HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 I-580InterchngFee
.
CITY CLERK
File # D[B][Q][Q]-[3][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 23,1996
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Establishment ofI-580 Interchange Fee for Eastern Dublin General
Plan Area
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
Resolution establishing a Freeway Interchange Fee for future
developments within the Eastern Dublin area, including:
Exhibit "A": Land Use Map
Exhibit "B": Report of Cost Sharing ofI-580 Interchanges at
Hacienda Drive and at Tassajara/Santa Rita Road
Exhibit "C": Fee Schedule
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Close Public Hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Establishing a Freeway Interchange Fee
for Future Developments within the Eastern Dublin Area.
This fee is proposed to collect $7,384,000 from future development
in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area to repay the
City of Pleasant on for Pleasanton's advancing costs over its "fair
share" for the construction of two interchanges on 1-580.
DESCRlPTION: In the early and mid-eighties, Pleasanton, through the funding of its
North Pleasanton Improvement District, constructed several freeway improvements which benefited
Dublin as well as Pleasanton. These include the interchanges at Hacienda Drive and at Tassajara/Santa
Rita Road with 1-580, which were descirbed as existing improvements in the environmental impact repuct
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH No. 91103064, pp. 3, 3-1)
Pleasanton had requested that Dublin pay its "fair .share" of these improvements, as the improvements
would help Dublin's future eastern development to take place. The two cities undertook a benefit study in
1989 entitled the Dublin Extended Planning Area Infrastructure Study, prepared by John H. Heindel,
Consulting Civil Engineer (the "Heindel Study").
.-------------------------------------------------------------------
... COPIES TO:
ITEMNO.~
g:\agcn misc\intcrchg
II. December of 1989, the Dublin City Council accepted the concept of assigning cost sharing on the basis.
of benefit to the traffic generated on both sides ofI-580 and determined that Dublin's contribution would
be subject to actual development taking place north ofI-580 and within Dublin. The Council also
determined that funding mechanisms be established within the Dublin Extended Planning Area. These
commitments were reaffirmed by the City Council in January of 1995 by Resolution No. 7-95.
Several meetings have been held with the property owners of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Area
regarding the method of funding this reimbursement. It was decided to establish a new traffic impact fee
specifically for the purpose of repaying Pleasanton. The consensus of the property owners at one of the
meetings was to update the Heindel Study but to cap the exposure to the previous estimate of $8.5 million.
Staff has now updated the study, based on the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan. Average daily
traffic assignments on the various interchange ran1ps were determined using the Tri- Valley Transportation
Commission Traffic Model for the Year 2010. The raw traffic information was then assembled into
tabular form to determine traffic percentages assigned to the various jurisdictions. The various costs and
cost estimates for the interchange improvements were assembled and the "fair share" costs for Dublin and
Pleasanton (Exhibit B of Resolution) were calculated based on the relative traffic assigned to each of the
two jurisdictions. The cost split is based on the traffic from all areas of the two jurisdictions as that is the
w~y that the model was able to break down the traffic at these two interchanges; however, it should be
noted that the bulk of the traffic will be from and to the Eastern Dublin area and Pleasanton's eastern area
due to the proximity of the interchanges to these two developing areas. The result of the updated study is
that owners of property in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area should be required to pay
fees when they develop their proprety to generate funds to pay Pleasanton $7,384,000.
.:'
It is proposed that this fee use the same land use traffic generation factors and schedule as the existing
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No. 95-1). The proposed fee is based on the relative trip
generation for the various uses. The resulting fee for low (0 - 6 units/acre) and medium (6 - 14 units/acre)
density residential uses is $214.60 per unit, for medium-high density (14 - 25 units/ acre) is $150.22 per
unit, and for high density (over 25 units/acre) is $128.76 per unit. The fee is $21.46 per trip for non-
residential uses (see Exhibit "C" of proposed resolution).
Staff will need to do periodic review of the fee to see if the land use assumptions are following the
original General Plan and Specific Plan densities.
