HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 EDublinTrffcImpctFee (2)
'.
i
.~..,.' . ,.
.....':,./.-.....---
.
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 9, 1995
SUBlECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
(to be available at Council meeting)
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee/Area of Benefit Fee
Report by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
/ I. Proposed "Resolution Establishing a Traffic Impact Fee and Area
of Benefit Fee for ~ture Developments within the Eastern
Dublin Area" (I-A) and Alternate Resolution without Area of
Benefit Fee (I-B) /
/2. Land Use Map (Figure 2b, General Plan - Eastern Extended
Planning Area) [Exhibit A to draft Resolution]
/ 3. Traffic Impact Fee Report by Barton-Aschman & Associates
(Nov. 1994) [Exhibit B to draft Resolution]
/ 4. Report of Roadway Costs by Santina & Thompson
(Exhibit C to draft Resolution)
/ 5. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Chapter 5.0
I 6. Location Map of proposed TIF Improvement Projects
I 7. Government Code section 65913.2
/ 8. Memorandum dated November 29, 1994 (Senior Planner
to Director of Public Works)
/ 9. Written Comments Received, with Responses
1. Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 91103064) for
Specific Plan, and May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 Addenda
2. Resolution No. 53-93, including Mitigation Monitoring Program
3. General Plan
4. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
5. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff Report and public comment
3. Close public hearing, determine value of protests (to area of
benefit fee only) and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Imposing Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
and Area of Benefit Fee (Resolution I-A) or Alternate Resolution
(Resolution I-B) Imposing Traffic Impact Fee only ifmajority
protest received.
The cost of preparing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee report is included in the fee.
DID.S~WPTION: The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
wel'eadlDwted by the City ilL 1993. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) outlines future land use plans for
thc~imRUd1Y ~1l'~6,.acn.'~tm5tern Dublin sphere of influence. Approximately 13,906 dwelling units- ..
ana 9..1371 m.w.ilimn> SlI!J.1lWW' feet JAft.o:JilU'IW'cial/office/industrial development are anticipated in the GP A
area, in aii.lldlitlioo to pllZkr;S;, open space and institutional uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SP)
provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for the approximately 3313-acre
portion of the GPA nearest the City. Approximately 2744 acres to the east of the City's sphere of
influence are designated on the Land Use Map (Exhibit 2) as "Future Study Area." The GPA does not
outline future land uses in this area and this area was not considered in developing the Traffic Impact Fee.
- - - - - - - - - . .. ;..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ITEM NO.: ~ ~~S TO: Pl'operty Owners
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
e
e
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103064).
The EIR was certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993. (resolution. 51-93). Two addenda, dated
May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994, have been prepared.
Chapter 5.0 of the SP addresses Traffic and Circulation. The existing roads are generally rural in
character and adequately serve existing development in the area which is rural residential. (EIR p.2-3.)
The transportation and circulation systems for the SP are designed to provide convenient access to and
mobility within the SP area. Chapter 5.0 describes the planned freeway, freeway interchange and road
improvements necessary for implementation of the SP (SP, 5.1.2) and describes the road system which
was "designed to maximize the free flow of traffic by creating a highly interconnected system that
accommodates the movement of vehicles while enhancing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle
circulation." (SP 5.2.1)
The road system is characterized by three major north-south and east-west streets to accommodate traffic
in the SP area. (SP 5.2.1) The north-south streets are Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
and the east-west streets are Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine and Gleason Road. These streets are all
planned as major four- or six-lane streets to accommodate the SP development. The traffic study for the
Specific Plan and EIR used peak hour traffic trips to properly size the major roadways so that the expected
peak hour traffic flow (heaviest traffic) would be accommodated. Figure 5.1 from the SP shows the major
streets and their widths. Other streets necessary for development of the SP are local roads which will be
constructed by developers to provide access to their properties as they develop. No fees are necessary to
provide for such roads.
The SP also identifies certain freeway improvements and interchange improvements necessary to
accommodate traffic to and from the SP area. (SP 5.2.12) The SP includes a policy (Policy 5-10) that
transit service should be provided within one-quarter mile of95 percent of the SP population. It also
establishes park-and-ride lots adjacent to freeway interchanges on the three north-south streets. (SP 5.7.2)
Finally, to encourage non-motorized forms of transportation, the SP provides for a network of pedestrian
trails (Policy 5-15) and bike paths (Policy 5-17 and Figure 5.3).
In analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the EIR assumed that certain improvements would be
constructed and that development within the SP/GP A areas would pay its proportionate share of the cost
of such improvements. (EIR, page 3.3-16 to 3.3-18) The EIR also includes a number of mitigation
measures to mitigate the transportation-related impacts of the project. (EIR, page 3.3-19 to 3.3-29) These
mitigation measures were adopted by the City Council as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
(Resolution No. 53-93)
The General Plan contains a policy that new development pay for infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the development. (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C) The SP contains a similar goal and
policy. (Policy 10-1, page 151)
The City Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee ordinance at its December 12, 1994, meeting (Ord.
No. 14-94). This ordinance provides the authority for adoption of the proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee.
The Council authorized the preparation of a study to determine the amount and method of apponioning
the fee. Barton-Aschman Associates has prepared a report (the "Report") which identifies the
. transportation and traffic improvements which are required for development of the SP and GP A areas and
how the costs of the improvements should be allocated to different types of development.
Page 2.
A separate study was prepared by Santimi & Thompson which provides estimates of the cost of
constructing the improvements which are included in Categories 1 and 2. of the Report. Barton-Aschman
Associates prepared the cost estimates for the Category 3 improvements as part of th_e Tri- Valley
Transportation Council study done by Barton-Aschman.
The purpose of the proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Fee) is to provide for transportation and
traffic improvements necessary for development of the SP/GPA areas. The Fee would be used to pay for
the needed traffic improvements and transportation measures to implement and develop the SP/GPA
e
e
areas. Development within the SP/GPA areas creates the need for the transportation and traffic
improvements identified in the Report.
The Report divides the required transportation and traffic improvements into three categories (see Exhibit
6 for location of projects):
Category 1 (or Section I) improvements are those improvements within the SP area which are
needed for development of the SP and GPA.areas. The Report concludes that development within
the SP/GPA areas should contribute 100% of the funding for these improvements. Because the
existing improvements within the SP/GP A area are adequate for existing development, there are
no "existing deficiencies" which must be funded by sources other than new development within
the area.
Category 2 (or Section II) improvements are those improvements located within Dublin which are
needed not only for the development of the SP/GPA areas but for other development within
Dublin and the surrounding areas. The Report calculated the SP/GPA's proportionate share of
these improvements.
Category 3 (or Section III) improvements are improvements of a regional nature which are not
within Dublin but are needed for development of the SP/GPA areas as well as other development
within the Tri-Valley area. The Report calculates the SP/GPA's proportionate share of these
regional improvements.
Government Code section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. This resolution is one step in
the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13,906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
The total cost of all improvements attributed to the SP IGP A areas is calculated to be $101,444,240. This
is broken down as follows:
Category 1 Improvements:
Category 2 Improvements:
Category 3 Improvements:
$ 71,911.500
$ 19,118,740
$ 10,414,000
The Report determined that development of the SP/GPA areas will generate 423,787 daily vehicle trips.
The Report concludes that "pass-by" trips account for 35% of certain retail trips, and therefore reduces the
daily vehicle trips to 346,525.
The Report compares the relationship between the total number of trips for residential development
(136,674) and non-commercial development less the 35% reduction (209,851) and concludes that
residential development's share of the total cost is $39,969,030 and the non-residential development's
share is $61,475,210.
The cost per trip is then detennined to be:
Category 1 $ 208
Category 2 $ 55
Category 3 .L.lQ
Total: $ 293
Page 3.
The cost per unit for residential development is then calculated to be $3,355 for single-family and $2,350
for multi-family development.
Non-residential develupment results in a fee of $293 per trip. The number of trips for non-residential
development will be detennined by the estimated weekday trip generation rates for different uses and
types of development. Weekday traffic rates are used as they represent the average traffic use on the
. ~
e
e
roadways, and thus, better relate to the maintenance costs and life of the streets than do the peak hour
traffic rates. Weekday trips also reflect the actual use of the streets by different uses and types of
development. The proposed fee will charge development its proportionate share of the actual use of the
streets. If the fee were based on peak hour traffic rates, the amount of the fee would be skewed towards
uses which produce more traffic at peak hours, but may produce less overall traffic. The average trip
generation rates are based on ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) and San Diego Association
Government Trip Generation Rate data (see Exhibit 'E' to resolution).
The fee for non-residential development would be payable at the time a building permit is issued.
Residential developers would pay the fee at the time of final inspection. When the Council includes the
improvements in its capital improvement program, the resolution can be amended to require residential
development to pay the fee at the time of building permit.
Staff will monitor the amount of fees collected, the cost of construction, the amount of development and
other relevant information in order to return to the Council periodically for Council review of the amount
of the fee. The amount ofthe fee would also be adjusted if the Council adopts a regional transportation
fee recommended by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council for regional improvements. Such a fee would
replace the Category 3 fee.
The draft resolution would also impose an "area of benefit" fee. Ordinance No. 10-94, which was adopted
by the Council on October 24, 1994, authorizes the establishment of an "area of benefit" for the
construction of major thoroughfares and bridges unless written protests are received from owners of more
than one-half the area to be benefited.
There are six major thoroughfares in Eastern Dublin (Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road,
Dublin Boulevard, Transit Spine and Gleason Road) and three bridges. These improvements are included
within Category 1 (Section I) in the Barton-Asclunan report and the imposition of the proposed Traffic
Impact Fee would duplicate an area of benefit fee for construction of such improvements. However,
because the Specific Plan calls for adoption of an area of benefit fee and to eliminate any doubt as to
validity of a traffic impact fee to pay for the construction of such improvements, Staff has drafted the
proposed resolution to satisfy both the procedural requirements for adoption of a fee under the
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (Ord. No. 14-94) and the Area of Benefit Ordinance (Ord.Pio.
10-94).
The area of benefit fee will be less than the Traffic Impact Fee for Category 1 improvements because
other improvements are included within Category 1 which cannot be imposed by an area of benefit fee.
The area of benefit fee will be collected only in the event that the Traffic Impact Fee for the same
improvements is held to be legally invalid (see Section 11 of proposed alternate resolution). This assures
that there is no duplication of fees.
Adoption of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Area of Benefit Fee is consistent with the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. An initial study was prepared which concluded that the
adoption of the resolution is within the scope of the GP AlSP EIR, as the traffic improvements for which
the fee provides funding were all identified in the EIR as measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of
Eastern Dublin development.
Attached as Exhibit 9 are written conunents and Staff responses to those conunents that were received
when this agenda statement was prepared. Some of the comments were incorporated into the calculation
and administration of the Fee. Other comments would have required whole new studies and will be
. revisited at the first update of the Fee or in accordance with Council direction.
Staff recommends that the Council conduct a public hearing, determine the value of protests (to the area
of benefit fee only), and adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit I-A) if insufficient protests are received, Q! if
sufficient protests are received, adopt the alternate draft resolution (Exh!bit I-B) without Section 10 (the
area of benefit fee).
a:~genda94~rebnji2
Page 4.
"'-""
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. ___-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted
Ordinance No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority
for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (IIGPAII)
and Specific Plan (IISplI) were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately
4176 acres within the City's eastern sphere of influence
including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million
square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals,
policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within
the GPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas (IIEastern Dublinll) are shown
on the Land Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as
Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use Map as
IIFuture Study Area/Agriculturell; and
WHEREAS, a program Environmental Impact Report (IIEIRII) was
prepared for the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by
the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
TIF/AOB Resol
1
EXHIBIT 11 (of Staff Report)
Resolution
e
e
Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda) have
been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the freeway,
freeway interchange and road improvements necessary for
implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements,
pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic
improvements would be made and that development within Eastern
Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring
Program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by
Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within Eastern
Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain transportation
improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development
within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the impacts of
contemplated future development on existing public facilities in
Eastern Dublin through the year 2010, and contain an analysis of
the need for new public facilities and improvements required by
future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the City of Dublin by
Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., in a document dated November 1994
entitled "Traffic Impact Fee -- Eastern Dublin" (hereafter
"Study"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the City of Dublin
by Santina & Thompson, in a document dated December 14, 1994
2
TIP/ADB Resol
e
e
entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Cost
Estimates, Initial Level II (hereafter "Report"), which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C, and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report set forth the relationship
between future development in Eastern Dublin, the needed
improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those
improvements and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report were available for public
inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(hereafter "Fee") is to finance public improvements and
facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by
future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements
and facilities are listed in the Study under Sections I, II and
III and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements
and Facilities". The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section I are needed solely to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin. The Improvements and Facilities
listed under Section II are needed to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin and the nearby vicinity and
development within Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional
share of such Improvements and Facilities with the implementation
of this Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to
accommodate new development projected within the region by the
3
TIF/AOB Resol
e
e
year 2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. However,
if there later are changes in the projections and development in
the region, one or more of the Improvements and Facilities may
not be necessary and additional improvements and facilities may
be required. Such alternative improvements and facilities are
included in the definition of Improvement and Facilities to the
extent development in Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for
such improvements and facilities, and the proceeds of the Fee may
be used to fund such alternate improvements and facilities.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be
used to finance the Improvements and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Report, the Agenda
Statement, the GPA, the SP, the General Plan, the EIR and
Addenda, all correspondence received and the testimony received
at the noticed public hearings held on December 12, 1994 and
January 9, 1995 (hereafter the "record"), the Council approves
and adopts the Study and Report, and incorporates each herein,
and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will
generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the
Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA, the SP
and the City's General Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the EIR
and Addenda. The Improvements and Facilities were all
identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate traffic from
and/or to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The
impacts of such development, including the Improvements and
Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the
TIFf AOB Resol
4
e
e
EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as
identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding
circumstances, and no other new information of substantial
importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's
analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives.
Subsequent project~specific environmental review under CEQA of
the Specific Improvements and Facilities will be required before
any such Improvements and Facilities are approved. It is not
feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the
Improvements and Facilities at this stage, as they will be
implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details
as to their timing and construction are not presently known.
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of
the types of development for which the corresponding fee is
charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential will generate traffic which
generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and
Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Improvements
and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is
charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential generates or contributes to
the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
TlF/AOB Resal
5
e
e
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements and
Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in
Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number
of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total
amount it will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities,
and the percentage by which development within Eastern Dublin
contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study and
Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the
Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be
generated by future development will not exceed the projected
costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a
particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship
to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the
Improvements and Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the
Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each
particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does
RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction,
alteration or addition of any building or structure within
Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property
within the "General Plan Amendment Study Area" as shown on the
TIP/ADB Resol
6
e
e
Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the property designated
as "Future Study Area/Agriculture." The individual properties
within this area are listed on Exhibit D hereto by assessor's
parcel number.
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include
those transportation and transit improvements and facilities as
are described in Sections I, II and III of the Study and as
described in the Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Improvements and
Facilitieslt shall also include comparable alternative
improvements and facilities should later changes in projections
of development in the region necessitate construction of such
alternative improvements and facilities; provided that the City
Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable
relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the
need for the alternative improvements and facilities (2) that the
alternative improvements and facilities are comparable to the
improvements and facilities in the Study, and (3) that the
revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin
development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative
improvements and facilities.
d. Single Family Residential Unitlt shall mean a
dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as
adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on
property designated by the SP and GPA for one to 14 units per
acre.
e. "Multi-Family Residential Unitlt shall mean
any dwelling unit which is not a Single Family Residential Unit.
TIF/AOB Resol
7
e
e
2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and
paid for each Single Family Residential Unit and each Multi-
Family Residential Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the
date of final inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-
residential buildings or structures within Eastern Dublin by the
date that the building permit is issued for such building or
structure, except where the building or structure will require a
later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can
be occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works
Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred
for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary
approval which is required prior to occupancy.
3. Amount of Fee.
a. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth
on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the
following:
(2 )
Any alteration or addition to a residential
structure, except to the extent that a
residential unit is added to a single family
residential unit or another unit is added to
an existing multi-family residential unit;
Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing residential structure that has been
(1 )
TIF/AOB Rosol
8
e
e
destroyed or demolished provided that the
building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building
was destroyed or demolished unless the
replacement or reconstruction increases the
square footage of the structure fifty
percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing non-residential structure that has
been destroyed or demolished provided that
the building permit for new reconstruction
is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished and the
reconstructed building would not increase
the destroyed or demolished building's trips
based on Exhibit E.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee
shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund. Separate and
special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to
account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on
each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the
following purposes:
(1 )
To pay for design, engineering, right-of-
way acquisition and construction of the
Improvements and Facilities and reasonable
TIF! AOB Resol
9
e
e
costs of outside consultant studies related
thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Improvements
and Facilities constructed by the City with
funds from other sources including funds
from other public entities, unless the City
funds were obtained from grants or gifts
intended by the grantor to be used for
traffic improvements;
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed
and constructed Improvements or Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size,
length, or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of
the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only
for the Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for
which the Fee was collected.
