HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 001-95 TIF/BenefitFee EDub RESOLUTION NO. 1-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted
Ordinance No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority
for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA")
and Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately
4176 acres within the City's eastern sphere of influence
including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9,737 million
square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals,
policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within
the GPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown
on the Land Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as
Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use Map as
"Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was
prepared for the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by
the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
EXHIBIT 1A S, Repo.
TIF/AOB Resol 1
Resolution
Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda) have
been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the freeway,
freeway interchange and road improvements necessary for
implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements,
pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic
improvements would be made and that development within Eastern
Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the' City Council.adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring'
Program.: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by
Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within Eastern
Dublin to pay its proportionateshare of certain transportation
improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development
within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP~ EIR and Addenda describe the impacts of
contemplated future.development on. existing public facilities in
Eastern Dublin through the year 2010, and contain an analysis of
the need for new public facilities and improvements required by
future development within' Eastern Dublin;' and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the City of Dublin by
Barton-Aschman Associates inc., in a document dated November 19.94
entitled "Traffic Impact Fee -- Eastern Dublin" (hereafter
"Study"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the City of Dublin
by Santina & Thompson, in a document dated December 3-0, 1994
TIF/AOB Re, sol 2
entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Cost
Estimates, Initial Level" (hereafter "Report"), which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C, and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report set forth the relationship
between future development in Eastern Dublin, the needed
improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those
improvements and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report were available for public
inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(hereafter "Fee") is to finance public improvements and
facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by
future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements
and facilities are listed in the Study under Sections i, II and
III and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements
and Facilities" The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section I are needed solely to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin. The Improvements and Facilities
listed under Section II are needed to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin and the nearby vicinity and
development within Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional
share of such Improvements and Facilities with the implementation
of this Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to
accommodate new development projected within the region by the
?
TI~AOB~sol 3
year 2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. However,
if there later are changes in the projections and. development in
the region, one or more of the Improvements and Facilities may
not be necessary and additional improvements and facilities may
be. required, Such alternative improvements and facilities are
included in the definition of Improvement and Facilities to the
extent development in Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for
such improvements and facilities, and the proceeds of the Fee may
be used to fund such alternate improvements and facilities.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be
used to finance the Improvements and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Report, the Agenda
Statement, the GPA, the SP, the General Plan, the EIR and
Addenda, all correspondence received and the testimony received
at the noticed public hearings held on December 12 and 27, 1994
and January 9, 1995 (hereafter the "record"), the Council
approves and'adopts the Study and Report, andincorporates each
herein, and further finds that future development inEastern
Dublin will generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities
and the Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA,
the SP and the City's General Plan.
D. .The adoption of the Fee is Within the scope of .the EIR
and Addenda. The Improvements and Facilities were all
identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate traffic from
and/or to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The
impacts of such development, including the Improvements and
Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the -
TIF/AOB l~sol 4
EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as
identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding
circumstances, and no other new information of substantial
importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's
analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives.
Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of
the Specific Improvements and Facilities will be required before
any such Improvements and Facilities are approved. It is not
feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the
Improvements and Facilities at this stage, as they will be
implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details
as to their timing and construction are not presently known.
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of
the types of development for which the corresponding fee is
charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential -- will generate traffic which
generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and
Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Improvements
and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is
charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential -- generates or contributes to
the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
TIF/AOB Reso[ 5
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements and
Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in
Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number
of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total
amount it will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities,
and the percentage by which development within Eastern Dublin
contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study and
Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the
Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be
generated by future development will not exceed the projected
costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a
particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship
to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the
Improvements and Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the
Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each
particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does
RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction~
alteration or addition of any building or structure within
Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property
within the "General Plan Amendment Study Area" as shown on the
· TIF/AOB Resol 6
Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the property designated
as r"Future Study Area/Agriculture." The individual properties
within this area are listed on Exhibit D hereto by assessor's
parcel number.
!!~. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include
tho!se?~,transportation and transit improvements and facilities as
are described in Sections I, II and III of the Study and as
described in the Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "improvements and
Fa~Li~ities" shall also include comparable alternative
improvements'and facilities should later changes in projections
of'~de~zelopment in the region necessitate construction of such
al~te~lpative improvements and facilities; provided that the City
Conn~l later determines (1) that there is a reasonable
re!tationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the
neeid for the alternative improvements and facilities (2) that the
~/~'~native improvements and facilities are comparable to the
i~Ir~ements and facilities in the Study, and (3) that the
~Zenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin
~:devetopment's fair and proportionate share of the alternative
~mprovements and facilities.
?i~ .:~ d. Single Family Residential Unit" shall mean a
dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (~C) as
adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on
property designated by the SP and GPA for one to 14 units per
acre.
e. "Multi-Family Residential Unit" shall mean
any dwellingu:unit which is not a Single Family Residential Unit.
TIF/AOB Resol
7
2. Traffic Impact Fee ImDosedo
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and
paid for each Single Family Residential Unit and each Multi-
Family Residential Unit within Eastern Dublin nolater than the
date of final inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-
residential buildings or structures within Eastern Dublin by the
date that the building permit is issued for such building or
structure, except where the building or structure will require a
later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can
be occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works
Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred
for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary
approval which is required prior to occupancy.
3. Amount of Fee.
a. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth
on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the
following:
TIF/AOB Resol
(~)
(2)
Any alteration or addition to a residential
structure, except to the extent that a
residential unit is added to a single family
residential unit or another unit is added to
an existing multi-family residential unit;
Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing residential structure that has been
8
destroyed or demolished provided that the
building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building
was destroyed or demolished unless the
replacement or reconstruction increases the
square footage of the. structure fifty
percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing non-residential structure that has
been destroyed or demolished provided that
the building permit for new reconstruction
is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished and the
reconstructed building would not increase
the destroyed or demolished building's trips
based on Exhibit E.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee
shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund. Separate and
special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to
account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on
each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the
following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-
way acquisition and construction of the
Improvements and Facilities and reasonable
TIF/AOB Re. sol 9
(2)
(3)
costs of outside consultant studies related
thereto;
To reimburse the City for the Improvements
and Facilities constructed by the City with
funds from other sources including funds
from other public entities, unless the City
funds were obtained from grants or gifts
intended by the grantor to be used for
traffic improvements;
To reimburse developers who have designed
and constructed Improvements or Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size,
length, or capacity; and
To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of
the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only
for the Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for
which the Fee was collected.
