Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 SB343 Transportation Impact Fee islimmimimmorr 2-16-16 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the City Clerk's office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the City Clerk's office after distribution of the February 16, 2016, City Council meeting agenda packet. Item 6.1 V MILLER STARR 1331 N.California Blvd. T 925 935 9400 REGALIA Fifth Floor F 925 933 4126 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 www.msrlegal.com George B.Speir bill.speir@msriegal.com February 16, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee February 16, 2016 City Council Agenda item 6.1 Dear Mayor Haubert and Members of the Council: This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed update of the City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting as Agenda item 6.1. We have reviewed the staff report and proposed resolution prepared for the adoption for the proposed update and renaming of the fee the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee ("WDTIF"). We have also reviewed the documents referenced in the proposed resolution, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update: Final Report, dated October, 2015 and a similar report dated February, 2016 ("WDTIF Report"), prepared by the firm of Fehr & Peers. We have retained Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering to review the WDTIF Report, the related documents, and perform whatever additional analysis is necessary in order to comment on the proposed WDTIF. We submitted written objections to the proposed WDTIF based on the October 2015 WDTIF Report when it was on the Council's January 19, 2016 agenda. As a result of our comments, and the related comments by Abrams Associates, the hearing was postponed until February 16, 2016. Although minor changes have been made to the narrative portions of the WDTIF Report, none of the substantive flaws in the calculation of the fee have been addressed. As a result, the fee continues to fail to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq., sometimes called "AB 1600"), and the due process, equal protection, and takings provisions of the United States and California Constitutions. Rather than repeat the critique of the proposed WDTIF submitted previously, we hereby incorporate our letter of January 19, 2016 and the Abrams Associates letter SRAH1530521992887.1 Offices: Walnut Creek/San Francisco/Newport Beach The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 2 of January 18, 2016 objecting to this proposed fee. Copies of those letters are attached. The purpose of this letter, and the accompanying Abrams letter dated February 16, 2016 is to respond to comments made in response to our prior letters and the changes made to the WDTIF report, and identify continuing deficiencies in the City's analysis. As proposed, the City cannot validly make the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act, or under the United States and California Constitutions to justify the adoption and imposition of the fee. We therefore continue to object to the adoption of the proposed WDTIF, and request that the proposed Resolution updating and renaming the City's Downtown Traffic Impact Fee be rejected. 1. The WDTIF Report continues to be based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed. Government Code section 66001(g) provides: "A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities ..." This is the codification of the requirement that growth can be made to pay for growth, but may not be forced to subsidize public facilities or services already needed to serve existing residents. The proposed WDTIF seeks to charge the full fee to new growth. In order to justify charging new residents and businesses with the full cost of the bicycle, pedestrian and street beautification projects to be funded by the WDTIF, the WDTIF Report claims that there is no present need for the any of the projects to be funded. Although the proposed projects are not intended to reduce traffic congestion, the Report comes to that conclusion by assessing traffic congestion, i.e. the level of service ("LOS"), at seven specific intersections, as summarized in Table 4 of the Report. The WDTIF Report states: "Table 4 shows that there are no existing deficiencies on the facilities included in this WDTIF program, indicating that the need for improvements is not caused by existing development."1 Table 4 of the WDTIF shows no such thing. First, it does not assess existing conditions so it could not determine if there are existing deficiencies. Table 4 shows the 2010 level of service traffic analysis of several intersections in the downtown area. The data is taken from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, which the 1 WDTIF Report, p. 17, attempting to explain how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. SRAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 3 WDTIF Report states is the "most recent study." No one could reasonably argue that a traffic study done six years ago, while the area was still suffering from the recession of 2007, is an accurate assessment of 2016 traffic conditions. In addition, the existing condition needs to consider not only traffic that exists today, but also traffic to be generated by development in the area which is already approved and in the process of being developed. Traffic to be generated from permitted projects which are under construction, for example, must be included in the baseline. Second, the level of service at intersections is not relevant to determining whether these improvements— bike lanes, cross walks, pedestrian upgrades and roadway beautification—are currently needed. The WDTIF Report specifically notes that it does not assess any of the proposed projects based on the impact of those projects on the level of service of existing roads and intersections, because the goal is not the"minimization of vehicular delay", i.e. the goal is not to improve traffic. If LOS is not important, and these projects are being built because they improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and create a "more pedestrian friendly downtown"2, then the determination of whether there is an existing need for these pedestrian, bicycle and beautification projects cannot be based on the vehicular level of service. The WDTIF Report fails for this non-sequitur alone. The WDTIF Report should have made an assessment of existing bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to determine whether there are deficiencies in the existing availability of bicycle and pedestrian safety facilities. Such an analysis could be and should have been made.3 In the February 2016 WDTIF Report, in response to our previous objection, an attempt is made to refer to at least some data on this issue. The Report refers to the City's 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ("BPMP") regarding bicycle and pedestrian collisions.4 That City-wide data, from 2006 —2011 is neither current enough nor specific to the area of the WDTIF. To the extent that data does discuss the Downtown area, it contradicts the WDTIF Report's claims of no existing problems. The BPMP states: "Of the 14 reported pedestrian-auto collisions in the Downtown, half of the collisions occurred while a pedestrian crossing in a marked crosswalk at the intersection, with the other half occurring midblock.i5 Projects sought to be funded by the WDTIF include adding two midblock crosswalks to Amador Plaza Road to avoid the existing problem identified in the BPMP. Not coincidentally, this project is also identified as the top priority project in the Bicycle 2 WDTIF Report, page 4. 3 See Abrams January 18, 2016 Report, section (8), and February 16, 2016 letter at response to comment 8. 4 February 2016 WDTIF Report, page 12 referencing BPMP pages 45-48. 5 BPMP, page 48. SRAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 4 and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPMP calls it a Tier 1 Priority Projects, and notes that it is needed to fulfill the existing community desire for a "park once" environment, add bicycle and pedestrian safety features, and replace street trees that are at the end of their life cycle. The cost of this project is detailed in Appendix A to the WDTIF Report, Project 4. The cost of street trees and other"aesthetic/architectural" features included in the new fee totals $1,612,316, to which the Report adds 50%for contingencies and related costs. The total cost of these aesthetics is therefore in excess of $2.4 million, The fee includes the full cost of 116 street trees, even though the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan notes that they have reached their useful life and need to be replaced now. The City's response to our January 19, 2016 letter addressing this point inexplicably claims that "it is not the case that the improvement will fund street tree replacement." If that is the case, the total $9 million to be funded by this fee should be reduced by over$2.4 million. Among the other project costs which the WDTIF Report claims are not currently needed, and are only needed as a result of new residents and businesses, is $150,000 plus contingencies for three new Downtown Gateway Monument signs. There is no legitimate basis to claim that these expenses are only needed to accommodate new development. The City's response to our January 19, 2016 letter ignores this point. We have no objection to the City wanting to replace its street trees, or put up monument signs, but to claim that there is no existing need for these facilities, and that they are only needed due to new development, is disingenuous. 2. The WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate that the projects to be funded are made necessary by growth. The corollary to the proposition that new residents and businesses cannot be forced to pay for existing deficiencies in public facilities, is the proposition that the proposed projects must be made necessary because of growth. The City has the obligation to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility, and the new residents and businesses on whom the fee is to be imposed. (See Government Code §66001(a)(4).) The WDTIF contains no analysis of how these projects are needed because of new growth. The WDTIF Report describes the expected growth in the Downtown area, and the expected new vehicle trips as a result of that growth, in Section 3, "Growth Projections." It then apportions the cost of the identified projects against the anticipated new PM Peak Hour Trips in Section 4, "Nexus Analysis." That section first claims that there is no existing need for these projects, as discussed above. It 6 BPMP, page 119, and Figures 6-1 to 6-4. SRAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 5 then apportions that cost to the new residents and businesses expected in the WDTIF area. But the analysis skips a crucial step. There is no portion of the nexus analysis, or any part of the WDTIF Report, that establishes why these improvements are made necessary because of growth. In answering how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and new growth, the report concludes that: "The need for the facilities listed in Table 1 has been established through recent planning studies sponsored by the City over the last several years, as described in Section 2 of this report."' The Report merely notes, accurately, that the City's vision for the Downtown area, as discussed in the DDSP, encourages bicycle and pedestrian access in the Downtown area. We have no criticism of the City's decisions in that regard. But the fact that the City has decided that it wants these new facilities is a far cry from showing that they are needed by the community because of growth. The City cannot make a new resident pay for a new project through an impact fee just because the City decides it wants it. There is no assessment in the WDTIF Report of why these projects are needed because of growth. The proposed WDTIF Fee therefore fails to satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act and other legal mandates. 