6. Miscellaneous
a. The standards upon which the needs for the
Improvements and Facilities are based are the standards of the
City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General
Plan, GPA, BP, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City Council determines that there are no
existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin and that the need for
the Improvements and Facilities in Section I of the Study is
TIFf AOB Resol
10
e
e
generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin and,
further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in
Sections II and III of the Study is generated by new development
within Eastern Dublin and other new development and, therefore,
the Study has determined the proportionate share of the cost of
the Improvements and Facilities for which development within
Eastern Dublin is responsible.
7. periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager
shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to
Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in
each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002,
the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted
Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location,
size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all
Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The
estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate
indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to
be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the
Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented
by the Council in reliance on the record identified above. The
City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
TIF Resol
11
e
e
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee
to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the
impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council
may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of
further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General
Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased
construction costs.
9. Tri-Vallev Reqional Fee
The City has joined with other cities and counties in
the Tri-Valley area in a joint powers agreement to fund
preparation of a IITri-Valley Transportation Planll for the purpose
of addressing transportation issues through the year 2010 within
the Tri-Valley area. The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council, II an
advisory group consisting of elected representatives from each
jurisdiction, has circulated a IITri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation
Draft) II dated August 1994 (IIAction Planll) for comment. The
Action Plan indicates that further study is necessary of a
proposed regional transportation impact fee which would share
funding of regional transportation improvements among development
within the various jurisdictions. Because the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council has not yet developed a regional
transportation impact fee, the Study has analyzed Eastern
Dublin's proportionate share of responsibility for regional
improvements which is set forth in Section III of the Study. In
the event that a regional transportation impact fee is developed
by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and adopted by the City,
TIF/AOB Resal
12
e
e
the City Council will amend the portion of the Fee which is
attributable to Section III improvements.
10. Area of Benefit Fee.
A portion of the Fee shall also be deemed to be an Area of
Benefit Fee adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 10~94. This is the
portion of the Fee designated for the construction of those
improvements and facilities identified in Section I of the Study
which are major thoroughfares or bridges. These improvements and
the estimated cost of such improvements are listed on Exhibit F,
attached hereto. The "Area of Benefit" is Eastern Dublin as
defined herein. The fee shall be apportioned over the Area of
Benefit in the same manner set forth in section 3 of this
resolution and in the Study, with the amount to be assessed for
residential and non-residential as shown on Exhibit F. The Area
of Benefit Fee shall be deposited into the City's Capital
Projects Fund into separate accounts established for each of the
improvements identified in Exhibit F.
11. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately.
The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be
effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution. The
Area of Benefit Fee established in Section 10 of this resolution
shall be effective only if the Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3
hereof is declared invalid for any reason.
12. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this
resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the
TIF/AOB Resol
13
e
e
Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and
continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully
effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be
invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
the following vote:
day of
, 1994, by
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
114\resol\50\reso.tif
TIF/AOB Resol
14
,.
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. -94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted
Ordinance No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority
for imposing and charging a Transportation Impact Feei and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA")
and Specific Plan ("Sp") were adopted by the City in 1993i and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately
4176 acres within the City's eastern sphere of influence
including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million
square feet of commercial, office, and industrial developmenti
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals,
policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within
the GPA area nearest to the CitYi and
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown
on the Land Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as
Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use Map as
"Future Study AreajAgriculture"i and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was
prepared for the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by
the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two
TIP Resol
1
EXHIBIT lB(of Staff Report)
Alternate Resolution
e
e
Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda) have
been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the SP, ErR and Addenda describe the freeway,
freeway interchange and road improvements necessary for
implementation of the SP, along with transit improvements,
pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic
improvements would be made and that development within Eastern
Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring
program: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by
Resolution No. 53-93 which requires development within Eastern
Dublin to pay its proportionate share of certain transportation
improvements necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development
within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the impacts of
contemplated future development on existing public facilities in
Eastern Dublin through the year 2010, and contain an analysis of
the need for new public facilities and improvements required by
future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the City of Dublin by
Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., in a document dated November 1994
entitled "Traffic Impact Fee -- Eastern Dublin" (hereafter
"Study"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the City of Dublin
by Santina & Thompson, in a document dated December 14, 1994
llF Resol
2
e
e
entitled "Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Study/Roadway Cost
Estimates, Initial Levell! (hereafter "Report"), which is attached
hereto as Exhibit C, and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report set forth the relationship
between future development in Eastern Dublin, the needed
improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those
improvements and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Study and Report were available for public
inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(hereafter "Fee") is to finance public improvements and
facilities needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by
future development in Eastern Dublin. The public improvements
and facilities are listed in the Study under Sections I, II and
III and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Improvements
and Facilities". The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section I are needed solely to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin. The Improvements and Facilities
listed under Section II are needed to accommodate new development
projected within Eastern Dublin and the nearby vicinity and
development within Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional
share of such Improvements and Facilities with the implementation
of this Fee. The Improvements and Facilities listed under
Section III ("Section III Improvements") are all necessary to
accommodate new development projected within the region by the
TIF Resol
3
e
e
year 2010, including development within Eastern Dublin. However,
if there later are changes in the projections and development in
the region, one or more of the Improvements and Facilities may
not be necessary and additional improvements and facilities may
be required. Such alternative improvements and facilities are
included in the definition of Improvement and Facilities to the
extent development in Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for
such improvements and facilities, and the proceeds of the Fee may
be used to fund such alternate improvements and facilities.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be
used to finance the Improvements and Facilities.
C. After considering the Study, the Report, the Agenda
Statement, the GPA, the SP, the General Plan, the EIR and
Addenda, all correspondence received and the testimony received
at the noticed public hearings held on December 12, 1994 and
January 9, 1995, (hereafter the "record"), the Council approves
and adopts the Study and Report, and incorporates each herein,
and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin will
generate the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the
Improvements and Facilities are consistent with the GPA, the SP
and the City's General Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee is within the scope of the EIR
and Addenda. The Improvements and Facilities were all
identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate traffic from
and/or to mitigate impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. The
impacts of such development, including the Improvements and
Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the
TIF Resol
4
e
e
EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
substantial changes in the projections of future development as
identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding
circumstances, and no other new information of substantial
importance so as to require important revisions in the EIR's
analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives.
Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of
the Specific Improvements and Facilities will be required before
any such Improvements and Facilities are approved. It is not
feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the
Improvements and Facilities at this stage, as they will be
implemented over at least a 20-year period and specific details
as to their timing and construction are not presently known.
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the need for the Improvements and Facilities and the impacts of
the types of development for which the corresponding fee is
charged in that new development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential will generate traffic which
generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements and
Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Improvements
and Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is
charged in that all development in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential generates or contributes to
the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
TIF Resol
5
e
e
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between
the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements and
Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in
Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number
of trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total
amount it will cost to construct the Improvements and Facilities,
and the percentage by which development within Eastern Dublin
contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study and
Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the
Improvements and Facilities, and the Fees expected to be
generated by future development will not exceed the projected
costs of constructing the Improvements and Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a
particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship
to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the
Improvements and Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the
Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each
particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does
RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the construction,
alteration or addition of any building or structure within
Eastern Dublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property
within the "General Plan Amendment Study Area" as shown on the
TIF Resol
6
e
e
Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the property designated
as "Future Study Area/Agriculture." The individual properties
within this area are listed on Exhibit D hereto by assessor's
parcel number.
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include
those transportation and transit improvements and facilities as
are described in Sections I, II and III of the Study and as
described in the Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Improvements and
Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative
improvements and facilities should later changes in projections
of development in the region necessitate construction of such
alternative improvements and facilities; provided that the City
Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable
relationship between development within Eastern Dublin and the
need for the alternative improvements and facilities (2) that the
alternative improvements and facilities are comparable to the
improvements and facilities in the Study, and (3) that the
revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay Eastern Dublin
development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative
improvements and facilities.
d. Single Family Residential Unit" shall mean a
dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as
adopted by the City of Dublin constructed or to be constructed on
property designated by the SP and GPA for one to 14 units per
acre.
e. "Multi-Family Residential Unit" shall mean
any dwelling unit which is not a Single Family Residential Unit.
TIF Resol
7
e
e
2. Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
a. A Traffic Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and
paid for each Single Family Residential Unit and each Multi-
Family Residential Unit within Eastern Dublin no later than the
date of final inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-
residential buildings or structures within Eastern Dublin by the
date that the building permit is issued for such building or
structure, except where the building or structure will require a
later stage of discretionary approval by the City before it can
be occupied, in which case, with the approval of the Public Works
Director, the Fee for that building or structure may be deferred
for payment to the date the City makes the last discretionary
approval which is required prior to occupancy.
3. Amount of Fee.
a. The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth
on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the
following:
(2)
Any alteration or addition to a residential
structure, except to the extent that a
residential unit is added to a single family
residential unit or another unit is added to
an existing multi-family residential unit;
Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing residential structure that has been
(1 )
TIF Resol
8
e
e
destroyed or demolished provided that the
building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building
was destroyed or demolished unless the
replacement or reconstruction increases the
square footage of the structure fifty
percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an
existing non-residential structure that has
been destroyed or demolished provided that
the building permit for new reconstruction
is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished and the
reconstructed building would not increase
the destroyed or demolished building's trips
based on Exhibit E.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee
shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund. Separate and
special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to
account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on
each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the
following purposes:
(1)
To pay for design, engineering, right-of-
way acquisition and construction of the
Improvements and Facilities and reasonable
TIF Resol
9
e
e
costs of outside consultant studies related
thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Improvements
and Facilities constructed by the City with
funds from other sources including funds
from other public entities, unless the City
funds were obtained from grants or gifts
intended by the grantor to be used for
traffic improvements;
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed
and constructed Improvements or Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size,
length, or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of
the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only
for the Improvements and Facilities and only for the purpose for
which the Fee was collected.
6. Miscellaneous
a. The standards upon which the needs for the
Improvements and Facilities are based are the standards of the
City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General
Plan, GPA, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
b. The City Council determines that there are no
existing deficiencies within Eastern Dublin and that the need for
the Improvements and Facilities in Section I of the Study is
TIF Resol
10
e
e
generated entirely by new development within Eastern Dublin and,
further, that the need for the Improvements and Facilities in
Sections II and III of the Study is generated by new development
within Eastern Dublin and other new development and, therefore,
the Study has determined the proportionate share of the cost of
the Improvements and Facilities for which development within
Eastern Dublin is responsible.
7. periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager
shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to
Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in
each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002,
the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted
Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location,
size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all
Improvements and Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The
estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate
indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to
be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the
Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
8. Subsequent Analvsis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented
by the Council in reliance on the record identified above. The
City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
TIF Resol
11
e
e
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee
to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the
impacts of development within Eastern Dublin. The City Council
may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of
further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP and General
Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased
construction costs.
9. Tri-Vallev Reqional Fee
The City has joined with other cities and counties in
the Tri-Valley area in a joint powers agreement to fund
preparation of a "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan" for the purpose
of addressing transportation issues through the year 2010 within
the Tri-Valley area. The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council," an
advisory group consisting of elected representatives from each
jurisdiction, has circulated a "Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation
Draft)" dated August 1994 ("Action Plan") for comment. The
Action Plan indicates that further study is necessary of a
proposed regional transportation impact fee which would share
funding of regional transportation improvements among development
within the various jurisdictions. Because the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council has not yet developed a regional
transportation impact fee, the Study has analyzed Eastern
Dublin's proportionate share of responsibility for regional
improvements which is set forth in Section III of the Study. In
the event that a regional transportation impact fee is developed
by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and adopted by the City,
TIF Resol
12
e
e
the City Council will amend the portion of the Fee which is
attributable to Section III improvements.
10. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately.
The Fee provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be
effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution.
11. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this
resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the
Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and
continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully
effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be
invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
the following vote:
day of
, 1994, by
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
114\resol\50\2reso.tif
TIF Reso I
13
e
- \
-
to
cD
<
C)
c
.-
c
C
to
0:
"
cD
-g 0..
c.! <
.!! '>< :&
'0.. W W
ii E ~
... ..
I) -.Q
c...:.z
&:41::j
(l)
0)
OJ
-
..
o
-
to ..
(If "!\;~'h},~F: A -: ,
i'. ,'~' ,t"1;<:i<l . "
_~~ ::i~~'., ;/!~'.r \
''''''-1~''''8 .
;;!'1~;!'{~~.R ~r:~,,:a'
fr. .... -<" ~" $
:t;y~ . ~~:~'"
. ;;!"
lil
M 0
~ ~
~ ~
o
o nl lil
nl ~ :a
:a II) .".
.;., C}I 0-
N ;'! ch
nl
QI >-
.( . III
.f;'. :E. ',~""
.... ,','"'..," ' '1\' . ,,~'.~..,'."t.,:.
tn'!; -
1= t13 1,"
ii CD ,',~~' ~.>
1< Z,Ii".', ;';
'~!!~~..'. :' ,~....!,.'
,-e~.-. "':
~<( ~ a:,;z" .::slf~'
-g lij ~ .w .' ~,;.~
l sri:, I-;'~i'.el
~ j ~ :~;'i';/
... (5 ~ ,ft'rI't.: iI.'
t- (/) (/) V I ... t ".'
I I '\ . <c',::)~.'i:;
.11 w'o:-":'
I I I."" ~ :',
~.~~;,'
CD
ro 2
'0 tl
lil >-'k
E]i ,i:: 0)
E 0 ~ ~
8~ ~z;-.m
U E CD ~ ~ ~
g8~'~ ,~~:Ii~~
~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
~lt~l~f~U.i!
w Z
~1I~mFl ~BGlDBQ
311 f(tJ Ii tl ~. % t!J LJ ~ l!)
~-o ~
:6~,g Z ~~Q1
ZLLOO ::3~ III la
W ~(J)(J)_Q. oS Q..-g g. ...
~.g~.c 8t III ,~O(l).g Ql
.... Q. III ,2'.c CD ' ! ~.'~ € U CD 't: ~ CD
o .1- .... J: 0 (I) 0 -.:: ::3 0 0 0 -' l:I
:J Ei...(I)-" Q1~E.oo:6o QI (J)
~ ~ j '~ ~ ~ ~,~ g t ~ ~ E V5 2
!l: ~w-'J: ~ooz~:Ii: z~~
~ ~ ~~<!>~ ~ @@<11 ~ <3 ~. S ~8
h ~ ~~~~ \'1
.*~~
!;..<~
"\ 'i;' ~'"
,~:;h:X(_)
.:~:~:~
:. 5e' ~ . ',;'
:;\~n ~:":;;.
"'~'" J' .,. '.~, :. ! '>'
~:~r. I . ~tl,
:~'~<f':~ .~;' :~~ :1:
"0
C
"
QI)
'I>
,.J
.,.
e
\
\
I.-----~~-.~~-, I
r-------------....--, .-J ~ (
I <( L------- I
I ~ w \ '\
I <( (/J I \
I '0: ~ L.....-...L....,
yo-_.._..___.._....___-1 ::>:;: I
\ E:i ~. ~ I
, :::::> ::> <o;t ~ I
\ to 0 ~ ~ I
, -
\ w ~
, oc ~<(
\ ~
\ ::::>
i\o u..
01..,0
'iI>,0I..
o~%
0~~
~cl
~\
\ \
\ J' -----,
\~:::::::-!----- . L-
V-J \ i
, \
I
\
I
I
'B'
8-
~
~ =
~ ,g
(l)E
...... 5l
o ~
'-"~j'
... 'Ci ~
t: -< ~
lID ,-=: 0
- ..
-= ~-g
E:i ~ .:3
e
. .
\,","J~t'P'
~"~~;fT
\:]1'
,. :;, I
l.-I: ~:" ,. '/ ," .,. " .' .
lJ:. '..,';' .... :~~~}~.:,:.~' ii:j,~~<fj0:i;'~fi.' ;;): ';:i~.f.\::i.;;,..;,';;..;. .'. ,...,
'1'. ,.,., w' ,..... ..1.....\,{~f...:ii')c, .""..4.,...,;;w...'''.... ....., ",..".. .-' ",
,,"~ :'"....... .:).~},f'i}r.~~:., :;iJ,"I''';~:'.,:, ',...'-:.," -C.,\,' ..
<~:"I":; ;-~.'I .,< ~ ~.:
;;;,;:; ~\
.~*: ~
~t~~ ,~
I \)
~ tt
t ~)
? I ,:~'('
:i
;,:/
f'
f
~'>I'
,.
)\
..;z.
f~
. : '. '~
-"\.
"
'.
....
...~..
:.' .
, .
c
........ 0
c 'Iii
,Q 3
'" 0
gj ,!!l
0'0
~ 2
2-a
~ E
a. 0
E U
8 .2
.Q ><
0)
x :;
2 0)
0)..'1
Jl3<1;
n..