Once the fee is established, Dublin and Pleasanton will need to enter into an agreement to transfer the fees
from Dublin to Pleasanton. .
S,;'ffrecommends that the City Council conduct apublic hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution
Establishing a Freeway Interchange Fee for Future Developments within the Eastern Dublin Area.
...:.
Page 2
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. _-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
fREE'VAYINTERCHANGEFEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA
\t\THEREA.S, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinance
No. 14-94 \vhich creates and establishes the authority for lmposing and charging a
Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS. the Eastern Dublin General Phn Amendment ("GP All) and
Specific Plan ('15Pl) \Vere adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land nses for approximately 4176 acres
within the City's eastern sphere of int1uence including apprmjmate1y 13,906 dwelling
unit.s and 9,737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP pro'\:rides more. specific det.llled goals, policies and action
programs for approximately 3313 acres 'within the GP A area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublinlt) are shown on the Land
Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shO\vn on the Lmd Use Jv'lap as "Future Study Area/Agriculturell; und
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the CPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) a.nd certified by the Council on May 10,
1993 bv Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated Mav 4, 1993 and August 22.
J J
1994 (ItAddenda) have been prepared and considered by the Council; and
1
V\THEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway
interchange and road improvements necessary for implementation of the sr, along
with transit improvements, pedestrian trails and bicycle paths C'NecessalY
Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, The EIR and Addenda assumed that. certain traffic improvements
vrould be made ("Assumed Improvements") and that development vvithin Eastern
Dublin '\vauld pay its proportionate share of such improvements~ and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the E~terIl Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
by Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995, to fund the cost of the Necess3.lY
Improvem.ents and the Assumed Traffic. Improvements; and
WHEREAS, tl1e City of Ple:v::::lnton has made improvernents to the I-
SS~/Hacienda Dlive and 1-580fIassajara/Santa Rita Road Interchanges ("1-580
Interchange Improvementsll); and
'\VHEREAS, the I-58G Interchange Improvenlents were funded by the City of
Pleasanton through the North Pleasant on Improvement District; and
v\?HEREAS, a report entitled the "Dublin E.xtended Planning Area
Infrastructure Study," dated November 1989, was prepared for the Citie.s of Dublin
and Pleasanlon by John H. Heindel, Consulting Civil Engineer ("Heindel Study"); and
\t\THEREAS, the Heindel Study was considered by the City Council at its
December II, 1989, meeting at which time the Council by motion:
1. Acknowledged that Dublin's Eastern Planning Are.a, when.
developed, will benefit frorn the new interchange work being funded by
Pleasant.on through the North Pkasanton Improvement District (NPID);
2. Accepted the concept of assigning cost sharing on the basis of ..
bendit to the traffic ge:nc.ratcd on both sides of 1-580;
3. Determined that Dublin's contribution be subject to ~.ct.ll.a.l
developn1.ent taking place north of I~58G and vvithin Dublin; and
T1I' llc... 1
2
.
.
.
.
.'.
.