3. The proposed new fee is grossly excessive. Even if the City could establish a nexus between new growth and the need to the identified projects, the proposed new WDTIF greatly exceeds the proportionate cost of the identified public facilities that could possibly be attributable to new development, in violation of Government Code section 66001(b). None of the flaws identified in our January 19, 2016 letter, or in Abrams Associates January 18, 2016 letter, have been corrected. We will not repeat that analysis here, and refer the Mayor and Council to our prior correspondence, attached. The fact remains that the author of the WDTIF Report has mixed and matched methodologies throughout the report in order to maximize the fee. For example, both the WDTIF Report and the Staff Report accompanying this agenda item acknowledge that the methodology used to calculate the fee is not appropriate for properties outside the Downtown Dublin area. For owners and developers of such properties, the fee is thus significantly overstated. The staff report states: 'WDTIF Report, p. 17 S RAH1530521992887.1 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council February 16, 2016 Page 6 "It should be noted that the neighborhoods outside of the DDSP area tend to be lower-density areas of predominantly residential land uses, and are somewhat removed from high-capacity transit options. For these reasons, application of the MXD+ technique would not be appropriate in those areas. However, the large majority of the projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area, so for purposes of the WDTIF calculations, the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied.s8 Using the MXD+ technique increases the fee, as we explained in our previous correspondence. Mr. Abrams calculated that approximately 27% of the new traffic will be generated outside of the downtown area. The City has countered that it is closer to 10%.9 Either way, knowingly overcharging at least 10% of the property owners in the WDTIF area is unconscionable. If the properties outside the Downtown area are so insignificant that the City can't be bothered to correctly calculate the fee, then those properties should be removed from the WDTIF entirely. The City could easily make this change and avoid an obvious flaw. As explained in the accompanying Abrams Report, the proposed WDTIF continues to be replete with errors, inconsistent methodology, and false assumptions. If the fee is correctly updated, it appears likely that the current Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee would be reduced, and properties outside of the Downtown area would be removed from the fee area. At minimum, the City should go back to the drawing board, and reassess any update to this fee. The calculation of the proposed WDTIF is flawed, and results in a grossly excessive fee. If not corrected, the fee cannot pass legal muster. We request that the WDTIF Report and the proposed Resolution increasing and renaming the WDTIF fee be rejected. Very truly yours, R STARR REGALIA George = ".eir GBS:mlj Enclosures 8 February 16, 2016 Staff Report from Christopher L Foss re agenda item 6.1. 9 Response to January 18, 2016 Abrams Associates letter, at page 7. SRAH553052\992887,t Abrams TRA Associates FFIC ENGINEERING, INC. February 16, 2016 George Speir Miller Starr Regalia 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Additional Review of the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Dear Mr. Speir, The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments made in response to my prior letter and the most recent changes that were made to the WDTIF report. We continue to find deficiencies in the analysis the City has conducted for the proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update(WDTIF).1 Please note the comments also reference the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and its supporting EIR2, the DDSP 2014 Specific Plan Amendment and EIR Addendum;,and other documents discussed in the WDTIF Final Report. To rectify the numerous deficiencies and inadequacies in the WDTIF Report we continue to recommend that the issues identified be carefully studied and addressed in a revised report. Below is additional information provided based on the City's response to the comments contained in our January le. 2016 letter. 1 (1) Response to Comment#1. The City's response does not address the points raised in our initial letter-that the cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated in the WDTIF area is grossly understated, and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the DDSP EIR. The fact that an MXD+ adjustment could be applicable is not the issue and its use was not challenged. The comment was clear- even with the MXD+ adjustment forecasts clearly must include some additional reductions or questionable assumptions which the report does not to disclose. The response that the report"carefully explains" the MXD+technique is irrelevant as the report and response provide no evidence at all that the calculations were done correctly. The only way to prove the trip generation(and MXD+technique) was accurately ' Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update: Final Report,Fehr and Peers,Walnut Creek,CA,February, 2016. 2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,RBF Consulting,Walnut Creek, CA,September,2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment FEIR Addendum and Initial Study, RBF Consulting, Walnut Creek,CA, February 24,2014. 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.0201 • Fax: 925.945.7966 I West Dublin Traffic Impact Fcc Update Review Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 2 applied would be to disclose the actual assumptions used in the WDTIF trip • generation calculations. This would be needed to explain why the WDTIF trip generation results are more than 70%less than comparable forecasts presented in Attachment B of the DDSP Addendum. Since the result was a 70% reduction the fact that the MXD adjustment is identified as being 23% in the WDTIF Fee Schedule is a strong indication there are significant errors in the calculations. The WDTIF report also goes to great lengths to explain that the DDSP EIR and WDTIF report used"different approaches" when there appear to be only two main differences: 1) the DDSP Addendum applied a 15% transit reduction to commercial trips and a 25% reduction to residential trips while the WDTIF report apparently instead applied a uniform 23% MXD+ reduction and 2)the DDSP addendum appropriately applied the transit reductions only to the transit oriented district while the WDTIF apparently not only applied the MXD+ reduction to the entire DDSP area, it also applied it to all ft)recast growth in western Dublin. This includes planned development located as much as three miles from the nearest BART station. In other words, the WD'i'IF report 1) fails to disclose that the DDSP Addendum trip calculations already accounted for good transit accessibility and 2) it fails to 'prove(i.e. disclose) how application of the MXD+ technique could result in a 70% reduction to the City's latest published trip generation forecasts for the area. The claim that the MXD+ technique has been "appropriately applied"to the entire WDTIF area does not account for such a large discrepancy. Based on Table B-1 of the DDSP Addendum,the application of the MXD-+ reduction to the remainder of the WDTIF area should only reduce the trip generation by about • 10%. The City's reply does not address the point of our original comment. The purported application of the MXD+ technique cannot explain/justify how the WDTIF forecasts arc 70% less than the previous trip generation forecasts for the DDSP area. The sample calculations provided with our previous letter clearly indicate there are serious errors in whatever trip rates were applied to the forecast job growth and perhaps some additional reductions included. Since the report does not provide the details of what trip rates were actually used and what MXD reductions were actually applied in the WDTIF calculations, it remains impossible to verify the results. For example,the underlying assumptions would need to be provided for anyone confirm that the MXD4 adjustments to the trip generation forecasts were actually consistent with the 23% MXD- reduction and the various trip rates identified in the new WDTIF fee schedule. All evidence currently available(including the exhibits we provided with our previous letter) indicates these assumptions may have been replaced with a completely different set of trip • West Dublin Traffic Impact Fcc Update Review Abrams Associates h cw TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 3 rates, transit reductions, and/or internal trip reductions to generate the substantially lower WDTIF trip forecasts. (2) Response to Comment#2. We stated in our January 18, 2016 letter that the cumulative traffic growth stated in the WDTIF Report to be generated within the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparable forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data. The point of our comment is not that application of the MXDA is inappropriate;the point is that application of the MXD+ technique described cannot explain or justify such a massive reduction to the previous trip generation forecasts. This indicates there were most likely significant errors somewhere in the WDTIF calculations. Even if the application of the MXD-I technique is appropriate, the resulting forecasts indicate it may not have been applied correctly. For example, another plausible explanation for the reduction could be that the MXDI technique resulted in an estimate of only the external trips generated by the WDTIF area. Using only the external trips to calculate the WDTIF fees would clearly be inaccurate as these proposed projects are all located within the DDSP area. In other words, until we can review the MXD+ assumptions regarding internal trips we can only assume that internal trips may have been erroneously removed from the calculations. This is one of the few factors that could potentially explain why the WD'f1F trip generation results were 70% less than the City's previous DDSP Addendum trip generation forecasts, which were published less than two years ago. (3) Response to Comment#3. We commented that there appear to be errors in the trip rates and reductions applied to the forecast job growth. The City's response does not address the comment. Our calculations show that it's entirely possible the WDTIF calculations used incorrect trip rates that were inconsistent with those presented in Table 7 of the report and the proposed fee schedule(Exhibit II to the Proposed Resolution). The response states that the proposed fee schedule makes it clear that the pass-by reduction will only be applied to retail land uses where it is appropriate to do so. However, this would only apply to future fee calculations and does not in any way prove(i.e. disclose) what was actually assumed in the WDTIF forecasts. For example, perhaps the MXD I reduction wasn't the cause of the reduction and perhaps it was because the forecasts erroneously assumed future job growth wouldn't include any retail jobs. The only way to prove the calculations are accurate (in the face of such extensive evidence to the contrary) would be to disclose the input assumptions, including what proportion of the future job growth was assumed to be retail jobs versus office jobs. This would West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee a d<�tc cw Rev[ Abrams Associates n TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC Page 4 include disclosing the base (unadjusted)trip rates that were applied to each category in the calculations. Our calculations demonstrate that a 70% reduction to the trip generation forecasts definitely cannot be justified with the referenced MXD+ and pass-by reductions alone. (4) Response to Comment#4. Based on the City's response we acknowledge that all of the development potential in TAZ 1 502 would apparently take place within the DDSP area. It is therefore agreed that only about 10% of the growth would be forecast to occur outside the DDSP area. However,the response apparently acknowledges that the trip generation from the 10%of growth outside of the DDSP did include MXD-+ reductions even though the WD'I'IF report specifically notes the this reduction "would not he appropriate for those areas." As discussed previously, without the details of the calculations our review indicated one possibility was that the job growth may have been assumed to be all office jobs. Other than the previously mentioned issue of internal trip reductions, the trip generation assumptions for job growth appear to he one of the only things that could potentially explain how the WDTIF trip generation results came out 70% less than the DDSP Addendum trip generation forecasts. In any case,based on a review of the calculations presented in Table 6 of the WDTIF report,just the use of erroneous assumptions for growth outside the DDSP alone could have increased the fee calculations in Table 6 by over$1,000 per trip. (5) Response to Comment#5. We noted that the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP LIR are inconsistent with the analysis in the WDTiF Report. This comment is riot intended to combine disparate information. II is intended to highlight that either the DDSP FIR is in error or the WDTIF calculations are in error. Based on the comparison of the future volume forecasts in the DDSP FiR to the WDTIF forecasts, by definition,only one can be accurate. For example, if the WDTIF forecast for 1,718 new PM peak hour trips is accurate,then the DDSP FIR transportation analysis would have to he considered completely