~ <1;
0) -S
g 'j;
...
n.. c
0) 0)
.~ ti
5 .~
N 0
~ U
c c
QI ,-
E '0
g. ,~
w E
1>> ~
o 0)
UU
0) 0)
E Q)
nl .c
u: ~
nl ~
>-.2
.03
'0 .!:!
~~
E"iil
0) ~
0.<(
1liJ
>- ::3
ro ~
E(J)
QI
.~ :s
o ....
liltL
E .9
E t:
o QI
U >
(Q 5
~ 0
c
c3~
* *
*
.'.,..
e
e
I / J..,(
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EASTERN DUBLIN
"
Prepared for
City of Dublin
Prepared by
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
November 1994
EXHIBIT 3 (of Staff Report)
Exhibit B of Resolution
Barton-Aschman Report
e
e
Contents
Chapters
Page
1
2
3
Introduction
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
1
4
14
Appendix
Tables
2.1 Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2-2 Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
2003 Section 2 Fees: Eastern DublinlDublinlContr8 Costa County/
Developer Responsibility
2-4 Section 3 Fees: Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
5
10
12
13
Figures
1
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area
3
1194- TIFI6l>4233.01000
"
e
e
1 .
Introduction
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee is designed to pay for roadway and transit
improvements necessitated by development associated with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. These improvements include both the
construction of new roadway facilities and the upgrade and improvement of existing
facilities, including transit.
The traffic and transportation impacts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas are documented in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment EIR. Impacts were evaluated for the year 2010. In order to
compare traffic impacts for the year 2010, certain arterial and regional roadway
facilities and facility sizes were assumed. Impacts from land uses for all development
in the Tri-Valley area, excluding the Eastern Dublin development, were compared with
impacts from all development in the Tri-Valley area including the Eastern Dublin
development. For any impact that was considered significant, mitigation measures
were developed and included in the EIR. Impacts were considered significant if the
Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service E on study freeway
segments, if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service D at
designated study intersections or, if the Project generated traffic that would cause
significant safety hazards (from page 3.3-18 of the Specific Plan).
The Eastern Dublin Impact Fee is designed to pay for the Project's proportional share
of the assumed 2010 base network and for the roadway and transit improvement
projects specified in the mitigation measures to the EIR.
This report first describes existing conditions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas and then lists the required network improvements
from the EIR.
I,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1
e
e
Introduction
Existing Conditions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan Amendment area is shown
on Figure 1. It does not include the area designated on the figure as Future Study
Area Agriculture. The majority of the land in the area is presently undeveloped..
Existing land uses in this area include some Camp Parks buildings, some Alameda
County facilities, and a few low-density residential homes or ranches.
Existing Transportation Network
The existing transportation network in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and
General Plan Amendment area is very sparse. Dublin Boulevard extends as two lanes
from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road.. Tassajara Road is a two--Iane roadway. Fallon
Road and Doolan Road are tw<rlane local roadways that dead.end north of I~580.
There is no existing transit service in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area
Year 2010 Network Assumptions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes new and improved facilities in or near the
Project area that would be built in conjunction with new development through year
2010. In addition to those facilities in or near the project area, the Specific Plan EIR
includes future transportation improvements in the entire Tri-Valley area for the year
2010 either as assumed background network or as project mitigation. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment area is expected to contribute to
funding for these regional road and transit improvements.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
2
j
iii.
lD
-
.,
'0
o
.
.
<
C
.,
E
.c
u
.
<
,
c
o
-
..
.,
III
'"
'"
'"
']:1
;~ 'I
'-3-_J
'"
Q.l
.t:
en
<:
t:
c;;
<:I
C.
U
Q.l
"'0
c;;
<: ~
'" '"
-w
C. t:
ro ..
.. Q.l
Q.l -
C <Il
Q.l '"
<-,ll;l
e
::r
~
- ~ ~ ~ i
.; ~; ::: .; ~
~~ ... ~ 0
:=
"
;,
;,;: z
~ ~ ~
~ :0 ~ "1
- 211 '~l - .J. c: z j
- L"L', ~,., _ "qW_.
~ · , < ! ~ <" ;"", ,; - -. "H'I-..J .
!In HH i Hml ~H!I n;l! HI! (f)~!
.cj' ~ g ~ . '.; ~ ] ~ ; ~ ~~C5IW@ "- '"' R[]~:5 I ! i ! ! I, ctw c ~
~ ~ c -5 :t S ~ ::. ...J (t; V) n :'. 0 I j : I I
::. ~ ~ ~ .. ::: - - \} 0 U l~ ,;',; ~ I I :
~ ~~ -: ~~'O Uo ~[Jiliij,iR~ ~ c' U
en ::Ell: y,i I ~L.J,--,~;...J
Q.l 0 ':', I L a:
...J u ',~
c.
<(
~
w
Vl
::l
Q
Z
<(
...J
L-i
Ii, i
I
I
i
\
\
\
I
--------1 I
-1-- 'l
---.--,.- I \....
------ : -'-- : ,
~ I \
L..__~
j
;
,n
\
\
_._________.---1
...---
\.
\
\
\
~o
~\.J
%'~
01\1-
~~\. J' -----1 ~..J
\ -----,------ ~I
\ >'. ; \-\\" (,gf:)
\--/' \ t'~'~, \
w
([
::)
I-
-.J
::)
o
([
o
<(
'"
e
u
<;
'"
C"l
...
""
'"
'" -;:
~ .Q
u '"
0( 0
:: 2 i
~----~
c
---- ~
2 'g
~ ~
~ ~
II
8 ~
~ ~
~ ]
~ ~
~ '"
~ .c
h
~~
c ~
o 8
':: ~
Ii
.Q ~
~ ~
o is
" ..
~ ;;
~ !
'" .
,..'"
" a
"0 c
.. "
" <(
E "';;
q
.. ,..
., "0
,.. 0
.. v;
E ..
3 ~
u 0
~ "-
~ .e
~ -
8 ~
i ~
~ ~
* :
e
e
2.
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
"
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
included as mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections;
(1) Improvements for which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100
percent of the cost, (2) Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin
developments are partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Description of the Project
Eastern Dublin includes two development areas. The first includes only growth
projected in the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 1. The second, called the
Project, includes all the development in the first development scenario plus additional
development in the General Plan Amendment area. The impact fee is designed to
cover the Project development scenario. Land uses projected for this scenario include
low-density, medium-density, medium-high density, and high-density residential,
retail, office, industrial, public school, and parks. Table 2-1 shows the amount of
development by land use.
"
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
4
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-1
Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use
Units
Residential
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium-High Density
High Density
3,916 d.u.*
4,863 d.u.
2,680 d.u.
2,447 d.u.
Non-Residential
Retail
Office
Industrial
School
Park
4,415 ksf
3,952 ksf
1,370 ksf
9,731 students
258 acres
Source: Memorandum from City Senior Planner, Dennis Carrington, November 29, 1994
d.u. ::: dwelling units
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the land use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment area was projected based on trip generation rates that relate the type and
size of a land use to the number of persons or vehicles traveling to or from the land
use. The traffic generation rates used for the Eastern Dublin land uses were based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generatian and specific counts of
traffic generation conducted by DKS Associates for the Specific Plan EIR. The rates
were adjusted based on local conditions.
Using the adjusted trip generation rates, the Project is expected to generate 423,787
daily vehicle trips. This number is reduced to 346,525 when pass-by trips are taken
into account. Pass-by trips are comprised ofvebicles that stop at certain land uses,
such as restaurants and stores, while on the way to somewhere else. Since these trips
are not new trips, but merely diverted trips, a pass-by reduction can be applied to the
total number of trips generated by such uses. For the purposes of the traffic impact fee
calculation, all retail land uses were assigned a pass-by reduction of 35 percent. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation gives a range of pass-by rates
for retail development from 12 percent to 89 percenl
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
5
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Transportation Improvements
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections; (1) Improvements for
which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100 percent of the cost, (2)
Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin developments are
partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all jurisdictions in the
Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible. The transportation
improvements for each of the three sections are outlined below.
Sect/on I. Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the EIR, the following
transportation improvements are needed for the development of the Speci.fic Plan area
and the General PlaIl Amendment area and should be funded solely by Eastern Dublin
Development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-
of-way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from December 15, 1992 and
mitigation measure 3.3/10).
2. Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Gleason Drive and to six lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
3. Hacienda/I.S80 Interchange Improvements (from mitigation measure 3.3/7.0).
Reimburse Alameda County for dedication of right-of-way and add a second left-
turn lane to the eastbound off-ramp. This interchange was constructed by the City
of Pleasanton with participation by the County for the funding but with no cost to
Eastern Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the
interchange as will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin
developers' proportional share of the additional left-turn lane is considered to be
100 percent.
4. Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page
1 of the DKS revised report).
5. Gleason Drive. Construct new four~lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to
Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report). (The Project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to
Doolan Road due to no development proposed in the future study area).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
6
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
6. Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from Dublin
Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the Em future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation
measure 3.3/14.0).
7. Tassajara/ Santa Rita RoadlI-580 Interchange. Modify and improve this
interchange to provide northbound overpass approach as three through lanes and
widen eastbound and westbound offwramps to add turn lanes. The southbound
overpass was constructed by the City of Pleasanton with no cost to Eastern.
Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the interchange as
will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern. Dublin developers'
proportionate share of these additional improvements is 100 percent (from
mitigation measures 3.318.0 and 3.3/9.0).
8. Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-
of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
9. Bicycle Path along Tassajara Creek (from mitigation measure 3.3116.0).
10. TIF Study. The study is to establish the required traffic impact fee.
11. Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify the exact street alignments
in the Eastern Dublin area.
Section /I. Dublin Projects with Partial Eastern Dublin Developer
Responsibility
The second section of transportation improvements, also specified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, are in or near Dublin and according to the EIR should be partially funded
by Eastern Dublin development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Village Parkway to
the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measures
3.312.1 and 3.3110.0). All new developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin,
will share funding responsibility.
2. Scarlett Drive (Southern Pacific Right-of- Way Connector). Construct a new four-
lane street from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report). All new
developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin, will share funding
responsibility.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
7
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
3. Dougherty Road. Widen to six lanes from north of 1.580 to Contra Costa County
Limits (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS
revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/6.0). The cost for this project should be
shared by all City of Dublin new development, including Eastern Dublin, and
Contra Costa County new development.
4. I-580/Fallon/El Charro Interchange Upgrade. Improve the interchange (from the
E1R future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised report
and mitigation measure 3.3/12.0). If not for the interchange's use by trucks from
the quarry/gravel pit, the interchange improvements would be less expensive.
However, the use by trucks will necessitate extra improvements and will increase
the cost of construction. The added increment of cost should be the sole
responsibility of the quarry/gravel pit developer, since no other developer will be
benefitting from these extra improvements. The remaining cost of this interchange
will be divided proportionately among the Cities of Livermore and Pleas anton, and
Contra Costa CoUnty.
5. Airway /1-580. Replace and improve this interchange (from mitigation measure
3.3/11.0). The cost of improving this interchange should be divided among the
Eastern Dublin, Contra Costa County, and Livermore developers.
Section III. Tri.Valley Jurisdiction Regional Responsibility
The third section includes regional transportation improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri.Yalley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Development within Eastern Dublin will only be responsible for its estimated
proportionate contribution to the impacts creating the need for such improvements.
These transportation improvements from the EIR are as follows:
1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-Ureastbound flyover and Dublin hook ramps
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised
report and mitigation measure 3.3/4.0).
2. 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes. Tassajara to "East of Airway" assumed to be North
Livermore Avenue (from mitigation measures 3.3/1.0, 3.3/3.0, and 3.3/5.0).
3. Route 84. Build as a four.lane highway on the Isabel alignment from 1-680 to
1.580, including a new interchange at SR 84/I-580 (from the Em future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report).
4. Improve Transit Services (see item No. 3.3115.0-.3).
Barlon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
8
'-' ~.,~.:-:," '_' ........{=';>ID:,~: ~..~....~;:_: . .. ....__....
.~- -~ --- ~
. ...., ".c.... .~~,. ,'l'~~~5].:"t: . ... . "~~_
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Other Improvement Responsibility
There are some improvements specified in the EIR that are not included in the three
sections above. These improvements are:
1. 1-680 HOV Lanes between Rudgear Road and I-580
2. North Canyons Parkway extended to Vasco Road.
3. Bollinger Canyon Road extended as a four-lane arterial to Dougherty Road.
4. 1.580 improvements widen to eight lanes plus two auxiliary lanes between 1-680
and Tassajara Road.
5. Other local improvements in San Ramon, Pleasanulll, and Livermore south of
1~580 consistent with adopted general plan cireulation elements.
The 1-680 HOV lanes are already under construction. The North Canyon Parkway
projects will be the sole responsibility of the City of Livermore. The City of Livermore
\>rill not participate in sharing the cost of improvements in the City of Dublin's road
system and vice versa. Bollinger Canyon Road and other projeds lcx::ated exclusively in
other Tri-Valley jurisdictions will be the :responsibility of those jurisdictions. The 1-580
auxiliary lanes 'Will be constructed as part of the BART and 1-580/I-680 flyover
projects. The Tassajara Connection is not warranted by year 2010, beyond that it is
the responsibilit), of Contra Costa County developers.
Cost for Improvements
The costs for interchanges, roadway systems and studies for the first two categories of
improvements were calculated by the City of Dublin's consultaIlt (Santina and
Thompson) or City of Livermore. These roadway cost estimates were prepared baSed
on the premise that within the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan.
Amendment area, developers adjacent to the road would be directly responsible for the
parkway and 20 feet of roadway improvements (next to the parkway), including right-
of~way dedication for this area, essentially creating a two-lane access road. The
adj acent developer to a bridge does not have to directly pay for the parkway area and
20 feet of roadway improvements for the bridge. The developer will also be responsible
for any turn.lanes into the project site. The impact fee will caver the cost of building
the necessary roadway width beyond the minimum two-lane cross~section.. The
additional width is needed to serve the traffic of all Eastern Dublin development.
Costs for regional transportation improvements have been developed by Barton-
ABchman Associates, Inc. as part of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action P1.an.
The costs for roadway improvements are shown in Tables 2-3, 24, and 2.5.
,
,
Barton~Aschman Associates. Inc.
9
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Determination of Traffic Impact Fees
The traffic impact fee is calculated by dividing the Eastern Dublin percent share of the
total cost of the specified improvements by the total number of daily trips generated
by Eastern Dublin development. For section one improvements Eastern Dublin
developments are responsible for 100 percent of the costs. Table 2-2 lists the
improvements, cost of improvements, and the impact fee for section one.
For the improvements in Section II, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among the identified jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
of non-participating jurisdictions and through traffic will be deducted from the total
percentage and the remainder proportionately divided among the paying jurisdictions.
The percentage share for section two was determined in a three-step process. First, the
Tri- Valley Transportation Model was used to determine the amount of traffic from the
responsible jurisdictions that are projected to be using the improved facilities based on
PM peak-hour forecasts using the 2010 expected land use. Then the relative percent of
new growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-3 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
For the regional improvements, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among all the Tri- Valley jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
share for section three was determined in a similar process as section two. First, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Model was used to determine the
amount of traffic from Dublin, Eastern Dublin, Livermore, North Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Dougherty Valley, and Tassajara Valley, which are
projected to be using the improved facilities. Then the relative percentage of new
growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-4 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
"
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
10
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-2
Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Segment/Improvement
Cost Estimate
Dublin Boulevard
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to AJrway Boulevard
$27,563,000
Hacienda Drive
Gleason to Dublin (four lanes)
Dublin to 1-580 (six lanes)
$5,488,000
Hacienda Drlve/l-580 Improvements
Transit Spine
Dublin wlo Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Gleason Drive
w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
TassaJara Road
Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four lanes/six-lane right-of-way)
Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (six lanes/eight-lane right-of-way)
$4,056,000
$12,268,500
$6,900,000
$4,279,000
Tassajara/I-580 Interchange
Fallon Road
1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right-of-way)
Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study
Street Alignment Study
Subtotal of COsts
Total Number of Daily Trips
COstlTrlp
$5,600,000
$4,430,000
$1,008,000
$18,000
$301,000
$71,911,500
346,525
$208
The total cost per trip for all three types of improvements is $293; for Section I, $208;
for Section IT, $55; and for Section III, $30. The total cost for each type of development
can be calculated based on the number of trips generated by that type of development.