4. Deten:nined that funding mechanism(s) be established ...,,;Sthin the
Dublin Extended Planning Area; and
\VHEREAS, on JanuaIY 31, 1995, the City Council reaffirmed its December
11,1989 motion by Resolution No. 7-95; and
VVHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda assmned that the 1-580 Interchange
Improvements \vere e.xisting improvemeIlts; and
\'\THEREAS, the City (:01.111ci1 adopted a. "Mitigation 1\1onitoring Prograrn:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/Gcneral Platl Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93
which requires development l.vithin fasteIn Dublin to pay its proportionate share of
certain transportation iIrlprovemenls necessary to mitigate impacts Clused by
development. within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP, ErR and Addenda describe the impac.t.s of contemplated
future cle-velopment on e..xisting public facilities in Eastern Dublin through the year
2010, and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improgements
reqllire-d by future development ,vi thin Eastem Dublin; and
vVHEREAS, a report was prepared by the Public Works Director of the City of
Dublin, in a docum.ent dated December 1995, entitled "Report of Cost Shaling of I-
580 Interchanges at Hacienda and at T::1ssajar2/Santa Rita Roadll (hereafter I!Study"),
\vhich is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
VVH:EREAS, the Study sets forth t.he relationship between future development
in Easten1 Dublin, the 1-580 Interd1an.ge Improvements, and the costs of the 1-580
Interdlange Improvements; and
VvHEREAS, the Study ,vas available for public inspection and review for ten
(10) days pIlar to this public: hearing; and
\^lHEREAS, the Citv Council fmds as follows:
'"
A. 111e purpose of the E:1stern Dublin 1.580 Intercllange Fee (hereafter
"Feel!) is to reimburse the City of Plt:asanton for e...'>.-penditUl'es previously made for the
1-580 Interchange Improvements, which improvell1.ents have already been constructed
1'1F Re'.<>l
3
and are needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts \vhich \vill be caused by futore
development. in Eastern Dublin. The I-S8G Interchange Improvements :ue
improvements to the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara/Santa Rita Road interchanges
v\.'ith Int.erstate 580 and are hereafter defll1cd and rcfe.rfe<.l to as "Improvements and
Facilities". The Improvements and Facilities are needed to accommodate new
development projected ,vithin Easten1 Dublin along with existing and future
development in the City of Pleasanton ano othel' development in tile nearby vicinity,
including future development in Contra Costa County, and development \vithin
Eastern Dublin \\ill pay its f::liX' proportional share of such Improvements and
Facilities witi1 the implementation of this Fee.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used La finance
the Improvelllents and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Agenda Statement, the GPA, the SP,
the General Plan, t.he EIR and Addenda, the Heindel Study, all correspondence
received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on January 23,
1996 (hereafter the "record"), the Council appl-oves and adopt.s the Study and
incorporates it herein, and further finds that future devclopIIlent in EaSLelTI Dublin
'\-"ill generate the need for, and "vill benefit from, the In1provements .and Facilities and
the Improvements and Fa.cilities are consistent with the GPA; the SP and the City's
General Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee does not have Ule potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment because the 1-580 Interchange Impmvements
are already e.'>isting improvements. The COlutcil therefore determines that the
adoption of the Fee is not an activitywhkh is subject to the CalifOlnia
Environmental Quality Act. 111is determination is made pursuant to CEQA
guidelines SS 15061 (b)(2) and (3) and 15273(a)(4) (Title 2, Calif. Code of
Regulations) and Public Resources Code: ~ 21080(b)(8)(D).
'ITF P.c.~l
4
.
.....:
. .
.
.
.
.
E. The::: record establishes:
1. That there is a rcasonabk relationship between. the need for the
Improvements and Facilirjes and the irnp::l.cts of the types of development for which
the corresponding fee is cha.rged in that ne\v development in Eastenl Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential ~- \-mIl generate traffic ""hich conn-ioutes to the need
for, and benefits from, the Improvements and Facilities; and
2. TI1at there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
reimburse the City of P1c:asantoll for the construction of the Improvements and
Fadlities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in Eastern Dublin ~- both residential and non-residential -- generates or
contlibutes to the need for the Impl'ovements and Facililies; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amotmt of the
Fee and the co~t of the Improvements and Facilities or pardon thereof attributable to
development in Eastenl Dublin in that the Ft>e is calculated based on the number of
trips generated by specific types of land uses, the Wtal amount it cost to construct
the Improvements and Facilities, and t11t> percentage by \-vhich development 'within
East.ern Dublin contributes to the rtccd [or the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the costs set forth irt the Study are reasonable cost:; for
comtnlcting the Improvements and FacjUtks, .in that they are the actual c.osts and
tile Fees e.xpected to be generated by futtlre development ,,,ill not c"I:ceed the costs of
constnlcting tl1e Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of tlle Fee to a particular development
bears a fair and reasonable relationship 1O each development's burden on, ~Uld benefit
from, the Improvements and Facilities, in that the Fee is calculated basc:d on the
nUInber of automobile trips each particular development '\vill generate.