invalid. • The analysis of future transportation conditions that was apparently used to establish the need for improvements for the WDTIF was based on the assumption that the DDSP area would generate over 7,000 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Obviously if the DDSP El R analysis were revised to assume only 25% of the previous forecasts(as per the WDTIF assumptions) then the analysis of future transportation conditions could be very different and should be reevaluated. If the DDSP FIR had assumed only 25% of the traffic growth,then whatever facilities the City had identified as deficient would theoretically need to be reevaluated (and it could he determined the deficiencies no longer exist). On the other hand, West Dublin Traffic Impact Fcc Update Review Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 5 if the previous DDSP traffic forecasts are accurate, then obviously the trip generation used in the latest WDTIF was significantly understated, which would dramatically increase the fee calculations. (6) Response to Comment#6. We still maintain that the WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and the developments on which the fee would be imposed. The point of this comment was not that there are other methodologies to determine the fair share percentages;. the point was that there are indeed other methodologies available to evaluate the connection (i.e. nexus) of the forecast traffic growth and the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The WDTIF report is not clear about what methodology was used to evaluate the area for any transportation deficiencies. We believe this was an oversight as some commonly accepted bicycle and pedestrian LOS analysis methodologies already allow the user to analyze the impacts of future increases in traffic on bicycle and pedestrian conditions. However,the City has apparently not adopted any thresholds of significance for pedestrian and bicycle impacts and the WDTIF report fails to properly identify(or analyze)exactly what transportation deficiencies (LOS F?) would be caused by future development in the area. For a nexus report to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, we would suggest that policy language should not be accepted as a substitute for the evidence normally provided to prove that transportation deficiencies would be caused by future development. It is also important to note that our analysis of the reduction in transit speeds is indeed accurate and would definitely not be affected by the transit priority features that were referenced in the response. First of all, these features would exist regardless of whether or not the proposed WDTIF program is implemented (i.e. the features apply to both scenarios)and therefore would not significantly affect the comparison. But most importantly, the transit signal priority and queue jump features would make little or no difference without an exclusive bus lane to allow buses to bypass the forecast queues (please note it is our understanding that an exclusive bus lane is not being proposed). Without an exclusive bus lane,the buses would still he caught up in the exact same queues that are forecast to extend back through adjacent signalized intersections. For example,with the implementation of the WDTIF project proposed for Dublin Boulevard at Amador Plaza Road the traffic on westbound Dublin Boulevard (a major bus route) would be forecast to regularly extend back beyond the Village Parkway intersection. If the far side of the intersection is forecast to be backed up West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates I P TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 6 from the downstream intersection,then bus priority signals and queue jump features will offer little or no benefits. Obviously getting priority at a traffic signal doesn't help a bus at all if there isn't enough room on the other side of the intersection for the bus to proceed without blocking the intersection. (7) Response to Comment#7. Our evaluation of the future operations of the WDTIF projects indicates that there is no evidence provided that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved, but there is extensive evidence that transit speeds will he significantly impacted. The City's response to this comment supports our point. It includes a reference to research that contradicts the contention that safety will he improved as a result of reduced speeds in the Downtown area. What the response fails to note is that the NACTO study provided clearly shows the relationship between speed and the risk of fatal injury doesn't indicate a statistically significant increase in risk until travel speeds are well over 20 mph. The DDSP LOS analysis clearly indicates travel speeds on Dublin Boulevard could he as low as 10 MPI I even without implementation of the WDTIF projects. In other words,the traffic congestion and travel speeds are already forecast to be so low that the referenced study indicates there would be no significant difference in the risk to pedestrians and bicyclists since the conditions are forecast to be congested either way and travel speeds are already forecast to be low. For example, the research indicates there would essentially be no change at all to the risk of fatal injuries with travel speeds dropping from the forecast 10 mph to 5 mph. (8) Response to Comment#8. We stated in our January 18, 2016 letter that there is no reasonable relationship shown between the need for these WDT1F projects and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area. The evaluation of existing conditions referred to in this response was apparently based on a citywide evaluation of accident rates which make no sense since detailed data on the accidents for each of the specific facilities included in the WDTIF program are readily available. For example, stating that "the City ranks better than the.statewide average" as a way to claim there arc no existing safety deficiencies on a roadway such as Dublin Boulevard is clearly misleading given there is extensive evidence to the contrary included in documents such as the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The citywide data being referenced clearly averages in data from many quiet residential areas throughout the City that have completely different transportation conditions than the downtown area where the deficiencies in • question are located. What should really be evaluated when reviewing for existing safety deficiencies is how many pedestrian and bicycle accidents have West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 7 actually occurred on the facilities where the improvements are proposed. Eight of the nine projects involve some improvements to Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, to evaluate whether or not there is an existing safety deficiency, the report should clearly examine whether or not the facilities in question (such as Dublin Boulevard) rank better than the statewide average for pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Whether or not the entire City ranks below the statewide average is irrelevant. Dismissing WDTIF deficiencies based on a citywide average would he no different than claiming there are no deficiencies on various California streets and highways because the accident rate in California is lower than the national average. The only thing that should be relevant is whether or not the facilities in question have existing safety problems. As per my previous comments, the available accident data for Dublin Boulevard itself certainly appears to indicate the roadway has an above average number of bicycle and pedestrian accidents when compared to the statewide averages. (9) Response to Continent#9. We noted that sonic of the proposed projects, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily he required by adjacent developments. The City's response seems to ignore the fact that two developments with a total of 380 residential units and 1 7,000 square feet of retail space are approved right next to the proposed extension. These two projects are approved but have not yet been constructed so they would not count as future development or participate in the fee program. Given their location there is absolutely no question that these two projects will generate some portion of the future traffic growth on the St. Patrick Way Extension. Therefore, it is simply not possible that future development would he responsible,for 100%of the future traffic on this extension. This indicates there are significant problems with how the percentage responsibility is being calculated and/or the underlying assumptions used to calculate the percentages in Table 5 of the WDTIF report. It should also be noted that the fact that St. Patrick Way has been identified as a key link for bike access that could include Class HA bike lanes is irrelevant as a full roadway extension is clearly not required to provide bicycle access through this area. There is no evidence provided that building a full roadway extension would address any specific transportation deficiency. In fact, it appears that construction of a Class I multi-use path instead would be much more consistent with the City's stated goals for this part of the DDSP area. West Dublin Traffic impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates P 4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC Page 8 In summary,there are clearly still numerous errors and inconsistencies associated with the February 2016 Final Report for the WDTIF and missing information,just as there were with the October 2016 version. The latest report adds to the narrative,but fails to address the fundamental flaws in the analysis. The report should be revised to address the significant problems that have been identified and then recirculated for public review and comment. Sincerely, I A Lr.lk\4k0.44../ Stephen C. Abrams President Abrams Associates T.E. License No. 1852 I 0 MILLER STARR 1331 N.California Blvd. T 925 935 9400 REGALIA Fifth Floor F 925 933 4126 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 www.msrlegal.com George B.Speir bill.speir @msrlegal.com January 19, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee January 19, 2016 City Council Agenda item 6.1 Dear Mayor Haubert and Members of the Council : This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed update of the City of Dublin Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting as Agenda item 6.1. We have reviewed the staff report and proposed resolution prepared for the adoption for the proposed update and renaming of the fee the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee ("WDTIF"). We have also reviewed the documents referenced in the proposed resolution, including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ("DDSP") as amended, the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update: Final Report ("WDTIF Report"), dated October, 2015 and prepared by the firm of Fehr& Peers. We have retained Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering to review the WDTIF Report, the related documents, and perform whatever additional analysis is necessary in order to comment on the proposed WDTIF. The Abrams Report, dated January 18, 2016, accompanies this letter and is incorporated herein. As set forth below, and in the accompanying Abrams Report, the City of Dublin has not established, and cannot establish the necessary relationship between the services and facilities to be funded by the proposed WDTIF and the impacts resulting from future development in Western Dublin, and therefore the proposed WDTIF fails to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code section 66000, et seq. (sometimes called "AB 1600"), and the due process, equal protection, and takings provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, The purpose of this letter, and the accompanying Abrams report, is to identify deficiencies in the City's analysis and to object to the adoption of the proposed WDTIF unless these deficiencies are corrected. As proposed, the City cannot validly make the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act, or under the United States and California Constitutions to justify the adoption and imposition of the fee. Offices: Walnut Creek/San Francisco/Newport Beach The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 2 We therefore oppose the adoption of the proposed WDTIF, and request that the proposed Resolution updating and renaming the City's Downtown Traffic Impact Fee be rejected. 