HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Reimb I-580 Interch (2)
-,' '.
CITY CLERK
File # n[(8Ø11?5HL;21!(]
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE October 6,1998
SUBJECT:
Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Pleasant on for
1-580 Interchanges
Report by: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
I.
Draft Agreement
RECOMMENDATION: viI.
40 2.
Approve agreement and authorize Mayor to
executed agreement.
Direct Staff to prepare a revision to the existing
Freeway Interchange Fee Resolution 11-96.
FINANCIAL
STATEMENT:
This agreement will facilitate the transfer ofapproximateIy
$7,384,000 plus interest from fees collected from
development within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Area.
These fees will be used to repay the City of Pleasanton for
Pleasanton's advancing costs over and above its "fair
share" of the construction of interchanges on 1-580 at
Hacienda Drive and Santa Rita Roadffassajara Road.
.
DESCRIPTION:
On January 23, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No.1 I -96, establishing a traffic impact fee for
development within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Area for the purpose of reimbursing the City of
Pleasanton for construction of improvements to the 1-580 Interchanges at Hacienda Drive and Santa Rita
Roadffassajara Road. The resolution adopting the fee provided that the fee would be effective once an
agreement with the City of Pleasant on had been reached to transfer fee revenues.
Representatives from the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton have met and developed the attached agreement,
which will facilitate the transfer of fees collected by Dublin to Pleasanton. The key provisions of the
agreement are as follows:
I. Dublin agrees to repay Pleasanton $7,384,000 plus interest from traffic impact fees collected from the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Area.
tIIIÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - --- -... ..._--... - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- ----- -- --- - ---
COPIES TO:
GICC-MTGS/98-QTR4/0CT/1Q-6-98/AS-INTERCHANGE
lTEMNO.~
~""
.",¡tr
2. Dublin agrees to modify the fee to include an automatic escalator equivalent to the average annual
Local Agency Investment Fund interest rate.
. ,
3. Dublin will retain 1 % of the fee for administering the agreement.
4. Dublin and Pleasanton agree to work cooperatively to facilitate the issue of issuance of permits and .'
approvals necessary to undertake future improvements to 1-580.
5. Dublin and Pleasanton agree that the responsibility for funding improvements to the I-580/Fallon
Road.EI Charro Interchange to accommodate ultimate buildout will be based on each cities respective
percentage share of the traffic from all development from within each city (existing and new) using
the interchange. (The exact terms of this agreement will be developed in a future agreement between
the twO cities.) .
6. Dublin agrees to make necessary improvements to the 1-580 Interchanges at Hacienda Drive and Santa
Rita/Tassajara Road which are necessary to accommodate projected traffic from development
anticipated on both Dublin's and Pleasanton's General Plans as of August 1, 1998.
7. Pleasanton will indemnify, defend and hold Dublin harmless from any claims or cause of action
brought against Dublin by property owners in the former North Pleasanton Improvement District
connected with the enactment of Dublin's fee resolution for disbursement of fee revenues to
Pleasanton.
This agreement anticipates that Dublin will adopt a new fee which provides an automatic escalator for the
purpose of reimbursing Pleasanton. Pending Council approval of this agreement, Staff will notice and
schedule consideration of a new fee resolution in November 1998. .
This agreement also anticipates that Dublin and Pleasanton will enter into a future agreement on the exact
cost-sharing provisions for future improvements to the FalIonlEl Charro Interchange.
At its meeting of August 15, 1998, the Pleasanton City Council adopted this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
This agreement will resolve a long standing issue between Dublin and Pleasanton and will provide the
framework for future cooperation between both cities regarding the future improvement ofI-580.
It is Staffs recommendation that the City Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to
execute the agreement. It is also recommended that the City Council direct Staff to prepare a revision to
the existing Freeway Interchange Fee Resolution.
.
-2-
e
e
e
/..,-6 ,.oJ
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN
AND CITY OF PLEASANTON
REGARDING FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FEE
THIS AGREEMENT.is entered into thio _ d.o.y of _. 1998, by and
between the City of Dublin, a municipal cOlporation ("Dublin") and th~ City of
Pleasamon, a municipal cOlporiHion ("Plea'santon").
RECITALS
A. The City Council of Dublin adopted:¡ Freeway Interchange; Fcc on January
23,1996. by Resolution No. 11-96, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
B. Resolution No_ 11-96 provides that the Freeway Intcrchan.l;t: Fcc shall be
dfcCIive 60 days from the effective date of !be resolution, which was Jam.lU1Y 23,
1996. or the date Dublin enters into an agreement ">lth Plcasanton for transfer of the
Freeway ImeTch:mge Fee revenues, whichever is later.
C. The purpose of this Agrct:mern: is to set forth the rcquircments for transfer
of the Frcl">v:¡y lruerch.mge Fee revenues so that thc rrct)vay Inten:hange Fee Will
become effective,
D. The Freew.o.y Intel'ch:mge Fee rcvcnucs arc to hc u4I1sferred [Q Pleas"nton
for the COStS of constructing portions of the 1-580 Interchanges at HaciendA and
Santa Rita/I'assajara. Under no circumstances shall this agreement be interpreted to
require :my p"'yment by Dublin to Pkasanton où~cr titan from Freeway Interchange
Fees actually received by Duh1in.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein, !be
p:\rties agree as follows;
Sect.ion 1. Recitals
Thl' foregoing Recitals at<: true and correct, and arc madc a pan hereof.