By dividing the development into residential and non-residential development it is
possible to separate the costs due to the different types of developments. The total
number of trips generated by the residential development included in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan is 123,679 trips. The total number of trips generated by
residential development, including trips generated by public schools and 85 percent of
those generated by parks, which are made necessary by the residential development, is
136,674. The remaining 15 percent of park trips are attributed to office land use. The
total number of trips generated by the non-residential development, including a 35
percent reduction for the retail trips, is 209,851. The total cost incurred by the non-
residential development is $61,175,210. The total cost incurred by the residential
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
11
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
development is then $39,969,030 plus the cost of park-n-ride lots, $1,526,000, for a
total of $41,495,030. Only the residential development is required to pay for park-n-
ride lots because only residential projects will use them. The non-residential
development will have to participate in trip reduction ordinances as mandated by the
City of Dublin or the BAAQMD. By dividing the total cost inCUlTed by the total
number of residential units and total non~residential square footage a cost per unit or
a cost per square foot can be obtained. With the 8,779 single-family residential units,
and the 5,127 multi-family residential units specified by the Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment, the approximate cost per single-family residential unit is $3,355,
and the approximate cost per multi-family residential unit is $2,350. This breaks down
to a cost for Section I of $2,380, Section II of $640, and Section ITI of $335 for single-
family residential units. For multi-family residential units, the section breakdown is
Section I, $1,670, Section II, $445, and Section In, $235.
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
12
s e 0 0 8 0 0
* * Co/) * 0
0 0
c: . ci g-
III >
II> CD (0
III 0 C\!, "!.
CD ;;; ;;;
i[
e 0 0 0 0 g 0
~ tR- W- 0 0
0 0 0 0
E ~ .0 ci .0
;0 (0 ....
~o C') CD
> ~ ~ ,.:
:::J 0-
>-
.~ e! III 2:- 0 0 0 0 0 0
- c: tR- ..,. C\I 0 0 (\/
0 -t;C (0) 0 0 C')
.c lS 888 ,.: g ci N
.- 'i .... ~ ..,.
r.n <D ~ (\/
'>: g rD
C :) *
0 -,
>. 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. .c .s 0 co cD * * ..,.
r.n - (0. (\/ 0 ....
In :c aj ai ai
Q.) 8 ~ :; ..,. ll) CD
c: 0 (\/ N C\I ....
* - * Co/)
....
Q.)
C. E c: 0 0 0 g 0 0 It) It)
0 ('\/ C\I 0 rt ~ ::.l
0 CD= '<t .... <D 0 0
Cii Qi.c g g <ri .0 ci ai rD
III ::3 cD m 0 ..... ~
> wo .... m <D 0 (0 .....
g ll)" N ~ Co/) ai
Q.) * Co/) ;;;
C
~ 0 8 0 0 8
CD 0 0 0
Qi~ 0 0 0 0 0
c ~ ,.: ci ci d
8'iii 0 0 :8 0
:::s 0 N <D 0
0 w rD rD g ci ~
- w- ;;;
()
ca c:
-
en .s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 c ffi -> 0 0 0 0
In CD N
() CD .....
E I'll 0
CD
ca P- i[
0
10.0 ~
-
c CD CD
0 ~ ->
0 it ~ ~ ~ ';/. ';/.
0 CD ... ~ 0 0 0
z CDO ~ ~
- >
c .s ::J
.- CD
-
.c .a llllll>'
:::s ~ :=...'E
C c: CIl :) ~ ~ <f. '# '#
:0 888 0 0 <D It) .....
- u; <D
C c:
.- 8-
.c CIl .!:
CD :c
:::s a:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::3 ~ 0 t., 0 0
c i 0 ..,.
c e E c:
.... ~
Q.) CD=
Qi.c '# ~ '# '# '#
- I'll ~ ~
r.n wO :g M ~ It)
Cl'l .....
ca
W 0
c: co
. . Q; ~ e
tn .;:; ~
Q.) ~ CD .9 ~ ~ ell
~ 'lii II>
C1) .c ~ .c 0-
0) c: () > 8 ~
LL 'Cl o >0 ~ CD P-
al - III 0 'i :l W '5 ~
i;':f 0 a
N 0 0 =0 0 >0
> ~ .9'i 0 co 'iij ...
CD it- a:
C'? C "5 ~2 a: :! >0 CD "is 0 CD
C ~ "0 c: c: CD ~ P-
I CD ...,r:. >- II> 1IIg>
N 0 ~ E 0 I'll 0) 0 .;:~ t: 8 0 0) 03 'liS
co 0.;:: ~=ijC: ~III ~
C CD .... lD..,. CD II> III :) 8
cu+:; CD ~ E CD 0 CD c""'" .::; e!~Ll...ii ~~ (fJ
:c (,,) E ... :c 0)0::: ;;: ="0 01 - III C5 ...
g'g. ~g III .c I'll :) C_CllCD Cll CD
co C1) :) 0 ::l 0 0 8~~s ll)-
I-cn "'- 0 5 a... CIJ on:: Q ,..:...5
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 13
..
~ a a a ~ ~
N N
co cg
t;;. ;-
l:: ~ a a ~ ~
~~~ :~f N m
co N
a: <h ;;.
f>'t
l:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
51
I~ <Ii g l 1/,' 8
......
-, - ......
ii: ;. iii N 0
f>'t f>'t ;
e ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .
~ C5~ $ g * g :8
:3 ~ 0 ...... 'If
~" ~ iii ....:
'i f>'t ~
f>'t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
., ~st
~ ..; ci i ~ N
~ 8~8 ~ j:! CO)
0 ~
<h f>'t ~
l:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
is reO g g N m
6 co c.;
III ('II CO) ;;;.
N N f>'t iii
<h f>'t <h
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l:{l 0
E l:: III ~
j!l= N ci ~" N ..; <Ii
llj.g ...... co N ~ '<T
wC <0 ...... ..,
<h ~ f>'t ~ 0
;.
g ~ ~ ~ ~
... '"
8~ ~. ~ ~. g
.!l Ill. ....: oj <Ii
f>'t ~ f>'t ;;.
~
~~ ~ ~ ~ '#-
B -
C l::
C1l ~~~ '" ~ ~ '$.
E
c. a: .- -
0
1 l::
.9
C ffi . '$. *' *' '$.
~ fd8 N 'If .- ......
z C1l - - ...
51 a::
~ C1l
'1'J ~ .
~ -~ ::..I! *' *' *'
.
<0 III fe '"
:is ~ .- w CO)
I
~.l!I~
.. 88~ *' ~ '$. ~
C1l
a: '<T -
-
c
8 .=
l :a ~ '#- *' '*
::l W '" -
C '<T
l:: l::
15= ~ *' 'j!. ~
....0
~6 .., cg
.- .-
III ~
C ~ c.
~ ~ ~& j ! '0 :>. ~
~ 0 ~~~ E ~ ~
c;; C1l . fa-g a:
C1l ~ a-U ~~ .9.19
E ... ~ g.e- s ...C;;~ ~8 -Ii...
~t s c.E! ~ i= 8
~Ea. ~< en .5~
ft
e
>-
.'!:
-
:c
.-
'"
c:
o
a.
'"
Q)
a:
c
o
';:;
u
.-
"'C
en
.t:
~
-,
>-
~
-
C'G
>
.
'i:
t-
tJ)
Q)
Q)
u..
M
1'c
NO
CD';:;
-U
J:JQ)
~U)
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
14
e
e
3.
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
This chapter outlines the application of the traffic impact fee on an individual project
basis. This chapter also indie:a.tes the proce$S to be used for updating the traffic impact
fee
Troffic Fee Application
Using the Traffic Fee Impact Approach outlined in Chapter 2 results in the traffic
impact fee rate of $293 per trip ";l,-;th a per-section cost for Section I of $208, for
Section IT of $55 and for Section ill of $30. The trip generation rates used for the
generation of the fee were average rates for the various land uses (see Appendi-.;:). Trip
generation calculations for individual types of land use will be done on a project by
project basis. The City of Dublin will be responsible for calculating appropriate
development-specific trip geIleratlon rates, based On the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Trip Generation, on the San Diego Association of Governments manual,
and on local trip generation data. This will result in some variation from the general
rates based on the mix of development. For example, multi-fanrily housing generates
fewer trips than single-family housing and therefore haa a rate of $2,350 which is
lower than the single family rate of $3,355.
Developers will receive credit for portiona of the fee network that they build and for
the dedication of right..of-way needed for the completion of the fee network. Credit will
not be given for any roadway construction required solely by the project, such as a
right-turn. lane into the project site that is only wed by project patrons or residents.
Certain land uses, such as parks and public schools are exempt from the traffic impact
fee. Their cost of the roadway fee network is absorbed by the residelltial and office
development that necessitates the need for such facilities. Public facility land uses,
such as post offices, city buildings aDd libraries are also exempt.
,
"
Bartan-Aschman Associates, Inc.
15
-
e
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
Updating the Traffic Fee
The traffic impact fee may need to be updated for a variety of reasons including;
negotiated changes to the proportional cost shares between Dublin and Contra Costa
County, changes to the land use mix specified in the Specific Plan, changes in the
construction and land costs, or adoption of a regional traffic impact fee by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council.
"
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
16
e
"
Appendix
e
e
e
General Trip Generation Rates
Used for Calculation of Fee
Land Use
Rate
Residential
High Density
Medium-High Density
Medium Density
Low Density
Rural Residential
Non.Resldential
Retail
Office
Industrial "
School
Parks
7 tripS/unit
7 tripS/unit
10 tripS/unit
10 trips/unit
10 trips/unit
50 trips/ksi
15 trips/ksf
5 trips/ksf
1.2 trips/student
6 trips/acre
e
e
Calculation of Cost per Single-jMulti-Family Unit
· Residential + Park + School Trips / Total Trips = Residential Percent Share of
Total Trips
136,674/346,525 = 39.4%
.. (Residential Percent Share of Total Trips * Total Cost) + Park-n-Ride Lot Cost =
Residential Share of Total Cost
(39.4%) * ($101,444,240) + $1,526,000 = $41,495,030
· Residential Cost / Number of Residential Trips = Cost per Trip
($41,495,030) / (123,679) = $335.50
· Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit = $335.50 * 10 = $3,355
· Cost per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit = $335.50 * 7 = $2,350
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
,. w ' .:. '
,',r';';>:>'::'.,.: .'
.i,.,' ,. "
. ~ .': ,.-- :.. .,.....
. ~. ,\ . ._~' .....
"-'Ai'
. " ~.
: . .. ..
e
.,! .. :. ...... '.~' 'J.. :...
SANTINA&=
THOMPSON,INC.
1 974 - 1 994
- --
P.l;C~M:BER 30, 1994
Jl()
YEAB~~ OF;
'E:l\'G\~LU::NG:::
;j ~&1lflltnS1H~ ([~~
,1 T]lr_mjn]p~mll~ }I. LtC,:,'
.t--- -
._._~.- -..-
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
ROADWAY COST ESTIMATES, INITIAL LEVEL
PRFPARED FOR:
CITY OF DUBLIN, CA
EXHIBIT 4 (of Staff Report)
Exhibit C of Resolution
Santina & Thompson Report
"
e
e
Dougherty Road - Segment 1
4300 feet, 118 Right-at-Way
City Limits to Amador Valley (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend -
Totals tor TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $530 per LF $2,279,000
Sionals
Willow Creek $120,000
Amador Vallev $90,000
Rioht-of-Way
None $0
citY Administration, Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $497,800
Total with 10% Continaency (0 on Admin) $3,235.700
Dougherty Road - Segment 2
4,250 feet, 118 Right-at-Way
Amador Valley to Houston Place (Widening)
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at $530 per LF $2,252,500
Sionals
None $0
Right-at-Way
40 x 440 x $18, Southern Pacific Rioht-ot-Wav $316,800
920 x 8 x $18, near Huston Place $132,480
citY Administration, Desion, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% 5540,356
Total with 10% Continaency (0 on Admin} $3.512,314
Dougherty Road - Segment 3
Right Hand Turn
Huston Place to Dublin Boulevard (SOD')
Right Turn Pocket Only; All Other Improvements Are Done
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements. 8 x 300 $33,600
Right-at-Way and Demo. LS (City) $100,000
Signals $0
CItY Administration, Desian, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $26,720
Total with 10% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $173,680
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST .XLS
Page 1
Revised 12/30$4
e
e
Dougherty Road - Segment 4
3,000 feet
Dublin Boulevard to North ot 1-580 Off-Ramp
Widen Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements. Lump Sum $200,000
Siqnal Modification $0
Riqht.of-Way. Lumo Sum; Includina Demo $1,000.000
City Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $240,000
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $1,680,000
Doughertv Road Subtotal (without Freeway interchange) $8,602,000
(Note that the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are responsible for that portion of
Douqhertv Road from the City Limits north to Old Ranch Road)
Dublin Road.. SeQment 5
2,200 teet, 108 Right-of-Way
Village Parkway to Sierra Court (Widening)
As Submitted to Caltrans
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot $442,308
Bridqe Wideninq $205,769
Riaht-of-Wav and Demo; have 100, need 108 $221,154
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $173,846
Total with 10% Continqency (0 on Admin.) $1,130,000
$1 Million Credit for lSTEA Contribution $1,000,000
Net Total for this Seament $130,000
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 6
2,030 teet, 108 Right-at-Way
Sierra Court to Dougherty Road (Widening)
Future Improvements Will Be Similar to Segment 5
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 300 per Linear Foot $609,000
Sianals
Sierra Lane. Civic - Modification $75,000
Dublin Court. Modification $75,000
Douqhertv with Civillmorovements $210,000
Riaht-of-Way. 8* $18+100K demo $392,320
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $272,264
Total with 10% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $1,769,716
PH\SCDOC\TI FEST.XLS
Page 2
Revised 1 V30t94
e
e
Dublin Boulevard Extention, Segment 7
1,700 teet, 126 Right-at-Way
Dougherty to Southern Pacific Riaht-ot-Way
300 Feet Completed; 1,400 Feet 50% Complete
Future Improvements Only in Estimate
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at $700,000 $364,000
Riaht-of-Way $0
BART Load of $2.821 M $2,821,000
Signals with Other Street. See Seament 5 $0
CItY Administration, DesiQn, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $637,000
Total with 10% Continaenev (0 on Admin.) $4,140,500
Dublin Boulevard Subtotal Cto Southern Pacific Rlaht-of-Way) $6,040,000
Dublin Boulevard Extention, Segment 8
4,750 feet, 126 Right-of-Way
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way to Hacienda
Improved on Each Side at Existing Roadwav (widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot $2,850,000
Signals
Hacienda, New, Maior I $170,000
Interim Sional, New (Road Unknown) $125,000
Spine Intersection, New $125,000
Interim Siqnal, New (Road Unknown) $0
Right-of-Wav, 126.$7 + 200K demo $3,292,125
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acquisition. 20.0% $1,312,425
(Includes Alameda Co., Right-of-Wav Costs & City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Continoenev (0 on Admin.) $8,530,763
Dublin Boulevard - SeQment 9
4 ,600 feet, 126 Right-at-Way
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
Improved on Each Side of Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot $2,240,000
Signals
Tassajara New, Maior $170,000
Bridqe, $80.120W*1 OOL $960,000
Right-of-Wav. 126.$7 + Ok demo $2,469,600
City Administration, Desian, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,167,920
(Costs Include City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% Continoency (0 on Admin.) " $7,591,480
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 3
Revised 12/30/94
e
e
Dublin Boulevard - Segment 10
6,200 teet, 126 Right-at-Way
Tassajara Road to Fallon
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 per lineal foot $2,480,000
Signals
Fallon - New. Maior $170,000
Right-of-Way, 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $488,250
City Administration, Design, Construction Manaaement. ROW Acquisition. 20.0% $627,650
Total with 20% Continoenev To on Admin.) $4,393,550
Dublin Boulevard Extension - Segment 11
9,250 feet, 126 Right-at-Way
Fallon Road to Airway
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per lineal foot $3,700,000
Sienals
Airwav Boulevard, Maior $170,000
Gleason, Maior $170,000
Bridge, $80*120W*1 OOL 5960,000
Rioht-of-Way, 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $728,438
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acouisition, 20.0% $1,145,688
Total with 20% Contineency To on AdminT $8.019,813
$28,536,000
Dublin Boulevard Extension Subtotal (without Freeway Interchange)
(Note City of Dublin received $573,000 from State of California (SB300 funds) and $400,000 from
the City of Pleasanton for roadway improvements from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to
Tassaiara Road. -973,000
Subtotal is therefore ($573k + $400 k) $27.563,000
Freeway Interchange - Segment 12
Dublin Boulevard Extension with 1-580 - (Airway Boulevard)
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements, Ramps $2,650,000
Sianals $107,143
Right-of-Way $100,000
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $571 ,429
Total with 20% Continoency (0 on Admin:) $4.000,000
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 4
Revised 12/30194
e
e
Hacienda - Segment 13
1500 teet, 126 Right-at-Way
1-580 (Not including interchange) to North ot Dublin Boulevard Extension
Improved on Each Side ot Existing Roadway (Widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 oer linear foot $600,000
Sicmals, Includina with 6 and 25 $0
Riaht-of-Way. 126*$1.25 + Ok demo $661,500
citY Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $252,300
Total with 20% ContinaencviO on Admin.) $1,766,100
Hacienda - SeQment 14
4400 teet, 102 Right-ot-Way
Gleason to North of Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway Included
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 650 oer linear foot $1,086,800
Sionals $0
Transit Spine, Maior $170,000
Gleason, Major $170,000
Rioht.of-Wav, 102*$7 + 1 OOk demo $1,231,808
city Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition. 20.0% $531,722
Total with 20% Continoencv (0 on Admin.) $3,722,051
Hacienda Road $ubtotallWlthout Freewav Interchange) $5,488,000
Freeway Interchange - Segment 15
Hacienda Road with 1-580
Widen Offramp and Modity Signal {Loan amount built prior
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements, Left Turn Lane $170,000
Sianal $75,000
Alameda County $3.762 M Loan (Including Interesh $3,762,000
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaqement, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $49,000
Total $4,056.000
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 5
Revised 12/30194
e
e
Transit Spine - Segment 16
3130 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Hacienda
(Camp Parks is on Both Sides of Roadway)