1. The WDTIF Report does not satisfy the basic requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The legal requirements for the enactment of development impact fees are set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act and were established by the Legislature specifically "in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects." (Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685, 691.) By statute, a development impact fee "shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan." (Gov. Code § 66001(g).) To ensure that a proposed fee is related to the impact created by development and does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the public service, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency imposing a development fee establish a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (Id. § 66001.) If a development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development or exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the public service made necessary by the development, it may be declared a special tax, subject to approval by two-thirds of the electorate. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4; Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208.) Well established federal and state law also require that fees ultimately imposed on development not be disproportionate to its impacts. (E.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard(1994) 512 U.S. 374, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District(2013) 133 S. Ct. 2586, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City(1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.) The essence of the law is to permit local agencies to require growth to pay for itself, but ensure that new residents and businesses are not compelled to pay for problems or community shortcomings which are not of their making. Development impact fees on new housing form a part of the cost of the residence, and those costs are passed on to the homebuyer. The City cannot make new residents pay to improve the community for the benefit of existing residents. New owners have to pay their share of the cost of needed public facilities, and existing residents need to pay their share of the cost through taxes or other available funding sources. For The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 3 example, the fact that a new bike lane, cross walk or street landscaping is needed is not a basis for requiring the buyer of a new home to pay the entire cost of facilities intended to benefit all local citizens. Here, as summarized below and described in the Abrams Report, the WDTIF Report fails to demonstrate that the proposed new WDTIF satisfies the constitutional mandate, or the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. 2. There is no demonstrated nexus or reasonable relationship between the need for these improvements and growth in western Dublin. The projects identified in the WDTIF Report are predominately bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, and related roadway beautification. They are not traffic improvements, and in fact, they will reduce the flow of traffic throughout the downtown area.' They have been selected, not because of any demonstrated relationship between the need for the project and the anticipated growth in the community, but because these projects have already been identified in other City planning documents and projects the City wants. For example, eight of the nine proposed projects are identified in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ("BPMP") as being priority projects. They add cross walks, bike lanes, bike paths, improve sidewalks to be more decorative, and add street trees and aesthetic improvements. These are not projects made necessary by growth —they are projects already on the City's wish list. By this amended and increased development impact fee, the City seeks to have new residents and businesses pay the full cost of these improvements for the benefit of existing residents who would object to a tax to pay for the projects, or to paying the cost from City general funds. At least one of the projects, the St. Patrick Way extension, benefits only the residents of specific properties, and is not appropriate for inclusion here. It is a local circulation project, only needed to serve the adjacent properties upon the development of those parcels.2 There is nothing in the WDTIF Report that demonstrates how there is a reasonable relationship between this project and all of the properties which will be subject to the fee. Similarly, there is nothing in the WDTIF to demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the impacts each assessed property will have on the perceived problem that the project seeks to address. Simply saying that these projects are part of the BPMP or the DDSP is not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional and statutory limits on imposing the cost of these projects on new development. See Abrams Report, sections (6)—(8). 2 See Abrams Report, section (9). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 4 3. The WDTIF Report is based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed. Government Code section 66001(g) provides: "A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities ..." This is the codification of the requirement that growth can be made to pay for growth, but may not be forced to subsidize public facilities or services already needed to serve existing residents, In order to justify charging new residents and businesses with the full cost of the projects to be funded by the WDTIF, the WDTIF Report comes to the puzzling and totally unsupported conclusion that there are no existing deficiencies in the public safety and community beautification projects to be funded, and therefore these projects would not be needed or presumably implemented but for growth in the community. It comes to that conclusion by assessing traffic congestion, i.e. the level of service ("LOS"), at 7 specific intersections, as summarized in Table 4 of the Report. The WDTIF Report states: "Table 4 shows that there are no existing deficiencies on the facilities included in this WDTIF program, indicating that the need for improvements is not caused by existing development."3 Table 4 of the WDTIF shows no such thing. First, it does not assess existing conditions so it could not determine if there are existing deficiencies. Table 4 shows the 2010 level of service traffic analysis of several intersections in the downtown area. The data is taken from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, which the WDTIF Report states is the "most recent study". No one could reasonably argue that a traffic study done six years ago, while the area was still suffering from the recession of 2007, is an accurate assessment of 2016 traffic conditions. In addition, the existing condition needs to consider not only traffic that exists today, but also traffic to be generated by development in the area which is already approved and in the process of being developed. Traffic to be generated from permitted projects which are under construction, for example, must be included in the baseline. Second, the level of service at intersections is not relevant to determining whether these improvements — bike lanes, cross walks, pedestrian upgrades and roadway beautification —are made necessary by new development. The WDTIF Report specifically notes that it does not assess any of the proposed projects based on the 3 WDTIF Report, p. 17, attempting to explain how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 5 impact those projects would have on the level of service of existing roads and intersections. The Report states: "One of the most significant policy changes of the DDSP was the elimination of vehicle Level of Service (LOS) as a transportation system performance standard within the Specific Plan area. ... With this policy change ... the City is clearly expressing the community's values and vision for the downtown area, articulating a future in which the minimization of vehicular delay is not the primary objective ..."4 In other words, LOS is not important in assessing these fees, because the goal is not to improve traffic. If LOS is not important, and these projects are being built because they improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and create a "more pedestrian friendly downtown"5, how is it that the only determination of whether there is an existing need for these pedestrian, bicycle and beautification projects is based on the vehicular level of service? The WDTIF Report should have made an assessment of existing bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to determine whether there are deficiencies in the existing availability of bicycle and pedestrian safety facilities. Such an analysis could be and should have been made.6 In addition, each of these projects is identified in other City reports as currently needed. Table 1 of the WDTIF Report identifies the City planning document which is the source of each project. For example, WDTIF project#4, the Amador Plaza Road bicycle and pedestrian improvements, is also identified as the top priority project in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The BPMP calls it a Tier 1 Priority Project', and notes that it is needed to fulfill the existing community desire for a"park once" environment, add bicycle and pedestrian safety features, and replace street trees that are at the end of their life cycle. The cost of this project is detailed in Appendix A to the WDTIF Report, Project 4. The cost of street trees and other"aesthetic/ architectural" features included in the new fee totals $1,612,316, to which the Report adds 50%for contingencies and related costs. The total cost of these aesthetics is therefore in the $2.4 million range. The fee includes the full cost of 116 street trees, even though the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan notes that they have reached their useful life and need to be replaced now. Among the other project costs which the WDTIF Report claims are not currently needed, and are only needed as a result of new residents and businesses, is $150,000 plus contingencies for three new 4 4 WDTIF Report, page 4, emphasis added. 5 WDTIF Report, page 4. 6 See Abrams Report, section(8). Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, page 119, and Figures 6-1 to 6-4. 4 The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 6 Downtown Gateway Monument signs. There is no legitimate basis to claim that these expenses are only needed to accommodate new development. We have no objection to the City wanting to replace its street trees, or put up monument signs, but to claim that they are only needed due to new development, and then foist the cost on new residents and businesses fails to satisfy applicable legal requirements. 4. The proposed revisions to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Fee will not meet the City's stated purpose of mitigating traffic impacts of new development. The WDTIF Report asserts, in summarizing why the fee purportedly satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act, that "the purpose of the WDTIF program is to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development within the designated WDTIF area...".8 The truth is, these projects will make traffic worse.9 They will slow traffic and public transit times. They are not designed to allow the streets to accommodate additional traffic generated by new residents and businesses in the area; to the contrary, they are designed to satisfy the City's requirements to implement Complete Streets projects, comply with the Bicycle Transportation Act, and other planning obligations imposed on the City. The City has chosen to implement these guidelines through, among other things, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. While the City may certainly choose to adopt and implement these plans, it may not claim that it would not do so if not for new development in order to compel new residents and businesses to fully fund these bike paths, landscaping plans, cross walks, "traffic calming" devices, and other measures, based on the claim that it is doing so to mitigate traffic impacts. Contrary to the conclusion of the WDTIF Report, the purpose of the WDTIF is not to mitigate traffic problems. The Report acknowledges this elsewhere by stating that "the minimization of vehicular delay is not the primary objective". The purpose of reducing turning radii at intersections and eliminating lanes is to slow traffic. But if the stated purpose of the fee is to mitigate traffic impacts downtown, there is no reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, in violation of Government Code section 66001(a) and (d)(1). 5. The proposed new fee is grossly excessive. The proposed new WDTIF greatly exceeds the proportionate cost of the identified public facilities attributable to new development, in violation of Government Code section 66001(b). 8 WDTIF Report, p. 17, describing the purpose of the fee for AB 1600 purposes. 