The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.3 Attach 9 , , .. ...,~ ,~ e e WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS: 1. Alameda County (representing the County property) 2. Pleasanton Public Works Director (21etters) 3. TJKM memo to Ted Fairfield (representing the Chang-Su-O-Lin. et. al. properties 4. CCS (representing Mr. Kenny Wan from Allwin Development for the Pao-Un properties 5. Stephen K. Cassidy of Cassidy and Verges, (representing Pleasanton property owners, including property owners with significant holdings within the North Pleasanton Improvement District) 6. Robert 1. McMurry of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe (supplementing letter from CCS, on behalf of Allwin Development) 7. Cameron Bauer, Bay Area Rapid Transit District 8. Mr. or Ms. C. Silva, property owner outside City Limit of Dublin EXHIBIT 9 (of Staff Report) Written Comments Received and Responses - . t.. 'f e ~ e ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DE'PARTMENT " · Developmrnt Planning . HO\l.5ing & Community Devdopmrnt · Policy Planning & Research . Zoning Administration & Enforcemrnt 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, CA 94544 (510) 670-5400 FAX (510) 785-8793 December 15, 1994 i:i ", r' -", . I - :1C.vCJVt:O DEe 1 ,~;9:}-~ Dj rp,' IC..... .,/- ~ ~ ~ '....J .: ,. t \ ,~. c: "'- I "J I;" '__' ,-. [ '\ "_' Lee Thompson Dublin Public Works Director P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study Dear Lee: Alameda County, as a major property owner in the City of Dublin, is in support of the City's adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee to pay for local, subregional and regional transportation improvements that will be impacted by new development. We believe that a fair and equitable fee system will benefit the City by providing a means to pay for needed improvements, property owners by allowing them to calculate, in advance, the share of these improvements that they will be required to provide when development occurs, and the Tri-Valley region by providing funds for regional projects that are not all within the City of Dublin. Alameda County is committed to the development of a multi-modal transportation system in the Valley that will meet the present and future needs of the area. To this end, the County has participated in the extension of Dublin Boulevard to Tassajara Road, improvements to Hacienda and Santa Rita interchanges, and the East Dublin BART station. While it is anticipated that the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) will, in time, reimburse the County for a portion of its costs for road and freeway improvements, the County has made a major investment in the regional transportation system by committing to provide approximately 17 acres of land, at no cost, to BART for use as parking and access to the new station. We recognize that this considerable investment toward the regional transportati~m system is not part of the TIF program and will not be reimbursed: -However, we request that the City acknowledge this as a substantial mitigation for transportation impacts which will benefit all of Dublin, as well as adjoining cities. . We have reviewed the City TIF Study, prepared by Barton-Aschman and cost estimates prepared by Santina and Thompson and have the following comments: " .~ ~ .. II t -~- -",~--..'- e e Lee Thompson Dublin TIF Study Page 2 1. TIF Study, Page 7: A Section I project that should be added to this list is the cost of the three park-and-ride lots that are required to be built as a mitigation' measure by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ElR. These parking lots will benefit all of Eastern Dublin, and therefore should be paid for by the TIF. 2. TIF Study, Page l5: Rather than having each project be subject to, a separate study to determine the TIF, it would be more straight forward for the City to adopt standard rates for office, commercial and industrial projects, in a similar manner to the standard rates being proposed for residential projects. This would allow developers to accurately calculate the TIF into the project cost. However, it would be best if the standard rate is a generalized average cost for each type of land use, such as the ones suggested in the Appendix. Otherwise, the traffic generation rates may require such a large fee that certain types of specific uses will be precluded. For instance, using the generation rates suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for fast-food restaurants, while leaving the pass-by rate at only 35 %, will produce a TIF that will effectively prevent fast~food restaurants in Eastern Dublin. Too specific a rate could also be problematic to administer, especially if precise uses are not known when the fee is collected, or when a new use occupies a previously useD space. 3. TIF Study Appendix: The residential trip generation rates should be reversed, so that high density housing generates 7 trips, rather than 10. The Office rate should be 15/ksf, not 5/ksf, if the number of trips generated overall reported on page 5 are correct. 4. TIF Cost Estimates: The cost estimates for the Transit Spine and Gleason Drive should be revised to include the cost of bridging Tassajara Creek. Thank you for the opportunity to review the TIF Study. I have enclosed a traffic fee ordinance adopted by Alameda County in 1988 which may contain some language adaptable for administrative procedures in the Dublin program. Very truly yours, d/## . V~i;~ Martinelli Planning Director Enclosure cc: Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager ssc\cdublin \dubtif.124 I " --=.~...,.~~.-;.~.,.. .~..----"" I . ~ _-~i-:-~.....,,- .....:~ (n" t 1. )/''1'J~. ~".~,.~~~" c> N~~ {, r!:~I~~) -~~~A '. ( , '-_:""-- ,,".;; '. ,f/,,, -,\'''.''/ "',.r\,~..t>/ e e CITY OF DUBLIN Po. Box 2340, Dublin. California 94568 City Offices. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 December 20, 1994 Mr. Adolph Martinelli Planning Director ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEP ARTIv1ENT 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward CA 94544-1395 Dear Adolph: Thank you for your input on Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin. I would like to thank the County for substantially increasing the land value in Eastern Dublin by helping to make the East Dublin BART Station a reality. If the Eastern Dublin Area had been required, through the Traffic Impact Fee, to purchase the 17 acres ofland which was donated by the County as part of the needed transit improvements, the fee would have been substantially higher. As to your comments: 1. We have added the park and ride lots to the fee for the residential portion of the area, as it will be the residents (as opposed to the commercial area) that will use the lots, 2. We have added a two-page table of standard trip rates for set uses to make the calculations more straight forward, 3. We found the typo's in the appendix of the study and have corrected them. 4. The revised estimates have included the cost of these bridges over Tassajara Creek. Thank you again for your review and comment. If you need any additional information, please feel free to call my office at (510) 833-6630. Sincerely, PUBLIe-W~RKSD jAATMENT Q ;/ / I ~. l-- ~' / - ~ ee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/gr 0:(9-195) \december\20morr;ne/li , . Administration (510) 833-6650 . City Council (510) 833-6605 · Finance (510) 833-6640 · Building Inspection (510\ 833-6620 Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-6610 Police (510\ 633-66;0 . Public WorkS (510) 833-0030 · Recreation (510) 533-66':5 l. 11, ... . \- e e CITY. OF PLEASANTON December 14, 1994 -. -I {"' r.: j , t ;- ;' r~ .:: ,.; '- , \/ !: f_' j;l ~:~;~ ~ i3 ~ :3~~-r' Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 :=-;..~ 2!~ ~ C' '";\/ (~> .-=": <: -~: Dear Lee, We understand that our respective City Managers met to discuss Dublins' proposed Impact fees yesterday and determine that there were some questions about equities in funding various 1-580 interchange improvements. The Dublin City manager believed that Dublin would contribute a share equal to that which Pleasanton had contributed. Due to our tight schedules during the holiday season and a problem in meeting I would like to assure we are both working on answering the right questions. My understanding is that if P1easanton provides the cost of the Hacienda project, Santa Rita project and our portion of the Hopyard Road interchange we will be able to itemize our costs. In as much as right of way can be of concern we will also itemize these expenses. Dublin can provide descriptions of the specific interchange improvements anticipated in your East Dublin Specific Plan for Hopyard, Hacienda and Tassajara Interchanges together with any new information available for E1 Charro estimates which you may have developed. We will ask George Homolka to provide the cost estimates that he prepared for the previous joint meeting on the El Charra Interchange. We should be able from this cost data to break down what the assessments for the freeway would be to Dublin property owners versus Pleasanton property owners. I believe our primary concern is to create as equal as possible a playing field for land owners on both sides of the freeway. - - . We would like to assure that your staff report on the Impact Fees is accurate in regard to the equities of freeway improvements and impact on adjacent properties. If you have any questions please call myself at (510) 484-8041 or Mr. Bill van Gelder at (510) 484-8257. , , , 200 OLD BERNAL AVENUE. P.O. BOX 520 . PLEASANTON. CA 94566-0802 . (510) 484-8000 . FAX (510) 484-8291 , . . - ., 1.... e e .- Mr. Lee Thompson 2 December 14, 1994 We have George Holmoka working on a summary of the freeway cost data. If this does not adequately respond to the questions as you understand them please let us know. /);) 0) C)_ ., /J CfG . / . /lr;:t "'- ~,~;U- . _1~~ Randall A. Lum Director of Public Works & Utilities Letters\Thompson, WVG ......-. I " - - - i ," ~ -. ....- :' " CITY omcES 123 MAIN STREET CITY COUNCIL 484-8001 CITY MANAGER 484-8008 CITY A TIORNEY 484-8003 CITY CLERK 484-8235 FINANCE 484-8033 PERSONNEL 484-8012 CITY omCES 200 OLD BERNAL AVE. PLANNING 484.8023 ENGINEERING 484.8041 BUILDING INSPECTION 484-8015 COMMUNITY SERVICES 484-8160 WATER- BILLING 484-8038 FIELD SERVICES 3333 BUSCH RD. SUPPORT SERVICES 484-8067 PARKS 484-8056 SANITARY SEWER 484-8061 STREET 484-8066 WATER 484-8071 FIRE 4-444 RAILROAD AVE. 484-8114 POLICE 4833 BE&'iAL AVE. P.O. BOX 909 484.8127 e e CITY OF PLEASANT ON P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802 December 16, 1994 RECEjVED Lee Thompson Director of Public Works City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94510 ~'EC l ~ .)9~~~~, :::.! i;:< i 'C- !I'd e) r-H :.! c; 1 ....--.i_1 J~V 1-.....__ Dear Lee, Dublin's Traffic Impact Fee Thank you very much for meeting with George Homolka, Bill van GelderJ and me to discuss the Homart Project and the proposed Eastern Dublin traffic impact fees. We appreciate the ongoing spirit of cooperation. Our primary concern, as discussed during the meeting between our two city managers, was the apparent failure of the proposed traffic impact fee to include costs associated with Pleasanton's construction of the Santa Rita/Tassajara, Hacienda and Hopyard/ Dougherty interchanges at I-580J to the extent that such construction benefits Dublin. Dublin's traffic impact fee relates to only three interchanges and covers solely Dublin's costs for certain improvements. The Dublin fee is intended to fund the following: INTERCHANGE COST ESTIMATE Hacienda Interchange $ 4J056,000\1 Santa Rita/Tassajara - 5 J 600 J 000\1 ....