Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02102004 - C31 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Contra Cost COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: February 10, 2404 County /'1e'31 SUBJECT: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) II BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1) APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute"Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation". FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Tri Valley Transportation Council(TVTC)includes Contra Costa and Alameda counties, and the cities of Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was formed to address transportation issues of common interest. In 1997,the TVTC unanimously recommended to its member jurisdictions the adoption of a uniform development fee, known as the Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). All participating jurisdictions supported this recommendation by adopting ordinances establishing uniform development fees in the Tri-Valley area dedicated to specified regional transport ' rojects. 3 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REMMENDATIbN OF 90ARD COMMITTEE „'APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S):- ACTION IGNATURE SACTION OF BO ON EebnM 10, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Nmv-- } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE AYES: NOES: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SHOWN. ATTESTED Lebruarsr 10. + Contact: John Cunningham (9251335-1243) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF cc: Community Development Department(CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSPublic Worcs Department MC(via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BYLe , DEPUTY C:\EMUMF--I*ea\LOCALS-1\Temp\C.Loriis.NotBs.Data\board order.doc Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee February 10, 2004 'Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) In 2001, the TVTC initiated the process to update the Strategic Expenditure Plan and accompanying fee (TVTDF). This task was completed and approved by TVTC in 2003. On April 15, 2003 the Board of Supervisors endorsed the approvals(Exhibit B)made by TVTC. In September of 2003 the new Fee Ordinance was adopted (Exhibit C) The fee became effective in November 2003. The execution of Addendum I to JoinvPowers of Exercise of Powers Agreement (Exhibit A) completes this process, fulfilling the intent of cooperative participation of member jurisdictions in funding regional transportation improvements. Signatures This Addendutn' I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement may be signed in counterparts with the signature pages attached to form a complete document. APPROVED BY: COUNTYOF CONTRA CLOSTA By: "`.` Dated: ` Its: Cya1r, Boa of supervi.sars Attest: Wputy, ierk of the Board of Supervisors {' COUNTY OF ALAMCDA By: Dated: Its: Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CITY OF SAN RAMON By: Dated: Its: Attest: City Clerk- Addendum lerkAddendum I Page 4 of Joint Exercise.of Powers Agreement I/3I/03 TVTD :Cees for Traffic M.tigation. x . A ADDENDUM I TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO Tri-valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation BY AND AMONG The County of Alameda The County of Contra Costa The City of:Dublin The City of Livermore The City of Pleasanton The City of San Ramon The Town of Danville RECITALS WHEREAS, each of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation bevelopment Fees (TVTDF); and WHEREAS, all TVTC jurisdictions have resolved to cooperatively participate and adopt uniform TVTD Fee rates; and WHEREAS, the TVTD Fee applies to new development in all seven-member jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley area; and WHEREAS, revenues from the TVTD Fees are used to fund the regional transportation improvements identified in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) and the Strategic Expenditure Plan(SEP); and WHEREAS, the TVTC commissioned a "fee nexus study" in 1996 to establish the TVTD Fee based on traffic impacts from new development and the costs for the transportation improvements identified in the TVTP/AP; and WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Office development was only 10.3% of the resulting fee from the"fee nexus study„ for this type of land use; and WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Industrial development was only 11.5% of the resulting fee from the"fee nexus study"for this type of land use; and WHEREAS, the 1-580/1-680 Interchange Improvements project is now complete; and WHEREAS, the estimated total cost for the existing ten TVTDF projects has increased by approximately 65%; and WHEREAS, the construction cost index for the San Francisco Bay Area has risen by approximately 14%since the adoption of the TVTD Fee in 1998; and WHEREAS, an estimated $10.20 million in cash flow deficit is anticipated to occur by fiscal year 2009-10 based on the current expenditure plan and ;the scheduling requirements of TVTDF projects; and WHEREAS, the gap between fee revenues and regional transportation improvement costs has left some projects unable to be fully funded, and will likely result in the delayed delivery of these improvements; and WHEREAS, Subsection 13.b of the JEPA specifies that for non-automatic TVTD Fee adjustments agreed upon by the Parties, the amount of the adjustment shall be Addendum I Page 2 of 2 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement May 20, 2003 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation included in a written addendum to the JEPA that shall be approved by each Party and in amendments of each adopted fee resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, each Party adopted a resolution amending the previously adopted TVTD Fee resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, each Party approved this addendum {Addendum I} to,the JEPA; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the JEPA is amended as follows: Revise Section 9. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Amount of the JEPA to read as follows: The initial Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees, effective the date this addendum is approved by all Parties, shall be as follows: Land Use Type Fee Per Unit Single Family Residential $1,711 Dwelling Unit Multi Family Residential $1,087 Dwelling Unit Office $3.07 Square foot of gross floor area Retail $1.14 Square foot of gross floor area Industrial $2.08 Square foot of gross floor area Other Uses $685 Average a.m./p.m. peak hour trip* *Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation.Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant for a Land Use Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated by the City/County, may appeal the determination to the Council/Board of Supervisors. If such an appeal is granted by the Council/Board of Supervisors, and the Council/Board of Supervisors adjusts the number of peak-hour trips, the City/County shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant. Addendum I Page 3 of 3 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement May 20, 2003 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation Signatures This Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement may be signed in counterparts with the signature pages attached to form a complete document. APPROVED BY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By-�' : Dated: Its: Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALAMEDA By: Dated: Its: Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CITY OF SAN RAMON By: Dated: Its: Attest: City Clerk Addendum I Page 4 of 4 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement May Zp, 2003 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation TOWN OF DANVILLE By: Dated: Its: Attest: Town Clerk CITY OF DUBLIN By: _ Dated: Its: Attest: City Clerk CITY OF LIVERMORE By: Dated: Its: Attest: City Clerk CITY OF PLEASANTON By: Dated: Its: Attest: City Cleric U.•I TransportationlAgeneies&C©mmitteesITYTCISEP Update 20031Addendum I to JEPA-Fee Adjustment.doe Addendum I Page 5 of 5 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement May 20, 2003 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS %5)>, FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ' ,r. 'onf^a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR , + Coster DATE: April 15, 2003 County SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Council(TVTC)Actions Related to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of the Interim Adjustment to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). (Exhibit 1) 2) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for TVTD Fees. (Exhibit 2) 3) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of the 2003 Update of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Pian (SEP). (Exhibit 3) FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. The recommended action would lead to an increase in funding for specified transportation projects. The new fee study would be funded by TVTDF Program revenue. ,BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) includes Contra Costa and Alameda counties, and the cities of Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was formed to address transportation issues of common interest. In 1997,the TVTC unanimously recommended to its member jurisdictions the adoption of a uniform development fee, known as the Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). All participating jurisdictions supported this recommendation by adopting ordinances establishing uniform development fees in the Tri-Valley area dedicated to specified regional transportation projects. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURc ' /F`tECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE _,,APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURES . ACTION OF B ON April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE VOTE or SUPERVISORS AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN X_ _UNANIMOUS AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE (ABSENT N�.