9 See Abrams Report, sections(6), (7). i The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 7 In essence, the calculation of the WDTIF is a fraction.10 The numerator is the cost of the various projects attributable to new development; the denominator is the number of new afternoon rush hour trips generated by new development. If inappropriate costs included in the fee are removed, the fee will go down. Similarly, if more trips will be generated, the denominator goes up and the fee goes down. Here, the fee must be reduced by eliminating inappropriate costs, including costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, as discussed above. In addition, the percentage responsibility of future development for WDTIF projects is far too high.11 The WDTIF report fails to provide any explanation of how these calculations have been made.12 For example, did the model used considers current traffic or extrapolate from outdated 2010 traffic studies? Did it consider traffic from approved projects as traffic related to future development in the WDTIF area? Did it consider changes in housing and employment in Pleasanton, San Ramon and other nearby communities which would impact the volume of through traffic? It is the City's obligation to demonstrate that the fee meets the legal requirements. The documents provided with this report do not allow it to meet that burden. The total cost of the projects considered in the fee, i.e. the numerator of the fraction, is too high. Similarly, the total number of rush hour trips to be added by new development, i.e. the denominator of the fraction, is too low. The WDTIF Report dramatically underestimates the new traffic which will result from the new growth, and thereby artificially raises the fee. Table 6 of the WDTIF Report contains this calculation. It uses 1,718 new PM peak hour trips as the denominator of the fraction that concludes that $5,234 is the maximum fee that could be charged. But the use of 1,718 new trips as the denominator of the fraction is wrong. In Table 3, the WDTIF Report considers 3 different models for determining potential new afternoon rush hour trips, none of which are consistent with the City's analysis of expected traffic in the 2014 update to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The WDTIF Report states that the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual results in a calculation of 2.478 new trips. The WDTIF Report acknowledges that the standard approach is appropriate for all areas covered by the WDTIF outside of downtown. The Report notes that the technique used to calculate 1,718 new trips "...would not be appropriate in those areas [outside of downtown]. However, almost all projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP 10 WDTIF Report, Table 6. 11 WDTIF Report, Table 5. 12 See Abrams Report, sections (1)—(5). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 8 area, so for purposes of the WDTIF calculations, the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied.s13 In fact, approximately 27% of the new traffic will be generated outside of the downtown area, so the assertion that "almost all" of the growth is in downtown is an exaggeration, at best.14 And the apparent position of the author of the Report that it is acceptable to overcharge some property owners, as long as there are not too many, is not consistent with law. If the ITE trip generation results from Table 3 of the WDTIF Final Report are used, the maximum fee would already be reduced from $5,234 to $3,628 before any other corrections are made. Then, if the corrected ITE assumptions are used, the maximum fee would be reduced from $5,234 to $1,750 per trip.i5 Finally, using the trip generation estimates from the City's 2014 amendment to the DDSP the new PM peak hour traffic from the downtown area alone is forecast to be 5,854 trips.18 Applying the City's DDSP estimate would result in the maximum fee being reduced from $5,234 to $1,535. Table 3 of the WDTIF Report notes that 2,398 PM peak hour trips would be generated based on the Dublin Travel Model, but dismisses it in favor of using the MXD+ model forecasts. The Dublin Travel Model is apparently the same model used later in the WDTIF Report to allocate project cost responsibility, but apparently was not appropriate to use here, where the result would have been to significantly lower the fee. As explained in the accompanying Abrams Report, the proposed WDTIF is replete with errors, inconsistent methodology, and false assumptions. If the fee is correctly updated, it appears likely that the current Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee would be reduced, not increased. At minimum, the City should go back to the drawing board, and reassess any update to this fee. The calculation of the proposed WDTIF is flawed, and results in a grossly excessive fee. If not corrected, the fee cannot pass legal muster. We request that the WDTIF 1 13 WDTIF Report, p. 10. 14 WDTIF Report, Appendix B, and Abrams Report, section (4). 15 See Abrams Report, section (2),. 16 See Abrams Report, sections(1) and (2). The Honorable David Haubert, Mayor Members of the City Council January 19, 2016 Page 9 Report and the proposed Resolution increasing and renaming the WDTIF fee be rejected. Very truly yours, MI ER STARR REGALIA dir 4/110 Georg- .eir GBS:mIj Enclosures • Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. January 18,2016 George Speir Miller Starr Regalia 1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Review of the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Dear Mr. Speir, The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of my overall review and traffic analysis conducted on the proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update (WDTIF).1 Please note that our review also included the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP)and its supporting EIR2 and also the DDSP 2014 Specific Plan Amendment3, and other documents discussed in the WDTIF Final Report. By way of background, I am a licensed professional traffic engineer. I have had my professional engineering license for over 20 years. I am also president and owner of Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering and I have provided traffic analysis for hundreds of projects in the area. Within the City of Dublin I have provided traffic studies for projects such as a new high school and a major recycled water pipeline. I also previously served for five years as the contract City Traffic Engineer for the City of El Cerrito. As a result of my review of the proposed WDTIF, I have concluded that the proposed fees have been significantly overestimated and that numerous transportation and circulation issues associated with the proposed projects have not been properly or adequately addressed. In general,the problems with the WDTIF Final Report are so numerous and significant that it is not possible to properly review or verify the analysis or justify the resulting conclusions. Based on our review it is my conclusion that problems with the technical analysis have resulted in significant errors in both the conclusions about the nexus for the fee as well as the resulting effects that its approval would have on transportation and safety. Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update:Final Report,Fehr and Peers,Walnut Creek,CA,October, 2015. 2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,REF Consulting,Walnut Creek, CA,September,2010. s Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,RBF Consulting,Walnut Creek,CA,February 24,2014. 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.0201 • Fax: 925,945.7966 • West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates Page 2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Without additional study to address the City's inadequate analysis of traffic and circulation it is not possible to conclude that the projects proposed to be funded by the amended fees are attributable to future development. To rectify the numerous deficiencies and inadequacies in the WDTIF Final Report, the issues identified in this letter should be carefully studied and addressed in a revised report. Review of the WDTIF Final Report (1) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is grossly underestimated and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the DDSP EIR. Table 6 of the WDTIF Final Report calculates the base fee by dividing net eligible project costs by the number of new afternoon rush hour trips attributable to growth in Western Dublin. It specifies that 1,718 New PM peak hour trips would be generated by new development in the Western Dublin TIF area. This is totally inconsistent with the DDSP EIR forecasts. Tables 3.7-8 and 3.7-9 of the DDSP EIR specify that 1,917 trips would be generated under the Base Floor Area Ratio (FAR)and that 7,078 trips would be generated under the Maximum FAR Project. Please note that the Base FAR in the DDSP EIR assumes a constrained scenario with 867,320 square feet of new commercial space and 799 new residential units which is roughly one third of the development allowable under the DDSP. However,the constrained Base FAR scenario, which only covers the Downtown Specific Plan Area, still had trip generation forecasts that were higher than the WDTIF forecasts, even though the WDTIF forecasts supposedly include growth from the entire Western Dublin TIF area. In Attachment B to the 2014 DDSP Amendment the trip generation for the DDSP area (only) is presented in Table B-1. This table indicates that with approval of the 2014 amendments the DDSP area alone is forecast to generate 5,854 PM peak hour trips. This is clearly inconsistent with the WDTIF Finale Report which forecasts that only 1,718 PM peak hour trips would be generated by the entire WDTIF area. The result of understating new PM peak hour trips is that the fee is dramatically increased. It is also important to note that the DDSP EIR assumed a 25%pass-by reduction while Table 7 of the WDTIF Final Report appears to indicate that a 35%pass-by reduction was applied to retail uses. Please note this rate is actually higher than the rate recommended by 1TE for general retail uses (ITE Land Use Code 820) and combined with the 23%MXD reduction would result in an unsupportable 58%reduction to the traffic from all commercial growth. This reduction was also apparently applied to office uses when it should only be applied to retail uses. Unfortunately,the WDTIF Final Report did not disclose the assumptions that were used to calculate the trip generation forecasts for the WDTIF area. Without • West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates P p TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 3 this information it is not possible to conclude with any certainty what portion of the WDTIF costs would be attributable to future development,and therefore we cannot determine the full extent to which the proposed amended fee is overstated as a result of this error. Additional evidence indicating the presence of serious errors in the WDTIF trip generation forecasts is provided below. (2) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparable forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data. Independent trip generation forecasts for the future development forecast for the WDTIF area were developed using standard traffic engineering procedures based on the commonly accepted data and guidelines provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE). Exhibit I presents the resulting cumulative traffic growth forecast to be generated in the WDTIF area compared to the growth estimated in the WDTIF Final Report. As seen in this exhibit, using the correct ITE assumptions combined with the WDTIF development assumptions results in estimated traffic growth of 5,137 PM peak hour trips for the WDTIF area. This is about three times more than the I,718 PM peak hour trips that were used to calculate the maximum fee in Table 6 of the WDTIF Final Report. It is important to also note that the forecasts using the ITE procedures in Exhibit 1 are also consistent with the forecasts contained in Table B-1 of the 2014 amendment to the DDSP (5,854 trips). This provides additional evidence that the traffic growth forecasts utilized in the WDTIF Final Report are inaccurate. (3) Based on a comparison to the ITE forecasts it appears that the WDTIF calculations erroneously assumed the future employment growth would consist entirely of office jobs with little or no retail employment growth. Although the assumptions used in the WDTIF forecasts are not disclosed,Exhibit 2 presents an attempt to recreate the WTDIF trip generation calculations using the limited information available within the text of the WDTIF report. For these calculations the 23%Mixed Use Development(MXD) reduction was applied to all development within the DDSP area and a 35%pass-by reduction was applied to the traffic forecast from employment growth(as referenced in Table 7 of the WDTIF Final Report). It should be noted that in addition to being unusually high (as noted above)the pass-by reduction would not apply to office uses. This is a concern since