~ 4,095.000\2 El Charro/Fallon Total $13,751,000 1/ This cost includes $3,762,000 as repayment to Alameda County for right of way for Hacienda and Santa Rita. 2/ The total cost is estimated at $10,500,000; $,4,095,000 is Eastern Dublin's share (39%). , " I: h · .. /.1 -f I e "": e On the other hand, Pleasanton expended the following: INTERCHANGE Hopyard Road Hacienda Santa Rita/Tassajara $14,200,000 17,700,000 9,900,000 $41,800,000 Total Moreover, your fee study contemplates Pleasanton contributing another $1,260,000 for the El Charro interchange. As we discussed at our meeting, there was a study (the Heindel study) completed in the late 1980's which attempted to distribute fairly the costs of several interchanges along 1-580. That study concluded, based solely on estimated costs, that Pleasanton should be reimbursed over $8 million because it funded more than its fair share of the improvements. During our meeting, there appeared to be recognition that Pleasanton had contributed beyond what it otherwise would have been required to contribute solely for its development. I believe there also was a willingness expressed to refine the benefit/burden analysis, as well as Dublin's cost estimate, in order to discuss further whether the traffic impact fee should be revised such that Pleasanton would be reimbursed for funds already spent or that certain obligations which otherwise would fall on Pleasanton would be funded by Dublin. We also recognize, however, Dublin's need to have this fee in place at the time it considers the Homart application. We wish not to be an obstacle in that effort. Assuming that your Council will act on that application prior to resolution of Pleasanton's concerns, I suggest that we make the further benefit/burden analysis and fee revision a high priority, and meet soon to determine how this is to proceed. Finally, we certainly concur that Pleasanton and Dublin should jointly pursue reimbursement from other jurisdictions who have benefitted or will benefit from the 1-580 improvements. c;]trulY yours, \~ Rand 11 A. Lum Director of Public Works Thompson,RAUah l . ,_-:'___. . \ /,-,1' ,.),,~ <:. '- /I ...1/'1;" ~L~'\." y~.,,,~~ 7t1 J ~I~ '" \\\\ 1'\~1~j02 u_\~,;_~/<~ . ( !/ii~:';\:>'>" e =- e CITY OF DUBLIN PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. California 94568 December 22, 1994 Mr. Randall Lum Director of Public Warks CITY OF PLEASANTON p, 0, Box 520 Pleasanton CA 94566-0802 SUBJECT: Dublin's Proposed Traffic Impact Fee Dear Randy: This letter is in response to your letters of December 14 and December 16 and our meeting on December 15. There were a few misstatements in your letter of December 14, 1994, When our respective City Managers met to discuss Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fees, Pleasanton had some questions about possible inequities in the way the draft fee was developed. Dublin's approach in the draft report was to complete the two interchanges (I-580IHacienda Drive and 1-580/Tassajara Road) that Pleasanton had begun and to pay back Alameda County for the land that the County had dedicated for the two interchanges. In the case of the I-580/Tassajara interchange, Dublin would be adding a second bridge across 1-580 to double the size of the overpass, plus make the necessary revisions to the ramps to make the new overpass work. It is my understanding that Pleasanton is requesting that Dublin include an element in the proposed traffic impact fee to balance out Pleasanton's and Dublin's contribution for the cost of the complete interchanges at 1-580 and Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road. This balance would be based on the proportional traffic impacts of the two cities for some area of benefit. The I-5801D0ugherty RoadlHopyard Road interchange improvements were the subject of a previous agreement between Dublin and Pleasanton and, as such, were eliminated from the Heindel study. The costs that the City of Dublin has included in Dublin's Traffic Impact Fee Study for the I-580/Hacienda Drive and I-580/Tassajara Road interchanges were only to complete the ultimate improvements for these two facilities. , , Administration (510) 833.6650 . City Council (5101 833-6605 · Finance 1510) 833-6640 · Building Insaectlon (5101 833-,,620 Code Enforcement (51e) 833-6620 . Engineering (.510',333-6630 · Planning (510) 833-",,10 Polic2 IS10) 833.SSi,J . P'~::,: Works (510) 233.<3530 · Recreal:on 1510\ :332.66':5 e e Letter to Mr. Randall Lum, City of Pleasant on December 22, 1994 Page 2 The City of Dublin anticipates that it will annually review and update this Traffic Impact Fee, When the Fee is updated, Dublin could, if the City Council so directs, restudy the two interchanges, determine areas of benefit, and include Dublin's share of the cost in the Fee. In the meantime, perhaps a better approach would be to work for inclusion of the cost of these interchanges in the Regional Fee that the TVTC is working on to try to better distribute the cost over all the jurisdictions that are benefiting. I hope this answers your concerns, If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at (510) 833-6630, Sincerely, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~j~ Lee S, Thompson Public Works Director LST/gr a: (9495) Idecemberl20lum I" '.:: ;.,:~){~~;,\h~i:~:i}~~.~~(H:~H:~:~~~';~':1X}l-}::~::,-':J~ '_./SI~"e'}':'::~ C~~": :'~. :~'::.:~:<\:~'~. '. ;.: . .::::.: :. ',':}~';".:" }~'.:::..:::~::>;_'; ..':;"::I/'. . I . - :. ,~" . - - +.' :~.~.~!-~~-i~~~..~~i/.:~:~~::..~.. +~:.L-.:.. .' DEe 21 '94 10:24 TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS P.2 T J K 1\'1 ME M 0 RAN DUM December 20, 1994 Project 157-066 To: Ted Fairfield Copies to: Marty Inderbitzen, Bob Harris & Rod Andrade RECEIVED Subject: My review of Draft Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin DEe: ~: 1, 199,:', From: Chris D. Kinzel I~' : Q; j ,r \.1.; /".'- . -' ~ -'~_.~.- ~;""~J:I~'~ My comments on the subject report are as follows: 1. Page 5, Trip Generation: The report does not describe how the total trips were obtained. Passwby trips are mentioned, but no mention is made of potential double-counting of trips. For example, a trip from a home in E. Dublin to ajob in E. Dublin is the same t.~p, but may be accounted for twice in the process that is used. If there were an intermediate stop for shopping, this would be classified as a pass-by trip. Pass-by trips are described in the l'.Tite- up. Double counting of trips is not necessarily a problem, since it would account for more trips than actual, but reduce the cost per trip. Ifnot double counted, the trips would tJIlically be assigned to the home end of the trip, not the job end of the trip. 2. Page 6, Dublin Boulevard funding: It is easy to make the argument that others (Livermore developers, mainly) should help pay for the six laning of Dublin Boulevard, particularly the section east of Fallon Road. However, this could introduce the subject ofE. Dublin developers reimbursing (Triad) or improving Dublin Boulevard/N. Canyon Parkway/Airway Boulevard between E.Dublin and the Airway interchange. E. Dublin is shown to be on the hook for some of the improvements of the Airway interchange so this confirms the potential for E. Dublin helping out on the previously constructed improvements in the Triad area. If reimbursem en t of existing improvements is not an issue, 2.!ld it probably won't be, then letting others help on the E. Dublin portion of Dublin Boulevard probably makes sense. . 3. Page 6, Hacienda Drive improvements: I understand the County and/or Dublin are currently phmn1nE to have two right angle bends in the roadway. I suggest it be mentioned that this roadway would have much greater utility in the future if it were planned to have a design speed of at least 45 miles per hour. 4. Page 6, Hacienda Interchange improvements: It is not clear to me why the E. Dublin developers should reimburse the County for 100 percent of the interchange right of way dedication since NPID is a major user of this interchange. At best, a smaller percentage should be utilized. The County should have struck its own deal with NPID: If it didn't, shoulq. E. Dublin have to pay? ' ", ~..~~ ._.~.. -~ ',' .-.. ..,...,., . '. .,... . _.L..., e DEe 21 '94 10:25 TJKM TRRNSPORTRTION CONSULTANTS P.3 Ted Fairfield, page 2 December 20, 1994 5. Page 6, Transit Spine and Gleason Drive: It could be argued that these roadways have more local and less area~wide importance and could be paid for 100 percent by adjacent property owners rather than spread over all of E. Dublin. : 6. Page 7, Tassajara Road: The cost of the right of way for lanes 5 and 6 north of Dublin Boulevard should be rei.:rabursed by Contra Costa County developers, if a mechanism for such reimbursement has been/will be established. 7. Page 7, Fallon Road: I am not certain that there will be a need for six: lanes on Fallon Road north of Dublin Boulevard. However, making reservations for future widening is probably not a bad idea. 8. Page 8, Airway interchange: It will be difficult to assess Contra Costa County developers for any appreciable sp.are of the improvements at this interchange. 9. Page 11, Study methodology: It is very unusual to use rhilv, rather than lJeak hour. trips to determine impact fees for mixed use developments. Streets and intersections are sized based on peak hour traffic, not on daily traffic. Residential uses tend to have a smaller portion of their trips during the peak hoUI'S, so the use of daily trips as an indicator would penalize residential uses and favor non-residential uses, particularly those primarily generating employment trips. 10. Page 13, Fees - Scarlett Drive: SC2.Ilett Drive, the diagonal street connecting Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, will be a key route for traffic between Contra Costa County and the E. Dublin BART station. However, Table 2-3 indicates that 0 percent of the traffic on this roadway will be from Contra Costa County. This needs to be checked. 11. Page 13-14, Fees: Several of the costs on these charts need explanation. Costs for the Fallon/I-580 and ArrwayfI -580 interchanges seem low, the 1-580fI-680 interchange cost of $5. 6 million requires explanation, as does the $9 million cost for Route 84 (total ccst estimate is $200 million), and $16 million for improved transit services. , Appendix, General Trip Generation Rates: A portion of this table has errors. High density residential has less trips per unit than low density; the table indicates the opposite. Appendix, TIP Roadway Cost Estimates: This table requires a significant amount of addit- ional information so that the estimates and assumptions can be ch~cked. A map indicating the segment locations is required; clarification of all estimates and assumptions is required. All in all, the TIF study report seems somewhat sketchy given the ma.,cnitude of the improvements and the significance of the fees to E. Dublin. There are no maps of the improvements, no explanation of what regional land use assumptions were made, nor is there a detailed explanation of how regional costs were apportioned among various agencies. The report needs more information for the reader to be able to validate the accuracy of the assumptions and calculations. , Please contact me if there are qu~stions regarding this review. ~...r.. _ ,~()I'TJi!;'>" 0~~~J<;j~. ul . . ~I-~ \\~ f')(~ ~ ~2 -~~~,~~~ '. )!