6. Miscellaneous
a. The standards upon which the needs for the
Improvements and Facilities are based are the standards of the
City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General
Plan, GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City Council determines that there are no
existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin and that the need for
the improvements and Facilities in Section I of the Study is
TIF/AOB Resol 10
generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin and,
further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in
Sections II and III of the Study is generated by new development
within Eastern Dublin and other new development and, therefore,
the Study has determined the proportionate share of the cost of
the Improvements and Facilities for which development within
Eastern Dublin is responsible.
7. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager
shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to
Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in
each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002,
the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted
Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location,
size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all
Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The
estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate
indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to
be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the
Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
8. 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 will continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
TIF/AOB Reso] 11
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee
to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the
impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council
may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of
further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General
Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased
construction costs.
9. Tri-Valley Regional Fee
The City has joined with other cities and counties in
the Tri-Valley area in a joint powers agreement to fund
preparation of a "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan" for the purpose
of addressing transportation issues through the year 2010 within
the Tri-Va!ley area. The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council," an
advisory group consisting of elected representatives from each
jurisdiction, has circulated a "Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation
Draft)" dated August 1994 ("Action Plan") for comment. The
Action Plan indicates that further study is necessary of a
proposed regional transportation impact fee which would share
funding of regional transportation improvements among development
within the various jurisdictions. Because the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council has not yet developed a regional
transportation impact fee, the Study has analyzed Eastern
Dublin's proportionate share of responsibility for regional
improvements which is set forth in Section III of the Study. In
the event that a regional transportation impact fee is developed
by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and adopted by the City,
~F/AOB Resol 12
the City Council will amend the portion of the Fee which is
attributable to Section III improvements.
10. Area of Benefit Fee.
A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of
Benefit Fee adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-94. This is the
portion of the Fee designated for the construction of those
improvements and facilities identified in Section I of the Study
which are major thoroughfares or bridges. These improvements and
the estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit F,
attached hereto. The "Area of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as
defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the Area of
Benefit in the same manner set forth in section 3 of this
resolution and in the Study, with the amount to be assessed for
residential and non-residential as shown on Exhibit F. The Area
of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Capital
Projects Fund into separate accounts established for each of the
improvements identified in Exhibit F.
11. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately.
The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be
effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution. The
Area of Benefit Fee established in Section 10 of this resolution
shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3
hereof is declared invalid for any reason.
12. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this
resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the
TIF/AOB Resol 13
Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and
continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully
effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be
invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 9th
the following vote:
day of January ,1995 by
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor
Houston
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MAYOR
114\resol\B0\reso. tif
I~P/AOB Res0] 14
· :,-.E~-~tem' E~tended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
Legend
COMMERCIAL
~ Neighborhood Commercial
~ 'General Commercial
~ CameOfree
RESIDENTIAL
~ High Density
IZ~E] Medijm-High Density 14-25 du/ac
E2~ Medium Density 6-14 du/ac
I I ,; ~ Rural ResidentiaVA~icdture 1 du/100 a¢
RRA I l- PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN
· I FUTURE STUDY AREA l
I ~'~ ~ ~ s ' {~ Bementary School
/ "' "'" ~ I t - ' --' {~l ~ Junior High School . ,: ',~
'-,, .... ' '..:.~' /'.',~.." .t ~ ..7 ~ ~ >~, ~ ' ',.,' I' '~ ' '' '4, en SpaceI ., 'l ' ';''';~ ....
,F -,,:.:': .....,: "':.~ .-" ':.~ .,'AGRICULTURE.
,%." , ,. :. ,. it: --: .' ',, "- - ~ ' ~ P~s~Recr;,~t~ ' '
· Ci · '--' ~ .'.:: .-, ~....-- '-'(,-~;.,:: .... ~---J
E. , I ' h"' '~ \":- - z;l: L -3'.. '; ~ ~ t ['~"]' Neighborhoo~ S~uare
, :-' '.-"~, "-':-";!':'--!::tI
~, ~,..--.:,,;,. _..~!.,,-.:-;--,;..\
· "..,:. I :. -. ~:, ,~-{; -,~-1....:--.. ......! L... '- c,,c~-,-,0,": .,:- ."
c - - ,.-- . ,
-.'F:-:':, ....... :--~t__ ,!=- ,--.,~"" ,:.-~',' ~f-:-".,::,-~:~: ! ........~i
[ -. ~ --!._ ?':" ..- .~.-' I:-?- 7: :-!::': .. ".-- "'~';.' . .............l.:~.!:-:!:.!:'.,........~,,a.-'._~_j=.--":-:.
· -'----::.........i::::,:;.:-~...'...;::-,-.-.--.-;-----:':-.ii':"':'i-z-z::::;EE;;':::':":::";::!'::"'ii"";;:: .-'-'.l---.:' "':.:.-.,~,,,,.~;,~!',,'/"'..%.' I= ......]EASTERN !;'%::,,":',-,'~': ."" """"
:'f:.'-~.-' r::,-i!':?...:._:-z, .::._,---.~2~:::- .:.:i. :':' :':.., -;:.{-:,::::-::[:':;E2 :'.:-.::-'-';::.,.p,,::,%;[.... -.- ;!Di:i'BLiN':;...----.;,.!~i'.%~,:-:-::,;.-.
I'---' ,-',-::--,-----:~,--,-'----' ......----.-:-'1'--,::--~: ..........!lI ,.~'--
' ,~,,,b:~,,';e,o'.,'o.:'".'::" '~,!1.~
General Commercial may be permitled Dy a Planned Development Zoning Process (see text for complete discussion }
Will convert to Rmjre Study Area/Agriculture where determined inconsistent with APA Csee text for complete discussion)
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EASTERN DUBLIN
Prepared for
City of Dublin
Prepared by
Bar~on-Aschman Associates, Inc,
November 1994
EXHIBIT 3 {or s~aRepo~
Exhibit B of Resolution
Barton-Aschman Report
Contents
Chapters
Page
1
2
Introduction
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
Appendix
1
4
14
Tables
2-1 Projected ILsnd Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2-2 Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibilit:y 100 Percent
2-3 Section 2 Fees: Eastern Dublin/Dublin/Contra Costa County/
Developer Responsibility
2-4 Section 3 Fees: Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
5
10
12
13
Figures
1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area
3
l194-TIF/654233.01000 . ·
Introduction
The Eastern Dublin Tr~65c Impact fee is designed to pay for roadway and transit
improvements necessitated by development assodated with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. These improvements include beth the
construction of new roadway radiities and the upgrade and improvement of existing
facilities, including transit.