Improved on each side ot Existing Roadway (widened about CL)
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 650 oer linear foot $1,403,805
Signals
Future Road? $170,000
Right-of-Wav. 102*$7 + 1 OOk demo $1,611,026
CItY Administration. Design, Construction Manaoement. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $636,966
Total with 20% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $4,458,763
Transit Spine - Segment 17
5600 teet, 102 Right-ot-Way
Hacienda to Tassaiara
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,383,200
Signals, See 11 and 20 $0
Bridge, $80*96W*1 OOL $768,000
Right-of-Way, 102*$7 + 1 OOk demo I $1,557,392
CItY Administration, Design, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $741,718
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $5,192,029
Transit Spine - Segment 18
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassajara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,531.400
Sionals, See 20 and 23 $0
Right-of-Way, 102*$1.25 + 1 OOk demo $338,390
CItY Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $373,958
Total with 20% Continoenev (0 on Admin.) $2,617,706
Transit Seine Roadwav Subtotal $12,268,500
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 6
Revised 12/30194
e
e
Gleason - Segment 19
7000 teet, 102 Right-ot-Way
1,500 teet West ot Hacienda to Tassajara
1/2 Improvements Exist. Sawcut and Extend
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 350 per linear foot $681,000
Sienals. See 11 and 20 $0
Bridae, $80*SSW*1 OOL $440,000
Right-of-Way. 102*$7 + 1 OOk demo $1,937,240
City Administration, Desian, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $611,648
Total with 20% Contineenev (0 on Admin.) $4,281,536
Gleason - Segment 20
6200 feet, 102 Right-of-Way
Tassaiara to Fallon
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $1,531,400
Sianals, See 20 and 23 $0
Right-of-Wav. 102*$1.25 + 1 OOk demo $338,390
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $373,958
Total with 20% Continaenev (0 on Admin.) $2,617,706
Gleason Roadwav Subtotal $6,900,000
(Note the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Road to Doolan Road
is not included because no development is prODosed for Doolan Canyon as cart of the
Dublin General Plan Amendment)
Scarlet Drive - Segment 21
2,400 feet, 102 Right-ot-Way
Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 650 per linear foot $156,000
Sianals $0
Douahertv I Major $170,000
Dublin. Maior $170,000
Railroad Utilities? $0
Bridae, $80*90W*1 OOL $720,000
Right-of-Wav. 102*$7 + 1 OOk demo $1,813.600
City Administration, Desion, Construction Manaaement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $886,720
Total with 20% Continaency (0 on Admin.) $6.207,000
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST .XLS
Page 7
Revised 12130/94
e
e
Tassajara Road - Segment 22
8,250 teet, 126 Right-ot-Way
City Limits to Gleason
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 oer linear foot $1,797,500
Signals $0
Fallon $0
Gleason, Maior $0
Right-of-Way, 126*$7*50% + 100k demo $0
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acouisition, 20.0% $359,500
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin,) $2,516,500
Tassajara Road - Segment 23
4,400 feet, 126 Riaht-ot-Way
Gleason to Dublin Boulevard
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 Der linear foot $880,000
Sianals
Transit Spine, Maior I $850,000
Gleason, See 19 $0
Right-of-Way, 126*$7*48% + 100k demo $0
City Administration, Desian, Construction Management, ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $193,000
Total with 20% Continoencv To on Admin.) $1,351,000
Tassajara Road - Segment 24
1000 teet, 150 Right-ot-Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to 1580; (not including Interchange)
Existing Pavement Unusable
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 900, short, at freeway $270,000
Signals, See 21 and 7 $0
Riaht-of-Way. 150*$7*48% + 100k demo $23,740
City Administration. Desion, Construction Manaoement, ROW AcquiSition, 20.0% $58,748
Total with 20% Continoenev (0 on Admin:) $411 ,236
"
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 8
Revised 12/30/94
e
e
Tassajara Road Subtotal (without Freeway Interchanae) $4,279,000
Tassajara Road - Segment 25
at Freeway Intersection
Freeway Interchanae
1/2 ot Interchange Exists
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements, Ramos $3,700,000
Signals $300,000
Right-of-Wav $0
City Administration. Design, Construction Manaoement. ROW ACQuisition, 20.0% $800,000
Total with 20% Continqency (0 on Admin.) $5,600,000
Fallon Road - Segment 26
16,000 feet 126 Right.of-Way
Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard Extension
All New Roadway
Totals for TIF Share
Civillmorovements at 800 per linear foot $2,160,000
Signals
Gleason 585,000
Transit Spine $85,000
Right-of-Wav, 126*1.25+1 OOK Demo $452,250
City Administration, Desiqn, Construction Manaqement, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% 5556,450
Total with 20% Continaency (Q on Admin} $3.895,150
Fallon Road - Segment 27
1,500 feet 126 Right-of.Way
Dublin Boulevard Extension to North ot 1-580
All New Roadway, Include Interchange
Totals for TIF Share
Civil Improvements at 800 per linear foot $300,000
Signals
See SeQment 8 $0
No Freewav Interchange or FW Sionals $0
Right-of-Wav. 126*1.25+1 OOK Demo $84,063
City Administration. Desiqn, Construction Management. ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $76,813
Total with 20%. Continaency (0 on Admin.) $537,688
Fallon Road Subtotal (without Freewav Interchange) $4,430,000
"
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 9
Revised 12/30194
e
e
Fallon & 1-580 Freeway Interchange with Signals - Segment 28
Totals for TIF Share
Freeway Interchanae, Including Sianals $7,500,000
Right-of-Wav $0
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $1,500,000
Total with 20% Continaenev (0 on Admin.) $10,500,000
Tassajara Creek Bikepath - Seament 29
12,800 teet
Dublin Boulevard Extension to Contra Costa County Line
Totals for TIF Share
12,800 feet $720,000
City Administration. Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $144,000
Total with 20% Continoenev (0 on Admin.) $1,008,000
Park & Ride
40,000 s.t. for 150 cars
Totals for TIF Share
East of Tassaiara, 40.000 s.f. @ ($4 ImDrov. & $7 riaht of wav) $440,000
East of Hacienda, 40,000 @ ($4 Imorov. & $7 riaht of way) $440,000
East of Fallon, 40,000 @ ($4 Imorov. & $1.25 for right of way) $210,000
City Administration, Desion, Construction Management, ROW Acquisition, 20.0% $218,000
Total with 20% Continaencv (0 on Admin.) $1,526,000
Precise Plan Line Costs
Totals for TIF Share
Total Cost $301,000
PH\SCDOC\TIFEST.XLS
Page 10
Revised 12/301'34
_Alameda County Assessor's Parcel:e
946-500-1-1/946-500-2-1/946-15-1-7 946-500-2-2
East Bay Regional Park District Margorie Koller & Carolyn A. Adams
2950 Peralta Oaks Ct. 5379 Tassajara Rd.
Oakland, CA 94605 Pleasanton. CA 94588
946- 500-1- 2
Anne Gygi
5868 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-500-3
Clyde C. Casterson
5020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-1-81946-15-1-9/946-1040-3-3
City of Pleasanton
City Clerk
200 Bernal Ave.
Pleasanton. CA 94566
946-541-1
James G. & Sue Tipper
7440 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-2-1
Jose L. & Violetta Vargas
7020 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-2-3
Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich
6960 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-541-3
Elvera 1. Bragg & Claire Silva
646 Donner Dr.
Sonoma, CA 95476
946_541_5_1/946_1040_2/946_1040_1_2/946_1040_3_2
Charter Properties
clo Chang S., Hong.Y., & Hong 1. Un
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-580-1
Roberta S. Moller
6861 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-580-2
Redgwick Construction Company
25599 Huntwood Ave.
Hayward, CA 94544
946-680-1
Mission Peaks Home Inc.
47460 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
99B-3005-\-3
Dublin Land Company
1991 Leigh Ann Place
San Jose, CA 95125
946-680-5-1/946-680-5-2
Michael H. Kobold
815 Diablo Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
946-680-6-1
Rodman Scott & Claudine T. Azevedo
6363 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton. CA 94588
946-680-7
Albert C. & Beverly A. Haight
6833 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanlon, CA 94588
946-680-8
Ann H. Silveria
6615 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton. CA 94588
946-680-9
Robert 1. Nielson Jr" Michelle Olds, & Larry R.
Williamson
P.O. Box 1667
Lafayette, CA 94549
99B-3026-1/99B-3026-2
Paoyeh & Bihyu Un
9657 E. Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
99B-3026-3-1
William L. & May K. Devany
299 Junction Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
998-3036-4
Dublin Ltd.
clo Teachers Management
P.O. Box 2500
Newport Beach, CA 92658
99B-3036-5
William L. & Jean S. Maynard
350 Tideway Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
99B-3036-6-2
Levins Metals Corporation
1800 Monterey Hwy
San Jose. CA 95112
99B-3036-9/99B-3036-10
Hanubul F. Jordan & Orletta Molineux
537 Grove Way
Hayward, CA 94541
99B-3200-6-3
Anderson Second Family Ltd. Partnership
3457 Croak Rd.
Pleasanlon, CA 94588
99B.3046-2-14
Fallon Enterprises Inc.
5781 Fallon Rd.
Livermore, CA 94550
Exhibit D of Resolution
List of Individual Properties
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change in the future.
99 B- 3046-2-8/99 B-3 046-2-9
Charter Properties
c/o Chang S.. Frederic, & Hong Y. Lin
Chang S., Frederic, & Hang Y. Lin
660 I Owens Dr, # I 00
Pleasanton, CA 94588
lamed a County Assessor's Parcels
99B-3036-1
Charter Properties
c/o Frederic & Jennifer Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
998-3046-2-15
Charter Properties
clo Chang S.. Hong Y., & Hong L. Un
660 I Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
946-15-1-10/946-15-4
Surplus Property Authority of County of Alameda
County of Alameda - Public Works Agency
399 Elmhurst St.
Hayward, CA 94544-1395
998-3036-6-3
Pleasanton Ranch Investments
998-3281-1-11998-3281-2
Francis P. Croak
1262 Gabriel Ct.
San Leandro. CA 94577
998-3281-3
David P. Mandeville
60 Fenton St.
Livennore, CA 94550
946-540-1
R.T. & Eileen Sperfslage
6060 Tassajara Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
998-3200-5-2
Milton R. & Gloria Righetti
3088 Massachusetts St.
Castro Valley, CA 94546
99B-3200-4-3
James R. & Dixie M. Campbell
4141 Mattos Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
"
998-3036_7/99B_3036_8/99B_3046_2_6/99B_3046_2_7
Charter Properties
clo Chang S. & Frederic Un
6601 OWens Dr.
Pleasanton. CA 94588
946-15-2/946-15-1-6
United States of America
946-680-3/946-680-4
Charter Properties
c/o Frederic & Kevin Lin
6601 Owens Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
998-3200-4-4
Robert D. & Shirley M. 8ranaugh
1881 Collier Canyon Rd.
Livennore, CA 94550
Note: Exhibit D includes the assessor's parcel by number and current
owner's names and addresses. Ownership may change in the future.
Exhibit D
','
e
e
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Single-Family Residential (1 to 14 units per acre):
Multi-Family Residential or Mobile Home Park
(more than 14 units per acre):
Development Other Than Residential
$3,355/unit
$2,350/unit
$293/trip
(Based on the following table)
LAND USE
(Non-Residential)
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
HOTEUMOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
10/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
Medical/Dental
20/1,000 sf
34/1,000 sf
RECREATION:
Recreation Community Center
Health Club
Bowling Center
Golf Course
Tennis Courts
Theaters
Movie
Live
Video Arcade
26/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
33/1. 000 sf
S/acre
33/court
220/screen
O.21seat
96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (private Schools):
1.5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
ConvalescenUNursing
Clinic
121bed
3/bed
24/1,000 sf
CHURCH:
9/1,000 SF
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with Retail)
Industrial (without Retail)
16/1,000 sf
811.000 sf
* Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of
Transportation Engineers and San Diego Assoc. Government Trip
Generation Rates. These trip generation rates are based on averages.
Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction.
Page 1 of 2
"
Exhibit E of Resolution
Trip Generation Rates
e
LAND USE
( Non-Residential)
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit..down, high turnover (usually chain other than fast food)
Fast Food (with or without drive-through)
BarfTavern
AUTOMOBILE:
Car Wash
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without food mart
Tire Store/Oil Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
FINANCIAL:
Bank (walk-in only)
Savings and Loan (walk-in only)
Drive Through/ATM (add to Bank or Savings & Loan)
COMMERCIAURETAIL:
Super Regional Shopping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
more than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ major stores)
Regional Shopping Center
(300,000 to 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres, w/usually 2+ major stores)
Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center
(Less than 300,000 SF; less than 30 acres
w/usually 1 major store or grocery store
and detached restaurant and/or drug store)
Commercial Shops
Retail/Strip Commercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
Lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nursery
Cemetery
e
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-BYS)
63/1.000 sf
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1,000 sf
585/site
70lwash stall
97/pump
28/service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1.000 sf
(no pass-bys) 80/acre
91/1,000 sf
40/1,000 sf
6S/lane or machine
22/1,000 sf
33/1,000 sf
46/1.000 sf
26/1.000 sf
33/1,000 sf
98/1,000 sf
325/1,000 sf
46/1,000 sf
20/1,000 sf
23/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 4/acre
Page 2 of 2
e e
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES
WITHIN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Cost of Roadway
Improvements
Cost of Bridge
Improvements
Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from
the Southern Pacific Right-of-way to Airway Boulevard
(from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from
December IS, 1992 and mitigation measure 3.3/10)
$ 24,971,100
$ 2,592,000
Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from
Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive and to six lanes
from I-580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS
revised report)
$ 5,488,000
-0-
Transit spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin
Boulevard west of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from
the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1
of the DKS revised report)
$ 11,193,000
$ 1,075,200
Gleason Drive. Construct new four-lane road from west
of Hacienda Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future
road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS
revised report) (The project does not require extension
of Gleason Drive to Doolan Road due to no development
proposed in the future study area)
$ 6,283,000
$
616,000
Tassajara Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to the Contra Costa
County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane right-
of-way from Dublin Boulevard to I-S80 (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/14.0) $ 4,279,000
-0-
Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four
lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from I-580 to Tassajara
Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on page 1 of the DKS revised report) $ 4,430,000
-0-
Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify
the exact street alignments in the Eastern Dublin area S 301.000
-0-
S 56.945.100
S 4,283.200
The Area of Benefit Fee for roadway improvements based on 136,674 trips for residential
and 209,851 trips for non-residential is $l,814/unit for single-family; $1,270/unit for
multi-family; and $164/trip for non-residential.
The Area of Benefit Fee for the bridge improvements for single~family is $136/unit; multi-
family is $96/unit; and non-residential is $12/trip.
Single-family is from 1 to 14 units per acre and multi-family is more than 14 units per
acre. The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific plan area has 8,779 single-family units and
5,127 multi-family units.
a: \dec\edtif
"
Exhibit F of Resolution
Major Thoroughfares & Bridges List
.-
I
I
I
I
I
.'1
' .
I
1
..}
L~
l
.
~
I
.
.
.
t..t!
~
I
~
e
e
5.0
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The transportation and circulation systems for eastern Dublin
are designed to provide convenient access to and mobility within
the specific plan area. The plan provides for an integrated,
multi-modal circulation system that reduces potential traffic
impacts by providing area residents with a high degree of choice
in selecting a preferred mode of transportation. While ensuring
that vehicular circulation is convenient and efficien~ the plan
puts a strong emphasis on accommodating alternate modes of
transportation, including walking, bicycles, transit and
ridesharing. These alternate modes of transportation will not
only relieve future traffic congestion, but can also help to
rnin.imiZe air pollution, reduce noise pollution, and conserve
energy.
GOAL: To provide a circulation
system for eastern Dublin that is
convenient and efficient, and en..
courages the use of alternate nwdes
of transportation as a means of im..
proving community character and
reducing environmental impacts.