the DDSP EIR specifies that approximately 75%of the employment growth is forecast to come from offices. As shown in Exhibit 2, if the above assumptions from the WDTIF Final Report are used the resulting traffic growth matches the comparison calculations as long as all of the future traffic growth from new employment is assumed to be from offices. If this is, in fact,what the WDTIF calculations assume then this would be an incorrect assumption that West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates P P TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 4 needs to be corrected. Based on all evidence available, it appears the WDTIF Final Report applied the lower office trip generation rates to future retail growth resulting in a significant underestimation of the future trips that would be generated by planned growth in the WDTIF area. (4) Based on an analysis of the growth projections contained in the WDTIF Final Report approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Appendix B of the WDTIF Final Report includes growth projections for each of the traffic analysis zones within the WDTIF area. As shown in Exhibit 3, based on this data (and ITE procedures) it is forecast that approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. This is a significant factor which then indicates the need to verify that the 23%MXD reduction was not applied to traffic generated outside the DDSP area. The WDTIF is somewhat misleading in stating that"almost all projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area" when, in fact, the data contained in Appendix B indicates up to 27%of the traffic growth would occur outside the DDSP area. The WDTIF goes on to state that "for the purposes of the WDTIF calculations the MXD+ technique can be appropriately applied". This is an incorrect statement given that up to 27%of the forecast traffic would be generated outside the DDSP area. As a result,the application of an unwarranted 23%MXD reduction to this substantial component of the future traffic growth would result in a significant underestimation of the WDTIF traffic growth and would not be appropriate. (5)An evaluation of the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP EIR proves that that the WDTIF Final Report used erroneous assumptions resulting in substantially lower forecasts of traffic growth than the DDSP EIR. A detailed evaluation of the future traffic growth forecasts used to determine the WDTIF percent responsibility (Table 5) was conducted at several key roadways and intersections. As shown in Exhibit 4, The DDSP EIR forecast an increase of 5,568 peak hour trips at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. At this same intersection the WDTIF Final Report concluded that development in the WDTIF area would be responsible for 61%of the future traffic growth which equates to 3,396 PM peak hour trips,which is about twice the amount of trips the WDTIF report concludes will be generated by the entire WDTIF area. Obviously one intersection would not receive 100%of all the peak hour traffic generated in the entire WDTIF area. Even by conservative estimates it seems unlikely that any one intersection or roadway would receive more than about one-third of the future traffic forecast for the entire WDTIF area. Therefore, all evidence indicates the WDTIF percent responsibilities (in Table 5) West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates P P TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 5 have been significantly overestimated. The result of this error is that the fee is significantly overstated. Exhibits 5 through 8 provide additional information on the forecast traffic growth for other key WDTIF projects, as per the data presented in the DDSP EIR. Please note the WDTIF Final Report states the DDSP EIR is "the most recent study that comprehensively addressed the downtown area". Again, as seen in all of these exhibits,the traffic growth forecasts for these locations in the DDSP EIR are substantially higher than the traffic forecasts in the WDTIF Final Report. In fact, in two cases(WDTIF Projects 1 and 6) the DDSP EIR traffic growth added at a single intersection was found to be more than three times the growth forecast to be generated by the entire western Dublin area according to the WDTIF Final Report. (6) The WDTIF Report does not demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and developments on which the fee would be imposed. According to the California's Mitigation Fee Act(AB 1600), it is required that there be a reasonable relationship between the use of the proposed fee and the developments on which the fee is being imposed. One relevant factor is the fact that the DDSP eliminated intersection level of service (LOS) standard. As noted on Page 4 of the WDTIF Final Report: "the DDSP explicitly removed the LOS Standard for any intersection in the Downtown Dublin area". The fact that future traffic operations are expected to be worsened by some of the proposed WDTIF project (as described in the following section) does not constitute a reason to require the proposed improvements. The WDTIF Final Report makes no secret that the City goal is not to mitigate any specific traffic or safety impacts from planned development but instead to facilitate projects the City desires as identified in various planning documents such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). Page 3 of the WDTIF Final Report states the "WDTIF projects have been identified in order to implement the City's General Plan, Downton Specific Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan". Although it is possible the proposed WDT1F projects will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety,there is no evidence presented in the WDTIF Final Report to prove this. The report fails to address any of the numerous commonly accepted methodologies for analyzing pedestrian and bicycle level of service and evaluating potential impacts on safety. These conditions(with and without the proposed WDTIF projects) should be analyzed using one of several commonly accepted practices such as the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS methodologies. There was also no analysis provided on the potential for impacts to transit speeds. This is typically analyzed by evaluating arterial travel speeds using the 2010 HCM arterial LOS methodology. Some Cities (such as the City of Alameda) have West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates p TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 6 adopted criteria defining a significant impact to transit travel speeds as being a decrease of 10%or more. In the following section evidence is provided that one of the proposed WDTIF projects if actually forecast to result in a 50%reduction in PM peak hour transit travel speeds(from 10 mph to 5 mph) for the numerous buses that travel on westbound Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of Village Parkway. (7)An evaluation of the future operations for several key WDTIF projects indicates there is no evidence that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved while there is extensive evidence that transit speeds could be significantly impacted by implementation of the proposed WDTIF projects. The circulation element of the Dublin General Plan (Section 5.22) includes policy A.6 which states that intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan "may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the safely for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized." In the case of the WDTIF there has been no evidence provided that the proposed WDTIF projects will help maintain pedestrian and bicycle safety and/or minimize impacts to transit travel speeds. To provide an evaluation of potential impacts on transit travel speeds a detailed evaluation of future LOS conditions was prepared for two key intersections and also one critical (and directly related) segment of Dublin Boulevard that is used by multiple bus routes. Exhibit 9 presents the results of the LOS analysis of an analysis of cumulative traffic operations at Golden Gate Drive and Dublin Boulevard based on data contained in the DDSP E1R. The resulting LOS is presented for both the previous 2004 TIF project and also the currently proposed WDTIF project at this intersection. As seen in the exhibit the proposed WDTIF project is forecast to result in substantially increased delays when compared to the previous 2004 TIF project. The LOS calculations indicate the average delay for all vehicles during the PM peak hour would increase by well over a minute (74 seconds per vehicle) which would equate to over a 60% increase in overall delay at the intersection. Obviously significant increases in delay such as this have the potential to not only reduce transit speeds but also to reduce pedestrian and bicycle safety as a result of increased motorist frustration. Exhibit 10 presents the results of the LOS analysis of an analysis of cumulative traffic operations at Amador Plaza Drive and Dublin Boulevard,also based on the volumes and assumptions contained in the DDSP EIR. The resulting LOS is presented for both the previous 2004 TIF project and also the currently proposed WDTIF project. As seen in the exhibit the proposed WDTIF project is forecast to result in substantially increased delays at this intersection also when compared to Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates West Dublin Traffic Im P P TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 7 the previous 2004 TIF project. The LOS calculations indicate the average delay for all vehicles during the PM peak hour would increase by well over a minute and a half(about 100 seconds per vehicle)which would equate to over a 34% increase in delay. It should be noted that the increased delay at this intersection also stems from the proposed Amador Plaza Complete Streets project. By narrowing southbound Amador Plaza Road from two lanes to one (between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way) this project effectively precludes implementation of the previous 2004 TIF project at this intersection that would have provided for two westbound left turn lanes from westbound Dublin Boulevard onto southbound Amador Plaza Road. Our analysis indicates that eliminating this additional left turn lane will result in a significant reduction to transit speeds. Exhibit 11 presents a 2010 HCM analysis of the resulting change in arterial travel speeds(i.e. transit speeds) on Dublin Boulevard between the 2004 TIF project and the proposed WDTIF project. As shown by the HCM results, the elimination of the dual left turn lane is forecast to cause transit speeds on westbound Dublin Boulevard (east of Amador Plaza Road)to deteriorate from about 10 mph to 5 mph. In many jurisdictions this level of reduction to transit speeds would be considered a significant impact. Given the analysis of potential impacts to transit speeds presented in Exhibits 8 through 10 along with the City's adopted policies regarding impacts to transit speeds, it appears that additional evidence would be required to properly verify that the proposed WDTIF project would not result in significant impacts to transit operations,particularly along Dublin Boulevard. (8) The inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements appears to violate the requirements of AB 1600. There is no reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area. As mentioned above, even though there are numerous methodologies that could have been used,no evidence or analysis has been provided that could prove a link between the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements and forecast development expected to occur throughout the WDTIF area. The extent of the review for existing deficiencies apparently just consisted of a review of some existing LOS calculations prepared for the DDSP EIR well over five years ago. These calculations were clearly based on outdated traffic counts almost six years old and they also utilized outdated 2000 HCM methodology. Also,please note that Table 4 of the WDTIF Final Report erroneously identifies the methodology used to determine the existing LOS as being the 2010 HCM. In fact, a review of the accident data for the facilities in question indicates there is sufficient evidence to prove there is an existing need for safety improvements (i.e. West Dublin Traffic 1m act Fee U date Review Abrams Associates P p TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 8 an existing deficiency) at certain WDTIF project locations. For example, a review of the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data indicates that just on Dublin Boulevard itself there have apparently been 26 automobile accidents that involved bicycles and pedestrians in the period from 2006 to 2014. During this time there were four pedestrian-auto collisions at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road and also four