more
likely to trickle in and out over the course of a day while regular office trips generally occur at
peak hour, requiring larger and more costly road systems and intersections.
The fact is, as shown in Attachment 10 of the update, the City has used the underlying Specific
Plan designations to estimate furore trips that will fund the list of TiF improvements, using
standard trip-rates for, neighborhood commercial (46), general commercial (33), campus office
'(20) and industrial (8), as well as the four different densities of residential land uses. These
estimated trips are then summed up and divided into the total estimated cost of the
improvements. It would be far fairer (and there would be an actual nexus) if the same basic land
use categories were applied, through Exhibit C, to collecting the fees. For instance, if property is
designated as "neighborhood commercial" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, retail
development on that property would be charged for 46 trips/I,000 square feet, regardless of
whether or not it contained' a "bank" or a "quality restaurant". If there are particular land uses
that do not easily fall within the Specific Plan land use categories (such as semi-public uses like
private schools or churches) then it might be beneficial to maintain a list of these uses and their
respective trip rates. However, to keep the numerous specific land uses currently listed in
Ray Kuzbari
May 14, 2004
Page 3
Exhibit C, most of which have substantially higher trip rates than the City is using to estimate the
overall trip "base" for calculating the fee, is unfair and without a nexus.
Value of County R-O-W: Improvement of Scarlett Drive between Dublin and Dougherty will
require the acquisition of County right-of-way. The Transit Center Development Agreement
requires that the County accept the value that the City uses in the TIF program for this fight-of-
way. In the 2004 update, the 1999 value of $15 per square foot is simply raised by 10% to
$16.50, In contrast, land values east of Tassajara Road have been~ in some cases, greatly
increased, apparently based on a new appraisal done in 2003, bm only for areas east of Tassajara
Creek, For instance, in 1999, Dublin Boulevard right-of-way adjacent to area "B-3" was
assigned a value of $14/square foot. In the 2004 update, this same right-of-way was now valued
at $38/square foot, apparently based on the value of adjacent land designated for multi-family
residential.: Yet the County right-of-way is also adjacent to multi-family residential
development, some of which has recently sold and could easily be used for value comparison.
Therefore, we request that the City update the value used for the County right-of-way in a similar
fashion as has been used in other portions of Eastern Dublin.
Finally, we are concerned that the TIF costs continue to climb at an alarming rate, raising the
question whether the fee will become some onerous in the future that it will preclude the last
properties from developing - leaving the program incompletely funded. Therefore we suggest
that the City consider the following areas to try and contain costs:
Administrative Fee: Each roadway segment in the T~ is assigned a cost for construction and
right-of-way, then a."City administration, design, construction, management, row acquisition"
mark-up of 20% is added, plus a 10% contingency for "improvement, right-of-way". However,
all right-of-way for many of the roadway segments remaining has already been dedicated. In
these cases, administration should be less and perhaps a lower mark-up totaling 20% rather than
30% would be justified. This could add up to significant savings.
Central Parkway: Even though City traffic models indicate that a four-lane Central Parkway.
between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road will never be required. Removal of the expansion
of this section of roadway fi'om the TIF would reduce the total cost of Eastern Dublin traffic
improvements by $1.9 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the dragt 2004 TIF update and we look forward to
reviewing the revised program.
CC: Pat Cashrnan
Attachment 6
Staff Responses to Written Comments
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
May19,2004
Website: http://www, ci.dublin.ca.us
Mr., Mark McClellan
MacKay & Somps
5142 Franklin Drive,. Suite B
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3355
Subject: Comments on .the Proposed Eastern Dublin. Traffic. Impact Fee Update
Dear Mr. McClellan,.
Thank you for attending the. informational public meeting on May 10, 2004, regarding the
proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF). Update and for your letter, dated
May 12, 2004, in which you summarized your comments in writing. CitY,. Staff has
reviewed the letter and offers, the following responses in the same order the. comments.
were received.. . .'.