In addition to standard transportation measures, the Specific
Plan also includes several measures, that are only indirectly
related to transportation, to encourage the development of a less
automobile-dependent community. On the macro scale, the
Plan attempts to maintain a citywide balance between employ-
ment and housing to reduce the need for long commutes. In
addition, the Plan encourages the dey~lopment of housing for all
income levels to provide a match between available housing and
the buying power of local employees. On the micro scale,
commercial centers have been strategically located near
residential concentrations to reduce the length and number of
vehicle trips needed for daily shopping and service;;. Higher
density housing has been integrated into commercial areas and
mixed-use developments are encouraged as a means of stimulat-
ing pedestrian activity. Higher intensity development is also
designated near the proposed eastern Dublin BART station and
along the transit spine to support transit use. An extenSive trail
system has been designed to encourage walking and cycling. On
the micro scale, advisory development and design guidelines
included in the plan promote pedestrian-friendly streetscapes
that provide a safe and comfortable environment for the
pedestrian.
Policy 5-1: Encourage higher intensity development
near transit corridors.
Policy 5-2: Require all development to provide a
. balanced orientation toward pedestrian, bicycle, and
automobile circulation.
5.1.1 EXISTING ROADS
The Specific Plan area is served by one major freeway and several
local routes which are primarily rural in character.
INTERSI'A1E 580
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane freeway which runs east-west
along the south side of the planning area. Interstate 580 (I-580)
connects with Interstate 680 in Dublin, and continues west
through Dublin Canyon to serve Vt"eStern Alameda County and
San Francisco. To the eas~ I-580 connects to livermore, Tracy
and Interstate 5 in the Central valley. Interchanges in the
planning area vicinity include Dougherty RoadlHopyard Road,
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Fallon Road!
EI Charm Road, and Airway Boulevard. Between I -680 and
Tassajara Road, recent improvement projects have added a fifth
auxiliary lane in each direction to serve traffic entering and
exiting the freeway.
The peak traffic directions are westbound in the morning and
eastbound in the evening. Traffic flows are heavy in the peak
directions during peak periods, but congestion in the planning
area is not significant ".91fJ!i..~se delays. There is si~-
EXHIBIT 5 (of Staff Report)
Traffic & Circulation Element
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
~
e e I
TRAFFIC AND CffiCUIATION
cant peak period congestion west of Dougherty Road and at the DOOlAN ROAD I
interchange between Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. Doolan Road is a two-lane local rural road which provides access ~
to several ranches and residences. About two miles north of 1-
DOUGHER1Y ROAD 580, Doolan Road turns into a single-lane road for a half mile
Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road over most of its length. before ending at a gate. I
Dougherty Road. has six lanes between 1-580 and Dublin .
Boulevard. Portions of Dougherty Road have been widened to EL CHARRO ROAD
four lanes adjacent to new development between Dublin EI Charro Road is a private two-lane road which serves the I
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. quarries between Pleasanton and Livermore. Multi-axle trucks
DUBIlN BOULEVARD traveling to and from the quarries account for about 60 percent i
of the traffic on EI Charro Road and at the Fallon RoadlEl
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the city of Charm Road freeway interchange.
Dublin. Dublin Boulevard was recently extended to Hacienda AIRWAY BOULEVARD I
Drive, and will be further extended to Tassajara Road by
Summer 1993. Scarlett Court, a two lane extension of Dublin AiWJ:f Boulevard is a two lane road which serves the Livermore I
Boulevard, continues east from Dougherty Road. and serves local Municipal Airport and the Las Positas golf course on the south
businesses up to a dead end at the Southern pacific rnilroad side of 1-580. A series of local arterial streets connect Airw'irf
right-of-way. Boulevard with northwest Livennore. On the north side of the I
Airway Boulevard freeway interchange, Airway Boulevard
HACIENDA DRIVE connects to Doolan Road and North Canyons Parkway.
Hacienda Drive is an arterial road which provides access to the NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY I
Hacienda Business park in Pleasanton. Hacienda Drive connects
to a recently completed interchange on 1-580. Hacienda Drive North Canyons Parkway is a four-lane east-west arterial which ,
currently does not extend north of the interchange. serves the Triad Business Park and connects to Collier Canyon
Road.
TASS4J4RA ROAD I
Tassajara Road is a two-Iane rura1 road which connects with COlllER CANYON ROAD , .
Santa Rita Road at 1-580 and continues north to Danville. Collier Canyon Road is a two-lane rural road which connects to "
Tassajara Road is used for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley, North Canyons Parkway and continues north to a junction with
With some through traffic to and from the Danville area. Highland Road. Collier Canyon Road provides access to the Las
SANJ'A RD'A ROAD Positas College. ,I
5.1.2 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ~
santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-
580 interchange south to Valley Avenue. It serves the eastern side Improvement projects have been proposed for freeways, freeway I
of Hacienda Business Park. South of Valley Avenue, Santa Rita interchanges and local roads in the eastern Dublin area. The ..... '~.
Road continues as a four-lane street to Main Street in downtown most important of these are the Dublin Boulevard extension, ,
Pleasanton. planned improvements to the 1-58QII-680 interchange, the
FAlLON AND CROAK ROADS proposed widening of r-680 and local street improvements
related to development in North Livermore.
[I
Fallon Road and Croak Road are two-Iane local rural roads The City of Dublin has completed an extension of Dublin ... .
which dead end north of 1-580. They each provide local access Boulevard east of Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive. The next
only to several properties, and traffic volumes are VPf small. phase will be an extension to TassaJara Road, which is scheduled -
for completion by summer 1993. This extension initially
50 ~
." .
..
,
,
II
II
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
~
.'
.
.
.
,
II
I ..~
i
e
provides one lane in each direction. The Dublin General Plan
(Figure 7, page 20) also designates a future four-lane street
parallel to the Southern Pacific right..of-way, connecting
Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard with the Dublin
Boulevard extension east of Dougherty Road.
The current 1-580/1-680 interchange project includes construc-
tion of a flyover from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580. The
improvement will help to reduce congestion on one of the key
bottlenecks in the Tri-Valley area. Construction is expected to
begin in 1994 with work completed in 1996. Partial funding for
this improvement will come from Alameda County's Measure
"B" sales tax initiative, with the remainder to be made up from
other sources.
CalTrans is currently studying further improvements to the I-
5801l-&30 interchange. These proposed improvements would
replace all of the existing loop ramps With direct flyover ramps.
The proposed improvements would improve freeway and ramp
operations, but would restrict local access to individual freeway
movements. For example, drivers from Dougherty Road would
have access to I-580 east and wes~ but would not have access to
1-680 as they do now. For this reason, the CalTrans study is
considering local access freeway ramps on I-680 in Dublin south
of Dublin Boulevard. There is no current funding source for
these further interchange improvements.
An improvement project has been planned for I-&30 which will
add one extra high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each
direction in the median, to provide four total lanes in each
direction between 1-580 and State Route 24 in Walnut Creek.
The first phase of the projec~ which is currently under construc-
tion, involves the placement of sound walls along the freeway.
The second phase of the projec~ which will add the lanes in the
median of the freeway, could be completed by 1993.
The Alameda County Measure B sales tax provides partial
ftmding for completion of State Route 84 as a four-lane highway
between I-680 and I-580, with construction of a new int.erthange
on 1-580 between Airway Boulevard and portola Avenue.
5.1.3 EXISTING TRANSIT
There are currently no transit lines which directly serve the
planning area. The Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore areas are
served by local bus seIVice and BART express bus service.
The UvermoreJ Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
provides local bus transit service in Dublin, Pleasanton and
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
Livermore, as well as unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
In the vicinity of eastern Dublin, there are local bus routes on
Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Road and I-580, and
local bus service to the Fairlands Drive area of Pleasanton, just
south of I-580 and east of Santa Rita Road.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit Distrtct (BART) provides express bus
seIVice connecting Dublin with BART stations in San Leandro,
Hayward and Walnut Creek. These lines pass by the eastern
Dublin planning area on I-580, but currently make no stops
between Dougherty Road and portela Avenue.
5.1.4 FUTURE TRANSIT
The BART Board of Directors has adopted a policy for the
proposed extension of BART rail service to Dublin and
Pleasanton. Current BART policy would build a BART extension
to three new stations, on~ in Castro Valley, a West Dublin!
Pleasanton station in the median of I-580 between Foothill
Boulevard and 1-680, and an East DublinlPleasanton station in
the I-580 median between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
Two of the stations, including the Castro Valley station and one
of the DublinlPleasanton stations, will be constructed using
BART and/or other public and private financing. The third
station on the extension (the other DublinlPleasanton station)
can be constructed only upon the commitment of funding that is
unrelated to the funding levels in the Metropolitan Transporta-
tion CommisSion (MTC) New Rail Starts and Extension Pro-
gram.
5.2 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
5.2.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The road system is designed to maximize the free flow of traffic
by creating a highly interconnected system that, accommoda1es
the movement of vehicles while enhancing opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation (Figure 5.1). The system is
characterized by three major north-south and east-west streets to
accommodate local traffic as well as a certain amount of
regional traffic which can be expected to p~ through the area.
5.2.2 NORfH-SOUTH CIRCUlATION
The major north-south streets will be Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, coinciding with existing planning area
roadways and interchanges.
51
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCtJl). nON
Hacienda Drive will facilitate access to the freeway for residents
and employees in the western portion of the planning area.
Hacienda Drive is planned as a four-lane road (six to eight lanes
south of Dublin BoulevaId) which will extend from 1-580 north
to Gleason Drive.
Tassajara Road will be the major north-south road through the
Town Center carrying substantial traffic from both the planning
area and beyond into the retail core. Tassajara Road will meet
the northern portion of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road at an
intersection.
Fallon Road will be extended north to connect with Tassajara
Road in the northwest comer of the planning area. Fallon Road
will be a limited-access parkway which will serve local traffic as
well as through traffic between 1-580 and Contra Costa County.
The alignment of Tassajara Road as it runs south from Contra
Costa County will flow directly into Fallon Road to encourage
this movement.
5.2.3 EAST-WEST CIRCUlATION
Two east-west streets are designated in the plan to provide
convenient movement across the planning area to the major
north-south corridors.
The southernmost corridor, located approximately a quarter of a
mile north of the freeway, is an extension of Dublin Boulevard,
providing the principal vehicular connection between eastern
Dublin and the existing Dublin community. Projected to
ultimately be a six-lane roadway, the Dublin Boulevard exten-
sion would ultimately connect with North Canyons Parkway in
Uvennore to provide a reliever route paralleling the freeway.
Approximately a half mile north of and parallel to the Dublin
Boulevard extension, a smaller four-lane arterial would be
located along the Gleason Road alignment This roadway is not
currently planned to extend west of the planning area because of
the presence of Camp Parks. The corridor would primarily serve
the more densely developed southern portion of the planning
area, and would extend from Arnold Road on the west to Fallon
Road on the east It is anticipated that this road will carry
predominantly local vehicle trips.
5.2.4 TRANSIT SPINE
The Plan calls for a third major east-west corridor si~ated
midway between the Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road
extensions. Unlike the other two corridors, this corridor is not
._~. - - -- -- --.....
e
designed to carry high volumes of traffic or to move traffic
quickly through the area. It will provide two through lanes in
each direction. This corridor will be the "Main Street" for the
Town Center and its function will be to serve as the transit spine
linking the Town Center to the future eastern nublinlPleasanton
BART station, and to serve local vehicular traffic. The transit
spine extends across the width of the planning area.
The plan concentrates residential and employment uses along
this spine to encourage transit use for local and regional travel.
In addition to the Town Center commercial core, Fallon Village,
the sports park, the high school, junior high school and several
elementary schools are all located on the transit spine or within
a quarter of a mile of it. A quarter mile represents about a five
-minute walk and is the normally accepted planning standard for
what most people find a comfortable and convenient walking
distance.
5.2.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Streets and intersections are evaluated in terms of "level of
service" (LOS) which is a measure of driving conditions and
vehicle delay. Levels of service range from A (best) to F (poor-
est). Levels of service A, B and C indicate satisfactory conditions
where traffic can move freely. Level of service D describes
conditions where delay is more noticeable, typical of a busy
urban or suburban area during peak periods. Level of service E
indicates conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to
capacity, resulting in significant delays and average travel speeds
which are one-third the uncongested speeds or lower. Level of
service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds
available capacity, with very slow speeds (stop-and-go) and long
delays (over a minute) and queuing at signalized intersections.
Level of service D is generally used as the standard for planning
new or upgraded transportation facilities in developed areas.
This LOS represents tolerable peak period delays for motorists,
where drivers occasionally have to wait through more than one
red light
Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to
maintain Level of Service D or better as the average
intersection level of smice at all intersections within
the specific Plan area during AM, PM and midday peak
periods. The average intersection level of smice is
defined as the hourly average.
52
I
I
rI
.~
I
.
iI
.
.
.
.
II
.
,
n
.
I
R
LiI
=
II
.
, .
.
.'
.
.
.
ne
-
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
111
.
.
.
.
II
e
5.2.6 STREET ClASSIFICATIONS
A hierarchy of streets shall be developed within the specific plan
area to accommodate the various levels of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, as well as to provide amenities in the fonn of
landscaping, sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails, and lighting. The
street hierarchy shall recogniZe the specifiC function of streets
within the different districts of the specific plan. Where possible,
streets shall be designed to meet special circumstances or
conditions in order to create a particular community character
or identity, to enhance commercial and retailing activity or to
protect sensitive natural resources.
The vehicle circulation plan includes siX basic classes of roads,
including major arterial streets, arterial streets, major collector
streets, collector streets, local residential streets, and industrial
roads. Each of these classifications serves a different function for
vehicle circulation in the Specific Plan area, and each classifica-
tion is associated with a set of design standards. In addition,
there will be several specialized street types in the Village Centers
which will facilitate improved pedestrian access and on-street
parking for fronting retail uses. Specialized street designs will
require approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
GOAL: To establish a vehicle
circulation system which provides
suffuient capacity for projected
traffic and allows convenient access
to land uses, while maintaining a
neighborhood scale to the residen-
tial street system.
5.2.7 MAJORARTERlAL STREETS
The major arterial streets in eastern Dublin are designed to cany
very high traffic volumes with a minimum of interference from
connecting traffic. The major arterial streets include Dublin
Boulevard, as well as Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road south of Dublin Boulevard. These streets will provide six
through lanes, with up to eight through lanes for short street
sections connecting directly to a freeway interchange. kcess to
major arterials will be permitted only at signalized intersections
With arterial or collector streets, or at selected controlled loca-
tions with the approval of the Director of Public Works.
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION
Policy 5-4: Provide six to eight lane major arterial
streets to carry major community and sub-regional
traffic through the Specific Plan area.
5.2.8 ARTERIAL STREETS
Arterial streets provide for longer distance movements within the
Specific Plan area, providing connections between the residential
and commercial land uses. The arterial streets include Gleason
Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. They
are designed for higher speeds, with access to fronting properties
limited to selected controlled locations. The arterial streets in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will provide four through lanes
with a landscaped median and turn lanes provided at all
intersections.
Policy 5-5: Provide four to six lane arterial streets to
move traffic quickly and efficiendy within the planning
area.
5.2.9 MAJOR COllECTOR STREETS
Major collector streets provide direct access to major uses such as
office or industrial complexes or retail centers. They also provide
higher volume access into a residential neighborhood, although
no direct residential frontage shall be permitted. Major collector
streets will generally provide four lanes, plus provisions for
transit stops and bicycle lanes.
Policy 5-6: Provide two to four lane major collector
streets to provide access to commercial and industrial
areas, and into residential neighborhoods.
5.2.10 COllECfOR STREETS
Collector streets provide connections between local access streets
and the streets which provide for through vehicle movements.
Collector streets are intended to provide access into residential
neighborhoods or between sections of the neighborhoods, but not
to pass through the neighborhoods. Direct access may be
provided to uses such as schools and parks, but direct residential
frontage shall be discouraged.
Policy 5-7: Provide collector streets to provide access
into residential neighborhoods and to connect local.
residential streets with arterial meets.
5.2.11 LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Local residential streets are designed to provide direct access to
residential properties and to maintain a high quality residential
53
e
TRAFFIC AND CmCUlATION
environment The streets are kept short and discontinuous to
discourage through traffic and high speeds. Pavement widths
are minimiZed, both to discourage high speeds and to enhance
the residential character. Adequate right-{)f-way is provided on
each side of the street pavement for sidewalks and landscaping.
Neighborhood traffic con,trol me3SU1?S can help reduce speeds
and through traffic volumes on local residential streets. Traffic
control measures could include local narrowing of streets at
intersections, or properly dESigned diverters or traffic circlES.
Stop signs are generally not effective at reducing speeds, except
in the immediate vicinity of the sign. Lowering speed limi~ is
only effective With intensive enforcement.