-'1~(;S>';' e e CITY OF DUBLIN PO. Box 2340. Dublin, California 94568 . City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 December 22, 1994 Mr. Chris D. Kinzel TJKM 4637 Chabot Drive, #214 Pleasanton, CA 94588 SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Report Dear Chris: Thank you for sharing your comments on Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fee. I will attempt to answer questions and comments raised in your memo to Ted Fairfield. 1. Trip Generation: Passby trips were included in the trip generation totals, as were internal trips. These were accounted for in the distribution and assignment, however, so the roads are not oversized. The comment acknowledges that this double-counting does not pose a problem since it merely lowers the per-trip fee. Whether double- counting of trips is included in the program or not, individual developments will pay the same total amount. The approach that was used has the advantage of being much simpler to apply than an approach that attempts to eliminate double- counting. 2. Dublin Boulevard Funding: It can be argued that Livennore should pay for some of the Dublin Boulevard Widening and Extension. However, Livermore would then argue that Dublin should pay for North Canyons Parkway and other roads in Livermore. Therefore, we have decided that each jurisdiction be responsible for its own roads. If agreements suggesting otherwise are adopted sometime in the future, the impact fee could be amended accordingly. 3. Hacienda Drive Design: This is a good design suggestion and we will keep it in mind; however, it is not an issue pertaining to the impact fee. " , (continued) Administration (510) 833-6650. City Council (5101833-6605. Finance (510) 833~6640' Building Inspection (510) 833-6620 Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-6610 Police (510) 833-6670 . Pu:;:,c WorkS (510) 833-6630 · Recreation (510) 833-66.\5 e e December 22, 1994 Chris Kinzel, TJKM Eastern Dublin TIF Page 2. 4. Hacienda Interchange Improvements: When Pleasanton was originally building the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road interchanges with 1-580, some right-of-way was needed for ramps on the north side ofI-580. Alameda County dedicated the land necessary for the work on the north side of the freeway and Pleasanton extended their work on the north side of 1-580 to serve Dublin's ultimate needs. The extended ultimate work was sized to very nearly match the value of the amount of land that the County dedicated. These additional improvements then reduced the amount of work that Dublin would have to do in the future. 1bis exchange was included in an agreement between Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County. 5. Transit Spine and Gleason Drive: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR, to which the City must adhere, specify that these roads have four lanes and that their cost be shared among the Eastern Dublin developments. The premise is that any major road width greater than two lanes is designed to serve area-wide needs. Two-lane roads are designated as solely serving adjacent properties. 6. Tassaiara Road: - The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for Tassajara Road to be four lanes in a six-lane right-of-way. Dublin City Staff are now involved in discussions regarding cost sharing with Contra Costa County. If these discussions result in an agreement by Contra Costs County to share any additional costs, the fee could be amended accordingly. 7. Fallon Road: Same response as above for Tassajara Road:- ~ 8. Airwav Interchange: Dublin City Staff are involved in discussions regarding cost sharing with Contra Costa County. If these discussions result in an agreement by Contra Costa County to share any additional costs, the fee program could be amended accordingly. I" e e December 22, 1994 Chris Kinzel, TJKM Eastern Dublin TIF Page 3. 9. Daily vs. Peak-Hour Trips: The fee could be based on peak-hour trips, rather than daily trips; however, the City will have a much easier time determining daily trips for new development rather than peak-hour trips. Also, daily trips are a less volatile measure of impact than peak-hour trips: they don't fluctuate as much on an individual project basis. 10. Scarlett Drive: The table in the impact fee study should not be construed to indicate that zero Contra Costa County traffic would use Scarlett Drive, but rather that Contra Costa County is not being asked to contribute to the cost of Scarlett Drive. The table shows cost responsibility, which is not necessarily the same as proportionate impact. 11. Costs of Regional Improvements: The cost estimate for the Fallon interchange was prepared by the City of Dublin Staff based on modifications to an estimate by Greiner Engineering. The Greiner estimate was for an interchange specially designed to accommodate large trucks destined to or leaving the quarries on EI CharTO Road. This extra design would not benefit Dublin. The cost estimate in the impact fee study is for an interchange to serve normal traffic. The cost estimate for the Airway interchange is based on figures from the City of Livermore. No other estimates are available, so these are being used. The impact fee program may need to be amended in the future if newer designs and estimates become available. The 1-580/I-680 interchange costs and the $16 million for transit improvements come directly from the Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan, which is the most up-to-date document available. The $9 million cost for Route 84 reflects a four- lane Isabel A venue project, which is what \vas assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. There is already a funded project to connect Isabel Avenue as a two-lane road in a six-lane right-of-way and to build an Isabe1/l-580 interchange. The $9 million reflects the cost of upgrading Isabel Avenue from two lanes to four lanes. The $5.6 million 1-580/l-680 interchange cost is the <<locally" unfunded portion of the project. '/, e e December 22, 1994 Chris Kinzel, TJKM Eastern Dublin TIF Page 4 Appendix: The table in the Appendix had typographical errors which have since been corrected. More Documentation: The City will be happy to provide more background documentation to you upon request. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 833~6630. Sincerel , ) JJ~ ,t...<.- ',./ Lee S. Thompson Public Warks Director LST/rob a:\dec\22kin=el ......" I" e 94046 Iy f:' '" - L f. r tv,... tier t:: l) ~. " - ~ .... '", ;/- '" 1 -. /:)/ Ii,,,, . . Il- ., '-1-'- ........ '...Jl; ..",......;..." , /... /(~.... I . 'J ~..~./j ,....... , r-r ii' ,-, ',;S :ue ,tF ecs PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 1:ICORPORATEO December 20, 1994 Corporal' H.adquarlers 42080 Osgood ROlld. Suite QI/I! Frelllont, Clllifomia 9-ijJ9.0350 510i656-7091 . Fa.\' 510.656-]825 Lee Thompson Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Comments on the "Traffic Impact FcejEastern Dublinn Report On behalf of Mr. Kenny Wan from Allwin Development for the Pac-Lin property located within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Area, I am submitting this written comments upon the review of Traffic Impact Fee/Eastern Dublin Report prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in November 1994 and other related documents. The following describes some of our major concerns on the implementation of traffic impact fees for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area: 1. Imposing Traffic Impact Fees Based on the Number of Residential Units Rather Than Trip Generation Rate. The report recommends assessment of traffic impact fees on new residential developments based on number of dwelling units and on non-residential developments based on each building square foot floor area. However, this method of assessment conflicts with the methodology used in determining the total amount as impacts fees sOught. The reports methodology in deriving traffic impact fees rust estimated total trips generated by all potential developments in the Eastern Dublin Area. At the same time, total improvement costs for roadway facilities which will. be used by trips generated from the area were calculated. The report then converted the unit cost per trip to unit cost per dwelling unit for residentJ.?l use and per square foot for non-residential land uses. Because basing the impact fee only on the number of dwelling units and the square footage of a non-residential building, this method does not take into account the reduced trip generation, thus reduced traffic impacts of developments in the Town Center planning areas. The Town Center areas have been designed to encourage higher density residential developments and neighborhood commercial. The areas will also be encouraged to promote pedestrian and bicycle access within the areas and to provide opportunities to use alternative transportation modes. Mixed use development_ in the Town. Center areas, along with convenient access to use alternative transportation modes, will ensure reduce trip generation per residential dwelling unit and commercial square footage when compared to the trip rates for r?e same type devel~pment located outside the Town Center area. The assessment of traffic impact fees based on dwelling unit'and square footages rather than trip generation penalizes development in the Tmm center areas and will create an unfair fmancial burden on developments within the Town Center area. In fact, this will make affordable housing in feasible. !, I TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC PARKINC I v "' S e ,- e Lee Thompson City of Dublin Public Works Department December 20, 1994 Page 2 Government Cooe Section 65913.2 requires the City Council to consider the effect of an ordinance with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. The Government Code requires the City to refrain from imposing regulation s which would make housing infeasible for any segment of the community. Housing developments in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will help the City to meet the ABAG projected housing needs in Dublin. 