Frccway Interchange F<:" Agreemenr
September 30. 1998
Pa\'.!', 1 "f7
ATTACHMENT 1
./,4X3
Section 2. Definitjon~
e
Tenl1S used hetdn ~hatl have the same meaning as sllch term~ :(re defìned in
Resolution No. 11-96, including any al11endments Lherew.
Section 3. Dublin H1 Charp-e and raIlert FI"f'
Dublin shall charge and collect the Fee for each residcntial unit constructed
within Eastern Dublin no later t11an the date of An'l) impect;on for the unit. DubHn
shal1 charge and col1Cct the Fee for non-r"sidtmiaI buildings or structures cnm;tructed
i\~thin East.ern Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued [or such building
or structure, except where the building or stmcture will require :¡, J::¡t.er stage of
discretionary approval by Dublin before it can be occupied, in which case, 'with the
approval of the Dublin Public Works Director, the Fee for that building or Structure
may be ddtl'l'td [Ò1 I-'''YIIlt:lll to 111(" rbre Dublin m:u<;es the l:l~t discretionary approval
which is required prior to occupancy,
.5.tc:tion 4 Amount of PI"I"
The amount ofthe Fee shall be as sel forth in Resolution No. 11-96 entitled "A
Resolution EstahIishing a Freeway Interch=ge Fee for Future DcYdopmClll WiùÜo. e
the Eastern Dublin Area". as such resolution i.~ ~mended to increase the Fee by an
automatic escalator.
S('r.rion ') A1.ltom;¡tlc EscaJator
The autorn.:J.tk e~c:¡,I~tor to be included in the Fcc by Dublin shall result 10. an
automatic increase in the amount of thE' Pee eaeh September 1 at a rate equivalent to
the average annual Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF") interest rat./: earned by
Dublin. :JS reported by the ~t"'te controller, for the prcccding fiscal y""r. The average
annual LAlF interest rate (the "LAIF In'terest Rate") shall be calculated by avcraging
the rates for the [our quarters of the fiscal year. For example, if the quarterly rates are
5_7%, 5.75%, 5.85% :md 5.9%, the average annual intcrest raœ will be .5.8%.
Tlu, automatic increase in the Fee shall be referred to as the: "E,«c¡llator Fee" and
the amount of the Fee as established by Resolution No.1 1-96 shall be referred to as
the "Base Fee".
For examplc, if the Base Fee in December 1998 is $ZI,46/singk farrùly unit
Freeway Interchange 1'= Agrccmli:nL
Stptembtr 30. 1998
Page 2 of 7
e
e
e
.
)0{;3
and the LAlf Interest ~te far 1998-99 is 5.8%, beginning September 1. 1999, the
Fee mil aUlOmatically increase to $2:L 70 (Base Pee af $2 1.46 and Escalator Fee: of
S L24). If the LAIF Interest Ralc for 1999-2000 is again 5.8%. beginning September
1, 2000, the Fee win automatically increase to $24.02 (Base Fee of $21.46 and
Escalator Fee of $2.56). And. if the LAIF Intere~t Rate for 2000-01 is again 5.8%,
beginning September 1,2001, the Fee will automatit..oIly im:re~se to $25.11 (Base
Fee of $21.46 and Esc:Jator Fee of $3.95).
Section h. Disbursement to PJeasan1ill1
(a) rniti~ f)i~hursem!':nt to P¡"""anton
Within 14 days of the effective date of this agreem<,:nt, Dublin shall
disburse to Pleasant on an Fees coHected by Dublin as of ù1e effective date, less a 1 %
Administraúve Fee (the Initial Fee Disbursement). Dublin shall also disburse all
imerest tamed by Dublin on the Ft'e revenues (less a 1 % Administrative Fee) from
the date such Fees were received by Dublin to the date of disbursement (the: Initial
I:otcre:st Disbursement).
(b) Suh~eq:uent Dishl,r~t'T11eT1ts to Pl~Mant()n
As fees are received, Dublin will disburse to Pleasanton all Fee revenues
received within 14 days of receipt, less an Aùminisuative Fee of 1 % of the amount of
Base Fees and Escalator Fees receh'ed.
Section 7. TerminMion of Pa;.-.,-nents to P1easanton
(a) TIle amount to be distributed to Pleasanton from Fees paid to Dublin
shall consist of two components, callcù the: First Component and the Second
Component,
(b) Th<:: First Component shall be cakulatcd as follows: $7,384,000 less the
Initial Ff'e Disbursement (see Seccian 6(a)} - "X"; "X" plus an amount equal t.o 5.7%
of "X" ;;;;; the First Component.