TIF'R.<o!
5
NO\\' THEREfORE, the City COUl1Cil of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE
as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Developmenttl shall mean the construction, alteration or
addition of any building or structure \vithin E.qstern Dublin.
b. "East.en1 Dublin'! shall mean all property within the
"General Plan Al11endment Study Areal1 as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A
hel'eto) excluding the property de:>ignated as "FutUl'e Study Are3/Agriculture.11
c. "Improvemell.ts and Facilities" shall include tb"e 1-580
Interchange ImpTovemenLs Lo the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara/Santa Rita Road
interchanges described in the Studv.
~ .
2. Eastern Dublin 1-580 rnterchan~e Fee Tmpo.sed.
a_ . An Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee ("Fcc") shaIll>c::
charged and paid for each reSidential unit constructed \X.1.thin Eastern Dublin no later
than the date of fillal inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential
buildings or structures c.onstructed \-Yithin. Eastern Dublin by the date that tl1e
building pemlit is issued for such building or structur~, exc.ept 'where th,e building or
structtu.c Vvilll'cquire a later stage of disa-etionary approval by the City before it can
be occupied, in vvhich case, wit.h 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
t.he h<>t. disc.ret.ionmy approval which is l.equired prior to occupancy.
3. Am.ount of Fee.
a. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C
au.ached hereto and incorporated herein.
4.
Exemptions Prom Ee.e.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
Tll' Resol
6
.
.
.
.
.'
.
..,..., . ..v ... V. ........,1
11_.........L_,'ultlo...ol )},.),~II....,l..'^.......J,L....'t
~ LILL ISVI VJ.V VVJ. .1U.1
).
(I) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure,
except to the e..nent that a residential tmit is added to a
single family residentialtmit or another unit is added to
an existing multi-family residential unit;
(2) Any replacement. or reconstruction of an existing
residential struclure that has been dest.royed or
demolished provided that the building permit for
reconstruction is obtained \vithin one year after tl1e
building was destroyed or demolished unless the
replacemem:, or reconsuuction inneases the square
footage of the structure fifty pel"Cent or morc.
(3) Any replaCe111eIlt or reconstruction of :m e..xisting non-
residential structure that has been de~troyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for new
reconstruction is obtained Vl.rithin one year after the
building 'was destroyed or demoHshed a:nd the
reconstructed building would not increase the destroyed
or demolished building.<> trips based on Exhibit C.
Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payrnent of the Fee shall be placed
in t.he Capital Projects FW1d. A separate and special account 'within the Capital
Project Fund shall be used to account for such revenues, along 'with .my interest
e:m:ungs on each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the folloVi.ring
purposes:
TTFRe<,,)
(I) To reimburse lhe City of Pleasanton for design.
engineering, right-of-'\vay acquisition and
construction of the Improvements and Facilities and
7
...,._oJ ~... ~v ...",., ...V.1.-'
IlL. l L..l U......., 1 U 1 V L.. J 1\ J. L/l ,VnUV.L L V I
1 Ill) l1VI ,J.:.V ...J...Jl '1:"--tU!
1 , VVf .LV
n::asonable costs of outside consu1t.<tnt studies related .'
thereto;
(2) To pay for alld/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of the Fee
program.
b. Fees in the account. shall be expended only for the
Improvements and Fadlities and only for the purpose: for which the Fee \vas collected.
6. MiscelhDeous
a. The standards upon which the needs for the Improvcments
and Facilities are based are the stalldards of the City of Dublin, including the
sLandards contained in the General Plan, CPA, ?p, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City COUlKil determines that the need for the
Improvements and Facilities is generated by new development .....':ithin Eastem Dublin
and other e..xisting und ne.w development in Pkasanton, Contra Costa County and in
the vicinity, and therefore, the Study h~s deterrnined the proportionate share of the
cost of the hnprovemcnts and FaciliLies for which development within E::lstem Dublin
is responsible.