The traffic and transportation impacts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas are doormented in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment EIR. Impacts were evaluated for the year 2010. In order to
compare traffic impacts for the year 2010, certmin arterial and regional roadway
facilities and facility sizes were ass-reed. Impacts from land uses for all development
in the Tri-Valley area, excluding the Eastern Dublin development, were compared with
impacts from all development in the Tri-Valley area including the Eastern Dublin
development. For any impact that was considered significant, mitigation measures
were developed and included in the EIR. Impacts were considered sign~S~_~nt if the
Project would cause tra~c operations to exceed Level of Service E on study freeway
segments, if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service D at
designated study intersections or, if the Project generated traffic that would cause
significant safety hazards (from page 3.3-18 of the Specific Plan).
The Eastern Dublin Impact Fee is designed to pay for the Project's proportional share
of the assumed 2010 base network and for the roadway and tr~n-~it improvement
projects specified in the mitigation measures to the EIK
Thjs report first describes existing conditions in the Eastern Dubl/n Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas and then lists the required network improvements
from the EIR.
Barton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc. I
Introduction
Existing Conditions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan Amendment area is shown
on Figure 1. It does not include the area designated on the figure as Future Study
Area Agriculture. The majority of the land in the area is presently undeveloped
Existing land uses in this area include some C~mp Parks buildings, some Alameda
County fadl~ties, and a few low-density residential homes or ranches.
Existing Transportation Network
The e~d~ng transportation network in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and
General Plan Amendment area is very sparse. Dublin Boulevard extends as two lanes
from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is a two-lane roadway. Fallon
Road and Doolan Road are two-lane local roadways that dead-end north of 1-580.
There is no existing t~n-~it service in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ares.
Year 2010 Network Assumptions
The Eastern Dublin Specific ,Plan includes new and improved .facilities in or near the
Project area that would be built in conjunction with new development through year
2010. In addition to those facilities in or near the project area, the Specific Plan EIR
includes future transportation improvements in the entire Tri-Valley area for the year
2010 either as assumed background network or as project mitigation. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment area is expected to contribute to
funding for these regional road and transit improvements.
Ba~on-Aschman Assodates, inc. 2
Berton-Aschmen AeeodeteB, Inc.
.... ,~ """' L,,_ ,__FUTURE S D AREA '
,
~ ' / 'I ~ AGRICULTURE
.....,.,.:',-~.
~:- :: -'.I' ::': ~ ~ i ~'~
, ~ : , ,. ~:~ "~'~
................... ;': ......[~'z~i ..__e J
i ! I. : I
| ' I' - '.:..-!1
,General Commercial may be permitled by a Planned Developmenl Zoning Process {see lexl lot complele discussion )
, ~ WII converl 1o Fulute Sludy Area/Agricullt~fe where determined inconsistenl wflh APA (see Text for Cofnplele d~scuss~on )
General Plan
-Eastern Extended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
Legend
COivIMER(:;I.~,L
~ Neighborhood Commercial
J InduStrial Pal~
RESIDENTIAL
['L~ LOw Densdy O 60d/ac
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN
Pub~ic/Sem~-Pub~ FaC~i~y
Parks & Recreation.
~ Neighborhood Park
~ Open Space
CIRCULA FION
.... General Plan Amendrnenl biddy AI~a
DUBLIN
Walace Robert$ &Todd Figure
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
included as mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections;
(1) Improvements for which Eastern Dub]in developments are responsible for 100
percent of the cost, (2) Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin
developments are partially responsible, and (3)Regional improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Description of the Project
Eastern Dublin includes two development areas. The first includes only grow4~h
projected in the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 1. The second, called the
Project, includes all the development in the first development scenario plus additional
development in the General Plan Amendment area. The impact fee is designed to
cover the Project development scenario. Land uses projected for this scenario include
low-density, reedinto-density, mediocre-high density, and high-density residential,
retail, office, industrial, public school, and parks. Table 2-1 shows the amount of
development by land use.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 4
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-1
Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Units
Residemlal
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium-High Density
High Density
3,916 d.u.*
4,863 d.u.
2,680 d.u.
2,447 d.u.
Non-Residential
Retail " 4,415 ksf
Office 3,952 ksf
Industrial 1,370 ksf
School 9,731 students
Park 258 acres
Source: Memorandum from City Senior Planner, Dennis Carrington, November 29, 1994
d.u. = dwelling units
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the land use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment area was projected based on trip generation rates that relate the type and
size of a land use to the n-tuber of persons or vehicles traveling to or from the land
use. The trn~c generation rates used for the Eastern Dublin land uses were based on
the Institute of Tr~n.~portation Engineers, Trip Generation and specific counts of
tr~t~c generation conducted by DKS Associates for the Specific Plan EIR. The rates
were adjusted based on local conditions.
Using the adjusted trip generation rates, the Project is expected to generate 423,787
daily vehicle trips. This n~_~rnber is reduced to 346,525 when pass-by trips are taken
into account. Pass-by trips are comprised of vehicles that stop at certs~n land uses,
such as restaurants and stores, while on the way to somewhere else. Since these trips
are not new trips, but merely diverted trips, a pass-by reduction can be applied to the
total n-rnber of trips generated by such uses. For the purposes of the traffic impact fee
calculation, all retail land uses were assigned a pass-by reduction of 35 percent. The'
Institute of Trnn~portation Engineers Trip Generation gives a range of pass-by rates
for retail development from 12 percent to 89 percent,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 5
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Transportation Improvements
The tr-n.~portation improvements specified in fie Eastern Dublin Speci~c Plan and
mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections; (1) Improvements for
which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100 percent of the cost (2)
Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin developments are
partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all jurisdictions in the
Tri-Valley area, inclua~ng Eastern Dublin, are responsible. The tre_n.~portation
improvements for each of the three sections are outlined below.
Section L Eastern Dub!in Responsibility 100 Percent
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the EIR, the following
transportation improvements are needed for the development of the Specific Plan area
and the General Plan~ Amendment area and should be funded solely by Eastern Dublin
Development.
Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-
of-way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement ass-mptions
on pages I and 2 of the DKS revised report from December 15, 1992 and
mitigation measure 3.3/10).
Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to'
Gleason Drive and to six lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
Hacienda/1-580 Interchange Improvements (from mitigation measure 3.3/7.0).
Reimburse Alameda County for dedication of right-of-way and add a second left-
'turn lane to the eastbound off-ramp. This interchange was constructed by the City
of Pleasanton with participation by the County for the funalng but with no cost to
Eastern Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the
interchange as will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin
developers' proportional share of the additional left-turn lane is considered to be
100 percent.
Transit Spine. Construct four-lane mad from Dublin Boulevard west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Read (from the EIR future mad improvement assnmptions on page
1 of the DKS revised report).
Gleason Drive. Construct new four-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to
Fallon Read (from the EIR future road improvement assnmptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report). (The Project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to
Doolan Read due to no development proposed in the future study area).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 6
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from Dublin
Boulevard to the Contra Costa County lJ~ne, and to six lanes over an eight-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation
measure 3.3/14.0).