2. Lack of Administrative Guidelines for Reimbursement or Credit Against the Traffic Impact Fees The Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance added Chapter 7.82 to the Municipal Code of the City of Dublin. Section 7.82.040 Developer Construction of Facilities states that "If a developer is required, as a condition of approval of a pennit, to construct a transportation facility that has been designated to be fInanced with Transportation Impact Fees and if the facility has supplemental size, length, or capacity over that needed for the impacts of the development, a reimbursement agreement with the developer and a credit against the Fee otherwise levied by this ordinance on the development project shall be offered by the City." However, Section 7.82.050 Administration Guidelines states that "The City Council may, by resolution, adopt Administrative Guidelines to provide procedures for the calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative aspects of the Traffic Impact Fee." In absence of these "Administrative Guidelines", how can developers of developments in the Town Center area be assured that reimbursement or credit will occur based on potential trip reductions, as compared with the assumptions made for the calculation of Traffic Impact Fees for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area? 3. Unreasonable Allocation of Cost Sharing Section 3.3 Traffic and Circulation of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR, specifically Table 3.3-8 shows only nine percent of Eastern Dublin residents would work in Bishop Ranch, and other San Ramon area to the north of Eastern Dublin. Approximately seven percent of employees in the-Eastern Dublin area will come from the Dougherty Valley, Bishop Ranch and other San Ramon area from the north. Also, Figure 3.3-E shows that less than 50 percent of future daily traffic volumes on Fallon Road north. of Dublin Road would be attributed to the full developments in Eastern Dublin (13,900 daily trips under the scenario of 2010 With Project as compared to the 28,500 daily trips under the scenario of Buildout with Project). It also shows that only approximate 60 percent of daily volumes on Tassajara Road north of Dublin Road would be ~ttributed to the " , . , e -=- e Lee Thompson City of Dublin Public Works Department December 20, 1994 Page 3 , full developments of EaStern Dublin (24,100 trips under the scenario of 2010 With Project as compared to 40,900 trips under the scenario of Buildout With Project.) The Traffic Impact Fee report includes costs of a four-lane roadway, with six-lane right-of- way, for the aoove segment of Fallon Road and six-lane roadway with eight-lane right-of-way for the above segment of Tassajara Road. These cost estimates are included in the "Section 1 Fees" category which is to be borne solely by Eastern Dublin. Because of the high percentage of through traffic (traffic not generated by Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project), "these costs should be included in HSection 2 Fees" category which will be a shared responsibility between Eastern Dublin, Dublin., Contra Cost County, Livermore, and Plea santon. The recommended traffic impact feeS of $3,160 for each single-family residential unit and $2,200 for a single multi-family residential unit are significantly higher than the traffic impact fees imposed by adjacent cities. Attachment A shows a comparison of Typical Growth , Impact Fees compiled by City of Pleasanton. We llIge you to defer the adoption of recommended traffic impact fee plan for Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area until you address and resolve our concerns as listed aoove. We also urge you to consider providing fmancial incentives for deve10peIS in the Town Center area to promote the use of transportation modes and to provide afforab1e housing needed in Dublin. If you.have any questions, please contact Mr. Wan at 818 285-9823 or myself at 510656-7091. Sincerely, CCSPlanning and Engineering, Inc. d:e. ~ ~ ChwenC. Siripocanont, P.E., T.E. enclosure: Attachment A M02-94 B:\940lI6\DUBUN.LO 1 '" 00 ~ - E--t ,....c () ~ 63 E- o =: E-c - ~ r:n. ~i ~ t3 <~ ~~ -t::;:l ~q E-<-~ 5~ ~~ C.'~ ~~ u )0000I ~ ~ o z o 00 ~ -< ~ :E o u I- Ll- c::.( cc:: o ;.jf;:F~ ".M -~~E jj i:? ~~;; ~ e -,.: ri: .... ~;=$ q tJ ~f'::'I. ._.;" ~ ~ . -~ ;;,;: =<1 ~ 4- ~........ ~j .. .. i ~ ~ ..... ::2 ~~ ;$.~ ;:;;. OJ::!! t2 @ [~ t~~ ~<l i~ <) . ~: ~j:- :;; ~ ti ..;-~ :.~~ . ~ -'? .. ~~ ~' .J:: ~., ~:~ .: in ifE c. " ," ;;'; "'C ~ -.:",,- .~~~~ ~-~ 0 ~ Z_ e ~ a :=::t~::i:1 ...., . I ~ ~ i.~ ~~ \0 ('~ . ..-: ~ ~;.......,....,. ~V) , ~ . "It... '. ~. ;;z :::i ..... ~- ~..:., -,., 1"'... ;,;:;:; ~~ ~~ - F-;'~ .... '" . tJ <2. k. ..- 'i:." '= Q ~.~ ~ ~~~~~ ",. a ;; ~, 1; ... ~ .i3 '" i' f---" J .::::: :t~ ~~c~......... .. ., l:: ~~---",.. 1:i~ .. ~c :=; ~t;~a:--~ ~ .. ...: ..2. :.: ....,.. E': '0 " l: .. "'Q- -<> ~.., ii Q ~.. 0- <> ~'.+ on ~g lis." ..._-t: .;; ><:: ~I q ~t><)"~~~O;: t:".. . .~ =: = "=<;).2...-~~ tio.~ .2 a ~..... ...~ ~ ""'... ...,. . ~~~~'i"'1;::.r~'~2 ...0 1~ - , ..,"l:,.- ~Q,."'O ~ . <>.,.. -, ~ ~ ~ ,g a:;:~~g~g;;~ ~l:i ... ~ ~ ~ .~ r - ""'0 0 0 -.::-"" ~ ..... ~ r;-.ro I I . . ...;..... ~ : '-4~ . , " g"" ;;;.(.~ ~ =~:E' "J % ~","; 'C .2~ .;t:c l; Q ~I ~ ~ a .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ,~,)... 5~::" E ~~t;; '" ~ "<; '" .. ... "~'i-.Q ;~ -.. ,~ 2'-'0 a - ~..., r~ Q,,~'o-~ -- ... F> 1:: .. 0:;' "'8"'- <l 0 8 ~~""..o:: ~:;':;; 1.. !~ .. 'x ..... "" .....;,. .. -0 to- ..-=:::...IIIIQ -.,. . -..,. :;~~~ ~::--~ ::c." '. ~ ~a~~ ~~~a ~+I' ~"" ,.. t=:8 r ~ r s ~ ('"l "'"' .. ~"= '" -eo ..- <>::1": I . ;;;':tr;""'l:~1 -.... ~ : ...; ~ l".'}~ '-4 I i;..; ~ ".".. ~ . .:...-~....-t. ~ ~ .~.... .0 " ~ ~ ii .. 1.,~ ~-= c ~~ ~-6 o <::> "1.. ... "" .. E 2 ~- 0.0 C;')O <1.'" .....f"'> ""00') '" '" q a ~ a :;: ~..!!~~~~~1It ~ .. \,) - U .... t; ... ~~ ~.,g ~1'" a ~ '-'i.2:<>.:'l~..~-<: -2a.2 ,2g,,;,. "0 .." ..., ~- :!.~~~~~~ ]:r; &:~&:o;...:~ "'"""",,....l:i.......... F " ", 'I:l .., " -::.(6l" ()i;f;'!A e to ~~~\\~ ([~I~i~~\) CITY OF DUBLIN -~~!#-- RO 80' 2340. Dubl'n. Call1e'"'a 94568 . .~,.\.~:;:... e City Offices. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 December 22, 1994 Ms. Chwen C. Siripocanont CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. 42080 Osgood Road, Suite One Fremont, CA 94539-0350 SUBJECT: Proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Report Dear Ms. Siripocanont: Thank you for your comments on the City's proposed Traffic Impact Fees. We have reviewed your comments and offer the following responses: 1. Imposing fees based on units. rather than trip generation rates: This comment requests that lower trip generation rates be used for multi-family development when it is in the city center. The proposed fee does take into account the difference between an average single-family home and an average multi-family home. The proposed fee is based on a trip rate of7 trips per unit per day for multi-family development and 10 trips per unit per day for single-family development. These rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual for Trip Generation which is based on hundreds of studies. The ITE multi-family rate is lower partly due to the fact that these units tend to be located in city-center areas where walking and transit use is possible. It is important to recognize that the ITE rates are averages for the land use category. Individual projects will be higher or lower than the average, but in order to be fair to all developers, the City is proposing to use the lIE average rates to detennine fees. The proposed fee does take into consideration housing needs by using a smaller trip generation rate for calculating the fees for multi-family uses. It does need to be pointed out, however, that Eastern Dublin must pay its way for all the infrastructure improvements. ' 2. Guidelines for credit against impact fees: The intent of the impact fee program is for a developer to have the option of directly installing some of the impact fee program network. This would be credited toward his impact fee based on the City's estimate of the value of the road improvements. The City will be developing Administrative Guid~lines for "credits" once the fee has. been adopted. Administration (510) 833.6650 . City Council (510) 833-6605 . Finance (510) 833-6640' Building Inspection (510) 833.501.0 Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 633-6630 · Planning (510) 633-6610 Police (510) 833-66iO . P<.:blic WorkS (510) 833-5630 · Recreation (510) 633.66~5 e ~ e December 22, 1994 Chwen C. Sirpocanont Eastern Dublin TIF Page 2. 3. Allocation of cost sharing: The cost sharing concepts that are included in the fee study are specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and ElR, which are adopted documents to which the City must adhere. Dublin will pay for roads in its jurisdiction, and Pleasanton and Livermore will pay for roads in their jurisdictions. Dublin City Staff are presently involved in discussions regarding cost sharing with Contra Costa County for the need to oversize some of the facilities, such as Tassajara Road and Dougherty Road. If these discussions result in an agreement by Contra Costa County to share any additional costs, the fee program could be amended accordingly. At this point, Tassajara Road will only be improved to a four-lane facility, which is needed for the Dublin development. The additional two-lanes of the ultimate six- lane facility are not part of the fee. The City will be updating this Fee on a regular basis (approximately annually) and these concerns will be reevaluated at that time. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 833-6630. /j:Y'J~~ Lee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/mb a:ldec\22chwenc '" '. . e e CASSIDY & VERGES ~ECr:IYEP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATfORNEYS AT LAW 20 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111 TELEPHONE (415) 788-2020 FACSIMILE (415) 788"2039 . . n '/1994 ;. .... .J "" CtTf OF DUCllN December 27, 1994 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council and Planning Commission City of Dublin Dublin civic Center 100 civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Re: Proposed Santa Rita Commercial Center; Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know from previous correspondence submitted to you (see, letter from Pleasanton property owners, dated December 22, 1994, and accompanying Memorandum of Comments on the Initial Study/Amended Negative Declaration and Rezoning Application for the Santa Rita Commercial Center), this firm represents a number of Pleasanton property owners, including property owners with significant holdings within the North Pleasanton Improvement District ("NPID"), in connection with the proposed Homart Santa Rita Commercial Center (the "Project'!). We understand that the City council will be considering this evening the enactment of a Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. Because the TIF directly affects the feasibility of the Project and the mitigatton of its environmental impacts, as \" . "' e e December 27, 1994 Page 2 discussed in our Memorandum, we submit this letter of comments with respect to the proposed TIF. For this purpose, we incorporate by reference those portions of our Memorandum which are germane to the traffic and circulation issues with which the TIF attempts to deal. In addition, this letter constitutes an enlargement upon the comments contained in that Memorandum as therein specified and should be considered a part of the record before the Planning Commission and city Council in connection with its consideration of the Project. ~ ~~~ (J . <;..- Our comments are ~UP.w.s.~-----'---- ." f .1 :"v..-.-r /-ze1 (.~, __------ w.-r.A./ .{.~ !;.i/.r. ~j. 1. b=-Use of specific Plan EIR; Notice of Hearinq. {t... "'-<.c, (,,/:- 1 y. " r! '''(..p~-...,,',;I Based on our review of the Staff Report prepared 'for the city f ;1. . - I'v'.:...... ,. ~ ....--., ~-';.: -"," . council hearing, we understand. that the City prepared an Initiafr~~AL~ A:. ",. . .,b~ ~ r,~,,~v" In our Memorandum on 1/'/:~J:L .<<-I:..;J -;LI 7~~; ~~?v'-1" -f/7V-0 () wL. I r;?,-_,-~ ~ -C _.tiL .~ <lLtf;j/'- '-j?n./ ~ ~ (>A~) Draft TIF Resolution recites that, ,!4;'fAJ/;"'.<<f subsequent project-specific environmental review undei"i~,,?.f.:'~b CEQA of. the specific Improvements and Facilities. w~l~ .( .lLhtJ}.7'''~'''' be requlred before any such Improvements and Facllltlesh ',)".14,...1. ' are approved. It is not feasible to provide project ~l~~ ~ specif ic environmental review of the Improvements and (;ltWn.