We recognize, that Central Parkway, east of Fallon Road, is listed as. a~: four-lane
roadway in the. City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific. Plan'
(Figure 5-lb). However,. according to. the Supplemental EIR for East Dublin
Properties Owners. Annexation (EDPOA),. only two travel lanes (one. in each
direction) would be required for this segment of Central Parkway to handle both
EDPOA trips and through traffic, based, on extensive, traffic, analysis, completed in
2002 by TJKM Transportation Consultants. for this. project.. As a result, it is
appropriate at this. time. to. assume that this segment of Central Parkway would consist
of two lanes of traffic, and would be constructed by the EDPOA development as part
of their frontage improvements.. Hence, this. improvement should not be. included in
the proposed EDTIF Update. based, on the. most recent traffic, analysis provided in the
EDPOA Supplemental EIR.
'However,. should the on-going planning and entitlement process, for the EDPOA
project require, more than two. lanes of traffic on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road
based on an updated traffic study, the EDTIF can .then be updated at an appropriate
time in the future to. reflect this change.
City Staff contacted the City of Livermore regarding the inclusion of the-easterly
3000-foot section of the Dublin Boulevard extension (east of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area), in the Livermore TIF. It was. agreed to. include 50% of the cost for
this. improvement in the on-going Livermore. TIF update.. Similarly, the proposed
EDTIF Update has been adjusted to reflect this cost sharing arrangement.
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833.-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 * Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833~6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
May 19,. 2004
Mark McClellan; MacKay & Somps
Eastern Dublin TtF Update.
Page 2.
We appreciate your concerns regarding the proposed increase in the minimum cash
payment mounts for Section I and Section II fees.. The proposed 2004 EDTIF
Update Offers adetailed discussion of a payment plan for three interest-bearing loans.
bY third parties: for TIF infrastructure and the need to increase the minimum cash
payment requ/rements to pay .off the principals, on these loans. The, proposed
'payment plan would lower the principal amounts, and provide' opportunities..to.
construct TIF-related CIP improvements and/or pay back existing credits..
Thank.you for taking the time. to. discuss this matter and provide input. If you have any
questions, please feel free. to. contact me. at (925) 833-6630.
Sincerely,
Traffic Engineer.
cc: JeffLawrenee,. Braddock & Logan
Ted Fairfield,. Consulting Civil Engineer
Richard C. Ambrose,. City'Manager
Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
Melissa Morton, Public. Works Director
Mark Lander, Zumwalt Engineering
Lee Thompson, Consulting Engineer
G:IEDTIF Update~response to comments_mackay & somp&doc
CITY OF DUBLIN
Public Works Department
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94588
May 27, 2004
Mr. Martin W. Inderbitzen,
Attorney at Law
7077 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 120
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee - 2004 Update
Dear Marty:
Thank you for your letter of May 12, 2004, concerning the proposed update to the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTiF), which was presented for public
review and comment'at an informational meeting on May 10, 2004.
You specifically indicated in your letter that the current life of the
credits/reimbursements should be extended beyond the 20-year limitation for at
least an additional ten years and that this modification should be retroactive to
existing credits.
This change would require revision of the EDTIF Administrative Guidelines,
which were last adopted in 1999. The guidelines can be amended as a separate
action from the fee update. Staff is recommending that the City Council provide
direction on this subject as part of the update review, with the understanding that
staff will return to Council later this year with amended guidelines if directed to do
so by the City Council. Staff will coordinate with the current credit holders as we
review this matter further.
Sincerely,
Melissa Morton
Public Works Director
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
Ray Kuzbari, Senior Transportation Engineer
G:~EDTIF UpdateVesponse to comments_marty inderbitzen.doc
CITY OF DUBLIN
Public Works Department
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94568
May 27,2004
Mr. Stuart Cook,
Assistant Director
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
224 W. Winton Avenue, Suite 110
Hayward, CA 94544-1215
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee - 2004 Update
Dear Stuart:
Thank you for your letter of May 14, 2004, which provided a list of comments from the
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority regarding the proposed 2004 Update for the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF), which was presented for public review and
comment at an informational meeting on May 10, 2004.