7. Periodic Review.
.0,
a. DUling each fiscal year, the City 1\1anager shall prepare a
report for the City Council, pw'suam. to Govenlment Code section 66006, identifying
the balance of fees in. the aCColmt.,
b. The City COUl1Cil shall make findings t".;'lch fiscal ye.o'U' pUl'smmt
to Government Code Section 6600 1 (d) identifying the pm-pose to which the existing
fee balance is to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee
and tl1e purpose for which it is charged.
.:
..
TIF R=l
8
.
..
.
8. Effective Date.
",
This resolution shall become effective inunediately. The Fee provided in
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
the resolution or the date the City enters into an agreement with the City of Pleasanton
for transfer of Fee revenues, whiche'\'er is later.
9. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall
be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that
pOltion that has been judged to be invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _ day of January, 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ArrEST:
CITY CLERK
J:\ WPDJ\1l'.'RSW\114\RESO L\FREEW A Y,RES
TIF Resol
9
.....-''''.......i.':L,,,..._.,
~-........~
. _.-........._~----
..~_-I
.
.
.
* General Commercial may be permitted by a Planned Development Zoning Process (see text tor complete discussion)
* * Will convert to Future Study Areal Agriculture where determined inconsistent with AP A (see text for complete discussion)
EXHIBIT 2 (of Staff Report)
Exhibit A of Resolution
Land Use Map
~-
~:Wk
',. "'.
G41neral'Plan
~Eastern EXtended Planning Area
~:. \( <..
. LAND USE MAP
. L(}gend
COMMERCIAL
. ~ Neighbcrl100d Commercial
~ General Commercial
~::~~l Carrous OffiGe
~l Industrial Park
RESIDENTIAL
CB:J High Density 25- dulac
~ Medum-High Density 14-25 dulac
[IJ Medium Density 6-14 dulac
IT] low Density D-6 dulac
~ Rural ResidentiaL/Agriculture 1 dul1QQ ac
PU8L1C/SEMf-PUBLlC/OPEN
~}4J*1
~
~
[E[].,.
..:..
:".::
~'- '.'"
~t....."...._
.:..;;)--:::-:.~.~
~
Public/Semi-Public Facility
@ Elementary School
@ Junior High School
@ High School
@ PubrlC/Semi-PubUc
Parks & Recreation
o City Park
@ Community Park
@ Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Square
Open Space
Stream Corridor
CIRCUlA TION
-- Arterial Street
'. CoBector Street
EASTERN
":Q,Y.,~.~~N', ..
, Walace Rooerts &: Todd . .
'.~ .'.. ..t'..: "::. ~:...., >. "~ ~.;':';;":::'" ';,i.:"."'.:';" .~::.." ;. '. :'~
Transit SDne
SOl Boundary
Genera!. Plan Amendment Study Area
. Specific Plan Study Area
.( ~ay 10, 1993
rtgtr828
-=
.::' ;"(.
::.'..~.,.,~.t.,>~.{~~I"t~~~
. ,. _ _. 'B:~.i!.:.c.!'-.
. 40
31<
.. '1" . ~,_ .
EXHIBIT A
OF RESOLUTION
.
.
...
~-~ ".1'~' .. ;;....<:.,,~I ,,:r.. ~.!
.
REPORT OF COST SHARlNG OF 1-580 INTERCHANGES
A T HACIENDA DRlVE AND AT T ASSAJARA/SANT A RlT A ROAD
(December 1995)
Prepared by Lee S. Thompson, City Engineer
City of Dublin
It is the intention of this study to establish the fair share costs between development within the Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton for the construction of and improvements to interchanges with Interstate 580 at
Hacienda Drive and at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road.