- d.,.. Facili ties at. this stage, as they will be implemented j /",~ ' ~. ~7~/. Ak.j~. ~tkt!;::bJI~ ,-.9t 5!J~' It.. i't f~ ;-'1 ~tf-? ~ Study and concluded that the adoption of the TIF Resolution is within the scope of the Specific Plan EIR. the Project, we have raised significant issues with respect to the City's ability to use the Specific Plan EIR without further CEQA review in connection with the City's consideration of the Project. .eWe question the use of the Specific Plan EIR in connection with the TIF Resolution, particularly because the e e December 27, 1994 Page 3 over at least 20-year period and specific details as to their timing and construction are not presently known. (Draft Resolution, Finding D, p. 5.) Given the level of project specific environmental review for the Project, we have serious reservations regarding the efficacy of this approach. Moreover, it is not clear why or how it is infeasible to provide environmental review of the Improvements and Facilities at this stage, given the fact that the Eastern Dublin specific Plan purportedly calls for all the required infrastructure necessary to serve development within the Eastern Dublin specific Plan Area. Finally, we note that the city's Notice of Hearing on the TIF Resolution failed to include the required statement that the TIF Resolution is within the scope of the program approved earlier as part of the Specific Plan EIR, and that the Specific Plan EIR adequately describes the activity for purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines ~15168(e)). 2. Unfunded Improvements. The Staff Report states that, "other streets necessary for development of the SP are local roads which will be constructed by developers as they develop their properties. No fees are necessary to provide for such roads." (staff Report, p.2.) In addition, the TIF for Category 2 and Category 3 improvements covered by the TIF provides only for a portion of thd..../~~..~ing for thOS;-e:~~.~;e;:;2 ~ J.L- ~7 n--<... improvements. /J ,.f) _I/O /iz . '1~ / ~,"u! /veeL.( (;'~fJ~L-i /' /!in - .~.J ~ h "f!~ /~ ~~ ~.a ~~""~0/ le'-1 / Ow- /l...-J _H~5, ('1 cd" , ' · ;" r f., ~.4., i;z:. , I, /~,,-'--/ [.. ........ / Q ---$' - r I' - ' If ~,J .i-v..f u.J ~.)... l/j 'M~,.?(,,~ 1:.// . 1 _. _ /. ~ ~ oJ ,)L4&.~i7 cJ~rd~;-O..L _ .~< !.V"T "-'Y~.a;,~,;" ~~-/ rtIu / e e December 27, 1994 Page 4 How can the city assure that other streets necessary for development will in fact be constructed by developers? For instance, can the City assure that the required showing can be made under Nollan and Dolan in order to assure construction? Without any additional environmental review, how can the city determine that the appropriate nexus exists to justify this type of exaction? with respect to the category 2 and Category 3 improvements, what other sources of funding are available to assure that they will in fact be constructed so that they will be available as development in Eastern Dublin proceeds in order to serve that development and mitigate the adverse impacts of traffic generated by, or attracted as a result of, that development? Neither the Staff Report nor the various Ordinances and Draft Resolutions, background studies or other data in the record contain any answers to these issues, which of course are central to the ability of the city to mitigate in fact the adverse traffic and circulation impacts of development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. 3. Timinq of Payment of TIF. section 2 of the Draft Resolution provides the proposed mechanism for payment of the TIF. The payment date for residential development is no later than the date of final inspection for each unit, and the payment date for non-residential development is the date a building permit is issued, unless the effected building or structure e e December 27, 1994 Page 5 requires a later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can be occupied, in which event the TIF may be deferred until the date the City makes the last discretionary approval. If the purpose of the TIF is to fund necessary infrastructure as the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area builds out, payment of the TIF at these benchmarks subverts that purpose. Specifically, it is unlikely that infrastructure can be constructed and in place prior to the date a structure is occupied and utilized (and thus generates traffic) if the funding is not even available until building permit issuance, at the earliest. In addition, in the case of non-residential development, if the city takes the position that a certificate of occupancy is a discretionary approval (a not unusual position in many cities), then the TIF may be deferred to an even later date. A better mechanism to assure proper funding and installation of necessary infrastructure to serve development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (and assure adequate mitigation of adverse impacts from traffic and circulation) is payment by a development when it obtains the last discretionary land use approval from the City. For example, this might be a tentative map, conditional use permit, or similar land use approval. In this manner, the city could assure that funding existed and development of infrastructure proceeded in a manner correlated to actual build-out within the Eastern Dublin specific Plan Area. . , e e December 27, 1994 Page 6 4. Reimbursement for NPID Improvements. In our f' Memorandum previously submitted to you, we have noted that the city ought to reimburse the City of Pleasanton (and, in turn, the NPID property owners), which funded infrastructure disproportionate to the actual impact of growth in Pleasanton and which ultimately will benefit and facilitate development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. This fact was specifically acknowledged by the Public Works Director, Mr. Lee S. Thompson, in his response to the comments of Mr. chris Kinzel of TJKM attached to the staff Report on the TIP Resolution. specifically, Mr. Thompson states that, "These additional improvements then reduced the amount of work that Dublin would have to do in the future." (See, '4, p.2 of Mr. Thompson's December 22, 1994, letter to Mr. Kinzel.) Absent these improvements, the City would be required to make them in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of traffic and circulation caused by development and growth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The city ought, therefore, as part of the TIF, to include within the amount under the TIF sums sufficient to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for the city's fair share of the cost of this infrastructure. We note that the Draft TIF Resolution contains a mechanism to effect this reimbursement (~f section 5.a.(3)), and that this provision is not limited specifically to developers within the Eastern Dublin .. e e December 27, 1994 page 7 Specific plan Area. And we also note that it is unclear why Alameda County should be reimbursed for the cost of right of way required to make these improvements, while no reimbursement is provided to the City of Pleasanton (and NPID) for the cost of the infrastructure itself. (We understand that Staff of the city and Pleasanton are discussing this issue and may resolve it through an adjustment to the TIF in the future as those discussions ensue. Owners of property in the NPID support these efforts and this outcome. ) 5. Reimbursement of city of Pleasanton. As you know, the city agreed to reimburse certain amounts to the city of Pleasanton pursuant to the Agreement Between city of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, county of Alameda and Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County Regarding Construction of certain Roadway Improvements, as amended (the "Roadway Improvements Agreement") . We have been unable to ascertain clearly whether the TIF includes the amounts necessary to effect that reimbursement. Since development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, including the Project, will directly benefit from the infrastructure which is the subject of the Roadway Improvements Agreement, it seems not only logical and fair, but also mandated, that the TIF include an amount to be utilized to effect that reimbursement. ". . e e December 27, 1994 Page 8 We ask confirmation that inclusion of the necessary amounts has been made as part of the TIF calculations. 6. Subsequent TIF Adiustments. As the Staff Report notes and as is provided in section 8 of the Draft Resolution, the TIF may be altered in the future as the city conducts further study and analysis with respect to development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. while we appreciate the foresight of the city in inclUding such a mechanism, we believe that it begs the issue, particularly of adequate environmental review at this stage in order to determine the maximum needs necessary as Eastern Dublin builds out. Obviously, if the TIF is calculated at too low a point (and therefore is insufficient to provide necessary infrastructure and improvements), those developers who build first will be significantly benefitted, and those who come later will either be penalized or find it impossible to undertake financially feasible development. If this is the case, the city will have every incentive not to increase the TIF and to short- change required infrastructure, thus adversely impacting not only the city, but also surrounding jurisdictions, such as the city of Pleasanton. A more rational and logical approach, from both an environmental and policy standpoint, is to assure that the TIF is adequate under all foreseeable scenarios to fund the necessary traffic and circulation infrastructure to serve the greatest potential build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. In -_ .~~.. ~lj",~ " , e e December 27, 1994 Page 9 the end, this will not penalize those who develop initially, since the City has the ability at a later time to reimburse amounts which are not utilized. (See, Gov. Code ~~66001(e), 66003.) We note in this connection the comment of Mr. Thompson in response to Mr. Kinzel with respect to the manner in which the TIF has been calculated. According to Mr. Thompson's letter (~, ~9, p. 3), the TIF is based on da~~X__~~!J?_s rather than p~~~ hour_~~~ps. As Mr. Kinzel observed in his December 20, 1994, comments on the TIF, a fee based on daily trips rather than peak hour trips results in undersizing the necessary infrastructure and the cost of that infrastructure. In other words, while traffic and circulation infrastructure under the Specific Plan is designed for peak hour capacity not daily trip capacity, the TIF is based on daily trips rather than peak hour trips and will thus under fund the required infrastructure. In addition to these practical problems, it is difficult to understand how, under Nollan and Dolan and Government Code ~66000, et seq., the city can at a later date impose a higher fee on later developments, when the need for additional infrastructure is not caused by those developments, but rather a shortfall in the TIF with respect to earlier developments which created the real need for the traffic and circulation infrastructure. ...... . ~..:..;- .l':t...~-~~ \ . , e e December 27, 1994 Page 10 7 . Calculation of TIF. While it is clear from the staff Report the manner in which the TIF will be calculated, the Draft Resolution should be revised to specify that the TIF, in the case of residential development, will be equal to the amount specified in Exhibit E to the Draft Resolution times the number of units and, in the case of non-residential development, a formula based on the multiple of trip generation rates per 1000 square feet of the type of non-residential development specified in Exhibit E. 8. Inadequacies of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. / Report. In addition to the foregoing matters, the Barton-Aschman ~- /\..) ~. I/..