For example, assuming the Initial Fcc: Disbum:mem is $384,000, the
First Component will be $7,399,000 ($7,384,000. $384,000 = $7,000,000;
$7,000,000 + $399,000 [$7,000,000 x 5.ï%)}.
Freew:ly lntercho.,.,gc Fcc ^/?,cmcnt
September 30. 1998
P"-I:!'- 3,,£7
1( .,t ..:¡:3
(c) The Second Component ~hall consist of the sum of the Escalator Fees _
(bdng me portions of each Fee dollar attributable to the automatÎc escalat.or) ..
disbursed to Pleasanton.
(d) Unless terminated earlier, this agreement and the payments to
Pleasanton shall tcm1.inate when the First Cùmponent is reduced to zero. The First
Component shall be reduced by Bilse Fees as they are received (beforc withholding
the Admi.tlistrative Fee) until,the First Component is reduçed to zero. The redu"ction
of the First Component is iI!umatt:ù by the foI1owing example:
Assume the effective date of the agreement is October 1 and the First
Component is $7,399,000 and the base fce is $21.46. Assume through August 31,
1999 Dublin has collected $300,000 in fees. all of which ",,:ill be credited llgainst the
First Compone.nt. Dublin would have retaÎ11ed $3,000 as its Administrative Fee (I %
of $300,000), and would have disbursed the remainder of $297,000_ The First
Component would be reduced by $300.000 to become $7.099.000,
Assume the IAIF Interest Rate for 1998-99 was 5.8%. On September
1> 1999, the fee will automatic.:Jly increase to $22.70 (Rase Fee of $2 1.46 .and
Escalator Fee of $1.24). Assume through August 31, 2000 Duhlin. has col1ected
$300,094 in fees. Of this amount $ I 6,393 would have been attribUtable to the
automatic esc~lator. Dublin would have retained $3,001 as its Administrative Fee
(1 % of $300,094), and would have disbursed the remainder of $297,093. The First
Component would be reduccd by $283.701 to become $6,815,299.
e
Assume the lAIF Interest. RMe for 1999-2000 w:<s 5.8%. On
September 1, 2000. the fee will automatical1y increase to $24.02 (Base fee of $21.46
and Escalator Fee of $2.56). Assume through August 31,2001 Dub¡;n has collected
$300.250 in fees. Of this amount $32.000 'would howe been ;>.ttributi<ble to the
automatic escalatur. Dublin would have retained $3,003 as its Admirústrative Fee
(1 % of $300.250), and would have disbursed the remainder or $297,247. The First
Component would be reduced hy $268,250 to become $6,547,049.
A.~$ume the LAIF Interest Rate from 2000 - 2001 was 5.8%. On
Septemher 1, 20Gl. the fee win autmnatic::ùly increa.se to $25.41 (Base Fee of $21.46
and Escalator Fee of $3.95). Assume through August 31,2002 Dublin has collected
5813,120 in fees. Oftrus amount $126,400 would have been attribu,able w me
automatic ~sr.~lMor. Dublin would have retained $8,131 as its Administrative Fcc
Freeway Int~ang~ F~~ Agrt'~me!\t
September 30, ! 998
PAge. -4 of 7
e
· "':_ ~ ....1;,
.,../ ,'I _-J
.~
e
(1 % of $813, lLü), and would have di~bursed the remainder of $804,989, The First
Component would be rc:duced by $686,ï20 to become $5,860.329_
(e) Upon termination. Dublin shall have no further obligation to disburse
any Fee n:Vt:nues (Base Fees and/or Esc<JJator Fees) to I'1f';¡s;¡nton,
Sf'rrinn 8. Cooperation on lo5Jill.1mprowmt'nts
Dublin and P1easanton agree to worIc cooperatively to facilitate the ;ssu:mce of
any permits and approvals necessmy to undertake any improvements ro 1-580,
incJucting improvements to interchange.s located on 1-59.0 in order to mitigate traffic
impacts assoçiatcd wiÙl lIlt builduur of e.;¡ch City's General Plan. Such cooperation
will include, but shaH not be limited to, approval of freeway agreem~ts with Caltrans
and encroachment permits rf'quired from one city for work by C:ùTrans or the other
tity (or developers of land within such city) for freeway improVf'ments necessary to
..ccol11modate both cities' gencraJ plan bu; dout; provided, however, that nothing in
this section is imt'nded to compel either city to :;¡.ct, or to take action, where to do ~o
would be inconsistent with that city's gener21 plan policie.._
Sf'rtion C) T.'iRO¡F;¡llon-F.l Ch<lrTO Tnterchang.e
e Dublin and Pkasanton agree that. the responSibility for funding improvements
W ThE' T-58OJFaI1on-EI Ch:uro Interch=ge to accommodate ultimate buildoul, as
between Dublin and PIeasanton, will be bJl...ed on each city's respective percentage
share of t.raffic from all develupment wiùÜn each dty (existing and new) using t11e
Interch:mge. Any funding from other jurisdictions or outside grants would reducc
both DubJin's and Pleas:mton's respo11i;ihility proportionally. AE used herein,
"improvements" shall refer to those improvements încluded by Caltrans in the
Caltram' !lpproved Preliminary Study Report (PSR) and çertifÏt:d environmental
document for 1-5HO/Fa11nn-EI CÌu1.rro !¡1terch=ge.