Staff has reviewed your letter, and believes that a number of concerns can. be addressed
through clarification of the update.
Responses to specific comments as listed in the letter are as follows:
1) COMMENT: The Transit Center SEIR indicated that no additional trips would be
generated from the Transit Center ground-floor retail, and that these uses would therefore not
be subject to the EDTIF. This should be explicitly stated in the Update.
RESPONSE: The Staff Report and the Resolution have been revised to state that retail uses
within the Transit Center will not be subject to the EDTIF.
2) COMMENT: The collection of the Section II Residential BART Parking Surcharge
should be clarified to confirm that this fee will be collected and tracked as a separate fee.
RESPONSE: The Staff Report, Resolution, and Update Study all show the BART Parking
Surcharge separated out as a distinct fee covering only the BART parking structure. These
materials also clarify that only residential development putside of the Transit Center will be
subject to this fee. Since the only improvement covered by this fee is being constructed by
ACSPA, only ACSPA will be able to accrue credits for the work, and all other development
Mr. Stuart Cook
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Response to ACSPA Comments
May 26, 2004
Page 2.
will need to pay the TIF in cash. These cash payments will begin on August 15, 2004 (the
.projected effective date of the new EDTIF fees), and will be tracked in a separate account
and periodically disbursed to ACSPA, provided that ACSPA has entered into an improvement
agreement for construction of the parking structure.
As indicated in the Staff Report, Staff proposes to return to the City Council at a later date
with recommendations to amend the TIF Administrative Guidelines to allow the revenues
from the Section II residential fee to be deposited in a separate account to be used for the
sole purpose of funding the 500-space portion of the BART parking structure.
3) COMMENT: ACSPA is currentlY holding no Section II credits, and therefore needs to
pay all Section II .fees in cash. ACSPA is, however, owed $2.1 Million by the City for its
assumption of a prior cash advance by BART for Section II improvements. This loan, which
bears 5.5% interest, is shown in the Update as a cost to the Section II TIF. ACSPA requests
that the City consider the loan as a Section I! credit, and that ACSPA be allowed' to utilize the
credits for the portion of Section II fees above the proposed 25% minimum cash payment.
RESPONSE: The EDTIF Update Study clarifies that ACSPA may utilize the existing loan as
credits against Section II fees.
The use of the loan as Credit against fees is subject to the condition that the City may
suspend actual cash payments on the ACSPA loan if necessary to maintain adequate funds
for Section II capital improvement projects.
4) COMMENT: The non-residential trip rates for individual land uses (particularly retail
uses) shown on Exhibit C (which are used to calculate the actual fee at the time of building
permit) will result in unfair fee assessments when compared to the trip rates used in the land
use/trip projections in Attachments 9-10A based on General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan designations. ACSPA is concerned that this creates a hardship on certain land uses,
because these uses are assessed a higher fee than what would have been charged based
on the land use projections. There is also a concern that the fee schedule is confusing and
can be arbitrarily applied, ACSPA maintains that, by collecting fees at rates higher than
those shown in the land use projections, the City is collecting windfall fees that are higher
than' the total needed to fund the TIF costs. ACSPA requests that the City amend Exhibit C
to eliminate the individual land use trip rates and only include the rates that are used in the
land use projections based on the General Plan/Specific Plan designations.
RESPONSE: Staff has reviewed the trip generation rates shown on Exhibit C and made a
number of revisions that should address this concern. First, a number of obsolete or
redundant retail uses have been eliminated. Second, the rates have been revised .to
eliminate individual land use rates for many commercial uses (i.e., financial and most
restaurant uses), and instead, trip rates would be based on a generic rate for all uses within
several classes of shopping centers. Certain land uses (such as fast-food restaurants,
Mr. Stuart Cook
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Response to ACSPA Comments
May 26, 2004
Page .3.
automotive uses and convenience stores) will always pay at the individual rate for that land
use on the basis that these uses tend to generate destination trips and do not result in shared
trips with adjoining uses. A third group of land uses (commercial/retail and certain recreation
uses) would utilize individual rates for stand-alone uses but would revert to the generic
shopping center rates if developed as part of a larger shopping center.