°ne--i NOES: ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: ABSENT: A85TAIN: SHOWN. DISTRICT III SEAT VACANT ATTESTED April 15, 2003 Contact: John Cunningham (9251335-1243) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF cc: Community Development Department(CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AND COUPTY ADMINISTRATOR 1V rC(via CDD) BY , DEPUTY G:\Tr<msportatbn\cunnhahamttvtclfee inc reaselaor 15 03 board ordeeboard order.doc Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)Actions Relate8 to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee April 15, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) In 2001, the TVTC initiated the process to update the SEP. This included updating project cost estimates, revenue sources and schedules. The tatal cost estimate to build the 10 remaining projects in the fee program has gone up by about 65 percent since the first estimates were developed in 1998 ($763 million vs. $460 million) resulting in deficits in several years of the fee program's cash flow. These deficits would peak at$10.2 million by FY 2009110. These deficits assume a continuation of the priorities and commitments included in the existing Strategic Expenditure Plan. No new funding commitments were proposed in this calculation. TVTC requested its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)to examine alternatives to address this funding shortfall and recommend corrective measures for adoption by the TVTC. The TAC has completed this work and has drafted a revised fee schedule and Strategic Expenditure,Plan that eliminates this funding deficit and reflects some increases in expected TVTC project costs. The TAC made a recommendation to TVTC(Exhibit 4),which was heard at their March 51h meeting. On January 28, 2003 the Board of Supervisors reviewed a number of options considered by the TAC and Supervisor Gerber, and submitted Supervisor Gerber's proposal (Exhibit 5)to TVTC.The proposal was included as an option for consideration by TVTC at their March 5th meeting. TVTC elected to support the TAC recommendation. Implementation of the revised fees and expenditure plan requires: 1. Unanimous approval by the TVTC. 2. A written addendum to the JEPA that has been approved by each party to the JEPA. 3. Amended fee ordinance/resolution by each party to the JEPA. In the past,the steps required to implement the fee ordinance followed the sequence:above. However, the March 5, 2003 TVTC meeting did not include a quorum. In order to speed the process the TVTC declared its intent to approve, and recommended circulating the following documents to the parties to the JEPA: the fee update (Exhibit 1), the addendum to the JEPA (Exhibit 2), and the 2003 Update of the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan (Exhibit 3) The approval mentionedabove is tentative given that a unanimous action of TVTC is needed 'to approve the aforementioned documents. The Board's endorsement of these recent TVTC actions will indicate to the TVTC that a consensus has been achieved on this update process and assist the Council in proceeding. Adoption of these measures will eliminate the projected funding shortfall. The fee adjustments are considered "interim"as TAC is recommending a new TVTC fee nexus study be conducted in the spring of 2003. This study will update projects costs and land development projections for use in determining the need for further revisions to the TVTC fee schedule later this year. One change of note in the SEP is the elimination of the language describing the Vasco Road Safety improvements as "lower priority" and "not recommended for funding in the next 10 years of the program". This will improve the priority status of the project. The updated SEP was not available for this report but will be seen in the April 23rd TVTC packet. The TVTC will meet again on April 23rd in the Town of Danville offices. If a new Supervisor has not been seated for District 3 the alternate will need to attend in order to enable`TVTC to take a final action on this fee adjustment. TA BLE 2 PROPOSED INTERIM ADJUSTMENT TO THE TVTU FEE (Adjust the Fee Amounts for MF Residential; Office and IncierstTial Uses to Match the Percent Level of the Nexus Fee for SF Residential; No New.Allocationsof TV'rDF Funds) aftJ SF Residential $1,71 It 27.7% $1',711/unit 27.7% 0.0% 1Yff ltesi entlal :$1,1 !8/thii 30 5�i�o, $11 f 8�;1�i xt 1 27 '..:.. ....... .... ... AAAA. .. ..... -. Office $1.14/sf 10.3% $3.07/sf 27.7% +169.3% R A' $1;,14ls + t�r3b/n � sf� , ' 0" o'.: V jr t 1 t r v r. Industrial $0.86/sf 11.5% $2.08/sf 27.70X0 +X41.9% Othei , 6&5/pea trip 34 i Based on the average Retail Fee from the Nexus Study. * Includes an average adjustment factor of 24%to'the initial Nexus Fee for"Other"uses thatdo not fit into the standard Retail,Office or hiditstrial categories. This adjustment factor was determined based on a TVTC review orTVTD Tees in 1999 to make the Fee for"Other"uses more equitable(i.e., propoz-tional to the Fee paid by traditional Retail,Office or industrial.uses). G:MITC LSEP Uptintelree ait7tstmem prvpoxnl A,1ar03.ttoc 2/3/2003 ADDENDUM I TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic A/Efigation Y AND AMONG The County of Alameda . The County of Contra Costa The City of Dublin The City of Liverin.olle The City of Pleasanton. The City of San Ramon The 'rown of Danville RECITALS WHEREAS, each of the Tri-Valley j urisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (1EPA) for .the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees (TVTDF); and WHEREAS, all TVTC jurisdictions have resolved to cooperatively participate and adopt uniform TVTD Fee rates; and WHEREAS, the TVTD Feeapplies to new development m. all seven-member jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley area; and WHEREAS, revenues fi-om the TVTD Fees are used to fund the regional transportation improvements identified in the Tr(-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVT.P/AP) and the Strategic Expenditure Plan(SEP); and WHEREAS, the TVTC commissioned a "fee nexus study„ in 1996 to establish the TVTD Fee based on traffic impacts from new development and the costs for the transportation improvements identified in the TVTWAP; and WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Office development was only 10.3% of the resulting fee from the "fee nexus study" for this tyl)c.of land use; and WHER1vAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Industrial development was only 11.5% of the resulting fee from the":fee nexus study„for this type of land use; and WHEREAS, the 1-580/1-680 Interchange Iinprovements project is now complete; and WHEREAS, .the estimated total cost for the existing ten TVTDF projects has increased.by approximately 65%; and WHEREAS,the construction cost index for the San Francisca Bay Area has risen by approximately 14% since the adoption of the TVTD Fee in 1998; and WHEREAS, an estimated $10.20 million in, cash flow deficit is anticipated to occur by fiscal year 2009-10 based on the current expenditure. plan and the scheduling requirements of TVTDF projects; and WHEREAS, the gap bbtween fee revenues and regional transportation improvement costs h.as left some projects tunable to be fully funded; and will likely result in the delayed delivery of these improvements; and WHEREAS, Subsection 13.b of the 1EPA specifies that for non-automatic TVTD Fee adjustments agreed upon by the Parties, the'amount of the adjustment shall be Addendum I Page 2 of 5 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1:/31/03 TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation __ included in a writim-1 addendum to the SEI.'A that shall be approvecl by each Panty and in aniendment:s of each adopted fee resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, each Party adopted a resolution airiending the previously adopted TV'TD Fee resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS,each Party approved this addendum(Addendum l) to the TEPA; NOW THEREFORE RE IT .RESOLVED THAT the TLPA. is amended as follows: Revise Section 9.Tri-Valley T ransportatiou Development Fee Amom t of the TEPA to read as follows: 'I'he initial Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees, effective the date this addendum is approved by all Parties, shall be as follows: Laud Use Type Fee Per Unit Single Fancily Residential. $1,71.1 Dwelling Unit Multi Fancily Residential $1,087 Dwelling lUnit. Office $3.07 Square facet of gross floor area Retail $1.14 Square foot of gross floor area Industrial $2.08 ,Square foot of gross floor area Other Uses $685 Average a.m./p.m. peal-hour trip"' 'Peak-hour trips will be determined ti•oni the latest revision to the histitu.te of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, art applicant for a Land Use Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the nuniber of pealc-hour trills, as calculated by the City/County, may appeal the detpririination to the Council/Board of Supervisors. If such an appeal is granted by the Couricil/Board of Supervisors, and the Council/.Board of Supervisors adjusts the number of peak-hour trills, the City/County shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the fcill amount of the fee must be,paid by the applicant. Addendum 1 Page 3 of 5 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1/31/03 TVTD Fees for.1'raffic Mitigation . � + 3 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN 2003 UPDATE WITH INTERIM FEE ADJUSTMENT "PROPOS�IL FOR ADOPTION" I. Introduction TI. Project Descriptions and Status Reports 1:11. Project Priorities TV. Project Funding V.. Project Sponsors Table T - TVTDF Funding Plan Tuttle 2 - Project Revenue Sources Y. INTRODUCTION The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) and its constituent members adopted the "Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (TVTP/Al') in. Plan marked1995. The marked a coYrmrmmorm uriderstanding and- agreement on the Tr i-Valley's transportAtion concerns and directions for improvements. Among other things, the Plan preserited eleven specific transportation improvements to be given high priority for -funding and implementation (Table 1). These eleven projects were subsequently to be included in the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF), which was adopted by the TVTC and ratified by all seven-member jurisdictions in 1998. In 1999, the TVTC adopted ami Expenditure Ilan for the TVTDF to establish a funding plan for the regional fee projects. Since that adoption, a total of $17,547,476 million in fees and $126,182 in interest were remitted by member agencies through December 31, 2002, The TVTDF Trust Fund earned $651,1.08 in imiterest income over this time period to bring the total revenue credited. to the fund to $18,324,766. Froin'these funds a total of $8,784,865 has been disbursed, leavirmg a balance of $9,539,901 to spend ort the TVTDF projects. In July 2000, the TVTC updated the TVTP/AP, which was included in the 2000 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) issued the 2001 Update to the :Regional Transportation Plan. In addition., new funding sources, such as the renewal of Measure 13 in Alameda County, have been approved by the voters., This update.to the Strategic Expenditure Plan.incorporates and builds upon these updates to the regional and sub-regi.on:ml.transpo.i-tatioii outlook for the Tri- Valley area. In additibn, sor�ne of the original list of transportation inlprovenient projects have been completed, and sstrhedules and funding.for others have changed. Consequently, at this time, it is appropriate to review' and update the TVT017 Expenditure Plan to reflect these changes. This report summarizes progress-to-dale on implementation of tmme original Expenditure Plan projects and includes proposed revisions to the flan. Amendments to the TVTDF Expenditure Plan require the unanimous approval or the seven TVTC member jurisdictions. Following approval of a :Draft TVTDF Expenditure Pian by the TVTC, it will be referred to the mernber jurisdictions for comment and ratification. Revenues from. the TVTDF program.have been applied to several of the 1999 Expenditure Plan's original list of high priority projects: 1-58011-680 Interchange Approximately $5.6 m lliorr was initially ';appropriated to the Alameda County Transportation Authority as the "local match" 1'or this important regional. improvement. This amount included approilmmmately $4.2 million in funds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs and$1.4 million in reimbursements to the, Cities of Dublin and. Pleasanton for prior contributions. This project was completed in :tune 2002 and the TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been,satisfied. 