The City of Pleasant on has already purchased right of way and constructed the basic improvements for the
two interchanges. Dublin will need to complete the two interchanges as development occurs in Eastern
Lublin, as the two interchanges will be needed to serve development in Eastern Dublin and were assumed
as existing improvements in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH
No. 91103064, page 3.3-1). Funding for the interchange completions is already included in the existing
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No. 95-1).
Dublin proposes to establish and levy an Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee for the purpose of
repaying Pleasanton for the amount of money over and above Pleasanton' s "fair share" costs of the total
interchanges that Pleasanton has advanced based on the relative projected traffic from and to each
jurisdiction at the two interchanges in the Year 2010. The property owners in Eastern Dublin should not
. pay Pleasanton interest on the "advanced money" inasmuch as Pleasanton has the benefit of the exclusive
e::. use of the interchanges until the Dublin development comes on line.
Following is the calculation for establishing reimbursement due Pleasanton from property owners in
Eastern Dublin of $7,384,000:
Assumptions
1) Cost split based on all of Dublin traffic vs. all of Pleasant on traffic
using the interchanges. (Note that the bulk of traffic using the two
interchanges will be from Eastern Dublin and Eastern Pleasanton and the
interchanges are required for the level of development approved by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.)
2) Dublin and Pleasanton to pay 100% of costs based on their relative
share of the traffic using the interchanges.
3) Traffic split is based on TJKM analysis of the Barton-Aschman Tr;-
Valley traffic model run for the Year 2010 (attached).
4) Pleasanton's costs for constructing the interchanges (based on
Pleasanton cost breakdown):
Hacienda Interchange: $18,716,000
Tassajara/Santa Rita Interchange: 9.846.000
Total: $28,562,000
5) Dublin's future costs to complete interchanges already included in the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Resolution 95-1 is $9,656,000.
6) Total project cost is therefore $38,218,000
.:
Page 1
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION
From TJKM analysis:
Pleasanton's share of total traffic using the Hacienda
Drive interchange
Dublin's share of total traffic using the Hacienda Drive
interchange
Other jurisdictions' traffic
Total:
46%...
36%
18%
100%
Therefore, with the assumption that 100% of the cost is
split between owners of property in the two jurisdictions,
the cost split for the Hacienda Drive interchange
calculates to be:
Pleasanton
Dublin
56.1%
43.9%
100.0%
Pleasanton's share of total traffic using the
Tassajara/Santa Rita interchange
Dublin share of the total traffic using the Tassajara/Santa
Rita interchange
Other jurisdictions' traffic
43%
Total:
36%
21%
100%
Therefore, with the assumption that 100% of the cost is
split between the two jurisdictions, the cost split for the
TassajaralSanta Rita Road interchange calculates to be:
Pleasanton
Dublin
.
54.4%
45/;%
100.0%
The cost obligations are then as follows:
Hacienda Interchange:
TassajaralSanta Rita Rd.
Interchange
Pleasanton
Obligation
$12,775,000 (56.1%)
Dublin
Obligation
$9,997,000
Total
Interchange
Cost
(43.9%) $22,772,000
$8,403,000 (54.4%)
Total: $21,178,000
$7.043.000
$17,040,000
(45.6%) $15.446.000
$38,218,000
Reimbursement due Pleasanton:
Pleasanton Advance:
less Pleasanton Obligation:
Reimbursement due Pleasanton from property
owners in Eastern Dublin:
$28,562,000
($21,178.000)
.
$7,384,000
Page 2
.
The fee will then be based on dividing the expected number of trips generated by the Eastern Dublin
development (344,078) into the total monies to be generated ($7,384,000) to obtain the fee per trip.
The 344,078 trips estimated is generated from the Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan study of
346,525, modified slightly downward by redefining the density tiers for residential development from two
levels to four levels and the resulting refinement of the traffic generated at these density levels.