If Dublin constructs the improvements to the I·.580IFaIlon-EI Charro
Interch:mge. DubJi1'\ agrees th..t the tlmOU!lt P1easMton shall be requirçd to remit to
Dublin at any point in time shall not exceed the amount that Dublin has theretofore
disbursed to Pleasamon U!lder this Agrcement, provÍ<kd that if Plea.samon has not
remitted it. tùt:\1 sh:u-e of the improvements to Dublin by the time Dublin completes
com'trucLÌon of the improvementS. PIeasanton shall remit the ~mainder of its share
in accordance with the agreemCl1t referred to in the fuIlO'ving paragraph.
e
Fn~"'v.y TnterchAAge Fee Agr¡;ement
September 30, ¡ 998
Page:; of 7
, ....'Î!
? "if _---\./
Dublin and P!easanton agree to enter into an agreement. Tl'.;¡sonably;¡greeJlble e
to Dublin and Pleasanton, in the future to dttcrmine ùle funding fOf construction of
the improvements to such Interchange. TIle parties to such agreement will include
Dublin and P!easa11.tOn and may include other jurisdictiom. Stich agreement v:.rill
delineate the rcsponsibility for constll.lclion of, and the timing of payments for. the
improvements_
Section 10. ImprovemenL~ tu Jiacil'.nda and SanTi! Riti!rr.q~9jar:¡ rntprrhqnr!'~
At no additiona.l cost to Plea.~anton, Dublin agrees to mJlke necessary
improvements to the 1-580 interchanges at Hadenda and Santa Ritarrassajar;¡ which
are necessary to accommodate projectcd traffic from devdopmcm antiLip;,¡tc:d in both
Vublin's and Plea~antoll'S general pl:1m as such generJlI pl:am existed on August 1,
1998. Dublin shall have no oblig:Hion to bear the full COSt of any improvements not
necessarY to accommodate such traffic.
.
Section 11 TndemnifjrJltinn
Pleas:mton sh:tJI indemnify. defend :md hold Dublin harmless from any claims,
damages or causes of ;:¡ction brought against Dublin by properry OwnerS in the: former ..
North P1easanton Improvement Di~trict that are alleged to arise, or do a.rise, out of .
Dublin's enactment of Re~oIution 11-96 and any resolution amending it, the Fee,
Dublin's disbursement of any Fee revenues to Pleasanton, this Agreement or
PIeJlsanton's retention of Fee revenues.
Sertion 1 'J RT~;¡ch
In ¡¡ddition to any other rcmedy at law or equity (induding the right of specific
perform:mee), in the event that there is a final judgment by a court of competc:nt '
jurisdiçtion that PleasantoIl has breached this Agreement by failing to perform any of
its cOl'!lInitments under Sections S, and 11, Dublin may terminate: all future
disbursements of Pee revenues to Pleasanton. 1£ for any reason Dublin tcrminate:s
such disbursements, PleasaIlton's obligation under Section 9 shall aho terminate.
"("('don 13. Effective Date
The agre=ent shall become effe(:t.ive on the effective date of the amended Fee
to include an automatic escalator based on the LAIF Interest Rate.
FrC:C:1'I1!Y interchange Fee Agreement
Scpt~mb"r 30. 1998
P~¡;e 6 of 7
e
e
e
e
? -i ;,5
CITY OF DUBLIN
CITY OF PLEASANTON
By:
Guy Houston, Mayor
By·
, .