2 1./31/2003 State Route 84 Project Study Report and Vnvironmental Review The TVTDF Expenditure Plan initially appropriated $1.5 million to the City of Livermore for completion of preliminary engineering and envirom-rental review for improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680. Approximately $1.2 million was provided to the City of Livermore, as requested, for preparation of a Project Study Deport(PSIS.). The PSR has been ,prepared and is expected to be approved by Caltrans in Spring 2003. I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange The Expenditure Plan initially appropriated $1:.6 million for improvenhents to the I-680/Alcosta Byulevard Interchange, on the Dublin/San Ramon border. Resign of this project is expected to be completed by Spring ,2003, with construction.to begin in Fall 2003. West Dublin/Pleasanton .BART Station The West Dublim'Pleasanton BART Station was . tentatively progranin ed $4.0 million.in the Expenditure Plan. Subsequently, this project has nhoved closer to implementation as an innovative private/public partnership involving the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, BART and a partnering private developer. Additionally, several of the remaining Expenditurc Plan projects have been completed or are advancing toward construction: I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road) Preliminary Engineering and Environmental review for this project have been completed; with construction slated to begin in 2004/05. I-58011+oothill Road/Saar Ramon load Interchange Modif Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements The City of San Ramon recently completed improvements to Crow Carryon Road from Bollinger Canyon Road to the Alameda County Line. The improvements included an. extension of the westbound truck climbing',lane,,anal widening in the eastbound direction to provide for an exclusive right-turft lane at Bollinger Canyon Road. The tr-msition to a two-lane roadway at the County Line was also improved, and a major landslide -was stabilized. The remaining work on this project includes safety improvements on approximately 3 mules of Crow Canyon Road from Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costs, County to one mile north of Norris,Canyon Road. This project.will consider design alternatives for roadway alignment, lane and shoulder widths, and roadway curvature for enhanced traffic safety and operations on Crow Canyon Road within Alaineda County. Following are upddted summaries of the remaining TVTDF Expenditure Plan projbcts focusing on revisions .to their schedules and funding plans. The project summary sheets include fl-le projects' descriptions, schedules and funding plans. No.new projects are proposed to be added to the Expenditure Plan at flus time. The fiunding and scheduling targets from the individual projects have been compiled in Table 1, yielding an .estimate of the cash flow requirements and revenue estimates for the TVTDF Expenditure Plan. Table 2 shows sources of funding for the eleven high priority projects, including TVTDF funds. Since the TVTDF is a development fee, which is not appropriate for securing bonded debt, the Expenditure Placa is based on a"pay-as-you-go"balancing of projected revenues and".penditures over the term of the Plan. H. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND STATUSREA PORTS The -eleven projects in in the TVTDF are described on the following pages. These descriptions include the involved agencies, the current cost estimates,the status of the project, the current funding situation for the project, the schedule, and a synopsis of the need for the project. This information has been obtained from a variety of,sources and represents the most.current available infonnation on each project. The locations of these projects are described in Figure . Maps showing the location and limits of each project area are included for reference. The TVTDF protects ,we as follows: 1. I-580/1-680 FLYOVER AND HOOK RAMPS 2A. STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROY' MENTS-1-580 To I-680 213.. ISAB rLIZ-ourE 84/1-580 INTERCTIANGB 3. 1-680 AUXILIARY LANES DETwFHN BOLI.I[dGER CANYON ROAD AND DIA13LO ROAD 4. WEST DUBLIN PLEASANT ON BART 5T ATioN 5. I-580 I-10V LANES.FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO VASCO ROAD 6. 1-680 110V•LANES FROM STATE ROU rE 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE 7. 1-580/F00THILL ROAD-SAN RAM.ON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIMCATIONS 8. 1-680/.ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIT•ICAnONS 9. CRow CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT'S 10. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 11. EXPRESS BUS SERVICE 4 1/31/2003 3. t� br 1-G80e Auxiliary Lanes 10. "TY r x.91 asco 1-680/Aico'si to Crow Interchange Canyon lr [{i7 � i-58t fi oothitUSart`� Flyover 1.580 !->it3V x Ramon Interchange ..n.r. r...r d ._r. En A� � }`r A4. � p EAST AVE. P BART � .n \ Station �\ E.STANLEr-__y BLV m � P ter. 111% ,84 •Corridor G� 1-580 Hit v--'�k IN LEGEND North Not to Scale Project Location TVTC expenditure Plan Figure Index Map M-2W--ISO-1.19 ri- int No. J 1-5$0/I-680 Flyover aAd Hook Ramps. :involved Agencies Caltrans and the Alameda Coukty Transportation Authority Description The project consists of the construction of a southbound to 'eastbound flyover, a uorthbowid. to eastbound direct connector, southbound on and off hook ramps and a northbound on ramp. Cast Estimate The total project cost is approxmiately$120 million. Status The project is complete. Funding Most of the project is funded by Measure B. TVTC initially appropriated $5.6 million in TVTD:I;match fiends,including approximately$4.2 in firnds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs acid $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton for prior contributions. Schedule The project is complete. Need The project was approved by the voters of Alameda County as a portion of. the Measure B sales tax progran3. 5' 1/31/2003 ...............................................................................................................1.111,11,....... .................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................ ........................ .J ouau"BLVD. Construct -Hook Ramps P'eviotis Improvoment Remove Ramp Construct Flyover ... ................ WAN jry Remove Ramp Remove Ramp Construct Direct Connector LEGEND North Project Location Not to Scale TNTC Expenditure PlAn 1-580A-680 Flyov6r-and Hook Ramps Figure A, (Completed June 2002) M-M2-IM2 M ................................. ''I'll'',......................... Prr. ►'ect No 2 A Mate Route.84 Corridor Improvements: I-580 to 1-680 Involved.Agencies Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, Alameda County, amid Caltrans Description. This road improvement project will be constricted in several stages with a variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected to consist of six lanes on Isabel Avenue from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from.Stanley Boulevard to'I-680. The total length of the project is approximately l0 miles. Cost Estimate Total project cost is $254 million for the roadway portions of the.pr6ject. See Project No. 2B for the comp-ulion 1-580 .interchange portion of the project. Status Isabel Avenue is a new two-lade roadway from I-580-at Airway Boulevard. to Vallecitos Road. The existing two-lane roadway'remains from Isabel Avenue to near 1.680, with a short portion of four-lane divided roadway approaching I-6 0. The City of Livermore is worldng with Caltrans to relocate State Route 84 to the Isabel Avenue corridor. It is expected that the relocation will be accomplished within the next few years. The TVTC funded ($1,164,000) preparation of a I rciject Study Report (PSR) for this,project. The PSR should be complete and approved by Caltrans in Spring 2003. The PSR defines this project and identifies implementation phases and the costs associated with those phases. Alameda County's new Measure B' program includes $70 million for-a four-lane facility fi-oin I-580 to Vallecitos Road pluspossible improvements througti the Pigeon Pass section of Route.84. Funding 'Che TNTC allocates$24 million in future TVTDF fiends for this,project. Schedule An initial please project ($41.9 million) .from Isabel Avenue through Pigeon Pass could begin in 2003/04 and be completed in 2009110. There is no current schedule for completion of the new Measure B;project to widen Isabel Avenue to four lanes between I-580 and Vallecitos(Road. Prviect Meed The project would relieve traffic congestion on portions of I-680 and I-580 in Tri-Valley as well as improve access to regional routes from portions of Livermore and :Pleasanton. The existing two-lane roadway between Livermore and I-680 is operating at capacity during peak' commute periods. 6 1/31/2003 ............................................................................................ ......... ......... ... _........ ......... ......... ..... . .... . ...... ......... ......... ......... .._..._.. _ . ......................................................................................................................................................... . ..._..._.................................... Segment n Stage 1: Construrt Initial interchange With 2 lane overpass; extend PortolaSee Project 20 to Isabel and remove Portola ramps: description Stege 2: Construct6 lane overpass and ultimate Interchange. Pleasanton STAt4LEY BLVD' � Livermore 2 ��. Segment Construct 416 lane expressway. 2 P In In s "MOe4 Segment Stage 1: Construct uphill truck lanes; Improve deficient curves. Stage 2:Construct 4 lane expressway. Note:' Segment is TVfDF Project 23 Segments and are TVTDP Project 2A LEGEND _ North Not to Scale �rd.e Project Location `fVTC Expenditure Plan Figure State Route 84 Corridor Improvements 1 580 to 1-680 89-2f!^c•W2-LH P �np.&Na._.221 Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange Involved Agencies City ofLiverrnore.and Caltrans Description This project consists of a new partial-cloverleaf interchange on Isabel Avenue/Route 84 at I-580. The ultimate configuration includes a 6-lane overcrossing.. The interchange project will be constructed in two phases. Tl:ie project includes removal of ramps at the adjacent Portola Avenue interchange and construction .of a new roadway connection on the north side ofI-580 between;Portola Avenue and the new interchange. Cost Estimate The total cost of the interchange is $92 million. The initial Phase I project is estimated to cost x;64 inillion, and the Phase. 11 project to complete the interchange is.estimated to cost$28 million. Status, A Project Study Report.for the i.iiterchange has been approved. The ED/PR.Cor Phase I is underway, and it is expected to be approved in 2003. Phase I design will begin in 2003. Construction is expected to 'be complete in 2006. Funding Funding for the Phase I interchange includes Measure B ($20 million), . STIP ($31 million), TEA 21. ($10.4 million), and City of Livermore, Traffic Impact Fees ($2.6. million). Funding for Phase Il will be City of Livenrrore Traffic Impact Fees and other funding that may become available. Schedule The initial Phase I interebange will be complete in 2006, and the full. interchange is expected to be complete by 2015. Project Meed. The interchange project will provide direct access from I-580 to future State Route 84 -located along the Isabel Avenue corridor in Livermore. This project will improve traffic conditions in downtown Livermore as well 'as partially relieve traffic conditions in the I-SS0 anti 1-680 corridors in Tri-Valley. 