Tassajara / Santa Rita Road/I-580 Interchange. Modify and improve th~a
interchange to provide northbound overpass approach as three ~hrough lanes and
widen eastbound and westbound off-r~mps to add turn lanes. The southbound
overpass was constructed by the City of Pleasauton with no cost to Eastern
Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the interchange as
will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin developers'
proportionate share of these additional improvements is 100 percent (from
mitigation measures 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/9.0).
Fallon Road. Ex~end to Tassajara Road, widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-
of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road (from the EIR future road improvement
assnmptious on page I of the DKS revised report).
9. Bicycle Path along Tassajara Creek (from mitigation measure 3.3/16.0).
10. TIF Study. The study is to establish the required trmffic impact fee.
11. Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify the exact street alignments
in the Eastern Dublin area.
Section I!. Dublin Projects with Partial Eastern Dublin Developer
Responsibility
The second section of tra_n.~portation improvements, also specified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, are in or near Dublin and according to the EIR should be parfAmily funded
by Eastern Dublin development.
Dublin Boulevard. Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Village Parkway to
the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way (from the EIR future road improvement
assnmptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measures
3.3/2.1 and 3.3/10.0). All new developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin,
will share funding responsibility.
e
Scarlett Drive (Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Connector). Construct a new four-
lane street from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report). All new
developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin, will share funding
responsibility.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 7
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Dougherty Road. Widen to six lanes from north of 1-580 to Contra Costa County
Limits (from the EIR future road improvement ass~_~mptions on page 2 of the DKS
revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/6.0). The cost for this project should be
shared by all City of Dublin new development, including Eastern Dublin, and
Contra Costa County new development.
1-580/Fallon/El Charm Interchange Upgrade. Improve the interchange (from the
EIR future road improvement ass~_~mptions on page 2 of the DKS revised report
and mitigation measure 3.3/12.0). If not for the interchange's use by trucks from
the quarry/gravel pit, the interchange improvements would be less expensive.
However, the use by trucks will necessitate extra improvements and will increase
the cost of construction. The added increment of cost should be the sole
responsibility of the quarry/gravel pit developer, since no other developer will be
benefitting from these extra improvements. The remaining cost of this interchange
will be divided proportionately among the Cities of Livemore and Pleasanton, and
Contra Costa COLmty.
Airway/I-580. Replace and improve this interchange (from mitigation measure
3.3/11.0). The cost of improving this interchange should be divided among the
Eastern Dublin, Contra Costa County, and Livemore developers.
Section IlL Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Regional Responsibility
The third section includes regional transportation improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Development within Eastern Dublin will only be responsible for its estimated
proportionate contribution to the impacts creating the need for such improvements.
These tr_nn~portation improvements from the EIR are as follows:
1-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbeund-to-eastbound flyover and Dublin hook remps
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised
report and mitigation measure 3.3/4.0).
2. 1-580A~xiliary Lanes. Tasssjara to "East of Airway, ass-reed to be North
Livermore Avenue (from mitigation measures 3.3/1.0, 3.3/3.0, and 3.3/5.0).
Route 84. Build as a four-lane highway on the Isabel alignment from 1-680 to
1-580, including a new interchange at SR 84/I-580 (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report).
4. Improve Transit Services (see item No. 3.3/15.0-.3).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 8
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Other Improvement Responsibility
There are some improvements specified in the EIR that are not included ~n the three
sections above, These improvements are:
1. 1-680 HOV Lanes between Rudgear Road and 1-580
2, North Canyons Parkway extended to Vasco Road
Bollinger Car~yon Road extended as a four-lane arterial to Dougherty I~ad.
Z-580 improvements widen to eight lanes plus two au~Hary lanes between I-6~0
and Tassajara Road.
Other local improvements in San Ramon, Pleasanton, and fivemore south of
1-580 consistent with adopted general plan drculation elements.
The L680 HOV lanes are already under construction, The North Can.von Parkway
projects .wilt be the sole responsibility of the City of Livermore. The City of Livermore
will not participate in sharing the cost of improvements in the City of Dublin's road
system and vice versa. Bollinger Canyon Road and other projects located exclusively in
other Tr/-Valley jurisdictions will be the responsibility o~ those jurisdictions. The Z-580
auxiliary lanes will be constructed as part of the BART and 1-580/I-630 flyover
projects. The Tassajara Connect/on is not warranted by year 2010, beyond that it is
the responsibility of Contra Costa County developers.
Cost for Improvements
The costs for interchanges, roadway systems and studies for the first two categories
improvements were calculated by the City of Dublifts consultant (Santina and
Thompson) or City of Livemore. These roadway cost estimates were prepared ba~ed
an the premise that within the Eastera Dublin Specific Plan area and General
Amendment area, developers adjacent to the road would be directly responsible for the
parkway and 20 feet of roadway improvements (next ~m the parkway), including fight-
of*way dedication for this area, essentially creating a two-lane access mad, The
adjacent developer to a bridge does not have to directly pay for the parkway area and
20 feet of roadway improvements for the bridge. The developer will also be responsible
for any turn-lanes inf~ the projea site. The impact fee will cover the cost of building
the necessary roadway width beyand the minimum two-lane cross-section. The
addi~onal width is needed to serve the traffic of all Eastern Dublin development.
C~sts for regional transportation improvements have been developed by Barton-
Aschman Assodates, Inc. as part o£ the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan.
The costs for roadway improvements are shown in Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5.
Barton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 9
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Determination of Traffic Impact Fees
The trafMc impact fee is calculated by dividing the Eastern Dublin percent share of the
total cost of the specified improvements by the total n-tuber of d3i]y trips generated
by Eastern Dublin development. For section one improvements Eastern Dublin
developments are responsible for 100 percent of the costs. Table 2-2 lists the
improvements, cost of improvements, and the impact fee for section one.
For the improvements in Section II, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned nmong the identified jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
of non-participating jurisdictions and through trnffic will be deducted from the total
percentage and the remainder proportionately divided nmong the paying jurisdictions.
