Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Pleasanton/I580ImprovementsCITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCII. MEETING DATE: December 8, 1986 SUBJECT Written Communications from the City of Pleasanton Regarding I-580 Improvements EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from City of Pleasanton dated November 18, 1986; Excerpts from Mark Thomas & Company Report pared for November 5, 1986 joint City meeting RECOMMENDATION Discuss and consider i FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost for Engineering review of the improvements planned by the City of Pleasanton is undetermined at this time. DESCRIPTION The city has received a letter from the City of Pleasanton requesting that the city of Du:)lin begin studying the improvements proposed by the City of Pleasanton t:o I-580 for the purpose of determining the City of Dublin's benefit in tho:;e improvements as well as funding for those improvements. The City of Pleasanton has indicated that the District Director of CalTrans has stated tha'-- the projects proposed to I-580 could be phased. Pleasanton further indicates that a logical first phase would result in approximately $45 million, $9 million of which they believe wouLd benefit properties north of I-580. Pleasanton further suggests that it would be of benefit to both communities that the $9 million worth of improvements be included in the first prase and that Dublin form a benefit district to reimburse Pleasanton for those $9 million in costs. Pleasanton has iriplied that if the City did not set up such a district, that Pleasanton would attempt to have those improvements deleted from their phase I constzuction. It is not clear whether or not: the State Department of Transportation would allow these improvements to be excluded. Attached to the Agenda :statement is an exerpt from the Mark Thomas Engineering Report identifying the total cost of the planned freeway improvements as well as the specific improvements that Pleasanton believes to be attributable to the development of the properties to the north of the freeway. At the Dublin City Council meeting of September 22, 1986, the City Council indicated that: its position with respect to any benefits study for improvements to I-580 and Dublin's responsibility for those improvements should wait until a development plan has been submitted for the area which is within the area which zas recently been annexed to the City. It is Staff's belief that it wou:_d be very difficult to assign a benefit to the north side of the freeway until such a development plan has been submitted and proposed densities within the development have been identified. For example, if a development plan included a project which had a lower density per acre than the projects within the North Pleasanton Assessment District, it is obvious that the traffic impact on the improvements would be less than those impacts generated from the south side of the freeway. It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council discuss the letter from the City of Pleasanton in light of their previous position on September 22, 1986. COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 57* 1 CITY OF PLEASANTON P.O. BOX 520 • PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802 REGE I V E D November 18, 1986 ? q t/ '' Na CITY OFFICES • 200 OLD BERNAL AVE. CITY COUNCIL 847-8001 CITY MANAGER 847.8008 Mayor Peter Snyder CITY ATTORNEY City of Dublin 847-8003 P. O. Box 2340 FINANCE CA 94568 Dublin 847.8033 , PERSONNEL 847-em2 Dear Pete: PLANNING 847-8023 You and 1 organized the November 5, 1.986 i0eeting to ENGINEERING initiate discussion on the recommendations made by LAF- 847-8041 CO relative to Dublin's Annexation No. 2. The specific BUILDING INSPECTION recommendations of concern -to Pleasanton relate to Dub- 847-em5 COMMUNITY SERVICES lin's participation in studies to determine Dublin's 847-8160 benefit., if any, from the proposed improvements to I- 580 and how those improvements migat be funded. Al- FIELD SERVICES 5335SUNOL BLVD. though the November 5th meeting was very informative to PARKS everyone present, no agreement was reached on how to 847-8056 proceed. SANITARY SEWER 847-8061 I would like to suggest that the City of Dublin have STREETS 847-8066 their engineers review in detail tae work done to date WATER on the projects proposed, includin.j cost estimates, for 847-8071 the improvements planned for the I-580 through the Dublin-Pleasanton corridor. Pleasanton will provide FIRE 4444 RAILROAD AVE. your engineers with all the information we have and 847-8114 assist in your review. The purposa of the review would be for you to determine what benefit, if any, Dublin POLICE 4833 BERNAL AVE. would reCE'i.Ve from and the appropriate cost allocation 847-8127 of the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements to I--580 discussed at the TIIE'Ct "?iu1e.w ?.sic?? d th ?:'±'ii. E 1n}e-ch-ges that wo. ii)d 1.ii) included -i t be required at build out