7 1/31/2003 II N.CANYON PKVW. t Construct New Interchange \ To N.Livermore Ave, -4--To Airway Blvd.lnterch;60 A AJAWAY 9LYC5, Ul G LEGEND North Wrrrwrt Project Location Not to Scale TVTG Expen* iture Plan Figure Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange NN 139-242-SM2-Ul { ProicctN 1-680 Auxl ary Lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville Involved Agencies Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Cities.dl rivillt and San Ramon Description This project will construct both nortlibound and southbound auxiliary lanes in the 1-680 corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon to Diablo Road in Danville. These impiovement-s include an additional 12-foot lane, between interchanges in'the northbound and southbound directions, retainingwalls, and sound walls in the corridor. Also included are ramp improvements and structure widching over Laurel Drive between Sycamore Valley Road and Diablo Road. Tlie project will be constructed in three seg*nts: (1) Diablo to Sycamore; (2) Sycamore to Crow Canyon; and(3)Crow Canyon to Bollinger. Cost Estizn.ate Segment 1 $13.3 million Segment 2 $,33.2 million Segment 3 S&6_milliari . TOTAL: $55.6 million(includes project development andl construction.) Status A Caltrans Project Study Report (P'8k) was completed.in February 2000. The environmental document was appravcd in October 2002. r1unding The project will be funded witlra'a variety of sources,including STIP,Measure C, and development fees ('TVTDF: $12.0 million and SCC MPA: $83� million). Segment l is fully funded with Measure C ($4.8 million) and STIP #cads ($9.0 million). Segment.3 is proposed for joint.funding with Measure C($63 million) and development fees (totaling $2.3 million)..' Segment 2 is proposed to be firnded with Measure C 63.5 -million), develo meat• fees ($18.2 million), and yet-to-be secured ST1F:"fiords. The TVTC allocates $12 million in future TVTDF finds for this project. Schedule Ficial Design for Sel-ppents I and, 3 is'ciffftitly underway. Assuming that regional fees can be advanced, construction of both of these. segments could begin in carly 2004.' Construction of Segment 2•is scheduled to start in 2007, and is dependent upon securing additional STIP funds. .r'rojectNeedI Traffic studies of Irxhrre conditions along 1-680 indicate. that peak hour traffic volurnes on the existing six mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes already' exceeds capacity at soave locations. The auxiliary lane project is not intended to . increase freeway capacity per se, but will mitigate operational problems caused by merging' and diverging vehicles in interchanges. 'nie highest need,in terms of alleviating existing congestion,is in Segment 1. .8 1/3112003. TYPICAL AUXILIARY LANE SCHEMATIC ' W4 on-ramp I f PO auxIllary f ) f lana DIAOL I f I f I i I I f Oft-ramp I I 0 6YCAMOME VALLO rys +^� Construct Auxiliary Lanes. a . } GpCiSs G� O� O 6 VID. �Io Nil North Not to Scale LEGEND a»rrer Project Location TVTC Expenditure Pian Figure 1-680 Auxiliary ..Anes IM-202-I M-LFf West]Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station Involved Agencies BART,City of Dublin,and City of Pleasanton Description The project is the construction.ofthe West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station and related transit improvements. The project is a joint public and private.venture to build a station on the active BART line,in the median of I-589. .The related transit improvements such as the patron parking garages,kiss-aide and bus drop- offs will be located on moth the north(Dublin)and south(Pleasanton)sides of the freeway on property owned by BART. Cost Estimate $53 million ($58 million-escalated to midpoint of construction) States .hicluded in Track 1 of the'adopted MTC 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).. Included in Trach 2 of the adopted renewal of the Measure B Alameda County transportation sales tax. The BIR for the station was certified by the BART Board in April 200 1. The Master.Developer agreement has been negotiated for the project. The proposed transit village around the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station will likely include residential units,hotel facilities, and office space. The EIR for the Transit Village surrounding the Dublin side of the future station was approved by the'BART Board in April 2001 and submitted to the City of Dublin in mid-2001. Funding The project will be funded utilizing public and private financing mechanisms available under the California Infrastructure Finance Act. Fund sources include lease revenues,tax increments, station revenues and grant sources. The.Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has a $10 million commitment to the project(as indicated in the RTP). Thougli the project is included in the Measure B program, its.placement in Tier 2 makes it unlikely to receive actual'kovenues without a dramatic increase-in sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. The TVTC allocates$4 million in fixture'r VTDF funds for this project. Schedule Bonds to finance the project'bave a target sale date of late 2003, with final design and construction activities to commence within a year of the bond sale. I7te project hits a current planned opening date in Spring of 2606. . Project Need The construction of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasariton BART station will address demand that exists within the Tri-Valley for BART:'service. 9. 1/31/20103 I n r Existing n r- Dublin-Pleasanton 0 X BART � lri�wy0 1 • 87C1NERti��+ a to Construct —- - — r/'—" W. Dublin-Pleasanton . BAi`i`i'Station 0 North Not to Scale LEGEND . Project Location THTC Expenditure Plan .Figure , West Dubf-In-Pleasanton BART Impr ' ovements 89.202-11M•LN I-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Aoad Involved Agencies Cities of Pleasanton,Dublin aiid T ivennore, Alameda County, and Caltrans Description Construction of approximately 8.2 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580 fxorn Tassajara Roiid to Vasco Road. After addition of these HOV lames, this segment of I-580 will have a total of fora mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction.. Three alternative locations for the HOV hines are being considered: Alt. 1). in the existing ruedisan, Alt. 2) designating the inner-most lades as HOV lanes and widening for fin additional mixed lane on the outside of the existing roadway, and Alt:. 3) widening the median for future BART and constructing an additional lane on the outside of the xoadway. Cost Estimate Costs of the three alternatives are$80 million for AU. 1, $127.8 million for .Alt. 2, and$200.5'1-nillion for Alt. 3. Staters A Project Study Report for the project has been completed and approved by Caltrans. Caltrans is proceeding with environmental studies of the, three alternatives. The environmental work.should be complete in 2003. The Policy Advisory Committee on the I-580 Corridor/BART To Livermore Study has passed a motion recommending that a future transit alternative.in the corridor should be located in the I-580 median mid that Alterative 3 is the.preferred alternative for the future HOV lanes. Funding $25 million.in state Traffic Congestion Relief Program(TORP)funds have been appropriated for this. project. Additional funding is needed. The TVTC allocates$8 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. S6hedule The environmental work for this project should be complete in 2003. At' that time, a decision on which alternative to pursue probably will be made. PrRiect Need Tliis project is.needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the I-580 'corridor. Traffic forecasts show that travel demand on I-580 through the Tri-Valley will exceed the capacity of the existing freeway. Adding,HOV lanes would encourage caipooling and provide travel timesavings for existing as well as future express bus services in the corridor. :I.0 ' 1/31/2003 coo 1 0 "COD 7ASSAJARA AD-0 0) py — "i Hca r m ad CL (j) av � a J LR.7 14 r� rn n i •na 009VA m � if ip b3 a ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... ........... ......... ......... ... . ........ .......... ..... ......... ......... ......... ....... .. .... ......................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................. I Project Na. h 1-680 HDV Lanes from State Route 84 to Top of Sunol Grade Involved Agencies Caltrans and Alameda County Description Construct approximately 3.5 miles (seven total Imre-iniles) of HHV lanes on I-680 fi-om. Sit. 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at Mission. Pass. After adding these lanes, I-680 would have three mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction of this segment. Cost estimate Constriction of the southbound I-680 HOV lanes between SR. 84 and Calaveras Boulevard in Milpitas is expected to cost approximately $90 million. The portion within the Tri-Valley area (SR 84 to the-top of.the Sunol Grade) constitutes about 35 percent of the total mileage, or approximately$29 million. States This project to construct the highest priority southbound HGV i lanes has committed funding horn other sources: It is-likely that the northbound HHV lase will receive outside funding also. This is a regional project that involves three co-.inties, the CMAs, Caltrans, and.MTC. In addition, the I- 680 Phase H Corridor Study Will address future needs of the corridor. Fituding STEP;Federal, TCRP, and potential ACTIA funds will be utilized. No TVfDF fluids are included for this project. Schedule The southbound project was environmentally approved in September 2000. The northbound project environmental studies are underway and a draft document was circulated to the public in 2002.. Project Need The southbound lanes. of I-68b through the Sunol Grade constitute the second most congested commute in the Bay Area. Congestion occurs for a periodof three to four hours.each weekday. 1 1131/2003 ................................................................................................................................................. $UNLIL�Y.rY+ir NK.E$CAAIYp,��U Construct HOV Lames �d 1 y$ LEGEND North Prolda Location Not to Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-680 HHVLanes From SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade' (`Tri-Watley Portion)? l 89-202•OM-LN Prct . 