Policy 5~8: Provide local residential neighborhood
streets which use the street alignment, short street
length, strategic narrowing oflanes and appropriate
neighborhood traffic control measures to discourage
through traffic and high speeds.
5.2.12 FREEWAY AND INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS
Improvemen~ to the 1-580 freeway and the interchange at
Fallon Road will be required to accommodate traffic to and from
eastern Dublin, as well as other regional traffic. The 1-580
freeway should be widened to provide a fifth auxiliary lane in
each direction between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, similar
to the widening which has been completed west of Tassajara
Road. The Fallon RoadlEl Charro Road interchange will need to
be expanded to a partial cloverleaf design with a six-lane freeway
overcrossing, similar to the Hacienda Drive interchange. In
addition, the dESign of the Fallon Road interchange must
incorporate provisions for quarry trucks as indicated in the City
of Pleasanton's Stoneridge Dlive Specific Plan.
Policy 5~9: Construct anxiliary lanes on 00111 direc~
. tions of 1~580, extending from the Tassajara Road!
Santa Rita Road interchange to 1I1e Fallon RoadlEl
Charro Road interchange. Construct a partial clover-
leaf interchange on 1-580 at Fallon RoadIEl Charro
Road, including a six~lane overcrossing, two-lane oJI. .
ramps, and truck bypass lanes for truck movements
from nor1hbound EI Charro to eastbound or
westbound 1-580.
ACTION PROGRAM: STREEl'S AND HIGHWAYS I
. Program SA: Detailed development plans submitted to the City shall
include the standards noted below. Localized exceptions for special
e
conditions may be approved by the Public Works Director in ket1'ing with
City procedures.
Major ArteriIJ/ Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 55 miles per hour
. Curb.to-curb wtdtb: 102feet (126feetfor etgbt.ltme sections)
indudtng a 14{oot witk, raised median
. Ma%tmum grade: 7 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,200 feet witb 4 j1erCImt supere/evation
to 2,000 feet witb no supere/evatton.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 660 feet
. No direct restdential frontage.
. On.street parktng is probtbif8d witb tbe exception of emergency
parktng.
. Proutde two kft.tum bays and one rigbt.lum bay at ail
intersedtons witb major artmai and arterial streets.
. FuB a<<ssS to major arf8rial streets will occur on!! at sigruzlized
inter#ctWns. Rigbt.tum~ aa:ess may be a:mstdered at a
minimum separation of300 feet from otber acass points or
intersections.
Arterial Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 50 miles per hour
. Curb-to-curb widtb: 78 feet including a 14{oot wide, raised
median
. Ma%tmum grade: 7 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,400 feet with no supere1evatton.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 660 feet
· No direct restdentialfrontage.
. On.street parktng is probibif8d with tbe exception of emergency
parldng.
. Direct I1IXeSS to abutting properties to be ccmtrolJed but not
probibiUd.
Major CoI1<<:Wr Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 45 miles per bour
. Curb-to-curb widtb: 76 feet for 4 lanes, 52 feet for two ltmes
. Ma%tmum grade: 8 percent
. Minimum curve radius: 1,100 feet witb no supetelevatton.
. Minimum distance between street intersections: 660 feet
. No direct residential frontage.
ColI8ctor Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 30 miles per bour
. Curb.to-curb wtdtb: 40 feet
54
.
.
t:w
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
-_:::.:.:
I
I
..
~
I
.
I
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
tI'
,.
~. . -
-- _.~- :~ .~_. ~. --~.- --
e
. Ma:dmum grade: 12 percent (maximum grade up /J:) 15 percent
may be aIJowed under special conditions and apprvved by City
Engi7Wer).
. Minimum curve radius: 450 feet witb no supere/evaJlan.
. Minimum dista1lCl1 between street intersections: 250 feet
. Direct residential frontage onry as approved by Publk works
Director.
Local Residential Streets:
. Minimum design speed: 25 miles per bour.
. Curb./o-curb widtb: 36 feet (J2feet witb parking on 0TI8 sids).
. Ma:dmum grade: 12 percent (maximum grade up to 15 percent
may be aOowed under special conditions and approved by City
Engineer).
. Minimum curve radius: 20() feet witb no superelevaJion.
. Ma:dmum lengtb of cul.(ie-sac streets: 600 feet, serving no more
tban 25 dwelling units.
. Local residential streets may not intersect art8ria1 streets.
. Terminate junctions of local residential streets at tbree-way "T"
intersections where posstbk.
. Minimum distance betwel1Tl street intersections: 150 feet
Industrial Roads:
. Minimum design speed: 30 miles per bour.
. Curb-to-curb widtb: 52feet.
. Ma:dmum grade: 7 percent.
. Minimum curve radius: 450 feet witb no superelevation.
5.3 PUBLIC TRANSIT
The transit system for eastern Dublin \Vi1l provide service to all
land use areas in the Specific Plan area (Figure 5.2). The
Transit Spine service will COIUlect the Town Center, campus
office areas, and the higher density residential areas directly to
regional transit opportunities at the eastern DublinlPleasanton
BART station. It is anticipated that transit service along Dublin
Boulevard will carry commuterS to and from major employment
centers along the freeway. Transit service \Vi1l also extend west of
the BART station to tie eastern Dublin into the existing areas of
Dublin, and to the south to provide service between eastern
Dublin and pleasanton.
GOAL: To maximize opportunities
for travel by public transit.
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULA nON
5.3.1 LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides
local bus transit service in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and
adjacent unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Local transit
service will be extended to eastern Dublin in consultation with
LAVTA
Policy 5-10: Provide 1raDSit service within one-quarter
mile of 95 percent of the population in the Specific
Plan area in accordance with LA vrA service standards.
Policy 5-11: Provide 1ranSit service, at a minimum
frequency of one bus every 30 minutes dming peak
hours, to 90 percent of employment centers with 100
or more employees in accordance with LA vrA service
standards. Encomge frequent and regular service
headways along the transit spine~
5.3.2 REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is currently con-
structing the Dublin-Pleasanton extension to a station to be
located just west of the Specific Plan area. The eastern Dublin!
Pleasanton BART station will be a focal point for local transit
services, and will provide regional transit connections to western
Alameda County, San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area.
.Policy 5-12: Upon implementation ofBAIn' service to
the proposed eastern DublinlPleasanton station, orient
local transit service to provide transit connections
between the BART station and all portions of the
Specific Plan area.
5.3.3 TRANSIT STOPS
The use of transit service can be encouraged by the provision of
bus pullouts, transit shelters, pedestrian paths and other
amenities.
Policy 5~13: Establish design guidelines for residen-
1ial and commercial development so that there are
dear and safe pedt'strian paths between building
en1raDces and transit service stops.
Policy 5-14: Provide transit shelters at major transit
stops and bus pullouts on major collector, arterial and
major arterial streets.
55
e
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
ACTION PROGRAM: PUBllC 1'RANSIT
. Program 5B: The City shall require review and approval of the
following as condition of project approval for applicab Ie projects in
eastern Dublin:
. Public transit route and phasing plan, te be prepared in
consu/tatiOn with fAJ.TA.
. Bus turtWUts and transit sheltm, in consulJation with fA ITA.
. Pedestrian paths between transit steps and building entrtmClS.
5.4 PEDESTRIAN
CIRCUlATION
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a network of
pedestrian sidewalks and trails (Figure 5.3). pedestrian paths
will connect residential areas with major activity centers such as
schools, parks, and retail centers, as well as providing passive
recreational opportunities.
GOAL: To provide a safe and
convenient pedestrian circulation
system in eastern Dublin, designed
for functional and recreational
needs.
5.4.1 STRUM CORRIDOR TRAILS
The plan provides for a comprehensive system of pedestrian!
bicycle trails within planning area stream corridors (see Figure
6.1). The trail along TassaJara Creek is intended to eventually
become part of the larger East Bay Regional Park District's.
regional trail network. A regional staging area will be provided
on EBRPD land along the west side of Tassalara Road to provide
trailhead access for local residents. This regional staging area
would be likely to include facilities such as parking areas for
passenger vehicles and horse trailers, drinking water, restrooms
and telephones. pedestrian trails will also be developed within
other stream corridors in the planning area.
Policy 5-15: Provide a DOrth-SOuth trail along
Tassajara Creek, and 1rails along other stream corri-
dors ~ shown on the Pedestrian and Bicycle System
map.
5.4.2 TOWN CENTER AND VIllAGE
CENTERS
The neighborhood commercial areas in the Tovm Center and
Village Centers are to be developed as an attractive pooestrian
environment. Features will include wide sidewalks with ameni-
ties such as seating, outdoor cafe and retail uses, public art and
street trees. The Community Design section of the Specific Plan
(see Chapter 8) contains guidelines for pedestrian provisions
along individual street sections.
Policy 5-16: Provide sidewalks and other streetscape
amenities in the Town Center and Village Center ~
in conformance with the Specific Plan design guide-
Jines.
ACTION PROGRAM: PEDJ!S1'1l/AN ClRCULtTION
. Program 5C: The City shall require development applicants in eastern
Dublin to submit a detailErl pedestctan circulation plan for review and
approval by the City. This plan shall include the following components as
deemed applicable under this Specific Plan by the Public Wooo Director.
Anyproposed improvements other than the City of Dublin Standard Plans
must be approv8l. by the Director of Public Works,
Tassqjara Creek Trail. Trail construction materials and methods shall
conform te the East Bay RegtonaI Parks District standards for trail
constrzp;tion. The trail shall be constructed for minimum ~islull
impf1(;t. There should be a buffer with an apJirrxdmate minimum
width of 100ftet betwetm the trail and nearl1y development.
St4Zin: Area and Trailbeads. A staging areafor the Tassajara Creek
trail shall be provided in east2rn Dublin, with parking, signs and trash
containers as de.signated by the East Bay Regional Parks District in
consultation with the City of Dublin. The locaJjon of the staging area
shall he based on convenimce for visitors from outsid8 eastern
Dublin, with minimal disruption oflocal neighborhoods.
Local trai/beads shall be primariJy designsd for use by residents of
eastern Dublin. Local trailheads shall he prOOdsd with appropriate
signs and trash containers.
Sidewalks. Street improvement plans for eastern Dublin shall include
sidewalks on both sides of the street except where the following
conditionS occur:
. On single-loaded streets, sidewalks may be allowed on one side
ordy, with the approval of tbe Director of Public Works.
. No sidewalk is required on local street frontages with no
abutting residential or commercial lots, and where it can be
demonstrated that the sidewalk is not needed for local pedes-
trian circulation.
5.5 BICYCLE CIRCUlATION
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides for a network of
bicycle routes (Figure 5.3). A Class I paved bicycle path will be
56
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
I ,
.
I
...
_ .~, ~ ~,--:...~............ _ ". .~,............ ~-r....'_~
e
(
I
l
I
I
provided parallel to the Tassajara Creek trail. Bicycle lanes will
be provided on selected arterial streets and on major collector
streets.
GOAL: To provide opportunities for
safe and convenient bicycle circula..
tion in eastern Dublin.
.~
i
5.5.1 BICYCLE ROUTES
Bike Paths (Class I Bicycle Routes) are special pathways for the
exclusive use of bicycles, separated from motor vehicle facilities
by space or by a physical barrier.
Bike Lanes (Class II Bicycle Routes) are lanes on the paved area
of a road designatEd for preferential use by bicycles. 'lliey are
usually identified by "Bike Lane" signs, special lane lines and
other pavement markings.
I
,
,
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Policy 5.17: Establish a bicycle circulation system
which helps to serve the need for non.motorized
tranSportation and recreation in eastern Dublin.
5.5.2 BICYCLE PARKING
In order to encourage the use of bicycles, safe and convenient
storage areas are needed for bicycles. Satisfactory bicycle
parking is particularly neaied at schools, recreation areas such
as the Sports Park, major transit stops and commercial centerS.
Policy 5.18: Provide convenient and secure bicycle
parking facilities at key destinations in eastern Dublin,
such as schools, recreation areas, tranSit stops and
commercial centers.
ACTION PROGRAM: BICYCIJI CIRCUL4TlON
. Program 5D: The City shall require development projec~ in eastern
Dublin to include provisions for bicycle circulation, as follows:
~jlul Path, Construct a bike path para&l to the Tassajara Creek trail.
Rilullants, Construct bike lanes on Gleason Road, on the Transit
Spine, on Tassajara Road and Pallon Road north of the Transit Spine,
and eLslfUlbere as designated on the Bkycle circuWion map, including
all necessary signs and lane striping.
lSit;ycle Storage Facilities. Locate at key destinationf.
~
e
TRAFFIC AND CmCUlATION
5.6 pARKING
Convenient and adequate parking is an important component of
the traffic and circulation system. However, large expanses of
parking can have adverse environmental effects, including visual
concerns, increased storm water runoff, and summer heat
buildup. In dense urban areas, limitations on the parking
supply can also help to induce greater use of alternative travel
modes such as ridesharing and transit
GOAL: To provide adequate, but not
excessive amounts of parking.
5.6.1 pARKING REQUIREMENTS
Various opportunities are available for reducing conventional
parking requirements. In miXed use areas, commercial and
office workers can use parking areas during the day, while
residents can use the parking at night Convenient public trnnSit
also can reduce the need for using private vehicles, and thus the
demand for parking.
Policy 5.19: parking requirements in eastern Dublin
shall be kept to a minimum ~nsistent with actual par1dng needs. Allowance shall be made for shared
par1dng in mixed.use areas. Parking requirements
may be reduced wherever it can be demonstrated that
use of alternative tranSpOrtation will reduce parking
demand.
5.6.2 STREET PARKING
Parking is encouraged on all streets except for the most heavily
traveled arterial roads or where environmental constraints
warrant prot~on. Street side parking increases street activity,
slows traffic and aids in developing a pedestrian environment
where walking is desired.
Policy 5.20: Encourage on.street parking on collector
and local residen1ial streets. Allow on-street parking
on lower volume arterial streets within commercial
areas.
ACTION PRO<iRAM: PAllKlNG
. Program 5E: Adopt parking standards for eastern Dublin. Subject to
the approval of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator, and
Public Works Director, allowance may be made for reduced parking
57
_.__......._~.._ - .. _._.. . - ...__. _.u" __ _..
e
TRAFFIC AND CIRCUIATION
requirements where effective alternative transportation is available, or for
shared parking in mixed-use areas.
. Program 5F: Revise the City's existing zoning ordinance as needed to
allow flexible parking standards in eastern Dublin.
5.7 TRANSPOlUATION
SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
A program of tranSportation systems management measures can
help to reduce impacts related to transportation activity. Impacts
related to transportation can include increased congestion on
streets and freeways, degradation of air quality due to automo-
bile pollutants, energy consumption, use of land for automobile-
related activities, and aesthetic impacts of transportation
infrastructure.
The Specific Plan includes features which encourage the use of
alternative modes of travel. The plan includes a mix of land
uses including housing, employmen~ retail and recreational
uses, which helps to maximize the potential for trips to be made
within the local area. Portions of the planning area, particularly
the Town Center, provide for these mixed uses in close proximity
to each other, which increases the likelihood that trips can be
made by walking or bicycle. Local transit service will be provided
within the Specific Plan l1l"ea, with direct connections to regional
transit services such as BART. The Plan also provides a full
network of pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Measures such as transportation systems management (TSM)
programs or the provision of park-and-ride lots can provide
additional information and incentives which help to reduce
automobile use. Also the use of fiber optiCS or other "work at
home" methods is encouraged to reduce daily commuting to
work
GOAL: To minimize the transporta..
tion-related impaets of development
in eastern Dublin.
e
5.7.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs are most
effective at major employment sites. A TSM program would
include strategies such as on-site distribution of transit informa-
tion and passes, provision of shuttle services to BART stations,
participation in regional ridesharing services, preferential
parking for vanpools and carpools, and flexible or staggered
work hours.
Policy 5-21: Require an non-residential projects with
50 or more employees to participate in a Transporta-
tion Systems Management (TSM) program..
5.7.2 PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
park-and-ride lots can provide a convenient location for drivers
to meet for ridesharing. If transit service is provided to the lots,
they can also provide parking for automobile access to the transit
lines. Park-and-ride lots should be located adjacent to freeway
interchanges, preferably along the route which most drivers take
to work in the morning. In the eastern Dublin area, the park-
and-ride lots should be located on the west side of Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, as close to I-580 as
possible. The lots should also be clearly visible and well lit to
promote security.
Policy 5-22: Establish park-and~ride lots, adjacent to
the freeway interchanges at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, to facilitate ridesharing by
eastern Dublin residents.
ACTION PROGRAM: T/wi$PORTATION SYsTEMS
MANAGEMENT
. Program 5G: The City shall establish a citywide Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) program. The program would require employers
with 50 or more employees to prepare a TSM program for submittal to the
City, '
. Program 5H: Work with developers at the freeway interchanges to
provide park-and-ride 101S between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard on the
welt sides of Hacienda Dri-ve, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, The
parking lolS will provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces and will
include lighting and landscaping.