of both sides of the freeway. Burch Bar..htold of Caltrans stated that the projects could be phased, which of course WDUld reduce substan- tially the money needed initially to be put up by Dub- lin and Pleasanton. The,,_first logical phases of the projects would benefit primarily Pleasanton properties, however, approximately $9 million Df the $45 million would benefit properties north of I-580. Pleasanton would finance the total first phasa of the projects and ask Dublin to set up so;ne type of Benefit District to reimburse Pleasanton the $`J million when development does tal•>e place. If some arrangement rannot be made to reimburse Piea.anturl for costs identified as benefiting areas north of I-580, Pleasanton will have to finance and construct the minimal projects that will only serve properties south of the freeway inso far as is pos- sible. In my opinion this would be a mistake and would result in additional costs to both Dublin and Pleasan- ton property owners. Pleasanton's engineers and City staff are prepared to provide you with all the information we have relative to the freeway improvements. Please let me know how the City of Dublin would like to proceed. Sinc ely, Kenneth R. Mercer, Mayor KRM:dg PROPOSED FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS I-580 AND I-680 DUBLIN - PLEASANTON CORRIDOR Shown below is a summary tabulation of the currently estimated costs for the proposed freeway improvements to I-580 and I-680 in the Dublin-Pleasanton corridor. In Table A, under the column titled "Total Build out" the cost estimates of improvements to I-580 and I-680 :'e , quired at completed development of areas both north and s outh of I-580 are shown. Phase I indicatE!s the cost estimates :--o r the improvements needed for the build out: of only th e area south of I-580. TABLE A Phase I "Build Total Out" South of Item Description "Build Out:" Route 580 Only 1. Hopyard/I/580 Interchange $19,617,900 $15,212,500 2. Hacienda/I-580 Interchange 25,626,6C0 17,818,400 3. Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange 14,531,5C0 9,643,900 4. Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange 19,457,600 18,071.100 5. West Las Positas/I-580 R/W 2,528,900 1,347,800 6. I-580 Auxiliary Lanes 10,858,700 2,158,600 7. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes 1,834,800 11572,700 Total $94,456,000 $65,825,000 As shown above, improvements needed for build Dut of the areas south of I-580 will cost an estimate d $65.8 mill ion (Phase I), with the future improvements require d for build out of the area north of I-580 (Phase II costing an additional $29.5 million. The proposed Phase I estimate of $65.8 million includes $44.8 million for I-580 improvements as shown in Table B, with the balance of work on I-680. Based on the attached cost tabulation, we have estimated that approximately $9 million of the work on I-580 is attributable to build out of the area north of I-580. However, we feel all the work should be completed as a part of Phase I for the following reasons: 1. It is more economical to add an additional lane on Santa Rita and Hopyard/Dougherty overcrossing now rather than build the two additional lanes now needed by Pleasanton and reconstruct the bridge to add the needed additional lanes in the future. 7 2. Portions of the lane widening and ramp embankment for approach lanes necessary to accommodate the above additional bridge lane would also be required now if the additional bridge lane is constructed. TABLE B Project Hopyard Interchange Hacienda Interchange Santa Rita Interchange I-580 Auxiliary Lanes Estimated Cost Attributable to the Total Cost North Development $15,212,500 $ 4,659,867 17,818,400 1,452,700 9,643,900 1,971,900 2,158,600 1,079,300 Totals $44,833,400 $ 9,163,767 up We have prepared a detailed cost evaluation for review along with a set of exhibits showing work involved. The areas shown in yellow graphically represent the $9 million portion of work for which the City of Pleasanton would be requesting reimbursement from the properties north of I-580. The areas in green and blue represent work proposed to be the responsibility of the City of Pleasanton. The areas in red show items of work now proposed to be deferred until future development occurs north of I-580. We have not included in these costs the traffic signal and portions of westbound ramp work which by prior agreement dated December 27, 1982 were proposed to be funded by the North Pleasanton Improvement District. We are available to review any of this cost information in more detail and are prepared to supply additional information upon request. Lt is to be emphasized that all estimated costs included in this report are based on the best information available at this time. Although phased construction on the improvements have been discussed with Caltrans, final approval- of the phasing conce]:)t has not been granted. The following pages include a more detailed summary of the cost estimate for each of thE! I-580 improvements.