Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 034-89 TIF HeritageCommRESOLUTION NO. 34 - 89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 88-009.2 - HERITAGE COMMONS Recitals WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 33 - 89, the City Council has approved a tentative map for a subdivision known as Heritage Commons (PA 88-009.2), Tentative Map 5883 (hereafter "the proposed development"); and WHEREAS, one condition of approval of the Tentative Map (Condition No. 68) is that the developer pay a traffic impact fee to be used for traffic facility improvements; and WHEREAS, a report setting forth the impacts of the proposed development on traffic through the year 2010 has been prepared by TJKM, along with an analysis of the need of the public facilities and improvements required by future development, consisting of a memorandum dated December 5, 1988 to Lee Thompson from Michelle DeRobertis of TJKM, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein (referred to herein as "the report"); and WHEREAS, said report sets forth the relationship between the proposed development, the needed facilities and the estimated costs of the facilities; and WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was held for purposes of considering adoption of this resolution; and limpact.fee January 4, 1989 WHEREAS, the report was available for public inspection and review more than ten (10) days prior to this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves that: 1. The purpose of the said traffic impact fee is to mitigate the traffic impacts caused by the proposed development by construction of certain public facilities. 2. The public facilities to be constructed with the traffic impact fee (referred to herein as "the public facilities") are identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof (Memorandum of December 5, 1988, from Michelle DeRobertis of TJKM to Lee Thompson, re Traffic Mitigation Fee for Heritage Commons). 3. The traffic impact fee is needed in order to finance the public facilities and to pay for the proposed development's fair share of the construction of the improvements and will be used for these purposes. 4. The Council finds the fee to be consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code § 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the housing Element of the General Plan. 5. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities identified in Exhibit A. 6. After considering the report prepared by TJKM (Exhibit A), and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council approves and adopts said report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the proposed development will generate limpact.fee January 4, 1989 2 additional demands on municipal services. 7. The report and the testimony establish: (a) That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities designated in Exhibit A and the impacts of the proposed development for which the corresponding fee is charged; (b) That there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the proposed development for which the fee is charged; (c) That there is 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 proposed development on which the fee is imposed; and (d) That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit A are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total costs of constructing the public facilities identified in Exhibit A. 8. The TJKM report (Exhibit A) is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by the proposed development, the existing deficiencies, and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies. The calculations and assumptions in the report can reasonably be applied to the proposed development. 9. The method of allocation of the traffic impact fee to the proposed development bears a fair and reasonable relationship limpact.fee 3 January 4, 1989 to the proposed development's burden on, and benefit from, the facilities to be funded by the fee. 10. A traffic impact fee in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A and condition No. 68 to Tract Map 5883 is hereby imposed, to be paid prior to filing the final map for Tract 5883. The Council finds that Exhibit A is the "plan" required by Government Code § 53077.5. 11. (a) The traffic impact fee shall be placed in the Capital Improvement Fund and shall be segregated in separate and special accounts as provided herein and such revenues,along with any interest earnings on each account, shall be used for the following purposes: (1) To pay for design and construction of the public facilities described in Exhibit A and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; (2) To reimburse the City for the public facilities described in Exhibit A, constructed by the City with funds from other sources, unless the City funds were expended to remedy existing deficiencies as identified in Exhibit A or were obtained from grants or gifts; and (3) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the traffic impact fee program. 12. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be deposited into deposit accounts for the improvement projects identified in Exhibit A and identified by developer or development limpact.fee 4 January 4, 1989 being charged. 