58
,..
-
-
~
.....
..
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
z .
e e ' ,
-
..J
co <n
III
en :J 'c a;
0 (I)>. '1)
en ceo Q ctI '1) 'u
E 0 ~ al .5~ c 0 0
al C - ~ <n
~ eo -'" -0
Q) = al '07""", C. .. /I)
0 0...1 Z <
0 -< .~< ... 1: eo . .
+-' Q CiS ...;;: i II
(J) '0 alOl (l)0li:: a:: (J w
... ;: ... "'- ..o::J ..0'- al
..,....>- ..!!! .2. 0 c:al Ea: /J) ~
.l2 ca ll'Jal EO W .- J2r
.r./) (5 eo ... ....::: ::J ... ::J...al 'to- 0 iO Cl
Q ::l: <: :E z~ zEa: .- c:c "'"
1.O !-w -~ n I w
(1)"'0 I I . I I tJ) Q)-il!~; 0
~ CO I . - a:
5,0 I . ... ~ <( Co ~ ij~ ~
III j ol: 0
u:o: I . W tJ) ~ _c
~~a w
./
.................
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,'" :
..
..
.\................. ~....:..
,
\
\
"
,--
I
I
................
. .
:................~...: : ..-
: ~....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......
: .......
. ..
.........
Fallon Rd.
4
(6)
",---
.",.'"
",'
<
,~
~
\
I
Tassa"ara Rd.
.
\ 4 -
~ (61
. ......~..............
.. . .
. ~ ~
~.. ..............~.~..
. .
. ..
. .
. --
\ ....
. .
. .-
. -
. .
.....
4 4 6
(6) (6) (8l
4
-ci
> 0
ii5 a:I ....
,5:
.... :c
::J.
Cl
4
Dr.
4 6
(6) (8)
...
fr1
0
............ .......... ....
'$
4
(8)
ft
.4
(6)
'"
,.....r .
....-; I
I
I
---t-
. 2 1
ftl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of---
I
..1C'4
I
I
I
I
I
'"
III
III
...
<:
c
(I)
0::.
g:
.0.
ell:
0..
(I):
.
.
.
.
.....
......
+-~
z
I:
i;
-
coO
....
-
lC
6
(8)
o
....
co
o
IX)
10
z ~.
-
C1l e e ...J
.9 m
c: (5 C1l
E C1l -J :::) s:: .~
en ~
Q) CI) C1l C CO ~.
- :l :!2 {:
en III a: -
0 Z c.. OIl
>- :ffi -"0
~a UI t~ <(
C\J CI) E a:: (J -
Co .. (f)
C1l C1l-'o:: Gl
Lrl ;:: (5 -... W .- J:! ~.
om ~ 0 p:i!
en a.. a.. a..
CD .... a:: ~;;
C ... 0 (J ;1< W .
'- ... Gl t~~~
:J CO ... CI'J Q) u ()
O)~ ... .! "'ih a:
... <t Q. i i
Ci:t- ... ~ ",l " ~.
...
... W CJ) j-a~
;5N .
- -
,
.............
. .
:...................~: :..
: :.......
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
Fallon Rd.
Tassajara
:.....~....t1t1. .....
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...:::...
............
: .......
.... ..:
Rd.
. '#
~ '#., ..
~ '## :'
. ##, ,,'"
~ ,.......", ......~............
~ .. ..
. " "
. " "
~ ... ........~.......~..~
. "
. ."
. .
'\ ....
. ,,"
~ ..
.......
III
<ll
...
<(
C
ca.
-.
a...
.
.g:
"C:; .
m:
a..
(f):
.
.
.
.
.11II....
C1l
C
'0.
en
-
.;;;
C
Cll
..
I-
ti
a:
C
o
~
Cll
.S!
t:l
E-~
z
.,
~
~
.
.
..:;:
'.~ .:
.
00
.
.
III
.
.
ti
:>
OJ
.S
:0
:l
Cl
II
Ii
.
c
1-0
a:..
..... <.:!
alCl)'
~
.
I"
I
.
I
I
I
I
,
, ",I
: .j
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
l'
I
't
\
.000
· 0
: OQO
: 000
· 0
· 0
: 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
· 0
*" . 0
.~. 0
\ · 0
. 0
~ 0
:0-.... 'b
.. '"... 0
"." 0
..
..- 000 00 \
. 00 0
....000 000 \ 00 .
..~. o~~":'=---'!Ooo 0000 Tassaj a Rd. 0
oooP ". ...-,.'!!o. 0000000000000 o~
~ ,. · ."';..... _. 00000000000000000000000000
. . . :-- -....--; . . .. .
~. ... ... ..... ., .....-.
A. ............. .. .r~.. ..~:-::...
<. . .. .. ; ...~~,
· .. f . ... .
;. ~ · · .................... :-.""
.. . .
".. ; ..
~ ~ ~ :
. ~ .
.. . .
.. . .
~ ... :
.. . ..
~ .. .
--.. :
m.
..
<>>.
'-.
<C.
.
c.
m.
-.
c..
.
o.
=.
.-.
O.
Ill.
a..
(I):
.
.
.
.
.....~ .........~...
0000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--tl--
o .
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
III
t4......
,<,. .~
CD
.!;;
:is
:J
o
ti
a:
'00
Co
m 0
.... 0
1-0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
...4Ii.
-
o
=:J
I()
-
..
..........iIII
u
Q
6
V)
....,
Q
'"
':!l
~
',:' 11:0mnN7 N
,
\
(]I: NOINr:;
=.:1770J
7"?:,
~ ,"C
~, .~
o ',0
~ \ (I)
<II ,~
:) \ ~
~ \-a
C-
o \
0'
\
\
\
,
\
~
z. )
I
f
EXHIBIT 6 (of Staff Report)
Location Map of Proposed TIF Improvement Projects
E
<lJ
E
<lJ
e
0.
.5
'e;
d
o
.€,
~'c
:z lil
~.g
~~
O"s
=:t::
~fr
:z~
o @
E:: E
<'5
E-i '"
=:1
o d
~~
:z~
~ ~
E-i~
I
e
'-0
.E::
>!l
ie' ::0-
.q 1: '"
:E< ~
'u; 0 ;::
:=...... ~
8..~ ;;a
~ ~ ~ <lJ
"" 'c. O.S
.....~ ....-....:1
~~ ~-g.b
g ~ 'C ..9 Q
....... ....., Q ..... ;;;I
c ~ '" c 8
::: "!3 <lJ> "0 ..9
,~ c - '"
.g 0... 'C <lJ '" ....
1"'\ 1"'\ '0 ~ ~
.....:::..... '" Ou <lJ~_
e~g ::I:~",~",~
<lJ tJ '" .....;>.':l '" j.; 0
'lii ~ ~ 0 'C c ,:;;: .~,:;;:
"':::l_ t::Qo~~'"
~gt.:l ~",U2 '0
'Cl-.o "'"Ooe c_
oo e.... <lJ . Q_>'-IE-i'--'t=_
E-i \:;0 co"O <lJ00 0..':0:: C!: t=
:z ~ ClO c.E::'n ClO ClO _ <lJ 0 ::=
,_, ';:l 01"'\ '" rt"I '" 01"'\ 01"'\ 0 <lJ ,:;;: 0
..... ;;;I~,:;;:......::I:~ 'ClOu'" "'':;;:
lo!'Io tJQ t::::::on_",
~ooEijj;.=Ee~l~o....
~ O-,r;)OO"_'1-;3QO
> e .::: ..s ;;;I.::: .::: ~ e"CO' '--' ..s
~ .g .~ ~ ~ 'i -g .5 .g ~ ]' €
l:l. -d C on Q.c ..9 @ "0 E-< 00 .a
~ ;> 0 ~ ... ..... 00 '" 00
~55~.e&~ ~~~ g~ =:
.... ;;: ;;: Q .~ 5l'~'~ c .,.; .... <lJ
> ::: .~ .~ '" a'3 ~ ffi..9 <Q g ~
~~~~~C3~~~~S'~
~ <lJ";:;<
~ t~ i
-<~r:::;..'-"'-
u~~ ~ E-o 00
-g
~
i
tS
'"
-'
../
@
I
@
:e
'"
e
~
<lJ
p::;
.5
:g
o
Q
...
~
r?
~ <lJ
l+!. :::
" ;.::3
Z .b
bO
~ a
tJ 0
t:::; u
'0 -g i!!
'" 0 ~
P-.P::U
E ;:>:. '"
~1:.':l<lJ
~~g-o
o bOU e
ooiSo~
.80....:;:
.... 0 0 <lJ
",_ClObO
~ . "';' C
,.5d"O....'"
....E::'e;'5
~ P=l,:;;: ijj
<lJ ;;: .... ....
bO::: 0.5 ~
..!S.gQo@
:-'>- 0 E l: ,:;;:
o '" tJ
eE.:::':;;:ijj
o_U-:;::
o ... ..... _ ..
.:::....."'1IJ-
. ~..9co
"0 'C ..... 0 ClO
~~j~~
:.= ,.g eo 0 ~
~"':;:ClOC:;
:;l ~ 0 on .-
OooO,..!.<
~
'E
~
.
~
:z
r-l
~
~
~
M
~
o
~
r-l
E-i
-<
U
@~~
&
;e
'"
c
o
0.
~
]
o
.@)
~
d
o
';j
tJ
;.a
'"
'C
:;l
......
2'
~
,
15
'"
0..
E
e
"8
,:;;:
"0
C
'"
...
<lJ
;>
~r?
G: ~
]<
]'e;
V;~
'" '"
(l) <lJ
.8.8
'8 e
is .~
:@ ~-
-S~~_
~ E ":' ~
di'o-o
~.::: .8 ~
"'~o_
':;;:cClOO
~ '" \0 Q
ClJ.......~'-'"
:S~e8
o ;.= Ie 'r:;:
ClO .:;:!..... c:;
'f = "'" ~
l"'l t::::::"'00.....
....... 0 0 2 'u;
..... ClOClO::sd
c.:: - on 01"'\ 0 e
o ~,..!.p::....
~
5
u
tI:l
E-i
:z
r-l
~
~
>
o
=:
~
<lJ
6
...
0.
~~
"
-"
/
e
e
-i~~;it:;;~
;:',:~I:.';":
~ 65913.3
Repealed
~ 65913.3. Repealed by Stats.1993, c. 56 (A.B.2351), ~ 22.2
GOVERNMENT CODE
Historical and Statutory Notes
Section 65913.3 was amended by Stats.1983, c. 1263, ~ 2
and Stats.1987, c. 1430, ~ 1. prior to repeal. See, now,
Government Code ~ 15399.5L
~ 65913.4. Repealed by Stats.1990, c. 31 (A.B.1259), ~ 2, eff. March 26, 1990
Historical and Statutory Notes
The repealed section, added by Stats.1985, c. 1117, ~ 2, and incentives for developers reserving units for lower
amended by Stats.1986, c. 1190. ~ 1; Stats.1989, c. 842, income, households.
~ 2, provided for a density bonus, regulatory concessions
~ 65913.5. Density bonus for developer of housing within one-half mile of mass transit guideway
station
(a) AP, part of implementation of the demonstration program established pursuant to Section 14045 of
the Government Code, a city, county. or city and county participating in the demonstration program shall
grant a density bonus to a developer of housing within one-half mile of a mass transit guideway station
unless the locality finds that granting of the density bonus would result in a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 65915, as used in this section. "density bonus" means a
density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise inaximum residential density allowed under the
general plan and any applicable zoning and development ordinances.
(c) A city, county, or city and county may require a developer to enter into a development agreement
pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 to
implement a density bonus granted pursuant to this section.
(d) In an action or proceeding to attack. set aside, void, or annul a density bonus granted pursuant to
this section, a court shall uphold the decision of a city, county, or city and county to grant the density
bonus if the court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development will
assist the city, county, or city and county to do all of the following;
(1) Meet its share of the regional housing needs determined pursuant to Article 10.6 (commencing with
Section 65580) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(2) Implement its congestion management plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 2.6 (commencing with
Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve any local agency from complying with the
provisions of the Congestion Management Program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
(Added by Stats.1990, c. 1304 (S.B.2559), ~ 5.)
Historical and Statutory Notes
Former ~ 65913.5 was renumbered ~ 66008 and amend-
ed by Stats.1988, c. 418, ~ 4.
1990 Legislation
Application of Stats.I990, c. 1304 (S.B.2559) to all cities,
counties, and cities and counties, including charter cities,
see Historical and Statutory Notes under ~ 14035.1.
~ 65913.8. Public capital facility improvement related to development project; prohibition of fee
or other payment including amount for maintenance and operation as condition for
approval; exceptions
A fee. charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency for a public
capital facility improvement related' to a development project may not include an amount for the
maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of payment is required
as a condition of the approval. of a development project, or required to fulfill a condition of the approval.
However. a fee, charge, or other form of payment may be required for the maintenance and operation of
an improvement meeting the criteria of either subdivision (a) or (b), as follows:
(a) The improvement is (1) designed and installed to serve only the specific development project on
which the fee, charge. or other form of payment is imposed. (2) the improvement serves 19 or fewer lots
Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks * " "
32
EXHIBIT) (of Staff Report)
Government Code Sec. 65913.2
..
e
,-,
GOVERNMENT CODE
~ 65915
or units. and (3) the local agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that it is infeasible or
impractical to form a public entity for maintenance of the improvement or to annex the property served
by the improvement to an entity as described in subdivision (b). ' .
(b) The improvement is within a water district, sewer maintenance district, street lighting district, or
drainage district. In these circumstances, a payment for maintenance or operation may be required for a
period not to exceed 24 months when. subsequent to the construction of the improvement, either the local
agency forms a public entity or assessment district to finance the maintenance or operation. or the area
containing the improvement is annexed to a public entity that will finance the maintenance or operation..
whichever is earlier. The local agency may extend a fee, charge. or other form of payment pursuant to
this section once for whatever duration it deems reasonable beyond the 24-month period upon making a
finding, based upon substantial evidence. that this time period is insufficient for creation of, or annexation
to, a public entity or an assessment district that would finance the maintenance or operation. '..
As used in this section. "development project" and "local agency" have the same meaning as provided
in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 66000.
(Added by Stats.1988. c. 1309, ~ 1.)
CHAPTER 4.3
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES
Section Section
65915.5. Conversion of apartments to condomini-
um project; eligibility; procedure.
65917.5. Child care facility in commercial or in-
dustrial project; density bonus or de-
veloper; ordinance; conditions; as-
sessment on use of space for other
purposes; finding necessary for
change.
Law Review Commentaries
Building and Bargaining in California. William Fulton
(1984) 4 Cal.Lawyer No. 12, p. 36.
f 65915. Requirements of developer; ordinance specifying method of providing incentives; prelim-
inalY development proposal; definitions
(a) When a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local
government. the city, county, or city and county shall provide the developer incentives for the production
of lower income housing units within the development if the developer meets the requirements set forth
in subdivisions (b) and (c). The city. county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance which shall
specify the method of providing developer incentives.
(b) When a developer of housing agrees or proposes to construct at least (1) 20 percent of the total
units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income
households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total
dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents. as defined in Section 51.2 of the Civil.
Code, a city, county. or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus and at least one of the
concessions or incentives identified in subdivision (h) unless the city, county, or city and county makes a
written finding that the additional concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for
affordable housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code or for rents for the
targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c), or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent
financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit.
(c) A developer shall agree to and the city. county. or city and county shall ensure continued
affordability of all lower income density bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by
the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental
subsidy program. Those units targeted for lower income households. as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code. shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of
area median income. Those units targeted for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of
the Health and Safety Code! shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of
area median income. If a city. county, or city and county does not grant at least one additional
concession or incentive pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the developer shall agree to and the
city. county, or city and county shall ensure continued affordability for 10 years of all lower income
housing units receiving a density bonus. ' .
Additions or changes Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks .. .. ..
33
~.
e'
--' ~
/'
.
e.
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works
FROM: ~Dennis carrington, senior Planner
DATE:
November 29, 1994
RE: Eastern Dublin land use numbers
The city council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (GPA) on May 10, 1993. The dwelling unit and square
footage numbers for commercial uses are contained in Table 2A of
the GPA. School numbers are contained in Table 2A of theGPA and
in Table 4.4-2 (Revised) as shown on Page 631 of Volume II of the
Eastern Dublin EIR Administrative Record. Park numbers are shown
in Table 2A of the GPA and in the Parks Master Plan. These
numbers should be used in calculating the Traffic Impact Fee for
projects within Eastern Dublin. The numbers are as follows:
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
High Density 2,447
Medium High Density 2,680
Medium Density 4,863
Low Density 3,908
Rural Residential 8
13,906
COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET (in millions)
General Commercial 3.435
Neighborhood Corom. .980
campus Office 3.952
Industrial Park 1.370
9.737
EXHIBIT 8 (of Staff Report)
Land Use Numbers
"