The percentage share for section two was determined in a three-step process. First, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Model was used to determine the amount of trsFi~c from the
responsible jurisdicti~}ns that are projected to be using the improved fadlities based on
PM peak-hour forecasts using the 2010 expected land use. Then the relative percent of
new growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-3 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
For the regional improvements, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned ~mong all the Tri-Valley jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
share for section three was determined in a similar process as section two. First, the
Tri-Valley Tr~n-~portation Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Model was used to determine the
smount of traffic from Dublin, Eastern Dublin, Livermore, North Livermore,
Pleasanton, San R~mon, Danville, Dougherty Valley, and Tassajara Valley, which are
projected to be using the improved facilities. Then the relative percentage of new
growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Mn~]ly, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-4 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 10
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-2
Section I Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Segment/Improvement
Cost Estimate
Dublin Boulevard
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Airway Boulevard
$27,563,000
Hacienda Drive
Gleason to Dublin (four lanes)
Dublin to 1-580 (six lanes)
$5,488,000
Hacienda Drive/i-580 Improvements
Transit Spine
Dublin w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Gleason Drive
w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Tassajara Road
Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four lanes/six-lane right-of-way)
Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (six lanes/eight-lane right-of-way)
$4,056,000
$12,268,500
$6,900,000 -"
$4,279,000
Tassajara/I-580 Interchange
Fallon Road
1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right-of-way)
Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study
Street Alignment Study
Subtotal of Coats
Total Number of Daily Trips
Costrrrip
$5,600,000
$4,430,000
$1,008,000
$18,000
$301,000
$71,911,500
346,525
$208
The total cost per trip for all three types of improvements is $293; for Section I, $208;
for Section II, $55; and for Section HI, $30. The total cost for each type of development
can be calculated based on the number of trips generated by that type of development.
By dividing the development into residential and non-residential development it is
possible to separate the costs due to the different types of developments. The total
n-tuber of trips generated by the residential development included in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan is 123,679 trips. The total number of trips generated by
residential development, including trips generated by public schools and 85 percent of
those generated by parks, which are made necessary by the residential development, is
136,674. The remaining 15 percent of park trips are attributed to office land use. The
total n,,mber of trips generated by the non-residential development, including a 35
percent reduction for the retail trips, is 209,851. The total cost incurred by the non-
residential development is $61,475~210. The total cost incurred by the residential
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 11
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
development is then $39,969,030 plus the cost of park-n-ride lots, $1,526,000, for a
total of $41,495,030. Only the residential development is required to pay for park-n-
ride lots because only residential projects will use them. The non-residential
development will have to participate in trip reduction ora~nances as mandated by the
City of Dublin or the BAAQMD. By dividing the total cost incurred by the total
number of residential ,n~ts and total non-residential square footage a cost per unit or
a cost per square foot can be obtained. With the 8,779 single-f~mily residential nnlts,
and the 5,127 mnlti-f~mily residential nnits specified by the Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, the approximate cost per single-fnmily residential -n~t is $3,355,
and the approximate cost per multi-~m~y residential unit is $2,350. This brenk-~ down
to a cost for Sedcion I of $2,380, Section II of $640, and Section HI of $335 for single-
f~mily residential units. For multi-family residential nnlts, the section breakdown is
Section I, $1,670, Section II, $445, and Section IH, $235.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 12
Table 2-3
Section 2 Fees: Eastern Dublin/Dublin/Contra Costa County/Developer Responsibility
Percent Responsibility due to New Development Cost by Jurisdiction
Contra Contra
Segment/ Eastern Costa Uvermore Pleasanton Cost Eastern Costa
Improvement Dublin Dublin County Dev. Dev. Estimate Dublin Dublin County
Dublin Boulevard
Village Parkway to Soulbern 96%
Pacific right-of-way
Scarlett Drive
Dublin Blvd 1o Dougherty 96%
Road (4 lanes)
Dougherty Road 31%
Contra Costa County to 1-580
(6 lanes)
1-580/Fallon Rd/EI Charm 39%
Interchange
1-580/AIrway Boulevard 15%
Interchange
4% 0% 0% 0% $6.040,000 $5,798,400 $241,600 $0
4% 0% 0% 0% $6,207.000 $5,958,720 $248,280 $0
3% 66% 0~/~ 0% $8,602,000 $2,666,620 $258,060 $5,677,320
0% 5% 43% 12% $10,500,000 $4,095,000 $0 $525,000
0% 1% 84% 0% $4,000,000 $600,000 $0 $40,000
livermore
Dev.
Reasanton
Dev.
$0 $o
$0 $0
$4,515,000 $1,260.000
$3,360,000 $0
Subtotal of Costs
Total Daily Trips
Cost per Trip
$19,118,740
346,525
$55
$788.740 $6,242.320 $7,875,000 $1,260.000
Table 2-4
Section 3 Fees: Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
Percent Responsibility due to New Development
Contra San
Segment/ Eastern Costa Livermore Pteasanton Ramon Danville Cost
Improvement Dublin Dublin County Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev. Estimate
Jnterch~ge
Projec~
12% 46% 4% 16% 21% 1% 0°/0 $5,600,000
1-580 13% 6% 2% 65% 14% 0% 00/0
Auxiliary Lanes
State Route 84 8% 4% 1% 76% 11% 0% 0°/0
Improve
'Transit
2% 1% 19% 35% 17% 1% 1%
Eastorn
Dublin Dublin
$672,000 $2,576,000
Cost by Jurisdiction
Conira San
Costa Livermore Pleasanton Ramon Danvl~Lq
County Dev. Dev. DeN. D ).
$224,000 $896,000 $1,1 76,000 $56,000 $0
$37,000,000 $4,810,000 $2,220,000 $740,000 $24,050,000 $5,180,000 $0 $0
$9,000,000 $720,000 $860,000 $90,000 $6,840,000 $990,000 $0 $0
$16,200,000 $4,212,000 $162,000 $8,078,000 $5,760,000 $2,754,000 $162,000 $162,000
Subtotal of
Costs
Total Dally
Trips
Cost per Trip
$10,414,000 $5,318,000 $4,132,0(X) $37,456,000 $10,100,000 $218,000 $162,000
346,525
~0
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
This chapter outlines the application of the trmffic impact fee on an individual project
basis, This chapter also indicates the process to be used for updating the ~r~c impact
fee
Traffic Fee Application
Using t. he Traffic Fee Impact Approach ou~.l~ned in Chapter 2 results in the ~F~c
~mpact fee rate of $293 per tr/p with a per-section cost for Section I of $208, for
Section rf of $5~ and for Sect:ion III of $30. The tr/p generation rates used for the
genera~on of the fee were average rates for the various land uses (see Appendix). Tr~p
generation calcula~ons for individual types of land use will be done on a project by
project bas/s. The City of Dublin will be responsible for calcula~/ng appropriate
development-specific trip generation rates, based on the Tns~/tute o£Tr~n~pertation
Eng/neers, Trip Generation, on the San Diego Association of Governments manual,
and on local trip generation data. This will result insome variation/hm the general
rates based on the mix of development. For example, multi-f~m~]y housing generates
fewer trips than single-f~n~ily housing and therefore h~ a rate of $2,350 which is
lower than the single fmrn~]y rate of $3,355.