bicycle-auto collisions at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway. (9) Some of the projects selected for inclusion in the WDTIF, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would clearly serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily be required by adjacent developments. As mentioned above, California's Mitigation Fee Act(AB 1600)requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the use of the WDTIF fee and the developments which the fee is being imposed. In the case of St. Patrick Way Extension it is clear the project would not benefit developments that are not located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed roadway. In fact,this is supported by statements on page 114 of the DDSP which states that "This extension will be necessary to move vehicular traffic through the Transit-Oriented District upon completion of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and new development projects on adjacent properties". The DDSP then goes on to state that: "Construction of the Saint Patrick Way extension would occur concurrent with (adjacent)development of the Essex and AMB Parcels". Unlike other major arterials in the area, such as Dublin Boulevard, St. Patrick Way is designated as a collector street and there is no evidence that the extension would ever serve anything other than traffic from adjacent developments since it is located in an area with very little through traffic. The reason there is very little through traffic is because it is essentially land-locked with no through traffic access on three sides due to the I-680 and I-580 freeways and also the Foothill Road/San Ramon Road interchange ramps. Our review indicates that adjacent developments could potentially be required to fund the costs of this extension. The main factor that needs to be accounted for is this: new development throughout most of the WDTIF area will not add a substantial amount of trips to the future peak hour traffic on this roadway. The fact that the select zone model analysis resulted in an estimate that 100%of this project would be attributable to growth in the WDTIF area is a strong indication that the use of this methodology may be resulting in errors. Although the underlying model assumptions used to calculate the percentages were not provided, all evidence indicates that the calculations used a completely West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update Review Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 9 different set of model assumptions than the model that was used to estimate traffic growth in the WDTIF Final Report. The apparent use of different model assumptions to develop the factors in the WDTIF fee calculations is particularly a concern because none of the underlying assumptions are provided. As a result, it is not possible to properly review how the WDTIF percentages were arrived at. (See WDTIF Final Report,Table 5.) At a minimum the percentage calculation for St. Patrick Way Extension should be reduced to account for the fact that there are two developments with a total of 380 residential units and 17,000 square feet of retail space approved right next to the proposed extension.4 These developments will clearly contribute to the future traffic growth but would not be subject to the fee. In general, it is recommended that a different analysis methodology be utilized to calculate the percent responsibility attributable to future development occurring throughout the entire WDTIF area. In summary, there are clearly numerous errors and inconsistencies associated with the Final Report for the WDTIF. The report should be revised to address the significant problems that have been identified and then recirculated for public review and comment. Please call me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, 54L Stephen C. Abrams President Abrams Associates T.E. License No. 1 852 4 City of Dublin Commercial and Residential Project List,City of Dublin,Dublin,CA, 11/10/15 U) CD y CO N. r1 L) C C y E +-, Foo- rn 0 r, 0O :° o C fO .-i vi m a. 'oo - +L- a a) U) Q U ` m U o v. o O c a) • .0 a) y 4- 0 N _0 co o Q Ew„ a 0 N �- u. a a' a >- o cco 0 0 m N 00 `°' a) .� v a `�' 00 N N .--I .Q to c fl. co i a) N .--I N .--1 `) y CO en 4N+ a+ v a. d _C o 0) O O C y ^ Q. L C - Q.) Cu E O ti a E o oo u U >- ui +� U o 3 m II c O 0 L. w al VI ,1441 I. _.. Q L v U .0 Q U.. E b M 'ti 9• `O O 0 O LL 0 L CC u o Y 0 �- o a w c �, 3C m H o ct N oo�ai1 N M + O n1 O v CO ra .° } 14 N M N N a Q fl y n v t a H cu CO a) 41 °- O a ,� 0 0 � (/) L aJ u cu . 3 . ° - a) 0_L 3 9 Q d °' o o an .0 O C « o c Y t, C e o o a) a a) a`) 00 V) m M Q.0 +° 00 vii N N .0 ,° C `�- L 3 i• E Cu �i ri -i ri .... ate) a°) .c o O ° °ro r_ L• CC 00 a v� '0.- Q 0.ro CD ea C ,tea). m `e a`) 2 o v a) ism al 0 ''nn in to N a) '^ �. u CO VJ I V 4 C ` _c L �. O N �/ N C (7 10+ ~ .n O co vine a) o /\ ��. u0�. N d 'O 4 a) CO 0. O vi W u p N 0 r [� r CO u a) A LC rn O Cr) Ol rn 0 O 0) ar " W m N • N 4 i0 N CO H u '121 E CO ~ 0 Lc) N C u a) O • u .a c C w t ,� w O V 7 0 0 �+ o a a CD o= '1 3 0 3 o a' o o C = w o a) a a Q ,, '� C , .0 C7 0 a) m v r o CO CO as > re , t v o i�+ Q 0 "S -= O .O c co 0 In C r N oo �' o v 3 3 t —I LO m 8 O a) C9 0) a) C OT CU OC N Q N t-1 •-i Q U fl. -,,,�— H Q CO U) - Ca a O. a E E a E a) '� 0 a) ai w o w a, O. u o a °, o Ez 0 r Q O ne. a G t t .. �n O x C. N a) 4.6 CO O_ o a Z `M°. i^ a) 3 v 6. 0 c , 3 a CO O "- ° Q o W H O o •y a) ac ? ~ a) vi > U T I> C a) a) 0 m G E 6 ° ova) ° 0 U' a) (7 X w O o u ar (0 a) c ac) a 2 0 h c ^ 3 ` c 0- a) v c a M o\° U 0 L =O -0 H C O 4-- LL4 N N 0 a) 0 X d 01 it W ,� 44.1 ro CD 2 � a' N. .+ V1 a) N y a) N . a1 +°' !- 'to ` H Q a d Z ;"--I N O N M H H a, C L N L CO .0, o N- N n I. C i- .-I a0 n '00 L as N +-' C V, r0 'o U 03 4.) > �' O a O a c o L c E Q ( r. h C' afi, /p G N N N �'l .Q 2 O 3 C) II aC■ Q. n O C H to O a, N w 3 w N. O Q O `.., L CU H U a, y. O O ..y - v N 0 m II Q w aN, > o c 0 4 a H 'b a 7 Ca m o .. v 3 V w u O a, c vi O �/1 C ttO O LL w Q o cc fO o m >- •� L r--- Q o = O w 7 o LL a n ,�� p w h. 2 a`Oi y L 0 o fV u'I O N a, C a0 0 c U - L 0 �o �n m C) O o C f0 CU x '•O c o E ��' ti ? 'a ° v, o av CI + y O u a ` S1 a ro CD Z 3 44 d c O .0 .. a. O v 0a a X' 0. a j c E ;c O H O 4.+ Q t T j c u 0 0 Q) «, ir ti 0., N a, -o � a s o N H 00 ,n m m = a (7 12 u LL m N N I.O. 0 1 CO O u v w �, Z o Q 0 0 ar a o IlN ,-i ri rl 4. V « L N u mSIM CI a o o a E c al amm .N, d ++ Q: . - O o d L a, U 03 ti W 0 �� a, d A •a Q Q O C N CO L LL N O IL 0. O. .0 rD r0 4J y W 0 n o n N 3 N LL o N N e O = °�' ro c a CU a C.) 00 O 4! N M o ( 0 0 VI 0 Ca Q .a > ? .} a ++ +L o E a a c a. LL O Q `1 Q a, co v`�i 0 0. }■ O N = O rn '„ Ln v o 0 t ti a t 3 o v T. up a--1 M Q O N v C - L O N c-I 14 N C /4 0 O CO O 0 V +W .. `o LD 3 a1°i 7 a, .a W v 0 E . N u v 131 0 C r0 —co ? 0) Cr L.V L. ~o, a0, 03 a g a oc, ,,C "C C7 ti E > c a m Wa, 0 u ti O ra m °' °' 4. C i, U �`� O O ti t c E d d ca.CO ro o _Ci a o m a �, o v 3 ° o co ra c ry.) a, (7 x v, ti 14. a E c u a, N �, E mC7 a o a co c To .L.. -" 3 O a m o C u ° c a, = m a o, L- x uu , E w L V t a, al O ~ O a, `o E .c o c v u ., LL „ I- 1- o o tz o 2 c; a ry m a, 3 -0 L 2 3 0 m 0 g o (7) N l0 n M n O• a/ L!1 m .--1 W w- >s Lo' Vt lfl N M O O M N N Q O E O F W L Q Lts Q T H Q ..' p 0 .^-i dl y 0 Lti 9 r v rcfi oe o\° 0 o a1 3 c 4 �� II 01 N - a/ 'u`i u co a co b w s 0 0.1 L L. i L L N O < c 0 u O a1 m R v O a0 N tp t0 N 00 CO 4 4 U �' aJ 4' `• O co 0 u O CO o u a _� c cu LL O aci '�' C Q a) a c°10 N R E 0 ^ ¢ y `v as v >. c a a w _0 CL o ; 3 CU 0 CL O ,� CU aci o1 M a o H .∎ w i 3 3 ti o a a D u 0 11 d 4 „ £ •Y N vc U L Q. ° 0 N CO ul 01 ° N = z v ? °o L N 3 0 v r. ao N 1- I- 3 a o v C c .--i N m N N N 0 a-. y fa LL L 0 .o v c .� H D 3 3 u `—° a N y M «, o 0 .� a o d a o 0 0 ■ d p o a 01 a w °' M H Q) L. ? 4 CO C a W +L+ ,'�, 00 m m y C Oi C v o o E m C O O 00 in v v CO as a) N ? m N N N lh rp v O +•'01 E N. .-i .-i .ti m as a) O a oc W o �, P v v 3 4+ f0 a L L T f6 c `.. 0 co m w « d m v O (7 _,, d 3 o >, D a u IA E 113 C4 a ri .-1 ti .ti •c 0 C u u ' 2 e, Q c \ u 3 0 -. c r- C7 l7 m a) a a a O y 0 yv_. N. 3 y a n a� /0� = 0 y d O N .o L a� o 0 2 O a t >• a N +-' ro ni t� w a�i 1... N 3 n v t Oc F > " u o O O 0 d ... , a a`) 0 m a1 �n co i H 3 ti m 0 o p E. .a o o c a C ?NI' O ^-i .-i ri .-I t=.1 j 6 ` m ? u .0 .% V a O ++ c 0`- O O .. i N o v E C t O 0 - N O so u v p L v vi' X a L.m a. U ai L. O an d .r N yC {n C a > C a7 f0 0 4/1+' C u 0 0 .N a a' 7 E 3 g cc 0 U 3 al ti `- L O a c aJ w c 'oo v « 4, O F N O •� ,CO O a1 c = v p al at -a > 4- 0 ` c a > ;C U L 0 op w -0 0 v 0 m t H E co c 0 v g CU l7 x N 7 7 •o c v a ° > ry c c > c 0 0 t`- e a E E avn (0 CD -a n a w N N m fO a) v CO 0 F N LL Ly 6J 3 Ql cx a I- L t a H f° C o v 3 a. O• I-- CL 0 F d F) z .=- .Y tf) N "ins o I EXHIBIT 4 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of San Ramon Road & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 87 505 198 115 '' k. 163 253 -.► r 243 342 7, 803 -N f r 575 1030 882 Total Traffic= 5,196 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 156 705 688 ,1 I t. 163 — 4.- 741 546 ++► •• 549 458 �, r 2077 803 1339 2539 c Total Traffic= 10,764 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,568 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 61% Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 3,396 I EXHIBIT 5 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of Golden Gate Drive & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes j4:j1 s sz l V 120 .•04 t 40 998 r 844 56 .� * /►r 53 1 1 121 16 103 Total Traffic= 2,479 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 203 5 241 292 .1 's. 165 2469 r 2068 637 ., 245 708 16 478 Total Traffic= 7,527 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,048 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 71% Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 3,584 EXHIBIT 6 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of Amador Plaza Road & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes r 94 1117 1 17 e 174 - L 173 857 ■•• 747 144 .149 310 71146 188 287 f Total Traffic= 3,422 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 227 371 321 r 1 L 363 .J L 234 1887 i■• r 1456 963 867 I e 845 434 1040 Total Traffic= 9,008 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 5,586 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 75% Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 4,190 EXHIBIT 7 Forecast Increase In Traffic At The Intersection Of Village Parkway & Dublin Boulevard Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 223 78 296 336 ' t 325 776 "'► r 923 215 .,, 201 '1 1 T r 66 28 8 Total Traffic= 3,475 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 540 85 527 I �. 751 ' t 463 1901 r r 1934 595 . 251 - 66 28 8 Total Traffic= 7,149 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 31674 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIFArea = 71% Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 2,609 EXHIBIT 8 Forecast Increase In Traffic On Dublin Boulevard On The Segment West of Amador Plaza Road Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 1 cu > Dublin Boulevard o _ 987 NI 16 a. CD1175 — O E -,a Total Traffic = 2,162 (Vehicles Per Hour) Cumulative + Max FAR PM Peak Hour Volumes 4) -' Dublin Boulevard o -46— 2528 R 1p a w 3213 ■r o E Total Traffic= 5,741 (Vehicles Per Hour) DDSP EIR Traffic Growth at this Intersection = 3,579 Percent Of Trips Assumed To Be Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 70% Future Traffic Growth Theoretically Attributable to the WDTIF Area = 2,505 EXHIBIT 9 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1117/2016 * Lane Group Flow(vph) 317 2684 692 266 2427 770 272 265 262 226 v!c Ratio 1.06 1.10 0.74 1.12 1.08 1.10 0.75 0.74 0.91 0.76 Control Delay 123.3 86.8 20.2 149.0 82,9 114.3 27,1 25.2 92.9 28.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.3 86.8 20.2 149.0 91.1 114.3 27.1 25.2 92.9 28.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) -311 -998 261 -275 -890 -402 47 41 236 20 Queue Length 95th(ft) #553 #1217 486 #497 #1104 #588 154 144 #441 108 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1202 560 557 808 Turn Bay Length(ft) 240 230 130 130 Base Capacity(vph) 300 2443 937 237 2244 703 440 437 287 379 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.06 1.10 0.74 1.12 1.23 1.10 0.62 0.61 0.91 0.60 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 4 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 f r '~ k" 4\ t , \ d Lane Configurations 11 +++ r ) to, VI r II I Volume(veh/h) 292 2469 637 245 2068 165 708 16 478 241 5 203 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh imp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 317 2684 692 266 2248 179 770 0 531 262 5 221 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 284 2305 718 225 2019 159 686 0 507 272 4 186 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.00 0.16 0.15 0,12 0.12 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 4808 379 3548 0 3167 1774 35 1553 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 317 2684 692 266 1578 849 770 0 531 262 0 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1796 1774 0 1583 1774 0 1589 0 Serve(g_s),s 24.0 68.0 63,7 19.0 63.0 63.