7 1-5SO/rootl� it vadlSa> Ramon Road Interchange Modifications Involved Agencies City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton Description To enhance safety and improve 'traffic operations at the interclunge, the design of the existing I 580/Footlull Road/San Ramon Toad four-quadrant cloverleaf interchange. will be modified, replacizhg the westbound and eastbotuid off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ramps would be signalized at•their intersections with the local street. In addition, the castbound diagonal off ramp will be widened to two lanes and a 700- foot eastbound auxiliary lane on I-580 will be constructed. The project is located within the Cities ofDublin and Pleasanton. Cost Estimate $4 inillion for the entire project Status Caltrans has approved the Project Study Repots. and the Project Report/1snvirojimental Document was approved in July 2002. Project design is nearly completed for the proposed improvernents on the Dublin side of the freeway only. Thi.s'portion of the project is referred to as Phase 1, and Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed improvements,on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement Phase 2 at this lime. Funding The total cost to construct Phase 1 is approximately$2.0 million;the City of Dublin will use $1.2 million of its 20% set-aside TVTDF revenues to partially find Phase 1. construction. The TVTC allocates $0.8 trillion in TVTDF funds in fiscal year 2002103 for the Phase 1 project in Dublin. The TVTC also allocates an additional $0.8 million in future TVTDF funds for the Phase 2 project in Pleasanton. Schedule The City ol'Dublin is scheduled to start construction of Phase 1 in Summer 2003 to address traffic safety issues. Project Need 'Me project is ne?ded to ensure adequate access to/fiorn West Dublin- Pleasanton BART station, In addition, both the Pleasanton and Dublin sides of the fieeway currently experience safety issues related to traffic weaving f-om the diagonal off-ramps to m,-d<e a lett turn at the first intersection removed from the interchange. This traffic weaving condition is more severe on the Dublin side of the freeway due to the close proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project would create a signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate the weaving problem. 12 i 1/31/2003 i 1 i i Phase Phase I ,' �` Install Relocated Ramp, e \ t 1 Install Traffic Signals ," Remove Ramps K BAN RAMON RD. ' •��•� S •�'� Y``° 1 Remove Ramps �\ Install t ,- Install \ '� � ' � ,' Traffic \\Relocated 7r ,' ,r Signals .Ramp .. r Construct 700 foot Auxiliary;Lane 1 r r t t i / ppp+M�pr f / 6LPLY"1.11 i r 1 North' Not to Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure 1-580/Foothill Boulevard interdhange Modifications ' B94W-2102-GIC I-680/.Alcosta Boulev'ard•Interchange Modifications Involved Agencies Caltrans and City of San Ramon Description Reconstruct the southbound off ramp amid add a new on ramp at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the interehange. This project includes closing the existing southbound off ramp and removing a traffic signal, building new southbound on/off ramps to the north of Alcosta Boulevard, and connecting io San.Ramon Valley Boulevard with a now signalized intersection., Cost Estimate n $9.6 million Status The PSR for this project, which was funded by Measure C,. is complete., This project: is included in the City of Sail Ramon CII' program and project design is expected to be completed by Spring 200. The SCC. ,IPPA. designates $2.66 million for the project. TVTC made a preliminary . ..commitment of $2.0 million for the project, with the remainder to come; from local. sources,. Project construction is expected to start in Fall 2003. The TVTZ7F funding for this project should be made available to coincide with the planned construction. Funding $2.66 million is identified in the Southein Contra Costa JEPA. for this project. The TVTC allocates $1.6 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. Other funding sources include$4.34 million in local fluids and$3.5 million in 1998 STIP fiunding.. Sebedule See Status above.. Project Nees! The current interclmarnge is a tight diamond with a busy intersection of two arterials immediately adjacent to the interchange. Reconstruction of the southbound ramps into a buttonhook design,will remove the middle of three closely spaced tra3'hr signals on Alcosta and improve safety and capacity in the .area. The interchange traffic volumes are projected to increase as a result of growth in the area. m $13.5 million including improveunents to the nortlmirowid on and off ramps. { 13 1/31/2003 , F Construct New Ramps and Traffic Signal Rern9ve Ramp 7 �Reve qac o Traffic `.' rA`�ty� Signal Y r IN North Not to Scale TVTC Expenditure Plan ,f=igure 1-880/Alcvsta Boulevard Interchange Modifications, 0 88202.11!88-LH Crow Canyon Road.Safety zmproVements Involved Agencies Alameda County Description Safety improvements on approximately 3 miles of Crow Canyon Road from Bollinger Canyon Road in.Contra-Costa County to one mile north of Norris Canyon Road. This project .will identify alternatives that address considerations such as roadway realignment, lane .and shoulder width, roadway curvature and design.speed to improve traffic safety slid operations. Cost Estimate $25 million Statues Project is currently in ani advanced stage of project development. Funding The Alameda County CMA has identified $3.4 million of Tier I funds and $2.7 million- of Tier 2 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation,Play. Schedule The Development Phase is expected,to be finalized by Winter 2004. Project Need This project will provide improved roadway safety by straightening sharp curves as well as improving traffic flow 14 1/3112003 i {Ccrmpletl} G f Construct Safety Improvements � `°`�c� TV, O ' NAP. �UP C,ntra� caunH i 7 T- North Not to Scale Lr=GSNrJ • Pronject Lacatton TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements P_ roip Na.A 0 Vasco Road Safety Improvements Involved Agencies Alameda Co-uity, Contra Costa Cournty, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority Description . This safety project will straighten the alignment of the most northerly one- nvlc segment of Vasco Road. This project includes shoulder widening, cwv'es, grade modifications, and the addition of track climbing laces, to improve traffic operations. A PSR for Phase H is currently being prepared. Cost Estimate 940 million for a three'-mile segment Status A PSR, Survey, Preliminary Design and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase I have been completed. The next phase of right of way acgiiisition and utility relocation will start in January 2003. Design is approaching 70% completion.. (The construction cost estimate for this anile is 916,5 million.) Dinding .Funding for -the project was included in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program, 2002 SUP, an&local funds, which,includes government tax and developer fees. However, there is a shortfall for this project clue to relocation of underground high-pressure. gas ' lines, overhead power transmission lines, and telephone lines that conflict with the proposed roadway aligcument. Schcdale Construction will start April 2004 Project Need Tl-iis project is needed as a safety improvement. It is intended to match •recent two lane improvements completed in Contra Costa County. It would eliminate.sharp curves, narrow lanes and add shoulders. Although the projected. 2010'volumes exceed capacity of the existing and planned two-lane roadway, this project 'is not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency. Additionally, this project will allow a bus route between the City of Brentwood and the Lawrence Livermore -National Laboratory. 15 1/31/2003 x3.23.202 in MMMMIIMISM"am rmmimwwmtmwmwwl I 1 .1 Ill m oil 0, : anf3R- u8'►d e nlipuedx_g oj_A.L uopgaa7�aaJat,� w. ' UN3031 AIPOS of ION S f ` F ui a r.•w•4r cu (13 a 3nv '3nV UWAUVH � N�rron llwrl Allo ejoutid ar�e7wAqu nSAl SjUQt GAojdtu 0:39ktJt Wi7.1;Su03 tiiun°�- RnpO� mull J rroject Nt3.J1. Express,Bus Service Involved Agencies Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Description Capital costs to cover express routes. Service will be provided to the Dublind leasanton BART station from the BART owned Greenville Road property. Service to ion on weekdays during ANS and PM peak hours with headways consistent with BART train headways and tinned to meet all trains during the scheduled service hours. Project implementation is contingent upon construction of 1-580 HOV.lanes (see Project leo. 5). Cost Estimate $2.5 million, for capital costs only Status LAVTA has proposed this as an alternative (both short and long term) to .the 1-580 Corridor study group charged with examining future BART-to- Livermore options. This option will .assist in the development of mitigation efforts for the 1-550 corridor traffic congestion issues. Funding The Ahulleda County CMA has identified $5.0 million of Tier 'I funds*for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plpn. This project may be eligible for the Regional Gas Tax, and may be included in-the new Alameda County Measure b sales tax program. In addition to other existing transit ftumding sources, private sector funding from either the business or residential development community cbu.ld be cultivated to match specific express route costs. A total of $4 million of TVTT)r funds has been designated to be shared with. Project 4, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART { Station: Schedule To be determined. Because this project requires no PSR. or preliminary engineeringwork, th.e amount of tirne' from concept to implementation is relatively short. Project Need Express Bus Service will provide the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to heavy rail or auto facilities. flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in the access-of successful employment centers. As development in and beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute tinges will grow and fi-ustrated commuters will continue to seek out alternate ways to get to work. Express bus routes can transport riders directly to job sites and they can link people to existing and highly successfid fixed transit lines such as BART and the Altaniont Commuter Express. 16 1/31/2003 M. PROJECT PRIORITIES . Tri 1999, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council established nine priorities as part of the First Amendment to the Strategic lixpenditunr Plan. Priority 1 was to fluid the local share of the 1- 580/1-680 Flyover and Book Ramps Project. A.ppro"Ximately$5.6 million in TVTDF funds was provided as the local match for this regional irnprovenient. This project is now complete and the TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been fulfilled. The TVTC has also provided $1,164,000 .in TV I'DF funds for the preparation of the Project Study Report (PSR) for the State Route 84 Corridor hnprovernents project between 1-580 and 1- 680 (Project 2A). This PSR should be completed and approved. by Caltrans in Spring 2003. Caltrans has prepared the PSR. for the 1-580 t10V Lanes project from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road (Project •5) using State Traffic Corhgestion. Relief Progranis funds.': Caltrans has also prepared the PSR and the Project Report (111R) for the 1-680 Auxiliary Lorries project Between Bollinger Canyon Road and.Diablo Road(Project 3). TVTDF funding is limited, and it is important to direct the funds to the highest priority projects. A balance of$9,539,901 is currently available in the TVTDF frust account to spend on the TVTDF projects. Criteria identified in.the JEPA to guide priorities are Project Rear u ss, which is the ability to move directly to final design and construction; R qj .r. pT r ing, which is the ability to leverage outside funding for the project; and'Project Effectivem- s, which is the ability of the project to address congestion and/or safety concerns.. Based on these criteria, the priorities established by th&Tri-Valley Transportation Council for this Second Amendment to the Strategic Expenditure Plan are as follows. A. INITIAL PRIOWTIES Priority 1. Fund $0.8 million of the "Phase 1" 1-5850/Footliill Road/San Rai-non Road Interchange Modifications project(Project 7)in 2002/03. Caltrans has approved the Project Study Report, and the Project Report/Environniental Docuna.ent was approved in April 2002. Project design is nearly completed for the proposed improvements on the Dublin side of the freeway only. This portion of the project is referred to as Phase 1, and Phage 2 will consist of all of the proposed. improvements on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement Phase 2 at this time. The total cost estimate for the Phase l project is $2.0 nilliorh. It will be funded with approximately $1.2 million in Dublin's 20% set-aside TVTDF funds and the $0.8 million in TVTDF funds. Project construction is expected to start in Surnnher 2002. The Dublin side of the freeway currently experiences safety issues related to traffic weaving fioin the diagonal westbound off-ramp to make a left turn at the San Ranion Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.. This traffic weaving condition is critical tine to the close proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580.interchange. The project would create a signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate this weaving problem. This project meets the criteria of readiness to inove directly to final design and construction, funding leverage, and effectiveness in addressing safety concerns. 