Staff has also researched the issue of trip generation for medical offices. Based on the
InStitute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition,. the a.m. peak hour trip
generation for medical offices is 1.56 times the rate of a standard office building. The p.m.
peak hour trip generation is 2.45 times the rate of a standard office building. Staff concludes
that the trip rate generation currently shown on Exhibit C for medical offices (34 trips per
1,000 square feet) is appropriate, as this is 1.7 times the trip rate used for standard offices
(20 trips per 1,000 square feet), which is consistent with the ITE peak hour trip rateS. The
higher daily trip rate shown in Exhibit C for medical office reflects the incremental increase in
peak hour traffic impacts from this type of use, as compared to standard office use.
A copy of the proposed revised Exhibit C is attached for your information.
5) COMMENT: Right-of-way is to be acquired from Alameda County along the old SP R/VV
for the Scarlett Drive widening/extension project. The update should base the cost of the
Scarlett Drive right-of-way on an appraisal showing fair market value, as the County is
· obligated under the terms of the Transit Center development agreement to dedicate this land
to the City at the value shown in the·TIF.
RESPONSE: The update uses a value of $16.50/sf for the Scarlett Drive right-of-way. This is
based on the value used in the 1999 Update, which was $15/sf, inflated by 10%. The 10%
inflation is based on five years of cost adjustments as specified in the TIF.
The language in the Development Agreement for the Transit Center actually states that the
land will be dedicated at fair market value, not to exceed the amount shown in the TiF.
Based on recent acquisition costs for the Dublin Boulevard widening project between
Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive, the right-of-way costs will be increased to $20/sf. At this
time, there is not sufficient time to complete an appraisal before the update goes to the City
Council on June 15, 2004. The actual payment to the County Will be based on an appraisal
at the time the land is acquired, not to exceed $20/sf.
6) COMMENT: The costs of the EDTIF have increased with each update since the EDTIF
was originally adopted in 1995. This places a hardship in the form of a higher fee for the
remaining undeveloped properties paying the fee. One means of controlling the cost
increase is to lower the current 20% administrative and design rates and 10% contingency
applied to all projects. A second suggestion is to eliminate the expansion of Central Parkway
from two lanes to four lanes between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road.
Mr. Stuart Cook
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Response to ACSPA Comments
May 26, 2004
Page 4.
RESPONSE: First, while the City appreciates your concerns regarding the proposed
increases to EDTIF, failure to initiate the changes would leave the program withoUt adequate
funds for the City to complete needed improvements, or for the City to fairly compensate
developers who advance the funds for these improvements. Exhibit B to the Resolution (the
2004 Update Study) inCludes a detailed list of the additional costs added to the EDTIF with
this update.
The costs for the individual street segments making up the EDTIF are calculated by adding
the cost of improvements and right,of-way, then adding an additional 20% for administration
and design (including right-of-way acquisition costs) and an additional 10% for contingencies.
As land for right-of-way is acquired or improvements are completed, the cost of'the segment
will decrease. This in turn lowers the remaining improvement or land costs for the segment.
We believe that the soft costs calculated for each street segment accurately reflect the
remaining work to be completed for each segment. Note that in many cases it is private
development that must advance the funds to cover the soft costs for each project.
Right-of-way for Central Parkway has previously been dedicated for a four-lane facility. At
this time, there are no specific plans or schedule to widen the road between Hacienda Drive
and Tassajara Road. The need for widening will be dependent on ultimate traffic volumes
and patterns, including the potential redevelopment of Camp Parks. Both the City's General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan show Central Parkway as a four-lane street;
therefore, eliminating the widening from the EDTIF would be in conflict with both of these
adopted plans.
The City wel.comes further discussion on the ultimate treatment of Central Parkway; however,
the EDTIF should be based on long-term transportation needs, not vice versa.