-~ :':\y - &' Associates, Inc., November 19, 1994, Traffic Impact Fee report on Eastern Dublin upon which the TIF is based (the "Report") raises the following significant issues: (a) The Report does not describe if improvements will be adequate to maintain level of service (LOS) D conditions or better at all intersections affecting North Pleasanton (the Pleasanton standard of significance to which the city has held Pleasanton accountable). These include intersections of Eastbound and Westbound off-ramps at the 1-580 interchanges of Tassajara Road, Hacienda Drive, and Dougherty Road. If the analysis includes use of the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, which only encompasses expected, rather than build-out, land uses, additional improvements will likely be necessary. North ! , e e December 27, 1994 Page 11 Pleasanton developers have constructed extensive improvements in order to ensure that appropriate LOS standards will be maintained at build-out. The Report does not offer the assurance that LOS standards will be maintained when Eastern Dublin improvements are completed. (b) The improvements call for replacing the Northbound bridge of the Santa Rita-Tassajara Road interchange with a three lane facility. However, no details are given as to resulting LOS at the two intersections at the ends of the bridge. Will adequate LOS be maintained at build-out of both North Pleasanton and Eastern Dublin? (c) The Report implies that traffic information was taken from both the Eastern Dublin specific Plan and the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP), although details are included by reference only. The traffic study for the Specific Plan was completed prior to the finalization of the TVTP, and neither study considered the full build-out of the Pleasanton General Plan, on which basis the 1-580 interchanges were sized when improved by NPID. As noted, the TIF will not adequately protect the investments made to serve the NPID which benefit Eastern Dublin development. (d) The Report is silent on the coming BART station in Eastern DUblinjPleasanton. What assumptions are made about BART? Is a second Tri-Valley station assumed? If not, is ~ ~ 'j~' e e December 27, 1994 page 12 adequate parking assumed for a one-station scenario? What effect does this have on intersections, on LOS, and on TIF requirements? will BART be paying the TIF? (e) Considering its large impact on development ln the region, the Report offers very little details on traffic assumptions, construction estimates, and effects on others including North Pleasanton developers. More details should be presented by the City prior to the adoption of the TIF Resolution in order to assure a fully-informed public and body of decision makers and to ensure the adequacy of the TIF as discussed above. 9. capital Improvement Plan. It is also unclear when and how necessary infrastructure will be developed and in accordance with what time table and in response to what development. At the least, a Capital Improvement Plan should be instituted, with specific schedules tied to build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. (See, Gov. Code ~66002.) Please consider these comments in connection with your consideration of the TIF Resolution. If you have any questions with respect to the issues raised by this letter, you should not e December 27, 1994 Page 13 e hesitate to call the undersigned. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. SKCjmap cc: Elizabeth H. Silver Jeri Ram Laurence Tong Respectfully submitted, / ~ ~~.. ,~--~~. _.!.~(.):>., ilfi~> l~~- <:~\\x\ II"! -:_ _.... :,":1\ " \ -~ I .-:"'} -; ----~> .~/J/j'- , I:-r':'.-,,(: ,,\; - e CITY OF DUBLIN e PO Box 2340, Dublin. California 94568 · City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 January 3, 1995 Mr. Stephen K. Cassidy Cassidy and Verges 20 California Street Suite 500 San Francisco CA 94111 Subject: Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Dear Mr. Cassidy: This letter is in response to your letter of December 27, 1994, regarding Dublin's proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. We would like to thank you for your comments. The following responses are numbered to match the comments in your letter. 1) Use of Specific Plan EIR: Notice of Hearing The comment addresses the proposed TlF and the proposed Homart project. This response addresses only those portions of the comment addressed to the TlF. Chapter 3.12 of the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan addressed the formation of an area of benefit and the use of a traffic impact fee adopted pursuant to AB 1600. The improvements and facilities to be constructed with the fee are known but the details as to the timing of construction and the exact location of the improvements and facilities are not presently known. Each individual project will have its own traffic study to analyze its traffic impacts on the road system and what type of mitigation is required for the proposed development. The mitigation(s) will become conditions of approval for the project. The Public Hearing Notice for the January 9, 1995, City Council meeting includes a statement that the adoption of the fee is within the scope of the Program ElR. 2) Unfunded Improvements Local roads (2 lane) will be funded and constructed by the developer as development occurs. The Specific Plan and General Plan only identify major collector roads and arterials. As new development plans are submitted for approval from the City, micro road systems will be developed for access to and through these developments. Typically, these roadways are platted as part of the subdivision review and approval process. Each new development will be required to have a project-specific traffic study prepared to address site-specific traffic impacts which will then -- become conditions of approval for the project. Administration (510) 833-6650' City Council (510) 833-6605' Finance (510) 833-6640' Building Inspection (510) 833-6620 Code Er~orcement (510) 833~6620 · Engineering (510) 833-6630 . Planning (510) 833~6610 Police !510\ 833-6670 . PUblic Works (510) 833.6630 · Recreation (510) 833~6645 Mr. Stephen Cassidy e Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Jaimary 3, 1995 Page 2 e With respect to Category 2 improvements, we have been collecting impact fees on a case-by-case basis from developers in the area of Dublin outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area for a number of years. Category 3 improvements are regional in nature, and other Tri- Valley cities will be adopting similar (or, in the case of the City of Livermore, have already adopted) traffic impact fees. In fact, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has been working onjust such a fee. Based on the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Dolan v. Tigard, the City of Dublin can only exact fees from developers based on documented evidence that the imposition of fees are roughly proportional to the actual adverse impacts generated by a proposed development. Therefore, developers in other jurisdictions are responsible for their share of improvement for a regional facility based on their impacts generated by their proposals. The City of Livermore has recently adopted a traffic impact fee which will pay for their impact on State Route 84 and other regional facilities. 3) Timing of Payment of Traffic Impact Fee The timing of payment of the fee in the proposed resolution with respect to residential development is dictated by Government Code Section 66007. The comment suggests that the resolution require payment of the fee to be at the time of the last discretionary land use approval. The proposed resolution requires non-residential development to pay the fee at the time of issuance of the building permit. If the City determines that payment of the fee is necessary at an earlier point, the City could use the required development agreement as a mechanism to require earlier payment than specified in the draft resolution. Again, it should be noted that each proposed development will be required to prepare a traffic study for their proposed development, and based on this traffic study, if any road improvements are needed to mitigate the traffic, the developer will be responsible for completing the improvements prior to occupancy. 4) Reimbursement for NPID Improvements The comment notes that Dublin "ought to reimburse the City of Pleasant on (and, in turn, the NPID property owners), which funded infrastructure disproportionate to the actual impact of growth in Pleasanton and which ultimately will benefit and facilitate development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area." Section 8 of the draft resolution would allow the City Council to revise the fee to include Pleasanton's costs of constructing the Hacienda and Santa Rita interchanges. (The comment incorrectly cites to Section 5.a(3) of the draft resolution. That subsection would authorize the City to reimburse Eastern Dublin developers who oversize improvements; it would not authorize Dublin to reimburse Pleasanton. The comment also refers to "NPID property owners." If Dublin were to revise the fee to enable it to reimburse Pleasanton, it would be up to Pleasanton to Mr: Stephen Cassidy e Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee January 3, 1995 Page 3 e determine what to do with such funds. The North Pleasanton Improvement District is merely a funding mechanism used by P1easanton.) The Dublin City Council would first have to provide direction to the staff that the Council is interested in looking at the issue of reimbursement to Pleasanton. If the Council provided such direction, the staff would need to obtain a study to determine whether the properties in Eastern Dublin will benefit from such improvements and, if so, to what extent in relation to benefits received from the improvements by others and similar issues in keeping with the requirements of AB 1600 (Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq.). The Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County is entitled to reimbursement for costs of right- of-way pursuant to an agreement between the City of Dublin, the Surplus Property Authority, and the City of Pleasant on. The City of Dublin does not have a similar agreement with the City of Pleasanton for reimbursement of its costs of constructing the Hacienda and Santa Rita interchanges. 5) Reimbursement of City of Pleasanton This is to confirm that the necessary amount of fee has been calculated into the fee structure for the repayment of Pleasant on for Dublin Boulevard extended and Hacienda Drive all in Dublin. The way that this is planned is that the estimates of the cost of all of the improvements were based on the assumption that there were no existing improvements along the path of the major streets. When the streets are actually built by the City, the cost will be less by the value of the existing improvements, thus freeing up the fees collected to repay Pleasanton. In the case of the developer building the oversize improvements, he will be given credit for the value of entirely new improvements, less the value of the existing improvements, again freeing up traffic impact fees, It should be noted, however, that the repayment of Pleasant on for the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive improvements will only be made after the BART loan has been paid off. This is pursuant to the Dublin/County/Pleasanton agreement. 