Developam will receive credit for portions of the fe~ network t2mt they build and for
the dedicat/on of right~of-way needed for the completion of the fee network Credit will
not be given for any roadway construction required solely by the project, such as a
fight-turn lane into the project site that is only used by project patrons or residents.
Certain laud uses, such as parks and public schools are exempt from the traffic imp~
fee. Their cost of the roadway fee network is absorbed by the residential and office
developmen~ that neoessita~s the need for such facilities. Public facility land uses,
such as post offices, city buflcJ~ngs and libraries are also exempt.
Barton-Aschman Assoa~ates, Inc.
Traffic Impact Fee Imp/ernentation
Updating the Traffic Fee
The trnflSc impact fee may need to be updated for a variety of reasons including;
negotiated changes to the proportional cost shares between Dublin and Contra Costa
County, changes to the land use mix specified in the Specific Plan, changes in the
construction and land costs, or adoption of a regional traffic impact fee by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 16
Appendix
General Trip Generation Rates
Used for Calculation of Fee
Land Use
Rate
Residential
High Density
Medium-High Density
Medium Density
Low Density
Rural Residential
Non-Residential
Retail
Office
Industrial ,~
School
Parks
7 trips/unit
7 tdps/unit
10 tdps/unit
10 tdps/unit
10 tdps/unit
50 trips/ksf
15 tdps/ksf
5 tdps/ksf
1.2 trips/student
6 trips/acre
Calculation of Cost per Single-/Multi-Family Unit
Residential + Park + School Trips / Total Trips = Residential Percent Share of
Total Trips
136,674 / 346,525 = 39.4%
(Residential Percent Share of Total Trips * Total Cost) + Park-n-Ride Lot Cost =
Residential Share of Total Cost
(39.4%) * ($101,444,240) + $1,526,000 = $41,495,030
· Residential Cost / Number of Residential Trips = Cost per Trip
($41,495,030) / (123,679) = $335.50
· Cost per Single-Fomily Dwelling Unit = $335.50 * 10 = $3,355
Cost per Multi-Fom~ly Dwelling Unit = $335.50 * 7 = $2,350:
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
SANTINA~I,
THOMPSON,~c.
PE_C~R 30, ,1_994_
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
CITY OF-DUBLIN, CA
EXHIBIT 4 <oz s,grRepo.>
Exhibit C of Resolution
Santina & Thompson Report
Dougherty Road - Segment 1
4300 feet, 118 Right-of-Way
City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Civil Improvements at $530 per LF
Signals
Willow Creek
Amador Valley
Right-of-Way
None
City Administration, Design, Constructjon Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dougherty Road - Segment 2
4,250 feet, 118 Right-of-Way
Amador Valley to Houston Place (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Civil Improvements at $530 per LF
Signals
None
Right-of-Way
40 x 440 x $18, Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
920 x 8 x $18, near Huston Place
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dougherty Road - Segment 3
Right Hand Turn
Huston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900')
Right Turn Pocket Only; All Other Improvements Are Done
Civil Improvements, 8 x 300
Right-of-Way and Demo, LS (City)
Signals
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Totals for TIF Share
$2,279,000
$120,000
$90,000
$0
$497,800
$3,235,700
Totals for TIF Share
$2,252,500
$0
$316,800
$132,480
$540,356
$3,512,314
Totals ~rTIFSham
$33,600
$100,000
$0
$26,720
$173,680
PI-F, SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page I Revised 12j30/94
Dougherty Road - Segment 4
3,000 feet
Dublin Boulevard to North of !-580 Off-Ramp
Widen Roadway
Civil Improvements, Lump Sum
Signal Modification
Right-of-Way, Lump Sum; Including Demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dougherty Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange)
(Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of
Dougherty Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road)
TotalsforTIF Sham
$200,000
$0
$1,000,000
$240,000
$1,680,000
$8,602,000
Dublin Road - Segment 5
2,200 feet, 108 Right-of-Way
Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
As Submitted to Caltrans
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot
Bridge Widening
Right-of-Way and Demo; have 100, need 108
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
$1 Million Credit for ISTEA Contribution
Net Total for this Segment
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6
2,030 feet, 108 Right-of-Way
Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening)
Future Improvements Will Be Similar to Segment 5
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot
Signals
Sierra Lane, Civic - Modification
Dublin Court- Modification
Dougherty with Civil Improvements
Right-of-Way, 8' $18+100K demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
TotatsforTIF Sham
$442,308
$205,769
$221,154
$173,846
$1,130,000
$1,000,000
$130,000
Totals forTIF Sham
$609,000
$75,000
$75,000
$210,000
$392,320
$272,264
$1,769,716
PFI%SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 2 Revised 12/30/94
Dublin Boulevard Extention, Segment 7
1,700 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Dougherty to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
300 Feet Completed; 1,400 Feet 50% Complete
Future Improvements Only in Estimate
Civil Improvements at $700,000
Right-of-Way
BART Load of $2.821M
Signals with Other Street, See Segment 5
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal (to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way)
Totals for TIF Share
$364,000
$0
$2,821,000
$0
$637,000
$4,140,500
$6,040,000
Dublin Boulevard Extention, Segment 8
4,750 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Hacienda
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot
Signals
Hacienda, New, Major
Interim Signal, New (Road Unknown)
Spine Intersection, New
Interim Signal, New (Road Unknown)
Right-oFWay, 126'$7 + 200K demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
(Includes Alameda Co., Right-of-Way Costs & City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 9
4,600 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot
Signals
Tassajara New, Major
Bridge, $80'120W* 100L
Right-of-Way, 126'$7 + Ok demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
(Costs Include City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Contingency (0 on Admin.) ,
Totals for TIF Share
$2,850,000
$170,000
$125,000
$125,000
$0
$3,292,125
$1,312,425
$8,530,763
TotalsforTIF Share
$2,240,000
$170,000
$960,000
$2,469,600
$1,167,920
$7,591,480
P~SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 3 Revised 12/30/94
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10
6,200 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Tassajara Road to Fa!!on
All New Roadway Included
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot
Signals
Fallon - New, Major
Right-of-Way, 126'$1.25 + Ok demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Con~ngency (0 on Admin.)
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 11
9,250 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Falion Road to Airway
All New Roadway Included
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot
Signals
Airway Boulevard, Major
Gleason, Major
Bridge, $80'120W'100L
Right-of-Way, 126'$1.25 + Ok demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Dublin Boulevard Extension Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange)
(Note City of Dublin received $573,000 from State of California (SB300 funds) and $400,000 from
the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to
Tassajara Road.