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 22.0 0.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 24.0 68.0 63.7 19.0 63.0 63.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 22.0 0.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 284 2305 718 Alk 225 1424 754 686 0 507 272 0 191 V/C Ratio(X) 1.12 1.16 0.96 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.12 0.00 1.05 0.96 0.00 1.19 Avail Cap(c_a),vehih 284 2305 718 ii 225 1424 754 686 0 507 272 0 191 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 111.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 63.0 41.0 39.8 65.5 43.5 43.5 60.5 0.0 63.0 63.1 0.0 66.0 Ina Delay(d2),s/veh 88.5 79.1 25.0 118.6 59.3 73.2 73.2 0.0 53.1 44.4 0.0 124.1 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile Back0fQ(50%),veh/ln 18.7 48,7 32.7 16.7 41.2 46.5 21.2 0.0 14.2 14.1 0.0 14.5 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 151.5 120.1 64.8 184.1 102.8 116.7 133.7 0.0 116.1 107.4 0.0 190.1 LnGrp LOS F F E F F F F F F F Approach Vol,veh/h 3693 2693 1301 488 Approach Delay,s/veh 112.4 115.2 126.6 145.7 aa Approach LOS F F F F Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 27.0 28 0 `` 3 0 =72.0 e 33.0 22.0 28.0 67.0 iimmillIIIII Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 23.0 24.0$19.0 68.0 29.0 18.0 24.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 24.0 26.0 21.0 70.0 31.0 20.0 26.0 65.0 Green i=xt Time(p c),.kit 0,0 ilit D.Diks:0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 iimiimmillin HCM0 0 L 'Delay 11 ';`_ HCM 2010 LOS F User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 Lane Group Flow(vph) 317 3376 266 2427 770 17 520 262 226 We Ratio 1.07 1.39 1.33 1.11 1.40 0.05 1.18 1.31 0.57 Control Delay 130.9 209.8 227.1 96.6 236,2 51.6 136.7 219.9 14.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 130.9 209.8 227.1 97.0 236.2 51.6 136.7 219.9 14.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) -344 -1604 -336 -991 -518 14 -451 -328 8 Queue Length 95th(ft) #541 #1667 #521 #1078 #648 38 #685 #513 91 Internal Link Dist(ft) 1202 560 557 819 Turn Bay Length(ft) 240 230 130 130 Base Capacity(vph) 295 2428 200 2185 549 335 439 200 399 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.07 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.40 0.05 1.18 1.31 0.57 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. I Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 3: Golden Gate Dr & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 - - N i c - 4 4\ t P \* 1 d Lane Configurations 1 +ill ¶ +Tl VI 1' r 1 to Volume(vehlh) 292 2469 637 245 2068 165 708 16 478 241 5 203 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh ililli317 2684 692 266 2248 179 770 17 520 262 5 221 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor ''"'0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 296 1997 476 201 2083 164 551 335 285 201 5 207 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.49 0.49 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.18 0,18 0.11 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 4103 977 1774 4808 379 3442 1863 1583 1774 35 1553 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 317 2179 1197 266 1578 849 770 17 520 262 0 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In f 1774 1695 1690 1774 1695 1796 1721 1863 1583 1774 0 1589 0 Serve(g_s),s 25.0 73.0 73.0 17.0 65.0 65.0 24.0 1,1 27.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 25.0 73.0 73.0 „ 17.0 , 65.0 65.0 24.0 1.1 27.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.58 1.00 0,21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h ; X96 1650 823 *'201 1469 778 551 335 285 201 0 212 V/C Ratio(X) 1.07 1.32 1,46 1.32 1.07 1.09 1.40 0.05 1.82 1.30 0.00 1.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 1650 823 201 1469 778 551 335 285 201 0 212 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Fllter(1) INS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 62.5 38.5 38.5 66.5 42.5 42.5 63.0 50.9 61.5 66.5 0.0 65.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 72.8 148.6 211.7 175.7 46.1 60.0 190.1 0.1 384.5 167.7 0.0 80.7 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 18.2 68.2 82.4 18.1 39.8 45.2 X25.9 0.6 42.2 17.7 0.0 13.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 135.3 187.1 250.2 242.2 88.6 102.5 253.1 51,0 446.0 234.2 0.0 145.7 LnGrp LOS F F F F F F- F D F F F Approach Vol,vehlh 3693 2693 1307 488 Approach Delay,s/veh 203.1 108.24111Millit 327.2 tioriiimak 193.2 Approach LOS F F F F Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pits Duration 63+YfRc),s 24.0 3f.0 24.03 77.00 26.0 24.0 29.0 69.0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIII Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 27.0 A,17.0 73.0 24.0 20.0 25,0 65.0 irnimiammis Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 19.0 29.0 19.0 75.0 26.0 22.0 27.0 67.0 Green Ext Time(pc),s ,4110.0411111).0.41k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4111 0.0 0.0 Aiamimmi HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 191 1 HCM 2010 LOS F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 EXHIBIT 10 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 t c 4- 4\ t l� �► 1 Lane Group Flow(vph) 370 1926 983 885 1725 862 443 1061 328 379 232 v/c Ratio 1.61 1.39 1.23 1.65 1.14 1.68 0.62 1.34 1.51 1.30 0.57 Control Delay 332.5 218.9 135.5 337.5 119,2 347.9 42.1 187.1 296.7 206.7 18.3 Queue Delayf, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 332.5 218.9 135.5 337.5 119.2 347.9 43.8 187.3 296.7 206.7 18.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) -517 -914 -803 -644 -717 -1228 349 -1159 -229 -473 34 Queue Length 95th(ft) #726 #1008 #1068 #777 #815 #1486 471 #1426 #332 #682 124 Internal Link Dist(ft) 560 1105 566 1527 Turn Bay Length(ft) 200 300 100 100 Base Capacity(vph) 230 1389 801 537 1508 513 714 794 217 291 409 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 22 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.61 1.39 1.23 1.65 1.14 1.68 0.77 1.37 1.51 1.30 0.57 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 Lane Configurations 1 ++14 l Vs ++t 1 t r 111 t r Volume(vehJh).,, 4.1111363 1887 963 867 1456 234 845 434 1040 321 371 227 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh INN 0 0:it 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 imow 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h it 370 1926 983 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 231 1390 433 539 1326 213 514 714 607 218 292 248 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5085 1583 3442 4418 709 1774 1863 1583 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v),vehJh 370 1926 983 885 1140 585 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1738 1774 1863 1583 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.5 41.0 41.0 23.5 45.0 45.0 43.5 28.9 57.5 9.5 23.5 21.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.5 41.0 41.0 23.5 345.0 45.0 43.5 28.9 57.5 9.5 23.5 21.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 231 1390 . 433 539 31017 521 514.0 714 607 218 292 248 V/C Ratio(X) 1.60 1.39 2.27 1.64 1.12 1.12 1.68 0.62 1.75 1.50 1.30 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 231 1390 3433*:539 31017 521 514 714 607 218 292 248 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 100 31.00 31.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 65.3 54.5 54.5 63.3 52.5 52.5 53.2 37.4 46.3 70.3 63.2 62.5 Incr.Delay(d2),s/veh 291.3 178.1 579.5 296.9 367.5 77.8 312.4* 1.7 343.4 249.6 157.3 39.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 28.2 42.1 87.6 33.4 30.6 32.8 65.9 15.2 82.9 12.1 24.8 12.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 356.5 232,6 634.0 360.2 120.0 130.3 365.7 39.1 389.7 319.8 220.6 102.3 LnGrp LOS F F F iff F F F D Figk, F F F Approach Vol,veh/h 3279 2610 2366 939 Approach Delay,slveh . 366.9 203.7` . ,,, 315.3 113.3 226.0 Approach LOS F F F F Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.0 46.0 48.0 28.0 24.0 50.0 14:0 62,0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax).s 23.5 41.0 43.5 23.5 19.5111 45.0 9.5 57.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 25.5 43.0 45.5 25.5 21.5 47.0 11.5 59.5 seen Ext Time(p_c),s,iii` A < 0.0 0,0 0.0 11111111111111111111111111 HCM 2010 LOS F 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 Queues Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 C 4- 1 `► ' Lane Group Flow(vph) 370 2909 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 v/c Ratio 1.04 1.89 2.31 0.91 0.36 2.32 0.78 1,41 1.92 1.42 0.60 Control Delay 115.9 431.2 623.7 57.5 7.1 629.6 58.9 216.9 468.4 253.6 20.4 Queue Delay almis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 115.9 431,2 623.7 57.5 7.1 629.6 60.1 216.9 468.4 253.6 20.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) -390 -1579 -1406 510 10 -1372 398 -1111 -253 -498 38 Queue Length 95th(ft) #599 #1655 #1666 576 76 #1629 537 #1378 #356 #707 130 internal Link Dist(ft) 560 1105 566 1527 Turn Bay Length(ft) 200 300 350 100 100 Base Capacity(vph) 355 1540 383 1640 862 371 565 753 171 267 388 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 1.89 2.31 0.91 0.36 2.32 0.82 1.41 1.92 1.42 0.60 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. I! Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 4: Amador Plaza Rd & Dublin Valley Blvd 1/17/2016 t -- . • C ♦- k- 4\ t P \* 1 4/ Lane Configurations /3 ++T '1 44+ r ' + r "Pi t r Volume(veh/h) 363 1887 963 867 1456 234 845 434 1040 321 371 227 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(0b),veh OWN. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 370 1926 983 >885 41486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.980 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehih` 356 1062 467 0;,384„ 1641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,veh/h <. - 3463 1521 1774 5085 1583 1774 1863 1583 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 370 1879 1030 885 1486 239 862 443 1061 328 379 232 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1774 1695 1594 ' 1774 1695 1583 1774 1863 1583 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 30.1 46.0 46.0 32.5 41.9 18.1 31,5 32.6 45.5 7.5 21.5 21.5 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), , 301 46.0 46.0 032.5 _ 41.9 18.1 31.5 32.6 45.5 7.5 21.5 21.5 Prop in Lane 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 356 1040 489 ''?384 641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 1.81 2.11 2.30 0.91 0.47 2.31 0.78 2.21 1.91 1.42 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 356 1040 4890 384 1641 511 373 565 480 172 267 227 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 01.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 60.0 52.0 52.0 58.8 48.6 40.5 59.3 47.8 52.3 71.3 64.3 64.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 58.3 367.1 505.0 594.3 7.6 0.7 599.6 7.1 550.9 428.7 209.4 65.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 %lie BackOfQ(50%o),veh/ln 20.5 74.5 88.8 79.4` ":20.8 8.0 77.5 17.9 93.4 13.8 26.6 13.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 118.2 419.1 557.0 653.0 56.2 41.2 658.8 54.9 603.1 499.9 273.6 130.0 LnGrp LOS F F F Fes' E D F OF F F F Approach Vol,veh/h 3279 2610 2366 939 Approach Delay,s/veh 428.5 257.2 520.8 317.2 Approach LOS F F F F AssignedPhs 1 2 3 4 3 8 7 8 PYrs Uura[rart(G4Y-Rc),s 37.G 54.0 36.0 26.0 34.6 53.4 f2.0 50.0 jwarim Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 32.5 46.0 31.5 21.5 30.1 48.4 7.5 45.5 iimas . , <.>___._. Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 34.5 48.0 33.5 23.5 32.1 43.9 9.5 47.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s: ' 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 . m 20iD- HCM 2010 LOS F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 2 EXHIBIT 11 Arterial Level of Service Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 111712016 Arterial Level of Service: EB Dublin Valley Blvd Villa.e maiiiiisto, f< diailiktutiew Total 111 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Dublin Valley Blvd 11.6 E Total III 27.1 49.5 76.6 0.23 10.6 E i 2004 TIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1 Arterial Level of Service Cumulative + MaxFAR PM 111712016 Arterial Level of Service: EB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy III 35 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Total III 26.9 199.6 226.5 0.22 3.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Dublin Valley Blvd Village Pkwy III 35 27.1 118.3 145.4 0.23 5.6 F Total III 27.1 118.3 145.4 0.23 5.6 F Proposed WDTIF Project Synchro 8 Report City of Dublin Page 1