6) Subsequent TIF Adjustments We anticipate that adjustments to the TIF would primarily be for changes in the cost of road construction, for the increased monies owed on loans or credits which are drawing interest (BART, Pleasanton, and the County Surplus Property Authority), for changes in scope of regional improvements, and due to better information on the cost of improvements. The scope of the road improvements is based on a build-out land use scenario. The roadway system has been sized for peak hour traffic; however, since the actual daily trips gives a better nexus to the actual use of the roadways (example: for roadway life) than peak hour traffic, it was decided to use daily traffic as a basis for the determination of the fee. Mr: Stephen Cassidy e Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee January 3, 1995 Page 4 e The last paragraph questions how the City could impose a higher fee on later developments consistent with the Nollan and.l2Q.lan cases. It is not anticipated that the fee will be adjusted to fund additional infrastructure. It is anticipated, however, that increases in the cost of construction and increases to reflect accrued interest on the City's obligations to BART, Pleasanton, and the Surplus Property Authority will require adjustment to the fee in the future. The TIF will fund only the major roadway network which was required with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. 7) Calculation of TIF The following examples show how the fee will be calculated: Five Single Family homes on property zoned up to 14 units per acre: 5 x $3,355 =. $16,775 Twenty multi-family units on property zoned for more than 14 units per acre: 20 x $2,350 = $47,000 200,000 s. f. Community Shopping Center: 46 trips per 1,000 sf x 200,000 sf x $293 per trip = $2,695,600 8) Inadequacies of Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.. Report Issues; a) The Barton-Aschman report is not intended to be a traffic report to determine levels of service, roadway widths, nor roads needed. This information was established and approved through the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan, and EIR. The TIF report only attempts to spread the costs of needed improvements on a fair share basis. b) Again, the TIF report did not size the improvements. That was done with the Specific Plan, General Plan, and EIR approvals. c) See (a) & (b) above. d) The original traffic study done with the Specific Plan, General Plan, and EIR assumed a single Tri-Valley BART station (Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton Station), which is a more conservative scenario: BART will not be paying the TIF as it needs no approvals from . Mr. Stephen Cassidy Ea_stern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee January 3, 1995 Page 5 e e Dublin; however, BART did loan approximately $2.3 million to help build the Dublin Boulevard Extension to serve the East BART station. Also, see (a) and (b) above. e) Again, this Traffic Impact Fee Study is not establishing traffic generations, but is using existing approved information to establish a fee to pay for improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan and EIR documents. 9) Capital Improvement Plan Staff anticipates preparing a Capital Improvement Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 66002 for improvements within the Eastern Dublin area for consideration by the City Council in the future. 10) Miscellaneous Your letter incorporates those portions of your "Memorandum of Comments on the Initial Study/Amended Negative Declaration and Rezoning Application for the Santa Rita Commercial Center" dated December 22,1994. The staffs responses to your Memorandum, which will be presented to the City Council when it considers the Santa Rita Commercial Center project are incorporated into this letter of response to your comments on the proposed TIF. Your December 27 letter indicates that it is "an enlargement" upon the comments included in your Memorandum and should be part of the record before the Planning Commission and City Council in connection with their consideration of the Santa Rita Commercial Center. Your December 27 letter was not timely received to be considered as commenting on the proposed Negative Declaration for the Santa Rita Commercial Center. None of the comments in the December 27 letter are germane to the rezoning of the property. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call my office at (510) 833-6630. Sincerely, ,~W2J:r~ Lee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/gr a: \/99./-95\january\3cassidy ,." - .,~ r ,-- e . DEe 27 J 94 11 : 23AM HELLER EHRMAl'l (213) -614 1868 - P.2 601 SOU'UI FlClt:EIl.OA STAEET 40TH FLooR Los A.NOf,LIl$ CALtrOANlA 90011-5158 FACSIMILE (213) 61.H86S 'tZ1.EFHO:<."E (213) 669-0200 HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE I ATliORNEYS I II ?AllT~HjHIP O~ ?OHSSrONIIL COlPOilATIOHS I ANCHO!U.OE PALO ALTO PO~tL.'.~tI S...." Fll,A,-':C:zcO SUTTLE Tllc~ I December 27, 1994 ! i VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 RQ: Traffic I=pact Foe/Eastern Dublin Repor~ Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter addresses th~ proposed resolution establishinq a traffic impact fee for future ~evelopments in the eastern Dublin area. It supplements a latter; on behalf of Allwin Development (paO-Lin property) ,submitted by CCS Planning and Engineering on December 20, 1994. . : ; Allwin represents persons who own and plan to develop approximately 300 acres of residential and commercial property in the Eastern DUblin General Pl~n area, incl~ding a significant high density, mixed use area desiqnated for Town Center . development. We are very congerned ~~at the methodology of computing traffic impact fees ;both unfairly and inconsistently penalizes Town center areaS. ; ". (1.~~ . ~ ~ ;. '. The,"c:urrently proposed Resolutlon assesse.s trafflC impact ~:~:~~~~~~~?~n~~~e:~{1:iia~ri;1.;~'~f~~i~St~~~~ii~{~7.'i~~~~fgr' non- residential ,udevelopments. It lmakes no distinction between Town Center (clustered, mixed use project areas) and general developments, although the city's planning ordinances and studies , i " ~~~2 - ~-.-v '. e e ~ DEe 27 '94 11:24A~1 HELLER EHRfvlAt'1 (213) 614 1868 P.3 Mr. Lee Thompson December 27, 1994 Page 2 recognize that Town Center typ~ developments will ,have reduced traffic impacts. AS explained in the CCS l?tter, as~esSment:\of,.traffic impac;:t fees based onnwnber of units 9r square footaqe.is "inconsistent .' \ .w.i th., the . methodology ..us~~.. l:>Yr:i~~f,~.9n:J,\~,c~il:!1~'~~!lo<?i,a:tes ,in determining" the - tota 1 amount "of "i'J.mpact'c"fees'to' benassessed. - Even if the assumption is made that: these tests roughly approximate traffic impacts for most devel~pments, which the study does not document, by the City's own planning principles it clearly does not represent an accurate asse~sment of the traffic impacts of Town Center developments. Moreover, the higher fee provided for "single-family residential,1I defined as 1 to 14 units per acre, is unsupported by the study or by the market. single-family dwellings typically run 1 to 6 or 7 units per acre (6,000 aquare feet or more); 14 units per acre (3,000 square feet) would clearly be rnulti::-family use. It'is":unwarranted to -:charge' developments ,:in ,,'the': 8-14' unit range~this'hiCJher';~fee"as. single- ,.~:. , 'l." ,\","~''',. a''''I}'r.,.-..~..'<l.".'~~ I ." ,family: proJect's ~";: The lack of distinction ~etween Town Center and other projects also undercuts the concept of high density, mixed use' development described and encouraged in the GPA, SP, and General Plan as a method of reducing traffic and other impacts of development in the East Dublin area. It also contradicts the city's pOlicy to facilitate affordable housing, by failing to credit Town Center developrnent~ with reduced traffic impacts, thereby making such affordable housing economi-cally infeasible in projects. ' The united states suprem~ court in Dolan v. Tiqard recently recognized that impact fees o~ other exactions must be based on documented evidence that the impositions are roughly proportional to actual adverse impacts generated by a proposed development, or else they represent an unconstitutional taking. The city's study does not,.justifY~l.l,irnposing .,feeS: based_~on t nutnber, of::4nits,~or:'~:square footage.' ,on ,Town ,Center areas, ,or "calculatinq:):~~~T~e~~'>~i:~1~~e ,'I . same, manner a~" th<?sefo~~,\ol..t?el<~'i"~)'iP~~"'~d~tfr"~i~.9~~~i~~f~~t'l"~~';:i" n!,. ",.con,'!:.ri,~,'f;Yl':"t!}'~~"'~~a' Ci'~~~t' ~~i!-h.~\~l~~~p,,,-.:n!.l,,,;1,1~~c~J!..:"Jf:!;}:;~";"'~~~'i';.,J.l,Clr~" ~~l"" ,n;l!"1 ' ., part ell a:r:gl.n ,ca., ~;:r:,.1.. a~:;,sucu,tToWn'~ en'&er' areas':w "pro",uce ,. ess . traff 1'0 '?and l 'ciifcu':Ca:CfcHi~~1mpab~s ;.': . . ~e recognize the city's :desire to have SQma traffic impact fee analyses in place in the riear future. If the City is unwilling to defer consideration of the recommended traffic impact fee plan, we suggest that both'fairness and legal consistency require making the following modifications to the proposed resolution: ' . I J' ~j f1 ~1' "'. e e DEe 27 '94 11: 25AM HELLER EHRt"lAN (213) ,614 1868 P.4 Mr. Lee Thompson December 27, 1994 Page 3 3. Amount of Fee. . The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein, eXC!Dt that the amount of such Fee shall not applv to reS dential or nonresidential development in are~ des1anated for Town !Center use ,in the OPA, SP. or General Plan until domDletion of the supsequent studv of the traffic impacts of such Town Center developments described in section 8 of this resolution. s. subsequent Analysis of the Fee. The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the council in reliance on the record ,identified above. The city shall conduct a further study and analysis to aetermine the t~affic imoacts of residential and non~residential developments within Town Center areas as designated in the CPA, SP, or GeneIa1 Plan. w~~n:such additional information is avai_able, the C__v:Council shall set the Fae for such Town Center developments in amounts which are reasonablv related to the' impacts of such developments. In addition to such:speoific study, the city will continue to conduct ,further study and analyses to determine whether the Fee for 'any type of development should be revised. When additional information is available, the City:Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably ~elated .to the impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The city Council may revise the Fee to ineorpQrate the findings and conclu~ions of further studies and any standards in 'the GPA, SP and General Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased construction costs. Traffic Impact Fee (EXhibit E); single-Family Resid~ntial (1 to 7 units per a~re) $3,355. : MUlti-Family Residehtial (;~re than 7 units per acre) $2,350. i . I We believe these modific~tions will allow the city to adopt a traffic impact fee resolution now, while still protecting the, resolution from legal inadequacies and inconsistencies with. respect to Town Center types of developments. .' .,. . . e ,.. .. DEe 27 '94 11:25AM H~R EHRMAN (213) '614 1868 .... I Mr. Lee Thompson December 27, 1994 page 4 P.5 If you have any questions~ please contact Mr. Wan at (818) 285-9823 or myself at (213) 24~-7833. We appreciate your time and 'attention to this matter. cc:1<enny Wan (via facsimile) ~. 