Ben T2.rver, M.::¡yor
Dated:
Da.t~d;
Approved as to fom1:
Approv~d as to Conn:
Elizabeth H. Silver. City Attorney
Michael Roush, City Attorney
Attest:
Attest:
Peggy Ezidro, City Oerk
Kay Ked(, City Clerk
) ;\WPD\M¡""RSW\) 14\0 1 IAGREE\19981FRV,'Y _RQ~Q
FT~~way Int~rclunge Fee Agreement
5cpccmbo::r 30, 199B
Page 7 of 7
6'4;5
RESOLUTION NO. 11-96
e
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Ordinal1ce
No. 14-94 which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging a
Transportation Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Ceneral Plan Amendmel1t ("CPA") and
Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and e
WHEREAS, the CPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4 I 76 acres
within the City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling
units and 9.737 milliol1 square feet of commercial, office, and il1dustrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action
programs for approximately 33 I 3 acres within the CPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS. the CPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land
Use Map contained in the CPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shown on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the CPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10,
1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22,
1994 ("Addenda) have been prepared and considered by the Council; and e
'Ì
EXHIBIT 1
e
e
e
1 qf ;1.S
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway
interchange and road improvements necessary for implementation of the SP, along
\'vith transit improvements, pedestrian trails and bicycle paths ("Necessary
Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain traffic improvements
would be made ("Assumed Improvements") and that development within Eastern
Dublin would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
by Resolution No. 1-95 on January 9, 1995, to fund the cost of the Necessary
Improvements and the Assumed Traffic Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton has made improvements to the 1-
580IHacienda Drive and I-580/Tassajara/Santa Rita Road Interchanges ("1-580
Interchange Improvements"); and
WHEREAS. the 1.580 Interchange Improvements were funded by the City of
PIeasanton through the NOlLÌl PIeasanton Improvement District; and
WHEREAS, a report entitled the "Dublin Extended Planning Axea
Infrastructure Study." dated November 1989, was prepared for the Cities of Dublin
and Pleasanton by John H. Heindel. Consulting Civil Engineer ("Heindel Study"); and
WHEREAS, the Heindel Study was considered by the City Council at its
December II, 1989, meeting at which time the Council by motion:
I. Acknowledged that Dublin's Eastern Planning Area, when
developed. will benefit from the new interchange work being funded by
Pleasanton through the North Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID);
2. Accepted the concept of assigning cost sharing on the basis of
benefit to the traffic generated on both sides of 1-580;
3. Determined that Dublin's contribution be subject to actual
development takin.g place north of 1·580 and \vithin Dublin; and
TIF Rcsol
2
/ iL:6 ~3
4. Determined that funding mechanism(s) be established within the e
Dublin Extended Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, on January 3 I, 1995, the City Council reaffirmed its December
I I, 1989 motion by Resolution No. 7-95; and
WHEREAS, the SP, EIR and Addenda assumed that the 1-580 Interchange
Improvements were existing improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Eastern Dublin SpecifìcPIan/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
20 I 0, and contain an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements e
required by future development within Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared by the Public Works Director of the City of
Dublin, in a document dated December 1995. entitled "Report of Cost Sharing of 1-
580 Interchanges at Hacienda and at Tassajara/Santa Rita Road" (hereafter "Study"),
which is attached hereto as Fyhihit B; and
WHEREAS, the Study sets forth the relationship between future development
in Eastern Dublin, the 1-580 Interchange Improvements, and the costs of the 1-580
Interchange Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Study was 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 1-580 Interchange Fee (hereafter
"Fee") is to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for expenditures previously made for the e
1"580 Interchange Improvements, which improvements have already been constructed
TIF ~~!:[)I
3
e
e
e
II ~ ~5
and are needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts which will be caused by future
development in Eastern Dublin. The 1-580 Interchange Improvements are
improvements to the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara/Santa Rita Road interchanges
with Interstate 580 and are hereafter defined and referred to as "Impr,?vements and
Fa,"ilities". The Improvements and Facilities are needed to accommodate new
development projected within Eastern Dublin along with existing and future
development in the City of Pleasanton and other development in the nearby vicinity.
including future development in Contra Costa County, and development within
Eastern Dublin will pay its fair proportional share of such Improvements and
Facilities with the implementation of this Fee.
B. The fees conected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance
the Improvements and Facilities.
C. Mter considering the Study, the Agenda Statement, the GPA, the SP,
ù1e General Plan, the EIR and Addenda, the Heindel Study, all correspondence
received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on January 23,
1996 (hereafter the "record"), the Council approves and adopts the Study and
incorporates it herein, and further finds that future development in Eastern Dublin
w:ill generate the need for. and win benefit from, 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 does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment because the 1-580 Interchange Improvements
are already existing improvements. The Council therefore determines that the
adoption of the Fee is not an activity which is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. This determination is made pursuant to CEQA
guidelines §§ 15061(b)(2) and (3) and 15273(a)(4) (TiÙe 2. Calif. Code of
Regulations) and Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D).
TIFR~I
4
/:l aD J3
E. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable reIationship 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 ~astem Dublin -- both
residential and non-residential n will generate traffic which contributes to the need
for, and benefits from, the Improvements and Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
reimburse the City of Pleasanton for the construction of the Improvements and
Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in Eastem Dublin n both residential and non-residential -- generates or
contributes to the need for the Improvements and Facilities; and
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 Eastem Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of
trips generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it 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 costs set forth in the Study are reasonable costs for
constructing the Improvements and Facilities, in that they are the actual costs and
the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the 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, in that the Fee is calculated based on the
number of automobile trips each particular development will generate.
Tlf'Resol
5
e
e
.
e
e
e
/ '3 q) ;;..3
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE
as follows:
I. Definitions
a. "Development" shall mean the constructi.on, alteration or
addition of any building or structure '\.VÎthin EasternDublin.
b. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the
"General Plan Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A
hereto) excluding the property designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture."
c. "Improvements and Facilities" shall include the 1-580
Interchange Improvements to the Hacienda Drive and Tassajara/Santa Rita Road
interchanges described in the Study.
2. Eastern DubHn 1-580 Interchange Fee Imposed,
a, An Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee ("Fee") shall be
charged and paid for each residential unit constructed 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 constructed '\.VÎthin Eastern Dublin by the date that the
building permit is issued for such building or structure, except where the building or
stnlcture 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 malœs
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 C
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
TIf'Rtlol
6
/'1 ~ ;;.3
5.