The calculation is then:
$7.384.000
344,078 trips
$21.46 per trip
For residential units, the fee would be:
Residential Category
Low density (up t06 units / acre)
Medium density (over 6 to 14 units / acre)
Medium high density (over 14 to 25 units/ acre)
High density (over 25 units / acre)
Non-residential uses (based on trip generation
schedule)
*Trips Per Unit
10
10
7
6
Fee Per Unit
$214.60
$214,60
$150.22
$128.76
$21.46 per trip
.. .....
.,
* TRIPS PER UNIT - These trip generation factors were developed by the City's Traffic Consultant,
TJKM, using the Institute of Traffic Engineers case studies.
.
Page 3
~ Transportation Consultants
April 12, 1995
The charts below illustrate the source of traffic, by percent, using each of four 1-580 interchanges:
1) Hopyard RoadJDougherty Road; 2) Hacienda Drive; 3) Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and
4) Fallon RoadlEl Charm Road in 2010 according to the Tri-Valley Transportation Model.
In the first chart, the amount of traffic to/from each of nine Tri- Valley areas using each of the four
interchanges is shown. In the second chart, only the traffic to/from Pleasanton and East Dublin is
considered.
.'
Dougherty Tossojoro
Pleosonton N,Uvermore Uvermore E,Dublin Dublin Volley Valley Son Roman Donville Total
1 42<;1; 3%. 100:. 7%. 26%. 6%. 1%. 3%. n 100%.
2, 46%. 4%. 9'% 1 32%. 4%. 1%. 2<;1; 1%. 1%. 100%. .'
43%. 5%. 11%. 33%. 3%. 1%. 3%. 1%. 00:. 100%.
A 21%. 7%. 23% 3B% 2'l, 5%. 1% lOX, lOX, 100%.
Pleosonton E, Dublin Total
1 85% 15%. l00't
2 59'% 41% lOO't
3 56%. M'X, 100't
A 36OX, M'X, 1 CXl'X,
157-066
PAGE 4
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214, Pleasanton, California 94588-2754, (510) 463-0611, Fax (510) 463-3690
Pleasanton . Sacramento. Fresno. Santa Rosa
.
.
.
.
1-580 INTERCHANGE FEE FOR
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AREA
Low Density Residential (0 to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential (over 6 to 14 units per acre)
Medium High Density Residential (over 14 to 25 units per acre)
High Density Residential (over 25 units per acre)
Development Other Than Residential:
$214,60 per unit
$214,60 per unit
$150,22 per unit
$128,76 per unit
$21.46/trip
(Based on the following table)
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMA TED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RA TE*
(WITH PASS-BYS)
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
10/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental .
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
RECREATION:
Recreation Community Center
Health Club
Bowling Center
Golf Course
Tennis Courts
Theaters
Movie
Live
Video Arcade
26/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
8/acre
33/court
220/screen
0.2/seat
9611,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
1,5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
ConvalescenUNursing
Clinic
12/bed
3/bed
24/1,000 sf
CHURCH:
9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
811,000 sf
* Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers
and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip Generation Rates, These trip generation rates are based
on averages, Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction,
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "C" OF RESOLUTION
TRIP GENERATION RAT::S
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERA TION RATE
(WITH PASS-BYS)
.
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive through)
Barffavern
63/1,000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1.000 sf
AUTOMOBILE:
Car Wash
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire Store/Oil Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
585/site
70/wash stall
97/pump
28/service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
FINANCIAL:
Bank (Walk-In Only)
Savings and Loan (Walk-In Only)
Drive-Through/ATM (Add to Bank or Savings & Loan)
91/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
65/1ane or machine
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
22/1,000 sf
.~
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores)
33/1,000 sf
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 sf; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or groce!)' store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
46/1,000 sf
Commercial Shops
Retail/Strip Commercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
Lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nurse!)'
Cemete!)'
26/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
20/1,000 sf
23/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 4/acre
Page 2 of 2
g:\formslintrfees.xls
.
EXHIBIT "C" OF RESOLUTION
TRIP GENERATION RATES