Subtotal is therefore ($573k + $400 k)
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 - (Airway Boulevard)
Civil Improvements, Ramps
Signals
Right-of-Way
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0°/0
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Totals for TIF Share
$2,480,000
$170,000
$488,250
$627,650
$4,393,550
TotalsforTIF Sham
$3,700,000
$170,000
$170,000
$960,000
$728,438
$1,145,688
$8,019,813
$28,536,000
-973,000
$27,563,000
TotalsforTIF Share
$2,650,000
$107,143
$100,000
$571,429
$4,000,000
PI-~SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 4 Revised 12/30/94
Hacienda - Segment 13
1500 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
!-580 (Not including interchange) to North of Dublin Boulevard Extension
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot
Signals, Including with 6 and 25
Right-of-Way, 126'$1.25 + Ok demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
TotalsforTIF Share
$600,000
$0
$661,500
$252,300
$1,766,100
Hacienda - Segment 14
4400 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Gleason to North of Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway Included
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals
Transit Spine, Major
Gleason, Major
Right-of-Way, 102*$7 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Totals forTIF Share
$1,086,800
$0
$170,000
$170,000
$1,231,808
$531,722
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
$3,722,051
Hacienda Road Subtotal (Without Freeway Interchange)
$5,488,000
Freeway Interchange- Segment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
Widen Offramp and Modify Signal (Loan amount built prior)
Civil Improvements, Left Tum Lane
Signal
Alameda County $3.762 M Loan (Including Interest)
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total
TomIs ~rTIF Sham
$170,000
$75,000
$3,762,000
$49,000
$4,056,000
P~SCDOC\Tt FEST.XLS Page 5 Revised 12/30/94
Transit Spine - Segment 16
3130 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Hacienda
(Camp Parks is on Both Sides of Roadway)
Improved on each side of Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals
Future Road?
Right-of-Way, 102'$7 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0°/°
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Transit Spine - Segment 17
5600 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Hacienda to Tassajara
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals, See 11 and 20
Bridge, $80'96W'100L
Right-of-Way, 102'$7 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Transit Spine - Segment 18
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals, See 20 and 23
Right-of-Way, 102'$1.25 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Transit Spine Roadway Subtotal
Totals for TIF Share
$1,403,805
$170,000
$1,61 1,026
$636,966
$4,458,763
TotalsforTIF Share
$1,383,200
$0
$768,000
$1,557,392
$741,718
$5,192,029
Totals for TIF Share
$1,531,400
$0
$338,390
$373,958
$2,617,706
$12,268,500
P~SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 6 Revised 12,/30/94
Gleason - Segment 19
7000 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
1,500 feet West of Hacienda to Tassajara
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Civil Improvements at 350 per linear foot
Signals, See 11 and 20
Bridge, $80'55W'100L
Right-of-Way, 102*$7 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Gleason - Segment 20
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals, See 20 and 23
Right-of-Way, 102'$1.25 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
G!eason Roadway Subtotal
(Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road
is not included because no development is proposed for Doolan Canyon as part of the
Dublin General Plan Amendment)
Totals for TIF Share
$681,000
$0
$440,000
$1,937,240
$611,648
$4,281,536
Totals ~rTIF Sha~
$1,531,400
$0
$338,390
$373,958
$2,617,706
$6,900,000
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21
2,400 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot
Signals
Dougherty, Major
Dublin, Major
Railroad Utilities?
Bridge, $80'90W'100L
Right-of-Way, 102'$7 + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
TotalsforTIF Share
$156,000
$0
$170,000
$170,000
$0
$720,000
$1,813,600
$886,720
$6,207,000
P~SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 7 Revised 12/30/94
Tassajara Road - Segment 22
8,250 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
City Limits to Gleason
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot
Signals
Fallon
Gleason, Major
Right-of-Way, 126*$7*50% + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Tassajara Road - Segment 23
4,400 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
G!eason to Dublin Boulevard
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot
Signals
Transit Spine, Major
Gleason, See 19
Right-of-Way, 126'$7'48% + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin,)
Tassajara Road - Segment 24
1000 feet, 150 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; (not including Interchange)
Existing Pavement Unusable
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 900, short, at freeway
Signals, See 21 and 7
Right-of-Way, 150'$7'48% + 100k demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0°/°
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Totals for TIF Share
$1,797,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$359,500
$2,516,500
Totals for TIF Share
$880,000
$850,000
$0
$0
$193,000
$1,351,000
Totals for TIF Share
$270,000
$0
$23,740
$58,748
$411,236
PI-hSCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 8 Revised 12/30/94
Tassajara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange)
$4,279,000
Tassajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchange
1/2 of Interchange Exists
civil Improvements, Ramps
Signals
Right-of-Way
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Fallon Road - Segment 26
16,000 feet 126 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard Extension ·
All New Roadway
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot
Signals
Gleason
Transit Spine
Right-of-Way, 126'1.25+1 00K Demo
_City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Fallon Road - Segment 27
1,500 feet 126 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to North of 1-580
All New Roadway, Include Interchange
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot
Signals
See Segment 8
No Freeway Interchange or FW Signals
Right-of-Way, 126'1.25+100K Demo
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Fallon' Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange)
Totals for TIF Sham
$,3,700,000
$300,000
$0
$800,000
$5,600,000
Totals forTIF Sham
$2,160,000
$85,000
$85,000
$452,250
$556,450
$3,895,150
Totals forTIF Share
$300,000
$0
$o
$34,063
$76,813
$537,688
$4,430,000
P~SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS Page 9 Revised ~ 2/30/94
r
Fallon & 1-580 Freeway interchange with Signals - Segment 28
Freeway Interchange, Including Signals
Right-of-Way
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Tassajara Creek Bikepath - Segment 29
12,800 feet
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Contin Costa County Line
12,800 feet
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
'Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Park & Ride
40,000 s.f. for 150 cars
East of Tassajara, 40,000 s.f. @ ($4 Improv. & $7 right of way)
East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & $7 right of way)
East of Fallon, 40,000 @ ($4 Improv. & $1.25 for right of way)
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0%
Total with 20% Contingency (0 on Admin.)
Precise Plan Line Costs
Total Cost
Totals forTIF Share
$7,500,000
$0
$1,500,000
$10,500,000
TotalsforTIF Share
$720,000
$144,000
$1,008,000
TotalsforTIF Share
$440,000
$440,000
$210,000
$218,000
$1,526,000
TotalsforTIF Share
$301,000
PFF, SCDOC\TIFEST,XLS Page 10 Revised 12J30/94
946-500-1-2
Anne Gygi
5868 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Alameda County Assessor's Parcels
946-500. 1 - 1/946-500-2-1/946-15-1-7
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Ct.