(I) Ar.y 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 od,sting multi-family reside~tial unit;
(2) , Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
residential structure that has been 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) Ar.y 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 \\'Îthin 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 C.
Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed
in the Capital Projects Fund. A separate and special account 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:
e
e
(I) To reimburse the City of Pleasanton for design,
engineering. right-of-way acquisition and
construction of the Improvements and Facilities and e
TIF R~I
7
/5 -v,;:3
e
reasOflable costs of outside consultant studies related
thereto;
To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development an.d ongoing adm!flistratiofl of the Fee
program.
b. Fees in the account shall be expended only for the '
Improvements an.d Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was coIlected.
6. Misr:e1laneous
(2)
a. The standards UpOfl which the needs for the Improvements
an.d Facilities are based are the staDdards of the City of Dublin, including the
stan.dards CODtained in the General Plan, GPA, SP, EIR, an.d Addenda.
b. The City Council determifles that the fleed for the
Improvements an.d Facilities is generated by flew developmeI1t within Eastern Dublin
e and other existiflg an.d new development in P1easan.tofl, Contra Costa County an.d in
the viciflity. an.d therefore, the Study has determined the proportioDate share of the
cost of the Improvements an.d Facilities for which developmeI1t within Eastern Dublin
is responsible.
7. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a
report for the City Council, pursuan.t to Government Code sectioD 66006. idefltifying
the balance of fees in the account.
b. The City Council shall mal,e findings each fiscal year pursuan.t
to Government Code Section 6600 I (d) ideI1tifyiflg the purpose to which the e:xistiflg
Fee balan.ce is to be put aDd demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee
and the purpose for which it is charged.
e
. TIF R~:;øl
8
, / b 11,),3
8. Effective Date.
This resolution shall becom~ effective imm~diately. The Fee provided in
Sections 2 and 3 of this r~soIution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
the resolution or the date the City enters into an agreement with the City of
Pleasanton for transfer of Fee revenues, whichever is later.
9. S~verability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual compon~nt of the Fee or other provision of this
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall
be a.nd continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to
that portion that has be~n judged to b~ invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 23rd day of Ja.nuary, 1996, by the
following vote:
AYES:
C01.1ncilmembers Bames, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and
Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~j~
MA R
ArrEST:
~U-
EHS*
},\WPDIMNRSW\l HIRESOL\FREEWAY.RES
TIf ResoL
9
e
e
e
e'
,
I
e
e,
J
t
4":! 11:1 S. '. III, ".,
IIõII ~.,.. \¡.i.~,t¡ J?~
~ ' ~' '~'\ 1?'f" I 7 ~p ....
o ~ ~ ''';,r) ,; I
. ~ o J - ~:"·~4-1 Z
..:a ., 8 ".;¡'.T ,. ~J
~ ~ ~ ~ :- ' .~~ A.'(i-~~I;~.(; oJ 9
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I', .~, r ,~~ ~~i~, ~ <3
] ~ ~ u ~ I: . .. ( ..;.:, F'i:I;;r,>::. !::1;
3! ~"Ft. II £ ~:l ~ "" ; , ~ Z #. " r ~ II, ,~ . . Q: u.J
~ ~ i ~ ~~¡j~ ~ i~!]Jf ~ ~. ,,:'!:jc '''].'';, :,,~ ~~
"0 ~ !II ~ 0 i 1:'" ~ ~:¡: ~ ~ -æ "tJ '¡;: - ¡¡ j¡' u¡ Iz ~f; "~~~I .....~~ UJ 0
J q f ¡ q p U i B H H u ~ n ~ H ~)H ~,!j:i¿ !I;; ,'" ;J'~"_:'I:'
"C ~f~ðÈ~f~:i~æ~ct~<JJ<!><IDl@crÞ(!)!8~Š~,,8t~o¡gCJ)ra.:§~: c:,~ (' "t
·~:lm~~g,~Ç1filr.JB~~~ m 91tFfiíl~I;, ¡ !1.lUJ<tc~iiJ,¡tj':: >',,': :
.J y~~tQlillII:LJLJO El tLfm (j ~æJlIL..l ! II I .:t:'. '
I
=
"
.:.
'"
"
;::
"
.!!!
11.
"
"
-g 11.
" " <
cd -1:( :E
.¡¡: '" '"
"_ e,en
e :¡" ,::)
~ G) -'-·'0
". C,', II/II,··~Z
""":".0:"
O,.,.....J .
\
\
"
8.
.
'" .
t:::.5!
. -
- -
~.
- .
3;: CI.
C'oI-~
0,",
- C -< ~
= :~:)
EC:æ 1
¡:¡ ~ j
l.LJ
0:
:J
I-
...J
::J
Ü
a:
CJ
«
--,
I
I
I
,
,
.......--.
.
~
"
""
'"
.;
..
,.
N
c
_ 0
H
~ ~
~ "
~ ~
~ u
.~
~ "
" .
· .
- .
· "'
~ <
-~
· <
~ ·î
~ .
pi
N Ii
5 .~
H
Æ ~
~ ~
~ ~
,,'I
Ë~
~~
" ~
~!