'l .:.. , ~incerelY, : ~Mdl.-\~ ~obert I. Mcmurry HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE Attorneys for Allwin Development ",,\~~;+ Q&fc,~ '~/" (~ 1(;. 1/l !.. . \:\~~ Iq(~ ~l~~ -A~>~,~/J '~.1 / lE:\\:t~::" e e CITY OF DUBLIN P.o. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 . City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568 January 5, 1995 Mr. Robert 1. McMurry HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE 601 South Figueroa, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5758 SUBJECT: Dublin's Proposed Traffic Impact Fee Dear Mr. McMurry: This letter is in response to your letter dated December 27, 1994, regarding the City of Dublin's proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for Eastern Dublin developers. First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments on the City's proposed TIF for Eastern Dublin. We have reviewed your comments and offer the following responses. The TIF Study was done based on the trip rates of both residential and non-residential land uses. Also, the proposed TIF does take into account the difference between the average single-family home trips and the average multi-family home trips. These trip rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual for Trip Generation, which is acceptable to and being used by professional traffic engineers, not only throughout the State of California, but also the nation. It is important to recognize that the ITE rates are averages for each of the land-use categories. Individual projects will be higher or lower than the average. The trip rates for multi-family development, is 7 trips per unit and for single-family development is 10 trips per unit. A single-family unit is considered to be 1 to 14 units per acre and multi-family is considered to be more than 14 units per acre. These trip rates are based on the adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan ErR, Traffic and Circulation Table 3.3-6 Traffic Generation Rates (see enclosed copy of the applicable EIR page). The City's traffic study, recognizes that multi-family dwelling units will have lower trip rates than single-family. One ofthe reasons for this is that multi-family units tend to be located in city center areas where walking and transit use is possible. And, as you stated, the City General Plan and Specific Plan'indicates that such a town center area will produce less traffic and circulation impacts per unit. I' Administration (510) 833-6650' City Council (510) 833-6605 . Finance (510) 833-6640' Building Inspection (5101 833-6620 Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 _' Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planni[l9 (510) 833-6610 Police (510) 833-6670 . PubliC WorkS (510) 833-6630 · Recreation {5l01 833-6645 e e January 5, 1995 Mr. Robert 1. McMurry Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Page 2. Also, as you stated in your letter, the United States Supreme Court in Dolan vs. Tigard recently recognized that exactions must be based on documented evidence that the imposition is roughly proportional to actual adverse impacts generated by a proposed development. Again, based on this fact, the City of Dublin is using lower trip rates for multi-family residential uses than for single-family residential uses. I hope this answered your concern. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 833-6630. - Sincerely, k' :~ I #i ) \ J~G .-,q~ J~"~;A----- Lee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/MS/mb Attach. a:\jan\03murry ). , 1 - I I .I f if ~ i II ~ ~ ? - j ~...- ~I ~ , r r ~~ " k ~' ~- . . ~. . -'l e e &AS'I'XRR DUBLIN GXNElU.L PLAN .AlolENDlaXT /SPganC PLA1i xm nunrC.AND CIRCULATION 'I'U>>e ~~ nA17IC GXNERATION JlA'I7;3 I I I P.J.L?~ I ~U_ UIili:a D1ilr ~ ~~ RESIDE1mAL Low DelUiry (0-0 DU/~) (P..E. 1.::ci SF) I DU I 10.00 I 0.93 I Medium D~iry (6-H DU/IC1!) I DU I 10.00 I o.~ I Medi=-~ Ot=i:y (1-4-:5 OU/~) I DU I ;.00 I 0"'. , ,:.:. HW: D~ty (:S+ DU/SC1!) I DU I i.OO I o -p I .:.:. I NON-R&SIDENTIAL I Rzt:a.il I XSF I 50.00 I -4.00 I Offi ee I KSl I lS.DO I :!.-46 I S~-ri.ce/~ I KSF I 10.00 I :!.J);) I Ine ~ o:'i3i I KSF I S_oo I 0....50 I Eo tel I R.oo= I 10_10 I 1.0:!. I 56001 I S~..:dCl::l I 1":0 I 0.::'0 I P:s...--b I A<= I 6.00 I C.SO II Not.e: DU = D,...i1i~> U:::4 KS: = 1,000 sqU:l..~ !e.e; 5ou.-.;:~: DKS Ano:::'.1;a ea-i Oil ~~ Ge::~:iot\, 5tl:l Ecii~ion (b:ni:-..:~ ci~r:~ion -.:"t~ee...'"J, 19'il)_ The Project is expec"..eci to gen.erate 482,900 daily vehicle trips, ;:,i.th 42,200 of those oc:--..:.;;cg during the P.M. peak hour (Table 3.3- i). Tne same basic trip genenrion rates were applied to all land uses in the future scen.a..r:ics. Tne total furure trip generation in the Tri- Valley area in the Ye:!r 2010 would be 3.9 million rh;iy vehicle trips, as 'compared to 1.9 million. in 1990, an mcre2.Se of l~ percent. E:1s,em Dublin would rep~ent a::-Our 12 percent of the fur..:L.~ totll traffic generzrion.. 0: acout 23 pe:::e:J.t of the g:o..-.b, in the Tri- Yalley arez. 3.3-13 .-149 ...:=-.,;:-- -",- " ~~~~~-~.__._-~._~. _._~. . ..: -~.'....:.:, ....;:::::==-=-~..:;~-=----=-=- , "DEe 27 '94 ," .. m MARGARET K. PRYOR PA6SIDl!NT MICHAEL BERNICK VlCE-l'AIi:SllletlT RICHARD A. WHITE OSm':RAL Iol.lJU,GER ClIFlECTORS OAN RICHAJ:\O 1$1' DISTRICT NELLO BIANCO 2ND DIB1l\lCT ROY NAKAOEGAWA ~f\D DIB1l\ICT MAAGARET K. PAYOR om DlSTI'IICT SHEFlMAN LEWIS STH DIBTl'lrct JOHN GLENN fill OIJTRlCT WILFRED T. USSEFlY 7TH DIBTl'lICT JAMES FANG IIW DISTRICT MICHAEL BERNICK 11114 DISTRICT 03:20PM BA. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT OISTRlcr BOO Madison Street - Lake Merrln Slation P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 TelephOne (510) 464-6000 e P.2/2 December 27, 1994 Ms. Kay Keck City Clerk City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Proposed Traffic Impact Fee and Area at Benefit Fee Dear Ms. Keck: Thank you for your notice on the public hearing for the proposed Traffic Impact Fee and Area of Benefit Fee. BART would be happy to coordinate with the City on any "tran~portation_and_trcms!~ improvements" which may involve the future East DublinlPleasanton Station. Additionally, we would be interested in learning the procedures by which BART can apply for funding for transit improvement projects at with the future station. Please notify us as the procedures are developed. .A ,11"'- ~"'"'---. Rt~'t.. ({J ,Z-{.--v"'-o,/::-- . /---- ,', /~1 () /. ",' e..A ~ w------ ~,-,/ .. '-'" /':'..... (A~.~~..L- Sincerely, ~'~--4.~~" Ca~eron Bauer u1" ",5 Semor Planner , ll'')7G ZZ'i'>l ;' c: P. Gertler K. Mayo J. Rennels K. Zimmerman ! TF/"'r'"l ' -,) """""-..... ._ I l-:;, ,..... 0" .. .. j' .--..- · .' ~" <':;':>:::-~')f ti!}i/;, ..~ ....,// ' ,.: ~, ,-,' III @I \\~ \,19~ ~}~2) ~'~""~-'<~' . ( 'f//I-":--:~\.~ '. \,' e e CITY OF DUBLIN PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 . City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 January 5, 1995 Mr. Cameron Bauer Bay Area Rapid Transit District P.O. Box 12688 Oakland CA 94604-2688 SUBJECT: Proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Dear Mr. Bauer: This is in response to your letter dated December 27, 1994, regarding the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments on the City's proposed TIF for Eastern Dublin. The transportation projects that were included for funding in the Traffic Impact Fee Study are specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR. These are adopted documents to which the City must adhere. Please see the attached Barton-Aschman Traffic Report for Eastern Dublin which lists the specific projects that will be financed by the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR recognize that BART is responsible for the construction and improvements to the Eastern Dublin-Pleasanton Station, including all the transportation and transit improvements associated with the BART extension. Due to this fact, no fee has been proposed to be assessed for BART's transportation and transit needs. It should be noted, however, that the Fee does propose to cover the cost of additional buses for LA VT A to serve the East Dublin BART Station from the local Tri-Valley area. I hope this answers your concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 833-6630. CX:-'J~ Lee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/MS/mb Attach. a:\jan\03bauer " Administration (510) 833-6650' City Council (5~01 833-6605 · Finance (510) 833-6640' Building Inspection (5101 833.6620 Code Enforcementl51Q\ 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-9610 Police i510) 833~6670 . p,j~:'c 'Norks (510) 833-6630 · Recreation (510) 833-6645 " . : :"~" ,';~ ..\., .'J~::;~:..'::" ,'~;',;, ).: -:;.:";-'.' ::.,":" ...;'~.<':.~. '-~',~~ " ~'g~'~.:~" . ;2I~1:t~'tf:~!N~~;j:-/:\, '.~:-::, /7';,,; ~..~:,::,,~/;t'~:,0~;h~:,c:)L. ::~<;:~,F>;, ,:,,', . ~ ~'<""_""'_"~""'"''''';'''J'''''''?<''''-''''''''''''''''''''',"" "" , . ", - 6WtrM' d~~~~~!p,.,iil1~t~1~>'~~:~~~~;<<c~~ )0000 ~~~\'\V8 tinos ' ?a'4 d/ /1/} 1/ C/cY~'Jo6 ,*,0 80' fa:CCcm ,/1' r .:7 / -r 4J CMPLEA:')E fx r- 1'. j'.' ~I \ t..;.; ~I~ 1 , - 3 - - ," ~ ----,- \\ ~ J {]:G ;J)uB$n tlcp 0 BOX :;23?/O 'J){/J3~-t Cv '1?/~6'? ...". :-,~.~., .';: " .~. >. . .'; . -, :. ~'.' .' . . ,"" :.' -.. ~....~ :-:.- :'--;.'~ ~."" '. -.;', '-. ~ ~ - - .~,'.' ..' . .,. . ~;. .,'. . ::.t-~'(~}B[ml~~.!2~~? '.'. , - .;. ..:, . ,,- -, -----.. - .. ~ ~:~ .,.;-., -_...:....:.:..........:....:...:.....:.~-".:~:.;.....'..:. . ._~ .....~ .:.' . .- .-.! ',. I a--u-<.-j 01# ~c:dv /,~dt .. c ': \ Y E D R i; l.o , . ~ n 8 1994 L...""I.J I' ~ .' .. n' I T -:Z- c/ l/2/-L--(.......c..k~ I J;i.d,aG~ J. ,/ v :.. . _,-I j ~ /I' i-- T.. . ; ',' i ':-. " , . . ~ I (/ / ~ - '.~:". ,- /"/ e\1)' OF DU\1tlN . .' . . ..~. .' ,-; -j '~ i_ .' j :"'~:/':';~:-?'-::' ';"'\ -'l' .- " " . ,.-:' , .- 'tl-'} ..J. "". ',';1.:,: ..' ,. . :~. . '. ,,~. I .,' .- ;. '. .',':, j,. " . ..~. : ;','':' ,;<\C~C:r;!;/~. /:~>;/~.,<~;, JIJ-j~~NI~~) r\~ II,J/~- -lr' f;l) '\\~. ~I~ I///,I '~~-"'~"''\7 ,/1;;;; '. (, " .,..\'-' ',",1/ FI:;;("'/ . .~.'.. ~ d\~.;"'-~ e e CITY OF DUBLIN Po. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 . City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 January 4, 1995 Mr. or Ms. C. Silva 10000 Stillwater Road Fallon NY 89406 Subject: Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin Dear Mr, or Ms, Silva: I received your note protesting "any taxes for traffic impact study." Please be assured that no property outside the City Limit of Dublin will be assessed this proposed traffic impact fee until the property is annexed to Dublin, and then, only upon development of the property. This proposed fee would pay for the oversizing of roadways and other transportation improvements identified as being necessary to develop the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan areas, If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call my office at (510) 833-6630. Sincerely, PUBLIC WO~~ .0PARTMENT (~~. Lee S. Thompson Public Works Director LST/gr c: \1 994-95Vanuary\4silva / Administration (510) 833-6650' City Council (510) 833-6605. Finance (510) 833-6640' Building Inspection (5101833-6620 Code Enforcement (510) 833.6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Planning (510) 833-6610 Police :510) 833-6670 . PubliC Works (510) 833-6630 · Recreation (510) 833-6645