17 1/31./2003 Priority 2. Fund $1.6 million of the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard project (Project 8) in 2002/03. This project is located between the I-580/I-680 Flyover project and-the I-680 Auxiliary Lane project. The project has a cost estiunatex of$9.6 million and it will be funded with $2.65 million in SCC JEPA funds, $3.5 million in 1998 STIP funds, $4.34 million in local funds, and the$1.6 million its TVTDF funds. The PSR is complete, and project design is expeadd to be completed by Spring 2003, with construction to begirt in Fall 2003. This project meets the readiness and funding leverage criteria, and.it is ready to proceed. B. PRIORITIES TO BE RECONSIDERED 11N THE FUTURE Priorities to be reconsidered in the future by-the TVTC for fiscal years after 2002/03 are listed below. Priority 3. Fund $4 trillion for public transit projects, which include the West Dubli /Pleasanton BART Station project (Project 4) and/or the Express Bus project (Project 11) in 2003/04. a.) The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) benefits bout.the 1-580 and I- 680 corridors. Funding sources for this project include lease revenues, tax Increments, station revenues and. grant sources. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has.a $10 million cgn-mitment to the project (as indicated in the RTP). Though the project is included in the Measure B program, its placement in Tier 2 makes it unlikely to-receive actual revenues without a dramatic increase in sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. Any TVTDF finds allocated to the project should be on the same timetable as other funding for the project. b.) Use a portion of the $4 million. for purchasing buses to be used for express service provided that all of the operating costs are fully funded from other sources. Priority 4. Start accumulating funds in 2003/04 fqr the initial phase of the Route 84 Expressway project (Project 2A). No TVTDF fluids are allocated to the .Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange project(Project 213). Priority 5. Start accumulating funds, in 2004/05 for the design and construction of the 1-680 Auxiliaty Lane project in Contra Costa County(Project 3). Priority 6. Start accumulating funds in 2006/07 for construction of the I-580 HOV project (Project 5). Priority 7. ,Fund the"Phase 2„I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road interchange project (Project 7). Priority 8. No TVTDF funds are allocated to the 1-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sunol. Grade project (Project 6). The Crow Canyon Road project (Project 9) and the Vasco Road x$13.5 million including improvements to the northbound on and off snaps 1 f3 1/31/2003 i project (Project 10) are lower priority projects that are not reconnnended for TVTDF funding for the next tern years of the program. IV. PROM FUNDING Under the previous SEP, dated January 1999, the TVTDF was projected to raise approximately $70 million through year 2013. Eighty percent of this TVTDF revenge (approximately $56.8 million) was allocated by the TVTC, while 20% of the fee revenue ($13.25 million) may be designated by rnen1ber agencies for one or more of the projects listed in the JEPA. Each agency may designate.up to 20%of the funds it collects for the specific project. TVTDF revenue projections under the currenit SE.1'. 2002 Update include an adjustment to the TVTD Fee amounts for "Mr Residential", "Ofticej5 and "Industrial" uses to match the percent level of the Nexus Fee for"SF Residential", effective 2002/03. Based on this fee adjustment, the TVTDF is projected to raise approximately $93.9 million through year 2013, including $75.1 million in 80%TVTDF revenue. The TVTC has committed $S6.9 milliol3 out of the projected $75.1 1lnillion in 80°lo TVTDF revenue to fund the following projects, which are deenrned the highest priority for fttndhng in the next tern years. The TVTC commitments include the initial TVTDF project allocations from the previous SEP (totaling $56.8 million) plus an additional $0.1 millions for updating the 1996 fee nexus study, as shown in Table 1. The non-conunitted portion of the 80°4, TVTDF revenue(see projected cash flow in Table 1)can be used for expansion,of funding for the next,more extensive SEP update to fulfill unmet project filnding needs and possibly fungi l new TVTDF projects, as deemed appropriate by the TVTC. Project 1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange: $5.6 M in total local share provided Project 2A. Rome 84 Expressway, 1-580 to 1.680: $24.0 M Project 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes in Contra Costa Comity: $12.01\4 Project 4. 'West DPX BART Station:' $4.0 M Project 5.. 1-580110V Lanes: $8.0 M Project 7. I-580/Foothill/San Ramona Rt)ad interchange: $1.6 M ($0.8 M for Phase 1) Project 8. 1-6801Alcesta Boulevard Interchange: $1..6 M Project 11. Express Bus: a portion of the$4.0A1 for Project 4 The funding and scheduling targets for these projects have been compiled in Table 1. The other eligible TVTDF projects either will be funded by other funding sources or have a lower priority for TVTDF funding at this time and may he flanded beyond the tent-year timefranne. The Contra Costa agennt;ies designate their 20%portion of TVTDF revenue collected to the 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project. The four Alameda County agencies will direct their 20% funds to other projects. Since the adoption of the TVTDF program in 1998, the,total 20% funding collected by the Alameda County jurisdictions is approximately as follows; 1 1131/2003 I i Pleasanton: $1.0 million (project use.to be detennined) l ivennore: $1.3 million (to be used on the SR 84 project) Dublin: $1.2 million (to be used on the I-580/San Rai-non Interchange project) Alameda County $0.03 million (project use to be determined) Other potential funding sources for the TVTDP projects are described below. A. New Measure B*--The new Measure B program includes major funding for TVTC projects in Alameda County including the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART.Station (Project 4) in Tier 2 funds, Express Bus Service (Project 11), State Route 84 Corridor Improvements (Project A), and.Isabel Route 8411-580 Interchange(Project 2B). B. TEA-21 - Funding is available for a variety of transportation projects in the new federal transportation legislation. C. STIP-This is a State funding program that is available on a competitive basis for a variety of transportation projects. D. Local Funds - This source includes. local Traffic Impact Fee ,programs, developer contributions, and other local funds. T. Measure C - This funding source includes only those projects designated for funding in the half-cent sales tax program in Contra Costa County F. SCC JEPA-This is a:Point Exercise of'powers Agreerz cnt in Southern Contra Costa County that provides funding from new development for transportation projects in southern Contra Costa County, Funding sources:for TVI'DF projects.is shown in Table 2. 0 113112003 V. PROJECT SPONSORS Project sponsors have been designated for each of the eleven TVTDr, projects. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement pertaining to TV': D bees for Traffic Mitigation defines "Project Sponsor"as"tile Party designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan(SEP) to oversee the use of Tri-Walley Transportation Development Fee revenues in the developrilent of a specific regional Transportation,h-nprovement Project. The party designated as Project Sponsor may be, but need not be, the lead agency for environmental clearance or the agency responsible for the design or construction of the project itself." Project sponsors are'listed below. Project 1. 1-580/1-680 Local Sh.tre (Complete) ACTA Project 2A. Route 84 Expressway,1-580 to 14680 Lhcrmore Project 218. Isabel Rotite 84/1-580 Interchange Livermore Project 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Danville' Project 4. Fest Dublin/Pleasanton (DPX) BART Station Dtthlin Project 5. 1-580 HHV Lanes Pleasanton Project 6.• 1-680 HOV Lanes,SR 84 to Top of Suuol Grade Pleasanton Project 7. 1-580/Toothill/Sari Rainou Ra.icl liiterch-.tnge Dublitt Project S. 1W680/Alcosta Boulevard Iutercha.uge San Rar oti Project 9. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Alameda County Project 10.Vases Read Safety Improvements Alameda County Project 11.Express Tuts LAwA' 7 GrtTYMSEP UpdatelSEPproposaf for adoption-5_wiih adjusied•jeadav 21 1/31/2003 x Id 'C'J (b C) p C7 iJ t.7 CD tiJ 0 C7 0 e^' 0 3 r- NONNI, !T- tri cri oil ' C14 4 � 4 C� ` Z U-) �' lay C) :i ti` r- `SHPT malmilloplas: longom,' Iq ccz c;i It # .a LL Y.Qu c LL. CD rn cu (3wh? C7 a GL avvq C C2. CD f fiV { G"a to = G'3 W3 . Cl CD Won, C14 M 4W r y a t3 Eq ig Caki!�� � F r - I •� � •� � O. • •� { C5co 1C f tD q1 0 tD T7N All" " , ,w o C ccy cirri p! v ani w g; +� t +xt m � m X O 0 o � r� � ro by tr � m � C]C :r m � c b *y o 'tl tt 4 cs t3 t3 n LL 0 0 a3 S1 en too 0 0 � C) 0 `o E� C> `�� � e 8 2 �' � � � � oa x cn w to «a w oa a 1! t ya W ct� as uy co u? rit � a �. CL u. V) a Kt 1 F; ccs s5 Ci , ' - tt ry cv c+i u3 (6 t co vs sv r a rse d A �3yt�o�t �Ea'P)<2 a44fP'w'M ,y.�f.a'f ^rE s•it "� { �� t ��'� �., � >, t a -� 7 ni �`°� �� { 3 tiara� +-,a �^ �' '�""' ' ��,ahr""'t � � r 4 *'..�R�, � e} t r,*���s,.�}✓ .(t Sp P w � � y tiA3� �`Fp+ua�.ie, dt� �" '�,a'."i�d't � °°"y; +tg u,_ 1 ` w f � rRis r At� �rE �rt� �„ rpp(7 2 rte {{+iXl ' Y"r s if rf#as zaf4p � r y's T iytyt'ye `f i a t 1}t 9 ,a'+��fil bre E aF "S+uc C � k i l,buwEl . „.,•. t u ,r �'' jv fit�' r.i5' `t, f h f ` *r f t� M1a Y� e trt 'i k r 47, ^ � .➢.�r �i � i - r ,yt ,at�ca♦pis! 4C9 s*ai� n; r( y + ?'gym ' ',� 'tc{� 4 �, j FW'i' o } r ir' , i juxt, eta'If{'r f ;:{aG �r "p ,61 S x , PI� �k81 ���r ; k "@a ka at.at7 P S � �,yk 3 gi �` 5 '"k �p � � r;��M fitt'� �>�tuyP,• P�i "'.r0.t'i � �s r�is �F.pi� 3skt �'S y �rttid�N'( � � �9��� I RFs. �t`r '' { 2 t ,r r 't�` 't�.;1 R�,�ar'� �, �, r..