13. (a) Fees in the Capital Improvement Fund, and interest thereon, shall be expended only for those facilities listed in Exhibit A and only for the purpose for which the fee was collected; and (b) The standards upon which the needs for facilities are based are the standards of the City. The City has undertaken an extensive capital improvement program to implement these standards and the City will remedy existing deficiencies without using proceeds of the traffic impact fee. 14. The City Manager may develop rules and regulations for the effective implementation and administration of the traffic impact fee. 15. (a) No later than June 30, 1990 and June 30 of each year thereafter, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the. City Council identifying the balance of fees in the improvement projects' deposit account, the facilities constructed and the capital facilities to be constructed. In preparing the report, the City Manager shall adjust the estimated cost of the public improvements in accordance with the Engineering Construction Cost Index as published by Engineering News Record for the elapsed time period from the previous July 1 or the date that the cost estimate was developed. The annual report shall also include a review of the administrative charge; and (b) The City Council shall review the report at a noticed public hearing and shall make findings identifying the limpact.fee 5 January 4, 1989 purpose to which the existing fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 16. The fees imposed herein shall be effective 60 days following adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVEDAND ADOPTED this 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 27 th day of March, 1989 Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffrey, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt None Councilmember Snyder ATTE~q~: limpact.fee January 4, 1989 Q~DATE: / becember 5, 1988 : TO: Lee Thompson MEMORANDUM DEC 9 1988 I:)UBUN PI.ANNIN.G.' FROM: SUBJECT: MichclIc DcRobertis , Traffic Mitigation Fee for Heritage Commons This memo is to present the results of our analysis to determine appropriate traffic mitigation fees for the second phase of the Coastfed Properties/Heritage Commons residential project on Amador Valley Boulevard in the City of Dublin. The project consists of 206 one, two and three bedroom multi-family residential units. The traffic generated by the project has been estimated to impact several Iocations in .the City of Dublin. The project traffic along with cumulative traffic will require that certain traffic improvements be implemented in order to accommodate the future traffic. Tti'e first improvement required as a result of project and cumulative traffic is the widening of Dougherty Road from two lanes to six lanes between Amador Valley Boulevard and Sierra Lane. The funding for half of the new four lane section has already been committed by another source. However, the cost to improve the remaining half of thL- new four-lane road, and the cost to widen from a four-lane road to a six-lane road as well as undergrounding the utilities {which arc currently located in what will be a travel lane of the sixdane road) still remains uriCuntied. Therefore, the project should contribute to the cost of these unfundcd improvements in proportion to its share of the new future traffic volumes. The cost of the road widening improvements is estimated by the City Engineer to be $1,556,000 and the cost of undergrounding the utilities is estimated to be 5569,500, totalling $2,125,500. The Coastfed Properties Traffic and Transportatio.n Study by Abrams Associates, November 2, 1988, determined that the project will contribute 318 vehicles per day to this section of Dougherty Road. The future daily volumes on this section of Dougherty Road are projected to be 34,100 in the year 2010. The existing average daily traffic volume on this road segment is 12,900. Thus the increase in daily traffic is 21,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The project's contribution of 318 vpd is '1.5 percent of the total new future daily traffic volume. Therefore, the project should contribute 1.5 percent of the cost of improving Dougherty Road to a six-lane s~ction, or $31,882. The second improvcment rcquircd to accommodate projcct and future traffic is the widcni~ of Dougheny .Ro.ad from two lanes to six lanes three permanent lanes and one temporary lane of the required six-lane section has alrcady been committed by another source. However, the 4637 Chabot Drive. Suit PLEAS,, - Lcc Thompson ~ cost to widcn from a fourolanc road to a six-lane road still rcmalns unfund~c[ Therefore, the project should contribute to the cost of those unfundcd ~mprovcmcnts in proportion to its share of the additional futu~6 ~r~ffic volumc~. The c~fim~icd cos~ cf thc~c ~mprovcmcn~ ~s The Coastfed Traffic Study pro~cc~cd ~hat 80 project trips would use Dou~hcrty Eo~d north of Areadot Y~llcy Boulevard..The future estimated daily traffic on ~hi~ ~ccfion cf Dcu~hcrty Eoad in Xhc ycir 2010 is 2~,100. The cxlsfing traffic volumc ~s ~300, ~o ~hc nc~ lncrc~c in traffic is 18,800 vpd. Thc~.projcct ~rafflc would bc 0.~ percent cf ~his ~ddifional future ir~ffic. Therefore, the projcc~ should contribute 0.4 pcrccn~ cf ~hc cos~ cC ~hc improvements or ~9,318. The third improvement rcqukcd as a result of project and cumulative traffic volumes is the installation of a traffic signal at thc intersection of Areadot Valley Boulevard and Areadot Plaza Road. The methodology for determining the prop. ortlonatc cost sharing of this improvement was developed previouslS': for the Rainbow Investments mitigation fee in our memo dated October 25, 1988 and will be reiterated here. The future traffic volumes at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road were determined for the Downtown Ddblin Improvement Plan Study of 1986. These volumes included the traffic generated by all approved developments as well as all future developments that could be accommodated in Downtown Dublin, including BART. The future volumes at this intersection were compared to the' existing volumes to determine the total number of incremental trips as of February, 1986, the time of the downtown study. In 1986, there were 2,199 p.m. peak hour trips through the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. The future traffic projections at buildout at the intersection are 3,087 p.m. peak - hour trips. This is an increase of 888 p.m. peak hour trips. , The projected total cost of the signal at Amador Yalley Boulcvard and Areadot Plaza Road, is $127,766 (see attachment). Therefore, the cost of each peak hour trip through the intersection is $144, (5127,766 divided by 888 peak hour trips). This mitigation fee of $144 per p.m. peak hour irip through the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Areadot Plaza Road was applied to the peak hours trips projected for the Coastfed development. The Abrams Associates traffic study projected that 53 project trips would travel through the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project should contribute 53 X $144 = S7,632 toward the cost of this traffic signal. The fourth improvement required as a result of project and cumulative traffic volumes is the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Village ~arkway and LeVis Avenue. The futurd/raffle v~iumcs at the i'n~hrsection of'Viilaid ~arkway and Lewis Avenue were determined for the Downtown Dublin Improvement Plan Study of 1986. These volumes included the traffic generated by Lee Thompson o3Z ' ': :.