~~
,"
- .
H
¡!
",
· .
.
17 ~ ),3
REPORT OF COST SHARING OF 1-580 INTERCHANGES
A T HACIENDA DRIVE AND AT TASSAJARA/SANTA RITA ROAD
(December 1995)
Prepared by Lee S. Thompson, City Engineer
City of Dublin
e
It is the intention of this study to establish the fair share costs between development within the Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton for the construction of and improvements to interchanges with Interstate 580 at
Hacienda Drive arid at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road.
The City of Pleasant on has already purchased right of way and constructed the basic improvements for the
two interchanges. Dublin will need to complete the two interchanges as development occurs in Eastern
[,:;ÌJlin, as the two interchanges will be needed to serve development in Eastern Dublin and wcre assumed
as existing improvements in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH
No. 91103064, page 3.3-1). Funding for the interchange completions is already included in the existing
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No. 95- 1).
Dublin proposes to establish and levy an Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee for the purpose of
repaying Pleasanton for the amount of money over and above PIeasanton's "fair share" costs of the total
interchanges that Pleasanton has advanced based on the relative projected traffic from and to each
jurisdiction at the two interchanges in the Year 2010. The property owners in Eastern Dublin should not
pay P1easanton interest on the "advanced money" inasmuch as Pleasanton has the bencfit of the exclusive e
use of the interchanges until the Dublin development comes on line.
FolIowing is the calculation for establishing reimbursement due Pleasanlon ITom property owners in
Eastern Dublin of $7,384,000:
Assumptions
1) Cost split based on all of Dublin traffic vs: all of Pleasanton traffic
using the interchanges. (Note that the bulk of traffic using the two
interchanges will be from Eastern Dublin and Eastern Pleasanton and the
interchanges are required for the level of development approved by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.)
2) Dublin and Pleasanton to pay 100% of costs based on their relative
share of the traffic using the interchanges.
3) Traffic split is based on TJKM analysis of the Barton-Aschman Tp·
Valley traffic model run for the Year 2010 (attached).
4) Pleasanton' s costs for constructing the interchanges (based on
Pleasanton cost breakdown):
Hacienda Interchange: $18,716,000
TassajaralSanta Rita Interchange: 9.846 000
Total: $28,562,000
5) Dublin's future costs to complete interchanges already included in the e
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Resolution 95·1 is $9,656,000.
6) Total project COSl is therefore $38,218,000
Page 1
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION
/'74,.2,'3
From TJKM analysis:
Pleasanton's share of total traffic using the Hacienda
Drive interchange
Dublin's share of total traffic using the Hacienda Drive
interchange
Other jurisdictions' traffic
46%
e
Total:
36%
18%
100%
Therefore, with the assumption that 100% of the cost is
split between owners of property in the two jurisdictions,
the cost split for the Hacienda Drive interchange
calculates to be:
Pleasanton
Dublin
56.1%
43.9%
100.0%
Pleasanton's share of total traffic using the
TassajaralSanta Rita interchange
Dublin share of the total traffic using the TassajaralSanta
Rita interchange
Other jurisdictions' traffic
43%
Total:
36%
21%
100%
e
Therefore, with the assumption that 100% of the cost is
split between the two jurisdictions, the cost split for lhe
TassajaralSanta Rita Road interchange calculates to be:
P1easanton
Dublin
54.4%
45.~
100.0%
The cost obligations are then as follows:
Hacienda Interchange:
TassajaralSanta Rita Rd.
Interchange
Pleasanton
Ohlicration
$12,775,000 (56.1%)
Dublin
Oblip"ation
$9,997,000
Total
Interchange
D:!B
(43.9%) $22,772,000
$8.403.000 (54.4%)
Total: $21,178,000
$7043.000
$17,040,000
(45.6%) $15.446000
$38,2] 8,000
Reimbursement due Pleasanton:
a Pleasanton Advance:
.. less Pleasanton Obligation: .
Reimbursement due Pleasanton from property
owners in Eastern Dublin:
$28,562,000
($21 178 000)
$7.384.000
Page 2
).D ~ ;;..5
The fee wi1J then be based on dividing the expected number of trips generated by the Eastern Dublin
development (344,078) into tlle total monies to be generated ($7,384,000) to obtain the fee per trip.
The 344,078 trips estimated is generated from the Eastern Dublin Genera] Plan/Specific Plan study of
346,525, modified slightly downward by redefining the density tiers for residential development from two
levels to four levels and the resulting refinement of the traffic generated at these density levels.
The calculation is then:
$7.384000
344,078 trips
=
$21.46 per trip
For residential units, the fee would be:
Residential Cate¡¡:ory
Low density (up to 6 units! acre)
Medium density (over 6 to 14 units / acre)
Medium high density (over 14 to 25 units! acre)
High density (over 25 units / acre)
Non-residential uses (based on trip generation
schedule)
*Trins Per Unit
10
10
7
6
Fee Per Unit
$214.60
$214.60
$150.22
$128.76
$21.46 per trip
· TRIPS PER UNIT - These trip generation factors were developed by the City's Traffic Consultant,
TJKM, using the Institute of Traffic Engineers case studies.