�4� .q�,8 .� k,a 2�✓fit` �' � t�; 1 ��lt..� �wG ,f�ar � C . � n € v Rs tr'.!' t,r' S a:_ }ttl 1t�1. hrd rggf ,Sc inldr* ,.rt ` P e Y"rf An sua(r s ; t r .1 }"o'i 5...to ��{ �J �� 4fi�a yYd� �'� i♦� { f�#�it�pp 1� � Qj+� 3� �� f d qt t b t x L i 3 a eef xf r P e p 7FR Y N TRI-VALLE TRANSPORTATION COL. M Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza, ,-)LNN,6' Dublin, CA 94568 MEMORAANDUM inn Gerber rervisor To: Tri-Valley Transportation Council itra Costa County 1(925)820-8683 From: TVTC Tecllnicai Advisory Committee Date: February 5,2003 ft Haggerty rervisor Subject: Staff Report on the Adjustment of the TVTD Fee and'the Adoption of meda County (510)272-6691 the SEP 2003 Update The Tri-Valley Transpgrtation Council (TVTC) has previously considered a number of We Greenberg options to adjust the Tri-Valley'rhaisportation Development (TVTD) Fee on mi interim ancilmember basis while the 1996 fee nexus study undergoes an update review in the near fixture. This Ivilie report summarizes Staff recommendations culminating from all of the discussions and 5) 837-3231 input provided to Staff during TVTC meetings held in 2002. As requested by the TVTC, Staff has re-examined TVTDF projects with funding tudi l McCormick shortfalls and updated project cost information, as shown in Table 1. Most of the project tinp member,Chairfunding is generated by sources other than the TVTD Fee program, i blincluding $3$5.2 blip million in non-TVTDF funds, or 50% of,the total ro ect cost estimate of$'763 mullion. (925)833-5650 P J (925)828-1672 The current TVTC project allocations only cover approximately 6.7% of the total project cast, leaving$326.5 in unfunded cost. ve Brozosky Staff is proposing that the TVTC consider the following two scenarios conceiving the uncilmember TVTD Fee adjustment and the SEP 2003 Update. asanton 5) 846-8727 SCENAR10 A: Approve Proposed Interum Fee Adjustment,and Annrove the Proposed SEP 2003 Update-With Inter m Fee Adjustment m Reitter Under this scenario, Staff recommends that the TVTC approve a TVTD-Fee adjustment unclmcmber that would.reduce the Fee for "MF Residential" and raise the Fee for "Office" and ermare . (925)422-1458 "Indus tl j _'its 27.7%, of their corresponding Nexus Fee to match the percent Ievel Dolle (925)443-3326. Nexus Fee for "SF Residential", after adjustnient'for the construction cost index (CCI). This Fee adjustment would leave the TVTD Fee for tail thee" categories ch,� aing (see Table.2). The proposed Fee structure would provid fvr a more equitable ve Hudson, Fee distnbution an ting the various land use categories without increasing the cost of 1111cl111men-lber housing. i Ramon - 5)828-1822 Depending on the state of the economy, the.proposed Fee adjustment could: generate up to $23 million in additional revenue over the next 10 years, including $18.4 million in 80% TVTDF funds. This additional revenue would eliininatg the negative cash flow dileixnxra anticipated in future years of the TVTD Fee program under the current: Fee amounts. The proposed lice adjustment could extend the TVTDF funding potentials front approximately 6.7%to 9.1%of the total project cost. . ..... .. The proposed Fee schedule would represent an intedin Fee adjustment prior to completion of the fee nexus study update. This Fee adjustment should be viewed as a first-step Fee increase designed to Capt tre potential TVTDF revenues from development that occurs virile the current fee nexus study is lacing upclated. Staff recommends that the additional revenues collected frons the proposed. Fee adjustment be left unallocated among the existing 10 projeats•until the fee nexus study update is completed. The new nexus study will provide the basis for maintaining or updating the current list of improvement projgcts, adopting a revised Fee schedule, and allocating the funds for projects. The JEPA.agreement for TVTI)Fees requires that the amounts of non-automatic Fee adjustments be included in a written addendum to the JEPA agreement that shall be approved by each member jurisdiction. If the TVTC approves the proposed interim Fee adjustment,,Staff reconnuend:r that the TVTC also approve the attached Addendum I to the JEPA in connection with this Fee adjustment. In addition, if the TVTC approves the proposed interim Fee adjustment, Staff recons vends that the TVTC,also approve the attached SEP proposal entitled. SLP' 2003 Update With Interim Fee Adiustnient "Prow Yosdal or• Adoption'• to update the current SEP. This SEP Update includes aux expenditure plan that incorporates additional revenues anticipated font the proposed. Fee, adjustunent. The plan assumes no chmiges tri the current list of TVTDF projects and no changes to the curTent TVTC funding; allocations, with the exception that the new plass allocates. an additional $100,000 to fund the :fee nexus study update within the next two years. The plana also updates the scheduling targets for the individual projects, as well as other information such as project status,',cost esthnates,and funding sources. Recommended Actions. I. Approve Proposal To Adopt can Interim TVTD Fee Adjustment .2. Approve.Proposal To Adlopt Add endrirn Ito the MIA Agreementfor TVTl3 Eces 3. Approve Proposal To Adopt the SEP 2003 Update With.Interim Fee A(Ijustzzaent SCENARIO l3: Keep Current Fee Schedule Unchanged, incl A rg1e the Pro cased SEP 2003 Update With Status()t1o'fee Schedule Under this scenario, Staff"recommends that the TVTC leave the ourrea7t TV TD. Fee amounts unchanged and approve the attached SEP proposal entitled SEP 2003 Update With Status uo Fee Schedule "Pro osal crr Addrr tion"to update'the current SEP. The JEPA agreement specifies that the SLP must be reviewed at least truce every two years by the TVTC. The current SLP, which.was adopted'in January 1999, is overdue For an update to reflect the completion status of the list of TVTDF projects and-any chaaages to the project schedules, cost estimates and funding. The proposed SEP Update in this scenario is a "Status (7rio" update in that it maintains the same fundamental assumptions used'111 the current SLAP, including no changes to the list of eligible projects, current TVTC funding allocations, or the existing, Fee schedule. This'SEP Update includes one additional allocation in the amount of $100,000 to fund the fee nexus study update within the next two years. The new SEP also updates the scheduling; targets for the individual projects, as well as other inforn ation such as project status, cost estimates, and funding sources. If the TVTC elects not to adopt the proposed interim Fee attiustment described in Scenario A, the TVTC: should move to approve the proposed "Status Quo" SEP 'Update to prevent any unnecessary delays to projects that,are 2 t ly to go to construction in 2003.. ,omnaetuled Action: Approve Proposal To Adopt they SEP 2003 Update With Status Quo Fee Schedule' if requests that the TVTC review the attached interim Fee adjustment and SEP Update proposals before the rch 5, 2003, meeting. According to the 1EPA, non-automatic Fee adjustments and SEP revisions shall require ,nimous,approval by the TVTC. Therefore, the TVTC vote.must be unanimous to approve any of the action ns listed in this Staff Report and forward thio action plait to the individual member jurisdictions for comment i ratification. The TAG respectfully requests that all TVTC members be present at the March 5th TVTC meeting liscuss and comment on the proposed interim Fee adjustment and SEP Update. ichtnents TVTCTAC YTCISEP UpdatelsrP 200.3 update Mrsr sdrtff report_r+prlr+terl+toc 3 ......... ........ .......................... _...... ...... _ 33 111 i } 3t1 is t �ttit �rf b f{7 ij Y . 7tj'$'�uxtf xa irri coo ra- ,z 4a # i i Jap r i 4t E dtra;t` t w i ) s to fr 3 t�' VON �•i � is � , r r , ,t �'r t s� "!v� �,'4 t� t d tit. f I Y, r 'rt {,# •�Niy C.wk, }k Asti jri6>"�1f} V�h ��t A�.r�i r .v, r", f< � -y1mb7� it lliCd jib��>5 S i t 1 2 :s x ✓ a �41! Y �'� a r!< 1 ro sP• t t �' i°73�,�� 1"d�fi`; i'�lrx'�� sy �r,=•, i�{ � � �a.�c.u;_,fu'r.�,�°� ,a5w,.iiCl�' U.��,..r .�.,,�t.� Iks � ,i��4 ��� �.`r'� P ,�~f; r � � ays�l� rr r , �# �i i, ml .i r— � x.alt i }� �' 4' {�, t �`'�� r^�Y t'i�'i ti.�c F iY�{r .}i"�r � 1 wf�,� �N�yP' 'i�`r r4�•.i Cti:f�. . k�jk.0 m� i .t { i N 1 P �t f 2� l 616 f � n.Y 9��y 4 tpp€yhy.�'4 a� '`'•, v {y.� I 9�_tr.",. py- d'•. �+j4'.✓#, � { t 74 1 r..r+� 'yh.�§ s s 11'n p r.7 i1 G lk#{;F°6r ��T rc. � {y�fit; �f 4 I �i��3 r � ,� 5! bra ' , }ate �1.,s, .a .tA :- a •. _o-,� ' r i} s� xi,t t' r:c t'urr� w f6$' tcn', �r�r r ,f t t� t gg sa j t r k 4 !."j csv rkt ai e '. y, �, i i`�"�k i t F r' ��ui, � �f a 66, d }tip +,ti a}k'"� zsn Ki��m� a E r+{,ak '{F�Y'� �{ �� � > • k of r r1i ;{ftatrY .1°, , ii�IrlXiwrt+ sfft�r y� �� '(a,�� , �vk"7t1 }�tr�4'�' i�Ml�lti 'i� s� vast tI "r t { t �;e { } i��{ t, �,-# ,r ftc;y i"��r� �' � '$�i'�'ly�� •� �! td�s . � t t i r '. #C4q R i Pt � i' t s i i S i rt it arr�r i i t C -.t k3 t r _t7 w r ', r�reT �i�� '•'it7��r#i Ott � Ea�a '�� r rj � 'r• t i s } a: , 1 x , !�U t�y,a,�I[ k•ti < + xa rt � Er` ad s bis two a:. t v 1 1 yt r ! a r• �� s � � �ti s� � s+�r-i { � �+ � #f�F3'd- 5t� t siMSMill r,.: 'd Isom 3 6 i i t soIf a r t -- � yi t �+ tkjk w +fir r y =r t ��Z4 1 �.� W � 'S^. x�Ss.}a¢#� � '�'�Y' �. '� �r'fs � t` r,( �+i�f�'��; � r • a t',j�i s v r �° ,h"fi"� r ' r� �+f t�9� �? aSY ig$ t ik, ' �k' r� t ��� � ���i�� ���^ �t• Ila .. ... ............................................................................................................................................................................... . .. ......................................................................................................... l PROPOSED INTERIM ADJUSTME4 N TT TO TIE T'vIrD f+EI♦; (Adjust the r4ce Amounts for MF Residential,Office and Industrial Uses to Mater. the Percent Level of the Nexus Irce for SF Residential; No New Allocationsof TVTDF Funds) t SF Residential $1,711/Lunt 27.7% $1,711/unit 27.7% 0.0% y�y i r Office $1.14/sf 10.3% $3.07/sf 27.7% +1.69.3% p ��131`rti r r ` r t� {' �� �4/�.�, t ,O S1 3 YO.�.� � � � a i � � s�• '� ' ` tlr `��Q at }� 't{ it r, 4 Y �r i � { t .�i.. t. st r '. � ^�i •:.r~'. ..r.�.�i. 1.r Fa Y2r 'eSy�t r.S K,.<.'r�..r..:r Industrial $0.36/sf 11.5% $2.038/sf 27.7% +141..9% t * Based on the average Retail Fee from the Nexus Study. ** Includes an average adjustment factor of 24%to the initial Nexus Fee for"Other"uses that do not fit into the standard Retail,Office or Industrial categories. This adjustment factor was determined based on a TVTC review of"I VTD.Dees in 1999 to make the Fee for"Other"uses more equitable(i.e. proportional to the Fee paid by traditional Retail,Office or Iudustrial.uses). G:IT17'CISEP UpdatelFeeadjustmentpropostrl_Nldr-03.doe 2/3/2003 ............................................................... The Board of Supervisors �t�l�ltl'c� John Sweeten Ctetic of the Mew County Administration Brl7ditlp and 651 Pine Street,flo'om 106 Costacounty Administrator Martinez,California 94553-1293 County 16253335-1600 John Giota,1st District Gayle S.ttllkenra,2nd District Donne Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSsuinier,41h District •r : Federal 0.Glover,5th District January 28,2003 Honorable Claudia McCormick, Chair Tri Valley Transportation Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 44568 Dear Chair MaCorrnick, On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of'StlPervisors I am requesting that the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the lee schedule in steps, as shown in the attached tattle. This proposed fee schedule represents 501/tt of the:fee amounts justified by the ree Program's nexus analysis.In addition,I would also request that the TVTC consider farther adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study. This proposal has new development paying a fee amount that more closely represents its fair share as determined by the TVTDF Program's nexus analysis. If you have any questions on this matter please feel free to contact Supervisor Gerber or myself on this matter. Sincerely, Mark DeSaidnier, Chair Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors MDl7C:anik �'aactosure cc. Members,Board of Supervisors 0.