Although you did not include this comment in your letter, you did raise the issue of Downtown
traffic impact fees being applied to eligible Section .11 costs in the EDTIF, thereby reducing the
EDTIF fee. In response, the EDTIF has been revised to include approximately $2.0 Million in
revenue from traffic mitigation contributions previously collected from various Downtown
developments toward funding improvements on Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and
Scarlett Drive, which are also included in the TIF. The .City has not at this time adopted a
Downtown TIF, and it is therefore not appropriate to include additional revenue that might be
collected from that fee. Future updates of the TIF will be revised to reflect adoption of a
Downtown TIF or other fees.
Also not included in your letter, but raised at the May 10th informational meeting, was the
possibility of extending the life of credits, which currently have a 10-year life before reverting
to a 10-year right to reimbursement. This will require revision of the EDTIF Administrative
Guidelines, which were last adopted in 1999. The guidelines can be amended as a separate
action from the fee update. Staff is recommending that the City Council provide direction on
Mr. Stuart'Cook
Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004 Update
Response to ACSPA Comments
May 26, 2004
Page 5.
this subject as part of the update review, with the understanding that Staff will return to
Council later this year with amended guidelines, if directed to do so by the City Council.
I hope this response will satisfactorily respond to the issues raised in your letter. I appreciate.
your input to this process, and believe it has resulted in several constructive improvements to
the recommended update. Please contact Ray Kuzbari, Senior Transportation Engineer, at
(925)-833-6334 if you would like to discuss this material further.
Sincerely,
Public Works Director
MM/rk/mb
cc: Pat Cashman, ACSPA
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
Ray Kuzbari, Senior Transportation Engineer
G:~ED TIF UpdateVeSPonse to ACSPA comments, doc
Exhibit C
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Effective August '15, 2004
Residential (Within Transit Center)
High Density Dwelling (more than. 25 units par acre)
Residential (Outside of Transit Center}
Low Density Dwelling (up to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Dwelling (7-14 units per acre)
Medium/High Density Dwelling (15-25 units per acre)
High Density Dwelling (more than 25 units per acre)
Non-Residential
Development Other Than Residential
$3,552/unit
$6,930/unit
$6,930/unit
$4,851/unit
$4,158/unit
$ 547/trip
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE*
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
RECREATION:
1 O/room
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
Recreation Community Center 26/1,000 sf
Health Club 40/1,000 sf
Bowling Center 33/1,000 sf
Golf Course 8/acre
Tennis Courts 33/court
Theaters:
Movie 220/screen
Live 0.2/seat
Video Arcade 96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
HOSPITAL:
1.5/student
General 12/bed
Convalescent/Nursing 3/bed
Clinic 24/1,000 sf
CHURCH: 9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
8/1,000 sf
* Soumes of information for Trip Generation Rates: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); These trip generation rates are based
on averages. Most retail uses are given a 35% pass-by reduction.
Page 1 of 2
5/26/2004 g: /~DTIF UPDA TE~xhibit C - Fee Rates
Exhibit C
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Effective August 15, 2004
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-BY).
RESTAU RANT:
Qualiiy (leisure) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food) See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Bar/Tavern See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
Fast Food {with or without drive through) 46511,000 sf
AUTOMOTIVE:
Car Wash:
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire StorelOII Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
FINANCIAL:
Bank/SaVings and Loan
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF;. usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 -600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops:
Retail/Strip Commercial (no major store)
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
5851site
70/wash stall
97/pump
281service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no. pass-bYs) 2011,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
See appropriate Shopping Center Rate
22/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
26/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
32511,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
Land uses marked in BOLD will always pay at the individual trip rate as these uses tend to
generate destination trips. Commercial/retail and certain recreation uses will pay at the individual
trip rate if the site is a stand-alone land use; if the land use is part of a larger shopping center, the
appropriate shopping center trip rate will apply.
Page 2 of 2
5/26/2004 g:~EDTIF UPDA TE~Exhibit C - Fee Rates