Page 3
e
e
e
". '
;;). / q) ;1..3
..
~Transportation Consultants
e
April 12. 1995
The charts below illustnlte the sourœ of traffic, by percent. using each of four 1-580 interchanges:
1) Hopyard Road/DOugher1y Road; 2) Hacienda Drive; 3) Tassajarn Road/Santa Rita Road, and
4) Fallon RoadIE! OJano Road in 20]0 according 10 the Tri-Valley Transportation Model.
In the first chart. the arnoWlt of traffic lo/from each of nine Tri- Valley areas using each of the four
interchanges is shown. In the second chart. orùy the lnÛfic to/from Pleasanton and East Dublin is
considered.
Dough¡;¡orty TOS$Qjoro
PlaL/sonlOn N.UvetmOlè LNermOfe E.Dub jn DubJi", Vollev Volley San. ~Dmon Donyille T01el
e ~ ~n 3.... ID'L 7.... 7..... .'< I.... 3.... 7'l. '00'<
46'10 ~'Io 9'Ió I 37'10 ..... I I.. n I.. 1'10 1=
43.... 5.... 11.. I 33.... 3.. 1.. 3.... I.. D'L Im'Io
. 21.. 7.... 73'10 38% n 5.. ,.... 1.. I.. 1=
~eos:::Jnfön E,De,.,r,n I Totol
1 85.... 15" 1=
7 51"10 'I.. I [I)' ',
3 $;" ""'10 1[I)' ', -
, 3."- ...... I [I)' ',
157-066
e
PAGE 4
4637 Chabot Drive. Suile 214, PI~R~'I.I'II()n. CalHorni:. 94588-1754. (510) ~63-06IJ. F.Ilx (510) 46J·~(¡90
Ple"$iiIIi1ton . Sa~ramentð . Fresno . $;jI:~ta ~(J$.8
;;2. ). "Ó ;;,3
1-580 INTERCHANGE FEE FOR
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AREA
Low Density Residential (0 to 6 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential (over 6 to 14 units per acre)
Medium High Density Residential (over 14 to 25 units per acre)
High Density Residential (over 25 units per acre)
Development Other Than Residential:
$214,60 per unit
$214,60 per unit
$150.22 per unit
$126,76 per unit
$21.46/trip
(Bosed on the following table)
e
LAND USE
rNon-Residentlal1
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE"
(WITH PASS-BYS\
HOTEL/MOTEL OR OTHER LODGING:
10/room
OFFICE:
Standard Commercial Office
MedicaUDental
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
B/acre
33/court
e
220/screen
0.2lseat
96/1,000 sf
EDUCATION (Private Schools):
1.5/student
HOSPITAL:
General
ConvalescenUNursing
Clinic
12/bed
31bed
24/1.000 sf
CHURCH:
9/1,000 sf
INDUSTRIAL:
Industrial (with retail)
Industrial (without retail)
16/1,000 sf
6/1.000 sf
. Source of information for Trip Generation Rates: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers
and San Diego Assoc, Government Trip Generation Rates, These trip generation rates are based
on averages. Retail commercial has been given a 35% pass-by reduction.
Page 1 of2
e
EXHIBIT "C" OF RESOLUTION
TRIP GENERATION RAT:::S
e
e
e
""!':::1
71__
.-; ""
"'-'
.-/~
-v
LAND USE
(Non_Residential\
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE
TRIP GENERATION RATE
(WITH PASS-8YS\
RESTAURANT:
Quality (leisure)
Sit-dewn. high turnover (usually chain ether than fast feed)
Fest Food (with er with,eut drive threugh)
BarfTavern
6311,000 $I
133/1,000 sf
511/1,000 sf
100/1,000 sf
AUTOMOBILE:
Car Wash
Automatic
Self-Serve
Gas Station with or without foed mart
Tire Store/Oil Change Store
Auto Sales/Parts Store
Auto Repair Center
Truck Terminal
565/site
70/wash stall
97/pump
281service bay
(no pass-bys) 48/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 20/1,000 sf
(no pass-bys) 60lacre
FINANCIAL:
Bank (Walk-In Only)
Savings and Lean (Walk-In Only)
Drive-Through/ATM (Add to Bank er Savings & Lean)
9111,000 sf
4011,000 sf
65/lane or machine
COMMERCIAURETAIL:
Super Regional Shepping Center
(More than 600,000 SF; usually
mere than 60 acres, with
usually 3+ majors!eres)
22/1,000 sf
Regienal Shopping Center
(300,000 - 600,000 SF; usually
30 - 60 acres. w/usually 2+ major stqres)
33/1.000 sf
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)
46/1,000 sf
Commercial Sheps
Retail/Strip Cemmercial
Commercial with unknown tenant
Supermarket
Convenience Market
Discount Store
Lumber Store/Building Materials
Garden Nursery
Cemetery
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 ef2
g:v~t/'1l~Vntr1ee.s.J{I:
EXHIBIT "COO OF RESOLUTION
TRIP GENERATION RATES