\Trunsportadonr Steve%olsm-d\TVTD]7 i etter.doc i ' TO: ARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Donna Gerber,Supervisor � Costa i istrict`tiE County DATE: January 28,2003 SUBJECT. Tri VallaX Transportation Development Fee SPECIFIC REQ0ESTfs)OR RECOMMENDATION(s)&BACKGROUND AN13 JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDAT O12a 1. AUTHORIZE the chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the chalr of the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) requesting that the TVTC recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the fee schedule for the Trl Valley Transportation Development Fors(TVTDF)Program In steps,as shown In Exhibit A,•to a level that represents 50%of the fee amounts justirtd by,the l=ee Program's nexus analysis,and consider further adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study;and 2. APPOINT the Board'of Supervisors Alternate representative to the TVTC and direct the County Administrator to updhte Attachment 1 of the Board list of committee assignments. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. The new fee study.would be funded by TVTDF,Pr;Dgrom revenue. BACKGROUNUIREASONS FOR RECO jMENUATIONS The Tri Valley Transportation Council(TVTC)includes Contra Costs and Alameda counties,and the cities of Danville,San Ramon,Dublin,Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was formed to address transportation Issues of common interest. In 1997,the TVTC boardmously adopted a recommendation to Its member Jurisdictions to adopt a uniform development fee,known as the Trl Volley Transportation Development Fee(TV DF). Program,that would be collected on new construction in the Tri.Valley area to be used to help fund 14 specific transportation projects. to 1998,all the jurisdictions individually adopted fee ordinances and jointly formed a.Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement(,#EPA)to administer use of the regional fee revenue. The JE.PA requires the TVTC to prepare and unanimously adopt a Strategic Expenditure Pian,Which among other things,'establishes prioritl forthe allocation of fee revenue to eligible projects anti recommends adjustment's In the TVCD Program. In.1999,the MC adopted their first Strategic Expenditure Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMEN[3AT OF COLIZITrADMINISTPATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE i OJ SIGNATURE(S):_ w rrB G3 L'ti, ACTION OF BOARD ON.7araraxy_28, Zoo3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_OTHER X ALITHOlUZED the Chair,Board of Supervisors,to sign a letter to the Chair of the Tri Valley Transportation Conned fTVTQ requesting that the TVTC reeontmend to their member furisdictiuns that they raise theJee schedule for lite Tri Valley T'rprtspartation Development Fee Frvgrant in specs,jied sisrs,to a level that represents 60%of the fee amounts justified by hm Tee Program's am's nexus analysis,and ivnsider . further adjustments to these fees after eampietion of fire proposed—f-otta4r,RECOMMEI+DED that the Chair,Board of Supervisors and the District III Supervisor discuss the appointment of ret artFr urate member of the Board r f Strper vi9ars to lire Tri Vattey Transportation Council r " VOTE OF st3PERViSORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS(ABSENT tip ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Steven Goetz(13251335-1140) cc: Community Development Department(CDD) ATTESTED anrnr;t:.7ap PWD JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF TVTC Chair,(via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND J `COUi;t'3Y ADMINISTRATOR t3Y W✓� ,DEPUTY C4:17nurgnrwrasontisbve�Nsr�ennwrrlr.t.,ron Tri-Valley Transportation Development tree January 28,2003 Page 3 BACKC'ROU'NDI.REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS continued I believe this proposal to be superior to the previous proposals. Compared to the previous proposals,this proposal has new development paying a,fee amount that more closely represents Its fair share as determlhed by the TVTDF Program's nexus analysis. The stepped increases follow a model used by the East County Regional Fee when itwas initially established. Those fees had,automatic annual Increases overthree years(in addition to adjustments for inflation)to reach the level ultimately viewed as fairat the time by all parties. The table below provides an additional comparison of my proposed TVTDF fee schedule with the other regional fees assessed in tile County. I would like the Board's support for this concept prior to submitting it to the TVTC. gomparison of TVTDF Fee Proposal with Other Regional Fees in Unincorporated Areas New East CC South West CC TVTDF Traffic lirip. County Regional Land Use Proposal Authority JEPA Fee Single Family(per d'u.) 3,088 7,902 894 7613 Multiple Family(per d.u.) 1,964 4,847 894 .614 Office (per sq.ft.) 5.53 1.05 1.43 0.23- Retail (per sq.ft.) 1.14 L05 9.59 0.23 Warehouse (per sq.ft.) ' 3.74 1.05 0 0.23 Other(per pk. hr, trip) 1,007 .7,902 894 . 768 I am aiso'recommending that the Board of Supervisors appoint an alternate to the T\/TC. An alternate will help ensure that the County will be represented at TVTC meetings when unanimous decisions on matters related to the Strategic Expenditure Plan are required. Exhibit&Comparison of Various Fee Schedules for the'fVI"DF. Ua U) LO W U) to C Z LL O 'd' C 7 LES r E`wCf) C'1. 00 ce) tl- co 0) 0 t) ++�� CrJCCJh; rrC7) CSV *� r C+7 CL oCL C V N to co !n 47 117 r C)) dt M 11) Cr7 r #7 M r CC) ch y q Lal Cly'! V) e- CV � 6) 0 CVCr- w O EL G iJ C7 Y- C3 C) M *- C3r /tiC'7rCV U) < N h- O tMC) 0 CO 00 CO 0poi eo 0 N C4 CV co CV M IL � z `�j tt3 X11 rte- p C�7 jo Nom. r Kr! r CV U w 0Im .' "L7 W LL O d t )) Chi N to v LL o !ll f) Itr N w z r1 J pp O0 C7MC) ED CSV 9 co U') C*f r r-' KrJ tJJ tw 2 o F Clq rM til W Ut., t]T in a v v a s ri M N m co r w Q C z a U o C;1 L7 G7 �t `y CD C7 z G 0 0 0 r CMF) r r C7 Go C7 X . 4) CA Z ca tU _ L CL f. fn ca 1 CL CU CSU WLt3 m rn W U- C1F O w :' ...................................................................... ....... -'NM20.2003�j` 4-'20PM 'CCC PUBLIC WORKSUCard 929 335 10I X0.033 P.2 P. ROCOXCling RegUested $y: 1 11111111 1 111111 11 Ild 111IM11,111 Contra Costs, County Ma COSTA r4 Recorder Office Return 'To.- STEFM L, MR, Clerk-Recorder DOC— 2003-04$4011-60 &Qrd of averwisom Fr14Y. SIM 28, 2003 10-04:24 651 PIM St. kcxa 106 F" $8.64 Mutinez, M 94553 Tt I ?d $010 ar-veltm Ire/RD/1-41 DOC=ent Title(s) I nMMM M-VA= TWSMMTTON DEVELOPMW A=SMIM ORDMANM ......................... ............................................................................ ............................................................................................................. ...................... MY.20.2003"_` 4.20PM `CCG PUBLIC WORKS"Mra 335 19W.093 P.3 p.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM' MAURICE M. SHILI, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: September 23,2003 SUBJECT": ADOPT the lnteOm Trl-Valley TranspoCta€ion Development Fee Adjustment Ordinance i SP00-FIC AMUE ST(s OR RECOMMt NDAMON(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSrFIC3AMN 1. R%QPmMended Action. 1. APPROVE and ADOPT the attached interim adjustment ordinance for the collection of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ('i1tTDF)Area of Benefit. 2. ENACT the attached Interim adjustment ordinance adopting the revlW fea program to be administered by the TV T-D Area of Benefit it W Conftnued an Attechrrnsnt:_X_ SIGNA'1 UOS. 7--amco mMMA7tON OFCO1JNTYADM1NISTR4TOR t+ RECOMMENDATION OF a0ARO CC`!ii mITTEE &. A'PPROVE —OTHER Si6NATURE(S w ACTION OF t� -allow 6N eWr>MM 23� i. APPROVED AS RECOmMENaW„_X,_ OTHER M I hereby ce ity that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the 8, rd VOTE(��UNANIMOUS (AS of SuperWsars on the date shown. UNANiMbilS(ASSENT � l AYES:,, NOES: ASSENT:� ABSTAIN: xs ATTESTED:_� WL!e 4OHN SWEETEN.Clerk of the Board of Sup�eniftom ct Paia r r sou rcia�t irvroF era€ranee uprate o;n and County Adminis'ttatur EIO,7=F vttf> nce dao Orle.p►yR Pubt�cWor#s l Contact Warm Lot 353-240a � cc: D.SctgisfA Ccwnty Counset By 0 � ,Deputy J.GutwinubmM.CDD 1 S.KaWdl WSkt,M t L. NOv.20.2003- ` 4:20PM CCC PUBLIC WORKS"_' `'`•• •, ` ANO.093 P.4 P'-' S SUBJECT: ADOPT the interim Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Adjustment Ordinance DATE: September 23, 2003 �. PAGE_ 2 3. DETERMINE that a majority protest does not exist. 4. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to record a certifed copy of this Board Carder with the County Recorder, 11, Financial jmpact; tr There will be no Impact to the General Fund. The recommended action would lead to an increase In funding for specified transportation projects. The funds collected will be deposited in a trust fund account specific to the improvements to be funded by the TVTDF Area of Benefit. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Sackaround: The`fri-ValleyTransportatlon Council(TVTC)Includes Contra Crista and Alameda courtttes;- rttl the cities of Danville,So n Ramon,Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC:was farmed to address transportation Issues of common Interest. In 1987,the TWO unanimously recommended to its member jurisdictions the adoption of a uniform development fee,known as the TVTDF. All participating jurisdictions supported this recommendation by adopWg ordinances estabUhtng uniform development fees in the Tri-Valley area dedicated to specked regional transportgtion projects. ; In April 2003,the THTC approved the fee reduction for"Multi Family Residential"and Increase for "Ofl3ce"and "Industrial"of the land Use Categories. The"Multi Family Residentlar fee will be reduced from$1,198 per dwelling unit to$1,087 per dwelling unit(actuuelly$1,217 to$1,097.87 to account for inflation and 1%administrative cost). The"Office fee will be Increased from$$1.14 per square-feet of gross floor area to$3.07 per square feet of gross floor area(actually$1.18 to $3.10 to account for Inflation and I% administrative cast) and "Industrial" fee from $0.8 *per' square feet of gross floor area to$2.08 per square feet of gross floor area(actually$0.87 to$2.10 to account for Inflation and t%administrative cost). The fee adjustments will eliminate potwitial project funding shortfalls. €, Ill. Cons ,c,J,uences of Ngoal'ive Action; .S Failure to adapt the Interim TVTDF Adjustment Ordinance will result in the bass of pot4t1al revenues and would be inconsistent with the intent of the Joint Powers Agreement, w�lch established the TVTDF. I ti. tj 1 .I 4:21PS1 CCC PUBLIC W(7RK5 90ard 925 a 3 5 1S140.0033 P.5 p.4 ORDINANCE NO.2003-21 (Fee Revision for Tri Valley Transportati