Oakland, CA 94605
946-500-2-2
Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams
5379 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-500-3
Clyde C. Casterson
5020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-1-8/946-15-1-9/946-1040-3-3
City of Pleasanton
City Clerk
200 Bernal Ave.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
946-541-1
James G. & Sue Tipper
7440 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-2-1
Jose L. & Violetta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-2-3
Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-3
Elvera I. Bragg & Claire Silva
646 Donner Dr.
Sonoma, CA 95476
946-541-5 - 1/946-1040-2/946-1040-1-2/946-1040-3 ~2
Charter Properties
e/o Chang S., Hong. Y., & Hong L. Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-580-1
Roberta S. Moller
6861 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-580-2
Redgwick Construction Company
25599 Huntwood Ave.
Hayward, CA 94544
946-680-1
Mission Peaks Home Inc.
47460 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
99B-3005-1-3
Dublin Land Company
1991 Leigh Ann Place
San Jose, CA 95125
946-680-5-1/946-680-5-2
Michael H. Kobold
815 Diabto Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
946-680-6-1
Rodman Scott & Claudine T. Azevedo
6363 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-7
Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight
6833 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-8
Ann H. Silveria
6615 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-9
Robert J. Nielson Jr., Michelle Olds, & Larry R.
Williamson
P.O. Box 1667
Lafayette, CA 94549
99B-3026-1/99B-3026-2
Paoyeh & Bihyu Lin
9657 E. Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
99B-3026-3-1
William L. & May K. Devany
299 Junction Ave.
Livemore, CA 94550
99B-3036-4
Dublin Ltd.
c/o Teachers Management
P.O. Box 2500
Newport Beach, CA 92658
99B-3036-5
William L. & Jean S. Maynard
350 Tideway Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
99B-3036-6-2
Levins Metals Corporation
1800 Monterey Hwy
San Jose, CA 95112
99B-3036~9/99B-3036-10
Hanubul F. Jordan & Orletta Molineux
537 Grove Way
Hayward, CA 94541
99B-3200-6-3
Anderson Second Family Ltd. Partnership
3457 Croak Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-31M6-2-14
Fallon Enterprises Inc.
5781 Fallon Rd.
Livemore, CA 94550
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change ifi the future.
Exhibit D of Resolution
List of Individual Properties
99B-3046-2-8/99B-3046-2-9
Charter Properties
c/o Chang S., Frederic, & Hong Y. Lin
Chang S., Frederic, & Hang Y. Lin
6601 Owens Dr. #100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3046-2-15
Charter Properties
c/o Chang S., Hong Y., & Hong L. Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Alameda County Assessor's Parcels
99B-3036-1
Charter Properties
c/o Frederic & Jennifer Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-1-10/946-15-4
Surplus Property Authority of County of Alameda
County of Alameda - Public Works Agency
399 Elmburst St.
Hayward, CA 94544-1395
99B-3036-7/99B-3036-8/99B-3046-2-6/99B-3046-2-7
Charter Properties
c/o Chang S. & Frederic Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-2/946-15-1-6
United States of America
99B-3036-6-3
Pleasanton Ranch Investments
99B-3281-3
David P. Mandeville
60 Fenton St.
Livermore, CA 94550
-99B-3281~l-1/99B-3281-2
Francis P. Croak
1262 Gabriel Ct.
San Leandro, CA 94577
946-540-1
R.T. & Eileen Sperfstage
6060 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-680-3/946-6804
Charter Properties
c/o Frederic & Keyin Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
99B-3200-4-4
Robert D. & Shirley M. Branaugh
1881 Collier Canyon Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
99B-3200-5-2
Milton R. & Gloria Righetti
3088 Massachusetts St.
Castro Valley, CA 94546
99B-3200-4-3
James R. & Dixie M. Campbell
4141 Mattos Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change in the future.
Exhibit D
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Single-Family Residential (1 to ~4 units per acre):
Multi-Family Residential or Mobile Home Park
(more than 14 units per acre):
Development Other Than Residential
LAND USE
[Non-Residential)
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
RECREATION:
Recreation Community Center
Health Club
Bowling Center
Golf Course
Tennis Courts
Theaters
Movie
Live
Video Arcade
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
HOSPITAL:
General
Convalescent/Nursing
Clinic
CHURCH:
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with Retail)
Industrial (without Retail)
$3,355/unit
$2,350/unit
$293/trip
(Based on the following table)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
I O/room
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
26/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
8/acre
33/court
220/screen
0.2Jseat
96/1,000 sf
1.5/student
12/bed
3/bed
24/1,000 sf
9/1,000 SF
16/1,000 sf
8/1,000 sf
* Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of
Transportation Engineers and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip
Generation Rates. These trip generation rates are based on averages.
Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit E of Resolution
Trip Generation Rates
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive-through)
Bar/Tavern
AUTOMOBILE:
Car Wash
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire Store/Oil Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
FINANCIAL:
Bank (walk-in only)
Savings and Loan (walk-in only)
Drive Through/ATM (add to Bank or Savings & Loan)
CO M M ERC IAURETAI L:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
Regional Shopping Center (300,000 to 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 SF; less than 30 acres
w/usually I major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops
Retail/Strip Commercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
Lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nursery
Cemetery
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-BYS)
63/1,000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1,000 sf
585/site
70/wash stall
97/pump
28/service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
91/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
65/lane or machine
22/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
Page 2 of 2
26/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
20/1,000 sf
23/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 4/acre
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from
the Southern Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Boulevard
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages ! and 2 of the DKS revised report from
December 15, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10)
Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from
Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive and to six lanes
from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS
revised report)
Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin
Boulevard west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from
'the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1
of the DKS revised report)
Gleason Drive. Construct new four-lane road from west
of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS
revised report) (The Project does not require extension
of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road due to no development
proposed in the future study area)
Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to the Contra Costa
County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane right-
of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/14.0)
Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four
lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara
Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on page 1 of the DKS revised report)
Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify
the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area
Cost of Roadway
Improvements
$ 24,971,100
Cost of Bridge
Improvements
$ 2,592,000
$ 5,488,000 -0-
$ 11,193,000
$ 1,075,200
$ 6,283,000 $ 616,000
$ 4,279,000 -0-
$ 4,430,000 -0-
$ 301,000 -0-
$ 56,945r100 $ 4,283,200
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 136,674 trips for residential
and 209,851 trips for non-residential is $1,814/unit for single-family; $1,270/unit for
multi-family; and $164/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for the bridge improvements for single/family is $136/unit; multi-
family is $96/unit; and non-residential is $12/trip.
Single-family is from 1 to 14 units per acre and multi-family is more than 14 units per
acre. The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has 8,779 single-family units and
5,127 multi-family units.
a: \dec\edcif
Exhibit F of Resolution
Major Thoroughfares & Bridges List