(:, December 5, 1988 all approvcd developments as well as all future developments that could bc accOinmodatcd in Downtown Dublin, including BART. The future volumes at this intersection wcrc comparcd to the existing volumes to dc ~'nc the total number of incremental trips as of February, 1986, tc~ x thg~timc of the downtown study. In 1986, there wcrc 1826 p.m'. peak hour trips through the intersection of Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue. The future projection at build-out through this intersection is 2,278 p.m. peak hour trips. This is an increase of 452 p.m. peak hour trips. The projected total cost of the signal at Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue is approximately $97,j00 (see attachment). Therefore, the cost that each new peak hour trip through the intersection should contribute is $97,700 / 452 = $216. The Abrams Associates report projected that 31 p.m. peak hour trips would travel through the intersection of Village Parkway affd Lewis Avenue. Therefore, the project should contribute 31 X $216 = 56,696 to the cost of this signal. The fifth improvement is the restripi~g and associated widening of Dublin Boulevard from four to six lanes between Village Parkway and DonIon Way. The estimated cost of this improvement is $870,000. Dublin Boulevard is projected to carry an average of 30,100 vpd in the ye.ar 2010 between Village Parkway and Donlon Way. The existing a~erage daily traffic volume on this road segment is 21,575. Thus the increase in daily traffic is 8,525 vpd over present volumes. The project is estimated to contribute 159 vpd to Dublin Boulevard or 1.9 percent of the additional future traffic. Therefore, the project should contribute 1.9 percent of the cost of the improvement or S870,000 X 0.019 = 516,530. , The sixth roadway improvement is widening Dougherty Road to six lanes between the S.P.R.R. tracks and Dublin Boulevard. The estimated cost of this improvement is $870,000. This section of Dougherty Road is projected to carry 32,100 vpd in the year 2010. The existing 'average daily traffic volume on this road segment is 18,800 vpd. Thus, the increase in daily traffic is 13,300 vpd over present volumes. The project is estimMed to contribute 270 vpd to Dougherty Road or t~vo percent of the additional f-uture traffic. Therefore, the project should contribute two percent of the cost of this improvement or 5870,000 X 0.02 = 517,400. The seventh road~vay improvement is the construction of the parallel road to Dublin Boulevard between Regional Street and Areadot Plaza Road. The estimated cost of this improvement is 53,000,000. The parallel road to Dublin Boulevard is projected to carry approximately 5,000 vpd. Since this road does not currently exist, all 5,000 trips would be new trips. The project is estimated to contribute 8 vpd tO the parallel road or 0.16 percent of the traffic. Therefore, the .:,-,- ~.-:~.~.-pr.ojcct: .s.h,ou,ld,c.o~n tr. ibut:c-..-.O.,1f..r;erc_c~.t .o-f the cost. of, this.,.,~osd improvcmcnt or S3,000,000 X 0,0016 = S4800, · ': :'" Th~-5'80 westbound offramp is projected to carry JB,O00 vpd) an cr of lI,700 vpd over present volumes. No project traffic is in ease ~tlmated to use this off-ramp. Therefore, the project should not contribute any funds to this road improvement. 9. The ninth' road improvement is the road on the S.P~. right-of-way . connecting Dougherty ~oad~to the westerly extension of Dublin ;.... Boulevard. The estimated cost of this improvement is $3,100,000. The ~oad on the s.P.E.R right-of-wa~ is p;ojceted to carry 12,400 vpd. Since this road does not currently exist, all 12,400 trips would be new trips. The 'project is estimated to contribute 48 vpd to this road or · 0.4 percent of the traffic. Therefore,. the project should contribute 0.4 percent of the cost of this road improvement or $3,100,000 X 0.004 = S12,400. Attachments 157-001 7 '-' · - ' ": ' Clear &'Grub '~Sidb#alk Removal · ~.. Island Removal -' Pavement Removal .- AC Sa~cuZ ~CC Sawcu: Full Pavement Section; ConsUruczion ScAkin~ Planin~ Keycuu AC Overlay PCC Curb Curb & Gutter Sidewalk -Handicap Ramp Driveway Relocate'Roadway Sign Roadway'Sign 'S~rip~ng Engineering/Insp. 12% 63,400 500 840 4,360 8,000 ~75 '41 19,436 1,250 3,019 2,368 4,875 64 424 400 900 400 425 2,500 114,077 13.689 TOTAL: $ 127,766 To: From: December 2, 1988 Michelle DeRobertis, TJFJ{ Rich Liefly, Asst. City Engineer DEC '5 7888 TJ KM Subject: Signal Costs - Village Parkway at Lewis Ave. Following is a breakdo-~n of costs for the above traffic signal: Mobilization Signal Clear and Grub Sidewalk Removal Pavement Removal AC Sawcut PCC Sawcut Construction Staking Curb & Gutter Sidewalk Handicap Ramp Driveway Str ip in g. Traffic Cont~o! Intercorm. Conduit 2" Interconn. Conduit 11/2" Intercorm. Pull Box Intercorm. Cable 900 69,000 100 800 1,427 275 90 500 64 424 400 900 1,CO0 1,300 1,500 5,500 625 2,400 Sub to tal: Engr./Inspection 12% 87,205~00 10,464.60 Total: 97,669.60 Rounded Total: 97,700.00 Also, Trudi wanted you to know that Dougher~: Road north of ~_mador Valley is already undergrounded. If you have any questions, please let me know. RCL/gr